24inch Imac or 15 inch Macbook pro ?

PB Forum :: Computers, Games & Technology
24inch Imac or 15 inch Macbook pro ?
  • Previous Page
Author Message
flag
Posted: Jun 16, 2009 at 14:56 Quote
well ive got the option of one or the other i will be editing hd and just using it for general computer use what do you think
flag KBJohn
Posted: Jun 16, 2009 at 22:24 Quote
15 Inch Macbook Pro.
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jun 18, 2009 at 6:38 Quote
I wouldn't go for a Mac at all.

But if I had to, I guess I'd go with the iMac because the 24" screen will be much, much better for editing than the 15" Macbook screen, and the added power of the iMac will make rendering and exporting take less time.
flag KBJohn
Posted: Jun 18, 2009 at 10:18 Quote
SpikeX wrote:
I wouldn't go for a Mac at all.

But if I had to, I guess I'd go with the iMac because the 24" screen will be much, much better for editing than the 15" Macbook screen, and the added power of the iMac will make rendering and exporting take less time.

Does this kid know anything about computers?
You have obviously never tried a mac. There's a reason the majority of photographers/photo stores use macs. They're supperior for photo edition. Go with the pro. Screen size isn't everything.
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jun 18, 2009 at 10:28 Quote
KBJohn wrote:
SpikeX wrote:
I wouldn't go for a Mac at all.

But if I had to, I guess I'd go with the iMac because the 24" screen will be much, much better for editing than the 15" Macbook screen, and the added power of the iMac will make rendering and exporting take less time.

Does this kid know anything about computers?
You have obviously never tried a mac. There's a reason the majority of photographers/photo stores use macs. They're supperior for photo edition. Go with the pro. Screen size isn't everything.

I know a hell of a lot more than you think.

Actually I have used one extensively. My mum has one. They are not superior for photo editing, they are just simpler to use, which is why most people use them. You can do everything on a Windows computer that you can on a Mac. And all the major companies that do 3D movies like DreamWorks use Maya, which is a Windows program. All effects for almost all feature films are done using After Effects, which is available for both Windows and Mac platforms.
flag KBJohn
Posted: Jun 18, 2009 at 10:37 Quote
SpikeX wrote:
KBJohn wrote:
SpikeX wrote:
I wouldn't go for a Mac at all.

But if I had to, I guess I'd go with the iMac because the 24" screen will be much, much better for editing than the 15" Macbook screen, and the added power of the iMac will make rendering and exporting take less time.

Does this kid know anything about computers?
You have obviously never tried a mac. There's a reason the majority of photographers/photo stores use macs. They're supperior for photo edition. Go with the pro. Screen size isn't everything.

I know a hell of a lot more than you think.

Actually I have used one extensively. My mum has one. They are not superior for photo editing, they are just simpler to use, which is why most people use them. You can do everything on a Windows computer that you can on a Mac. And all the major companies that do 3D movies like DreamWorks use Maya, which is a Windows program. All effects for almost all feature films are done using After Effects, which is available for both Windows and Mac platforms.

Nowadays you can use most programs for mac anyways. Look at Lightwave, the program used for titanic. I have it for my mac. Mac's are just way smoother and problem free computers. And, their opperating system doesnt suck (Vista). Don't even deny it about vista!
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jun 18, 2009 at 10:47 Quote
KBJohn wrote:
SpikeX wrote:
KBJohn wrote:


Does this kid know anything about computers?
You have obviously never tried a mac. There's a reason the majority of photographers/photo stores use macs. They're supperior for photo edition. Go with the pro. Screen size isn't everything.

I know a hell of a lot more than you think.

Actually I have used one extensively. My mum has one. They are not superior for photo editing, they are just simpler to use, which is why most people use them. You can do everything on a Windows computer that you can on a Mac. And all the major companies that do 3D movies like DreamWorks use Maya, which is a Windows program. All effects for almost all feature films are done using After Effects, which is available for both Windows and Mac platforms.

Nowadays you can use most programs for mac anyways. Look at Lightwave, the program used for titanic. I have it for my mac. Mac's are just way smoother and problem free computers. And, their opperating system doesnt suck (Vista). Don't even deny it about vista!

They're not smoother and problem free. Safari 4 on my mum's Mac kept on crashing constantly and shutting down for a month after it was released. Her Mac has crashed a lot more than my Vista-based Dell has. I will agree that Vista needs much more resources than XP and it's not as reliable (although it's nowhere near as bad as most people think). Windows 7 is the best of both worlds (I've got the RC).
flag KBJohn
Posted: Jun 18, 2009 at 15:01 Quote
SpikeX wrote:
KBJohn wrote:
SpikeX wrote:


I know a hell of a lot more than you think.

Actually I have used one extensively. My mum has one. They are not superior for photo editing, they are just simpler to use, which is why most people use them. You can do everything on a Windows computer that you can on a Mac. And all the major companies that do 3D movies like DreamWorks use Maya, which is a Windows program. All effects for almost all feature films are done using After Effects, which is available for both Windows and Mac platforms.

Nowadays you can use most programs for mac anyways. Look at Lightwave, the program used for titanic. I have it for my mac. Mac's are just way smoother and problem free computers. And, their opperating system doesnt suck (Vista). Don't even deny it about vista!

They're not smoother and problem free. Safari 4 on my mum's Mac kept on crashing constantly and shutting down for a month after it was released. Her Mac has crashed a lot more than my Vista-based Dell has. I will agree that Vista needs much more resources than XP and it's not as reliable (although it's nowhere near as bad as most people think). Windows 7 is the best of both worlds (I've got the RC).
You just wait till windows 7 is released to the public. Problems will pop up left and right. And who uses Safari anyways :/
flag mistercrabb
Posted: Jun 19, 2009 at 0:06 Quote
The Imacs a bit expensive isnt it?
For about the same price (-£200ish for the screen), im looking at getting this:
Unsecure image, only https images allowed: http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8249/potbuild2.png
I cant be bothered to join the mac/windows debate though. All im going to say is that windows is very stable and powerful, as long as you know how to use it.

I would go for the Imac too, if you are getting a mac. And judging by your display pic, you are Razz .
flag atmos-fair
Posted: Jul 6, 2009 at 13:41 Quote
If your hearts set on a mac i would get the iMac.

But i wouldn't really, i would get a much better pc for the same price.
flag zachk
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 Quote
TommahawkBike wrote:
If your hearts set on a mac i would get the iMac.

But i wouldn't really, i would get a much better pc for the same price.

I slower dual core mac can still out perform a quad core pc.

But I would go for the 24" iMac due to more screen real estate.
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 12:04 Quote
zachk wrote:
I slower dual core mac can still out perform a quad core pc.

Where the hell did you get that from?
flag zachk
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 12:14 Quote
SpikeX wrote:
zachk wrote:
I slower dual core mac can still out perform a quad core pc.

Where the hell did you get that from?

Because when I had my Dual Core white iMac,(sold it for cash to replace someones window I busted), it was helluva a lot faster than my current PC which is running a Q9300.
flag SpikeX
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 12:19 Quote
zachk wrote:
SpikeX wrote:
zachk wrote:
I slower dual core mac can still out perform a quad core pc.

Where the hell did you get that from?

Because when I had my Dual Core white iMac,(sold it for cash to replace someones window I busted), it was helluva a lot faster than my current PC which is running a Q9300.

That means nothing at all...
What OS are you running on the PC? Did both computers have the same RAM amount and speed, and same brand hard drive(s) and speed? Define fast.
flag zachk
Posted: Jul 7, 2009 at 12:23 Quote
SpikeX wrote:
zachk wrote:
SpikeX wrote:


Where the hell did you get that from?

Because when I had my Dual Core white iMac,(sold it for cash to replace someones window I busted), it was helluva a lot faster than my current PC which is running a Q9300.

That means nothing at all...
What OS are you running on the PC? Did both computers have the same RAM amount and speed, and same brand hard drive(s) and speed? Define fast.

Had 3gb of ddr2-667 in the iMac and 2gb DDR2-800 in the pc, Both with 7200rpm hard drives, seagate, iMac ran at 2.13ghz and pc runs at 2.53ghz, both intel, pc running vista. Even with a fresh install of vista, the mac out performed it.
  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.011481
Mobile Version of Website