Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mac vs. PC Digital Photography Comparison

Posted by michael on from the crunch-crunch-grind dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Rob Galbraith posted a comparison among two Macs and two PCs. Both a high-end Mac and PC are included with somewhat surprising results given the number of Mac zealots who will claim otherwise... optimized for PC, Mac support second, Photoshop is faster, yada, yada, yada."

7 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    or second?

  2. It's time for a game of random fact! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Random Fact: The Macintosh destroyed the PC in terms of graphic editting for many years.

    Random Fact: The Amiga destroyed the PC in terms of graphic editting for many years.

    Random Fact: Users of both of the above systems like to drag up old facts as if they were worth anything nowadays.

    To the Mac Heads: Get over it. The PC now reigns supreme, and your sacred cow offers absolutely nothing that most of the market would feel the need to use.

    All your marketshare are belong to us. You have no chance to survive, make your time.

  3. Re:You are misinformed or a troll. by Toraz+Chryx · · Score: 1, Troll

    " XP is better all around and should be the desktop Linux is trying to be"

    That's a troll right?

    you think Linux should aim for a UI that Microsoft outsourced to Fisher Price?..

  4. Re:No, by all reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I suppose you are referring to the lack of a 'cmyk' model as opposed to the superior 'rgb'. This is nothing but an industry-sponsored goof, where print shops don't wish to change over to superior rgb, because they won't get off their asses and do so.

    RGB shows more colours. FAR more, than cmyk - try it in your precious photoshop, a lively vibrant picture will be dulled down to messy tones just by the conversion to CMYK, seen it happen myself many times.

    Simply, if I see the gimp supporting CMYK I will know they've gone to an inferior technology, purely in the support of 'giving people what they want' even if that's demonstrably wrong.

  5. So what??? by Duncan3 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Lets see, since December 2001 (2 years)

    PC iMac
    ---- ------
    3 0 Complete rebuilds due to OS taking a shit.
    6 hrs N/A[1] Average time between crashes
    No Yes Mom could use it?
    100+ 3 Questions during OS install.
    $2,499[2] 0 Dev tools cost per user.

    [1] My iMac has NEVER crashed
    [2] Direct MS price as of Jan 13, 2002

    I would but another Mac in a nanosecond - coincidently the same amount of time that passes between thoughts of using an axe on my PC.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
  6. Re:compare Apples with Apples. by pi+radians · · Score: 1, Troll

    Oh I get why this was modded as flamebait. Because the poster is comparing a PC to a Mac. Or is it because he read the article and is commenting on some of the errors in the way the comparison was handled.

    To the moderator who gave this a flamebait, please AC an explaination as to why.

    --

    sin(6cos(r)+5A)
  7. Good joke by NaCh0 · · Score: 0, Troll


    Too bad tommorrow will never come for the mac.