Price of Strong Mac G5- How much for similar PC?

[Markfw]

Thanks snoop, you have more patience than I do, but your demonstated the point I was trying to make (I would say proved, but thats flame bait).

 

[Pariah]

you have more patience than I do,

Which is basically why your posts have been no help at all in this thread. I give credit to Snoop for putting some real effort into his research and coming up with a first viable alternative that anyone has come up with in this tread. It takes more than a couple of minutes to put together a PC and software suite, which is why people with the money often forgo that route and choose Dell, or better yet an Apple. There is real appeal for some people of knowing everything that is needed is in the box and works well with each other without having to do all the research and work it would take to get there themselves. And comes in a nice looking package (for some people), doesn't hurt either.

 

[Snoop]

Interesting, you don't know what it is, so you just write it off. Go read up on it, and you'll see why I include Adobe Video Collection Pro. If you're aware of another well integrated software suite that does the same thing for less, I'd like to see it. I did miss that Office was a demo, but I don't see why the PC gets the OEM version, while the Mac gets the retail version.

1. I have read up on Ilife, and for me its does nothing that is extraordinary, and its uses are not worth 900 dollars. Then again, thats why I threw in an extra 150 for software she might want. I am sure there is software made for the PC which can do most of what Ilife can do.
2. The PC is getting the full version of office 2003 profesional, I am unaware of an OEM version for the mac, the price I got was from the Apple website.

I've never heard of ABS either. They may be a great company, but most people who don't know what they are buying prefer to buy from a company they have heard of.

They are a subsidiary of Newegg or maybe that is vice-versa
ResellerRatings
Awards, not that it means much!

 

[Eug]

The PC is cheaper if you go for a single CPU and don't get all the bells and whistles. However, if you get a dual machine and all the features of the Mac, then the price is a lot closer and sometimes even more. Plus the G5 case is the nicest I've ever seen. OTOH, most people don't need all the bells and whistles. (eg. Gigabit Ethernet, PCI-X, Optical audio in/out, Firewire 800, aluminum quiet case with 9 fans, humungous heatsinks, dual channel DDR 400, dual FSBs for the CPUs, SATA, etc.)

Anyways, if you can wait some weeks, and you're still looking for a Mac, I'd probably wait for the dual 2.4 GHz update. The speed should be in the range of a dual 3.2 GHz Xeon for hardcore apps. OTOH, for games, a single CPU Athlon will be faster. Not that it matters though, for the games you list. They should run fine on any higher end machine.

If you ever do any DV video though, at the consumer level you can't touch the combo of iMovie/iDVD.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Pariah

you have more patience than I do,

Which is basically why your posts have been no help at all in this thread. I give credit to Snoop for putting some real effort into his research and coming up with a first viable alternative that anyone has come up with in this tread. It takes more than a couple of minutes to put together a PC and software suite, which is why people with the money often forgo that route and choose Dell, or better yet an Apple. There is real appeal for some people of knowing everything that is needed is in the box and works well with each other without having to do all the research and work it would take to get there themselves. And comes in a nice looking package (for some people), doesn't hurt either.

Excuse me, I was trying to guide them in a direction, and figured they could do a little research on their own. I do Have a job and a life, and don;t spend all my time fixing everybody problems. I try to help those who would like to help themsleves, and don;t expect to have to backup all of my years of experience with a bunch of links and numbers. If you don't like my advice, spend your money how you want, but I don;t need condescending people telling me to spend all my time to try and convice people that my 20 years in the business counts for something.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Eug
The PC is cheaper if you go for a single CPU and don't get all the bells and whistles. However, if you get a dual machine and all the features of the Mac, then the price is a lot closer and sometimes even more. Plus the G5 case is the nicest I've ever seen. OTOH, most people don't need all the bells and whistles. (eg. Gigabit Ethernet, PCI-X, Optical audio in/out, Firewire 800, aluminum quiet case with 9 fans, humungous heatsinks, dual channel DDR 400, dual FSBs for the CPUs, SATA, etc.)

Anyways, if you can wait some weeks, and you're still looking for a Mac, I'd probably wait for the dual 2.4 GHz update. The speed should be in the range of a dual 3.2 GHz Xeon for hardcore apps. OTOH, for games, a single CPU Athlon will be faster. Not that it matters though, for the games you list. They should run fine on any higher end machine.

If you ever do any DV video though, at the consumer level you can't touch the combo of iMovie/iDVD.

The point is that you don't need a dual Opteron to compete with a dual G5. A single Athlon 64 FX 51 buries the G5, and a P4 (single) 3.2 GHz gives it a good run for its money and beats it quite often. The numbers simply don't back up your statements. I will re-post this...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

You can clearly see that the only benchmark that the G5 leads the FX 51 in is PhotoShop, and even there the margin is not nearly as wide as the lead that the FX 51 has in the other benchmarks. The Athlon 64 3200+ even beats the G5 in most of the benchmarks, and that is a less than $300 CPU!

I will not dispute that the case is beautiful. I will even go so far as to say that the mac is an extemely fast, easy to use, stable computer with a wonderful looking case, but macs have always been more expensive than PC's with similar performance. Whether or not the orignal poster is willing to pay a premium for what Apple has to offer is up to her, but anyone who claims that she has to buy a dual Opteron to get a similar PC to the mac she is looking at is misleading her. She can do what she wants to do just as well with an Athlon 64 FX-51, Athlon 64 3200+, or even a P4 3.2 and have the cash left over to buy any software that she needs. It might not be in a bundle, but she will also be able to choose what she wants.

Edit: and I will even concede the security issue and recommend that at least $100 worth of the software purchases go towards anti-virus and a firewall, since at this point these are almost mandatory for the average person running Windows.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Eug
The PC is cheaper if you go for a single CPU and don't get all the bells and whistles. However, if you get a dual machine and all the features of the Mac, then the price is a lot closer and sometimes even more. Plus the G5 case is the nicest I've ever seen. OTOH, most people don't need all the bells and whistles. (eg. Gigabit Ethernet, PCI-X, Optical audio in/out, Firewire 800, aluminum quiet case with 9 fans, humungous heatsinks, dual channel DDR 400, dual FSBs for the CPUs, SATA, etc.)

Anyways, if you can wait some weeks, and you're still looking for a Mac, I'd probably wait for the dual 2.4 GHz update. The speed should be in the range of a dual 3.2 GHz Xeon for hardcore apps. OTOH, for games, a single CPU Athlon will be faster. Not that it matters though, for the games you list. They should run fine on any higher end machine.

If you ever do any DV video though, at the consumer level you can't touch the combo of iMovie/iDVD.

The point is that you don't need a dual Opteron to compete with a G5. A single Athlon 64 FX 51 buries the G5, and a P4 (single) 3.2 GHz gives it a good run for its money and beats it quite often. The numbers simply don't back up your statements. I will re-post this...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

You can clearly see that the only benchmark that the G5 leads the FX 51 in is PhotoShop, and even there the margin is not nearly as wide as the lead that the FX 51 has in the other benchmarks. The Athlon 64 3200+ even beats the G5 in most of the benchmarks, and that is a less than $300 CPU!

I will not dispute that the case is beautiful. I will even go so far as to say that the mac is an extemely fast, easy to use, stable computer with a wonderful looking case, but macs have always been more expensive than PC's with similar performance. Whether or not the orignal poster is willing to pay a premium for what Apple has to offer is up to her, but anyone who claims that she has to buy a dual Opteron to get a similar PC to the mac she is looking at is misleading her. She can do what she wants to do just as well with an Athlon 64 FX-51, Athlon 64 3200+, or even a P4 3.2 and have the cash left over to buy any software that she needs. It might not be in a bundle, but she will also be able to choose what she wants.

Trust me, I've checked the benchmarks and about a bazillion others. I don't want to get into the specifics here of those benches, since it's already been covered ad nauseum at other sites and even in this forum. Indeed, it's interesting to note that 4400 GHz of G5 2.0 chips in the VT supercluster has put them at 3rd in the world, easily faster for example than 6000 GHz of Xeons. In other words, you can make benchmarks say anything, if you select the right benchmarks.

But overall, I'd say a reasonable estimate for raw speed is that a G5 2.0 is in the range of a 2.8 GHz Xeon on average. ie. A dual G5 2.0 is in the range of a dual 2.8 GHz Xeon. And for properly dual-optimized apps, a dual G5 2.0 (or dual 2.8 Xeon) will destroy an Athlon 64 FX-51. The time when this does not hold true is with most 3D games.

Hence, I agree if it's purchased as a gaming machine, a Windows would be a better choice. For specific purposes like 3D graphics design, a Linux or Windows x86 machine might be better. For 2D graphics design, the Mac may be better, or on par with Windows. For high end or consumer video, I'd take the Mac over the PC.

I use both Windows and Mac OS X machines. Having used both, I'd say for someone used to Macs, a G5 Mac would be the obvious choice. And for someone used to Windows, a fast PC would be the obvious choice.

And if you're a Mac-leaning person (like the original poster seems to be) who wants everything in one box, a dual G5 2.4 (or 2.2) would be an awesome machine. I expect them to be released within the month.

 

[Soulkeeper]

if you do buy a new mac i suggest getting a G5 that is under 1600
if you spend anymore yur mostly wasting it

just my opinion

 

[addragyn]

The point is that you don't need a dual Opteron to compete with a dual G5. A single Athlon 64 FX 51 buries the G5, and a P4 (single) 3.2 GHz gives it a good run for its money and beats it quite often. The numbers simply don't back up your statements. I will re-post this...

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

You can clearly see that the only benchmark that the G5 leads the FX 51 in is PhotoShop, and even there the margin is not nearly as wide as the lead that the FX 51 has in the other benchmarks. The Athlon 64 3200+ even beats the G5 in most of the benchmarks, and that is a less than $300 CPU!

No.

These numbers are all so close as to make themselves irrelevant. Nothing buries anything else. If those were minutes instead of seconds you might have a point. Each system has unique strengths.

Testing w/ Premiere 6 is... odd. 6 came out in 2001! 6.5 happened and then Adobe dropped Premiere for the Mac. Final Cut Pro & Express are much faster than Premiere. Not to mention damn good software.

The dual G5 is the only system than can hang with the dual Opterons in Photoshop.

The use of "search-and-replace of one word in a 1437-page document, and the execution of the auto summarize function on a 210-page document" does not seem to have much relevance to this discussion. I think the War & Peace discussion is down the hall.

Notice how the systems with the 256MB video cards get higher Quake scores than the systems with 128Mb cards?

I find Photsohop the be the best cross platform application benchmark. It's not a port or old software like others tested. It's also material to this discussion.
***
FYI - The G5 1.8 has been a dual for over 3 months.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Eug Trust me, I've checked the benchmarks and about a bazillion others. I don't want to get into the specifics here of those benches, since it's already been covered ad nauseum at other sites and even in this forum. Indeed, it's interesting to note that 4400 GHz of G5 2.0 chips in the VT supercluster has put them at 3rd in the world, easily faster for example than 6000 GHz of Xeons. In other words, you can make benchmarks say anything, if you select the right benchmarks.

But overall, I'd say a reasonable estimate for raw speed is that a G5 2.0 is in the range of a 2.8 GHz Xeon on average. ie. A dual G5 2.0 is in the range of a dual 2.8 GHz Xeon. And for properly dual-optimized apps, a dual G5 2.0 (or dual 2.8 Xeon) will destroy an Athlon 64 FX-51. The time when this does not hold true is with most 3D games.

Hence, I agree if it's purchased as a gaming machine, a Windows would be a better choice. For specific purposes like 3D graphics design, a Linux or Windows x86 machine might be better. For 2D graphics design, the Mac may be better, or on par with Windows. For high end or consumer video, I'd take the Mac over the PC.

I use both Windows and Mac OS X machines. Having used both, I'd say for someone used to Macs, a G5 Mac would be the obvious choice. And for someone used to Windows, a fast PC would be the obvious choice.

And if you're a Mac-leaning person (like the original poster seems to be) who wants everything in one box, a dual G5 2.4 (or 2.2) would be an awesome machine. I expect them to be released within the month.

You are the only person who brough the dual Xeons into the discussion. Anandtech shows themselves that a dual Xeon desktop is not a good value in this review of the Asus PC-DL Deluxe.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=1857&p=1

All I was saying is that the Athlon 64 (FX, 3200+, 3400+) or Pentium 4 system would be a better bang for the buck.

As far as talking about the VT Supercluster... That is academic and not relevant to the original question, since most supercomputers are not built with the home user in mind

You also have not mentioned the price of the new dual G5 2.4 (yet to be released). However, this is also moot since the poster asked for the price of a comparably equipped PC for the cost of the mac she was looking at, not for a an even more expensive mac than the one she already found. I beleive that the myself, along with others on this thread have shown that she can get roughly the equivalent PC (with software) for less then the price of the mac.

I won't disagree with you that she'd be happy with the mac and that it is an awesome machine, but for $3,599.00 it had better be.

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: Caly
I recently did research here in order to build a gaming PC for my boyfriend. At my admittedly boring job I use a stylish black Dell. I started out on computers where you had to type stuff like run *8 etc.
Mac prices appear to be on the high side. In some cases, they are. I already have a monitor, so I didn?t include the price of one. But I like this G5 set-up. How much would a similar PC be, and similar software?

A 64 Bit Mac G5 from Apple Store-
optical digital and analog audio -all integrated through two bidirectional 16-bit, 800MHz interconnects for a maximum throughput of 3.2GB per second- ports use the S/PDIF protocol over Toslink cables
4 discrete thermal zones to compartmentalize the primary heat-producing components.
Fans in the zones spin at very low speeds resulting in a system that?s quiet. (It is)
1GHz frontside bus ?? one on each processor
512K L2 cache/processor
Three PCI-X Slots
FireWire 800, Firewire 400, and USB 2.0 ports
Gigabit Ethernet built-in
?? Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
?? 1GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x512
(Expandable to 8GB SDRAM)
?? 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
?? ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
AGP 8X Pro graphics bus
All cards ship with an Apple Display Connector (ADC) port for connecting an Apple display, and a DVI port for a second digital display ?? with support for both extended desktop and video mirroring modes.
?? Bluetooth Module
?? 56k V.92 internal modem
?? SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
?? Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English

Included Software
Mac OS X v 10.3 "Panther", iLife (including iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD), QuickBooks for Mac New User Edition, Zinio Reader, Art Directors Toolkit, Microsoft Office v.X Test Drive, FileMaker Pro Trial, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, GraphicConverter, Safari, QuickTime, iChat, iCal, iSync, DVD Player, Mail, EarthLink, Acrobat Reader, Classic environment and Apple Developer Tools

This comes out to- $3,599.00

Let's do this thing.

A Dual 1.8GHz Opteron from Polywell
Motherboardoly 2020A Dual Opteron ATX MB w/8XAGP,GigaLAN;
Processor: 2x AMD Opteron Processor Model 244 (64bit-1.8GH;
Memory: 2x DDR 333MHz 512M PC2700 Memory ECC/Registered;
Chassis:Titanium 12-Bay 460W P/S Aluminum Mid-Tower Case;
HardDrive:WD 200GB Ultra-100 IDE 7200RPM HD 8MB Cache;
Additional HD:********* N O N E ***************;
Floppy Drive:Slim 1.44MB Floppy Drive;
Disk Controller:********* N O N E ***************;
Drive Kit:********* N O N E ***************;
I/O Device or Interf:1394 Fire Wire PCI Adapter (3-port);
Keyboard:Viewsonic Slim USB Keyboard w/2 USB Ports;
Mice:Silver PS/2 Optical Mouse w/Scroll wheel;
CD/DVD:********* N O N E ***************;
CDRW:********* N O N E ***************;
DVD-R Rewriteable:Sony DVD+RW/-R DVD-RW/-R 4.7G CDRW DRU510A;
Audio Sound:Sound Blaster Audigy2 6.1 Sound Card;
Speaker:Subwoofer Speakers Sound System (Black) 3pcs;
Video Editing (DV):********* N O N E ***************;
Graphics:ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB 8X AGP Graphics Card;
Video Camera:********* N O N E ***************;
Monitor:********* N O N E ***************;
Modem:Lucent 56K PCI V.92 Modem for Linux;
Network Adaptern-Board Gigabit/100/1000T Ethernet;
Backup Device:********* N O N E ***************;
Optional Software:********* N O N E ***************;
Operating System:WindowsXP Professional CD/License;
Optional Support:IAI 1Yr 24-Hr Phone Support (VP);
Custom Assemby:System Assy, Packaging for PC70


$3,488

Bluetooth dongle - $49

iLife
iTunes - free
Adobe Photoshop Album - $85
Pinnacle Studio - $50
Sonic MvDVD - $50
Acid - $65 (GarageBand has MIDI you'll need Acid Pro for that $170)

Art Director's Toolkit
Art Director's Toolkit - $30

OmniGraffle(awesome)
Visio - $65

OmniOutliner(also awesome)
ActionOutline - $35

GraphicConverter
Paint Shop Pro - $85

DVD Player
WinDVD or PowerDVD - $10

Apple Developer Tools SD Times
Visual Studio .NET - $500

Of course you'd be a fool to run a Windows box w/o antivirus, for consumer use the excellent AVG is free dollar wise. You'll just have to spend some time.

You'll also need to download & install AIM, Palm Desktop, Quicktime & Acrobat (which Preview absolutely slays).

$1,1129 to duplicate the bundle on the G5. (Whether you'd actually use all that software on either system is definitely a valid question.) You won't have half the level on integration and you'll need to spend a lot of time installing it all. You should also take the time, there's that word again, update & run Ad-aware.

$3,488 + $1,129 = $4,617 + x many hours

Of course this is academically speaking.

 

[Snoop]

Apple Developer Tools SD Times
Visual Studio .NET - $500

LOL, those are not comparable. Besides, what percentage of computer purchasers program?

 

[Eug]

You also have not mentioned the price of the new dual G5 2.4 (yet to be released).

Probably $2999, same price as current 2.0. Apple doesn't really vary prices much. ie. If you buy near the end of a release cycle, you're not getting as much value as if you buy at the beginning of the next cycle.

And addragyn is correct, if you want something that matches the dual G5, it gets quite expensive on the x86 side and sometimes much more than the Mac. However, the valid counterargument that some in this thread have made is that you don't need all of that stuff, so you can save money there.

 

[Overkast]

I'll settle this right now...

Caly, do you need this "new machine" to work with print and postscript? If so, get an Apple.

If you don't need to work with print/postscript and you don't need all the bundled software... get an Athlon 64.

 

[addragyn]

Apple Developer Tools SD Times
Visual Studio .NET - $500

LOL, those are not comparable. Besides, what percentage of computer purchasers program?

LOL. Really, how?

 

[Caly]

Whoa!

The application I use the most is Photoshop- I want to get Illustrator as well.
I'm interested in selling prints of my artworks.
I'm learning 3D- I am looking into Lightwave, have toyed with Zbrush, Vue, Bryce, Poser, etc.
I've considered dabbling in doing animations & video, as they tie into 3d work, especially if you want to create games, but I still have a lot of learning to do.
I don't want to need to get a new computer again for at least 2 years- so RAM is vital. It makes TONS of difference when it comes to graphics programs. I want the ability to add RAM over time.
I see this as an investment in my creativity. I already mentioned the games I play.
I like flexibility and have played around with the idea of learning programming because there are things out there that don't quite work the way I want them to.
I admit, I love iTunes.

 

[FishTankX]

Caly

If you're comfortable with building yourself you could build yourself something very nice for less.

Here's an equivalently priced opteron workstation

Tyan S2875ANRF (Tiger K8W 8151) Audio/LAN/IEEE/8X AGP/SATA Raid REG DDR ATX Opteron 256$ (monarch)

SATA card (50$, pretty much anywhere)

2X Opteron 244 retail 988$ (monarch)

4X Registered DDR 333 (Should be about 500$) (zip zoom fly)

Radeon 9800 pro 128MB 230$ (new egg)

WD Raptor 74GB 300$ (new egg)

NEC 2500A 125$ (new egg)

And I think you can find a decent case for about 100$ (new egg)

And windows XP pro will be about 200.

That's about 1000$ less than the system you priced out at apple, and it will totally blow the apple out of the water.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Caly
Whoa!

The application I use the most is Photoshop- I want to get Illustrator as well.
I'm interested in selling prints of my artworks.
I'm learning 3D- I am looking into Lightwave, have toyed with Zbrush, Vue, Bryce, Poser, etc.
I've considered dabbling in doing animations & video, as they tie into 3d work, especially if you want to create games, but I still have a lot of learning to do.
I don't want to need to get a new computer again for at least 2 years- so RAM is vital. It makes TONS of difference when it comes to graphics programs. I want the ability to add RAM over time.
I see this as an investment in my creativity. I already mentioned the games I play.
I like flexibility and have played around with the idea of learning programming because there are things out there that don't quite work the way I want them to.
I admit, I love iTunes.

Based on this response, I would suggest going with the mac in spite of the fact that I obvioulsy prefer PC's myself. I say this simply because most of the applications you mentioned and your obvious leaning towards the artistic aspect of computing will probably put you in contact with more other people that use macs. Being surrounded by people who use the same hardware/OS as opposed to being the lone wolf has a value that money can not buy, and will make the entire experience that much better. Either way you went, you would be able to get an awesome computer for ~$3600 and I still contend that the PC route is cheaper, but based on your wants/needs get the mac.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Caly
Whoa!

The application I use the most is Photoshop- I want to get Illustrator as well.
I'm interested in selling prints of my artworks.
I'm learning 3D- I am looking into Lightwave, have toyed with Zbrush, Vue, Bryce, Poser, etc.
I've considered dabbling in doing animations & video, as they tie into 3d work, especially if you want to create games, but I still have a lot of learning to do.
I don't want to need to get a new computer again for at least 2 years- so RAM is vital. It makes TONS of difference when it comes to graphics programs. I want the ability to add RAM over time.
I see this as an investment in my creativity. I already mentioned the games I play.
I like flexibility and have played around with the idea of learning programming because there are things out there that don't quite work the way I want them to.
I admit, I love iTunes.

Some random points:

iTunes is free on both Windows and Mac OS X so that's irrelevant.

Some of the hardcore 3D apps don't exist on Mac OS X, but a lot of them do. It depends on which you want to use. eg. Bryce, Maya, etc. are there. 3DStudio Max is not.

Photoshop screams on the G5, and that PC World bench notwithstanding, it's probably faster on the Mac if you do things like pre-press. RGB-->CYMK flies on the Mac (usually much faster than x86 systems), and this becomes very important if you're working with 600 MB files for print. RGB-->CYMK takes a LONG time on large files, and this gets magnified if you're doing batch conversions of multiple large files for printing. A print shop can literally save hours with a dual G5 Mac because of this one action. OTOH, if you're not in print and you only edit 100 MB files, the top end computers are so damn fast anyways, and you won't really notice any sigificant speed differences in real life usage most of the time.

BTW, some explanation since there seems to be some confusion with the Photoshop benches: Windows Photoshop is faster for some filters, but many of those are less used. ie. PSBench's first group of actions are what the Mac excels at, and they are the most commonly used actions. PSBench's second group of actions favour Windows, but these actions are less commonly used. Unfortunately for the Mac, the second group contains filters that take a long time so any speed differences get magnified if you tally the bench results by total time. Some people argue against this, and say one should only compare percentage differences per test, so as to not give the uncommonly used filters more weight in the test. If you calculate things this way, G5 Macs consistently win PSBench. (However, I suspect that dual Opterons would do VERY well - I've only seen the test run on Athlons and dual Athlon MPs, P4s, and dual Xeons.) For total time however, PCs edge out the Macs.

Exposé on Mac OS X is a huge time saver when you're working with multiple open windows. eg. If you have 3 images open in Photoshop and 5 more open in Illustrator, and you have iTunes and Safari running in the background, your desktop gets cluttered pretty quickly. Exposé makes navigation to each window much faster. Roll your mouse pointer to the corner, and instantly everything shinks down so all pix fit on screen, scaled. Click on the one you want and it comes forward. There is no equivalent on Windows (although there will likely be one in Longhorn), unless you go for a 3rd party hack. And the 3rd party hacks (eg. WinPLOSION) don't work very well I'm told. IMO, Exposé is the best add-on for an OS that has happened in years.

Colour management is supposedly easier on the Mac, but it can be done on the Windows side too.

As for RAM, yes it is vital, but one should note that both Illustrator and Photoshop are limited to 2 GB each. This is true for both Windows and Mac OS X. Even if you have 16 GB, Photoshop will swap once it hits 2 GB. OTOH, Mac OS X does still give you an advantage, since you could run multiple graphics apps together at 2 GB each to break the 4 GB barrier (up to 16 GB with current hardware), but on Windows you can't directly. Thus, the 8 memory slots of the Power Mac G5 is a definite advantage over PC motherboards with less memory slots. Plus, it's a lot easier to hit even just 4 GB if you have 8 memory slots (with inexpensive 512 MB DIMMs in each slot). You can find PC motherboards with 8 memory slots too, but you'll have to make sure in the specs, because many if not most systems don't come with that many slots.

Overall, I'd say get the Mac, but the one caveat is what 3D apps you're gonna use. Check into that. If the ones you need are all on Mac OS X, then go for the Power Mac G5 for sure. But again, if you can, wait until the next Power Mac G5 update. I could be wrong, but I suspect the dual G5 2.4 will be announced in February.

 

[drag]

The way it goes is this. The performance between a Dual G5 setup and a AMD64 setup is negliable. There is no big "rape me" difference like their was between althon and g4.

What should matter is this:

Do I want to get work done and spend time learning and screwing around

OR

Do I want to spend my time fixing/struggling with windows.

Depends on how much your time is worth. Neither OS is perfect, neither platform is perfect, but some OSes are less perfect then others.

 

[Anubis]

Exposé on Mac OS X is a huge time saver when you're working with multiple open windows. eg. If you have 3 images open in Photoshop and 5 more open in Illustrator, and you have iTunes and Safari running in the background, your desktop gets cluttered pretty quickly. Exposé makes navigation to each window much faster. Roll your mouse pointer to the corner, and instantly everything shinks down so all pix fit on screen, scaled. Click on the one you want and it comes forward. There is no equivalent on Windows (although there will likely be one in Longhorn), unless you go for a 3rd party hack. And the 3rd party hacks (eg. WinPLOSION) don't work very well I'm told. IMO, Exposé is the best add-on for an OS that has happened in years."

its called a taskbar, windows has had one sence it came out

 

[Eug]

its called a taskbar, windows has had one sence it came out

Sorry, but the Taskbar in Windows should be compared to the Dock in Mac OS X. Some may argue the Taskbar is a bit better than the Dock, and some may argue the Dock is better than the Taskbar, but overall they're pretty similar in function.

Neither is in the same league as Exposé. Just about everyone I've shown Exposé to drools over it, including the Unix geeks (who have multiple terminal windows etc. open at a time).

Some people have tried to compare the Windows tiling function to Exposé too, but that's just a joke. And ALT-TABbing (which both Mac OS X and Windows have) doesn't cut it either.

The more windows you have open, the better Exposé is. Obviously if you only have 3 windows open total, the Taskbar is fine. Once you get to say 8 or 15, the Taskbar is not so helpful.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Eug

its called a taskbar, windows has had one sence it came out

Sorry, but the Taskbar in Windows should be compared to the Dock in Mac OS X. Some may argue the Taskbar is a bit better than the Dock, but overall they're pretty similar in function.

Neither is in the same league as Exposé. Just about everyone I've shown Exposé to drools over it, including the Unix geeks (who have multiple terminal windows etc. open at a time).

Some people have tried to compare the Windows tiling function to Exposé too, but that's just a joke.

ill give you that it looks flasy and cool, but it still serves the same function as a taskbar, easy switching between multipial prpgrams and windows, the taskbar does just that and it does well, ive used it on a mac and i really dont like it i think its annoying, i also dont like not haveing a task bar, the Dock isnt a task bar its an annoyance when everything goes there, and also the fact that when you have photoshop open and you can still click the desktop pisses me off

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Anubis

ill give you that it looks flasy and cool, but it still serves the same function as a taskbar, easy switching between multipial prpgrams and windows, the taskbar does just that and it does well, ive used it on a mac and i really dont like it i think its annoying, i also dont like not haveing a task bar, the Dock isnt a task bar its an annoyance when everything goes there, and also the fact that when you have photoshop open and you can still click the desktop pisses me off

Yeah, it looks cool, but that's not why I like it. I like it because it saves me time, and it's much more intuitive than using either the Dock or the Taskbar.

I often have 10 windows open, and navigating with the Taskbar on a small to medium sized screen is simply a pain in the @ss, esp. if many of those windows have similar names. eg. Navigate to a website where and open up three pages. Sometimes all three pages will have similar names. In the taskbar, there is no way of telling them apart quickly. With Exposé you can instantly recognize the page you want because it's a scaled picture of the page, and it even updates in real time.

Also, if you load up Photoshop with 10 images, ALL of the images are scaled in Exposé. In Windows, you just get one task bar icon called "Adobe Photoshop" (at least in Windows 2000), and then you have to search again within Photoshop.

You may not like Exposé and that's fine, but IMO, Exposé is the best GUI advancement in recent history, and it's especially useful for the graphics types.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Anubis

ill give you that it looks flasy and cool, but it still serves the same function as a taskbar, easy switching between multipial prpgrams and windows, the taskbar does just that and it does well, ive used it on a mac and i really dont like it i think its annoying, i also dont like not haveing a task bar, the Dock isnt a task bar its an annoyance when everything goes there, and also the fact that when you have photoshop open and you can still click the desktop pisses me off

Yeah, it looks cool, but that's not why I like.

I often have 10 windows open, in navigating with the Taskbar is simply a pain in the @ss, esp. if many of those windows have similar names. eg. Navigate to a website where and open up three pages. Sometimes all three pages will have similar names. In the taskbar, there is no way of telling them apart quickly.

With Exposé you can instantly recognize the page you want because it's a scaled picture of the page, and it even updates in real time.

You may not like Exposé and that's fine, but IMO, Exposé is the best GUI advancement in recent history.

yea its a sweet GUI advancement and i beleive MS will have something similar soon, they are allready working on one and Sun has a similar one also, but they are more of a 3D desktop also, i prob wouldent use them either

but i have to ask, how big of a monitor do you have and what resolution do you run? cause i run 3200x1200 dual 19in CRts and i can full names on the taskbar - and for webpages tabs work wonders, and safari if great IMO