imac vs pc graphics


Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 14, 2004
125
0
16
#21
I can safely say Apple takes more care in choosing the panel makers for their screens. Philips on the other hand, have a wider range of choice to meet different budgets. As such, quality differs.

Everything is hackable. You can practically change anything if you can find the driver for it. However, its pretty illegal and takes a bit of work. Fortunately for Apple, to those people that matter, Apple users don't really trust this. To the techies, who are such a minority, the OSX runs faster on DIYed boxes simply because it can be customized with raw brute force components (8 drive RAID-0 anyone?). Apps like PS2 unfortunately, aren't optimized yet.

Apple's screens are nice. But I can always find a matching counterpart in the PC world. It's just harder to find on the retail shelf.
 

May 17, 2006
160
2
18
#22
I was a PC user turned to Mac 4 yrs ago. Doubt the warning that many Mac users said ' U never turn back !'

As predicted, I just don't care wat happens at the PC world anymore. Dear Jeannie, doubt no more, get in the real stuff!

As for the issue reagrding PS 2, hav patience, things will change early next year.
 

eng_keow

New Member
Oct 8, 2004
1,022
0
0
Mt Alvernia Hospital
www.pbase.com
#23
One thing you must note is that currently Photoshop CS2 is not written natively for the intel imacs and thus the performance is OSX not as good if you run photoshop in Windows.
Is this true? Are you talking about running PS CS2 on Windows XP OS or Mac OS on the iMac. I was told that previously running programs on Windows environment in the iMac uses a 3rd party software, which slows down the computer tremendously. Now it runs directly off the OS so it actually runs faster. Correct me if I am wrong. :dunno:
 

nightpiper

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
2,152
0
0
#24
allo doc, apple is porting their software from G5 native to universal binary. those apps not compiled in universal binary will run on emulator mode in the intel mac, therefore slower.

Photoshop is not from apple, so its up to them to recompile their codes, as & when they feel is the right time. there r many other apps not recompiled yet from other developers, but if u juz want to use apple only software, ie. iphoto, ilife, etc. they shud all run fast w/o emulators.

btw, i dun feel apple can do better graphics since PS 4 was out, nor their screen better quality. its juz a matter of how much money anyone is willing to spend. many people want to pay $300 for 19" LCDs, how to compare to those more expensive ones that cost $850? i dun hear anyone complaining their EIZO 21" or 24" pro LCD is lousy or worse than an apple ver.

edited: personally, i find apple stuffs r over priced. put it the other way round... not value for money at all. remember last time they always said their G3, G4 & G5 ate pentium for lunch? with one-sided benchmark tests claiming their computers r more than 100% faster than any Intel? its their powerful marketing force behind the brainwashing. :sweat:
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,706
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#27
just put a PC and the imac next to each other

which one is more sexy?
which one says take me home
which one says come touch me

sponsor? sure, once my rubberband snaps from my wad of money
 

wind30

Deregistered
Mar 14, 2004
2,927
0
0
#28
Is this true? Are you talking about running PS CS2 on Windows XP OS or Mac OS on the iMac. I was told that previously running programs on Windows environment in the iMac uses a 3rd party software, which slows down the computer tremendously. Now it runs directly off the OS so it actually runs faster. Correct me if I am wrong. :dunno:
no lah I am talking about photoshop CS2 performance. Adobe is NOT going to migrate the CS2 to run natively on the new intel MACs. So it is much better to buy a Windows CS2 license and run it on XP (intel PC), than to buy a MAC CS2 license and run it on OSX (intel MAC).

I am using an IMAC for like 2+ years. I am probably going back to the PC... Cheaper LCDs, cheaper PC, and hopefully VISTA will narrow the gap between XP and OSx.

+ there are some software that I would like to run that is NOT available on MACOS, like online Junqi.
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#30
can i ask a very newbie straightforward question?

can a mac screen be connected to a pc?
 

wind30

Deregistered
Mar 14, 2004
2,927
0
0
#31
can i ask a very newbie straightforward question?

can a mac screen be connected to a pc?
what screen you talking about? The G5 IMAC? My G5 IMAC screen doesn't accept any inputs. But the normal apple display can be connected to a PC I think.
 

Nov 14, 2004
125
0
16
#32
Sure, all current LCD screens AFAIK, are compatible. Even older ones just need an adaptor. Technically, they are using the same graphic cards these days. Same connector type, pretty standard DVI

just put a PC and the imac next to each other

which one is more sexy?
which one says take me home
which one says come touch me
You could get a Imac case today, or a Xbox360 case later to dress up . Me, I have no case, inner beauty appeals more :bsmilie:
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,706
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#33
Sure, all current LCD screens AFAIK, are compatible. Even older ones just need an adaptor. Technically, they are using the same graphic cards these days. Same connector type, pretty standard DVI


You could get a Imac case today, or a Xbox360 case later to dress up . Me, I have no case, inner beauty appeals more :bsmilie:
it's the OS as well you know
 

JamesW

Senior Member
Aug 26, 2006
710
0
16
Singapore
#34
Not just OS.

Spyware, Adware, Virus, Worms, Trojan all the nasty things you will get with M$.

Vista might be better. With luck match, match Panther. But Tiger? Tough luck. And recent developers test/development kits criticism was that it was still a tad unstable. Don't need to look very far. HWZ had an article about it.

Photoshop CS2 might not be the best thing to run on mac. But.. I don't think future developments will alienate Mac users anyway. And PC users won't get to use Aperture.

As for display cheaper on PCs, sorry man. Mac can use cheaper LCDs anyday. In fact I think Dell 2407 is better and cheaper than ACD right now. How Mac utilise their graphics resources (the process not the hardware), is superior to W!ndows in anyway. Why do most designers/photographers use Mac then?

Simon80. By default, Mac supports 5.1.
 

poker

Senior Member
Oct 21, 2006
834
0
16
#39
perhaps u can try to post ur topic in hardwarezone forum to get more opinion:think:
 

#40
price?

one thing i dislike is the humongous tower cpu.
price? all depend on what u select . check here

Price S$ 29,329.99
GST S$ 1,466.50
Subtotal S$ 30,796.49


Specifications
* Two 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
* 16GB 667 DDR2 FB DIMM ECC - 8x2GB
* 750GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s drive - 7200 rpm
* 750GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s drive - 7200 rpm
* 750GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s drive - 7200 rpm
* 750GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s drive - 7200 rpm
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB SDRAM
* Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel) - FE
* Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel) - FE
* 2 x SuperDrive
* Airport Extreme & Bluetooth 2.0+ERD
* Fibre Channel PCI Express Card 2GB
* Apple Wireless Keyboard & Mighty Mouse
* AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro/Power Mac (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll

heh.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom