T-Shirt Forums banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have windows XP, and thinking about upgrading and going to a Mac. What do most of you run?

Pro's and Cons......:D

I use Corel X3 and embroidery software.

Thanks,
Todd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
If you were using Adobe products, I'd say it would definately be worth looking into. For what you use though, I don't know if I'd recommend the plunge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
A mac is not an upgrade, it's a lateral move.

Try fedora or ubuntu. A much more stable and bullet proof OS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,074 Posts
I run XP and its rock solid. My last machine was five years old when I upgraded and it ran 24/7, I don't remember it ever crashing. My new machine is a couple months old and it has never crashed. XP is the most compatible, most stable OS available. Why are you considering switching?

I used to work with Macs and I didn't have a problem with them except for their cryptic error messages but they crashed too often. That was before the new OS10 so I don't know how they are now. I've always thought that if I were going to buy a general purpose laptop, I might buy a Mac but my desktops will always be PCs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
uh oh... here we go again...lol... Both PC and Mac use the same hardware essentially(intel procs etc)... the OS of both have advantages and benefits...

I am about to build a comp and it's a monster... i'm going to use XP and it will cost about 1100 bucks...

if your using Corel products... it would be cheaper to buy a new pc and it will run just as well as a mac...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,074 Posts
Really, don't start with that linux bs again. The OP is asking about PC vs Mac, linux has no place in this discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Well then, if the only choices are windows or mac, I'd go windows. It's equally as bad, but at least you can use things with it.

Just back up every file on your comp you own on the weekly, you'll be ok.


And besides, he asked what people run, I run linux. And I just wanted to clarify, mac is not an upgrade, it's 6 of one, half dozen of another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
I run Apple's Mac OS X 10.5.2 and Microsoft's Windows XP Home Edition on my Mini Mac. I had to upgrade my memory to 2GB just so windows wouldn't run slow as fu....crap. :p And I ONLY run windows because I switched to CorelDRAW so I could use smartDesigner X3. *sigh*
Oh, and I don't use Boot Camp...I use Parallels.
i wish Apple would make a tablet laptop. That would be sweet.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
I run windows Vista ultimate 64 bit. This I would not recommend unless you are fairly good at manipulating Windows OS. The reason I do this is because any thing other than Vista 64, Lenix, and the new G5 series mac's all other OS's have a system memory cap of 3.5 gigs.

Macs are good except for the fact that you have to give up compatibility. P.C.'s Best bang for the buck.

I would personally stay with XP for now until Microsoft either comes out with a better system than Vista, or the third party providers finally get around to making Vista Drivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Alright,

XP is very compatible with just about everything. The down sides are you're prone to frequent crashes and viruses, and it's pretty much dead technology. Microsoft is going to wipe it off the map entirely in a year or so. But you can manipulate it, both hardware and program wise very easily. I would steer clear of brands like dell (especially) and hp (more espcially). Have a nice white box built if you go this route.

Macs are less compatible. You'll have a harder time finding programs and hardware. It will also be more expensive to upgrade. The upside is, they get far less viruses, and crash less frequently, generally. They are prone to crashing though. Other than that, they're just intel boards now a days, so if the os is more comfortable for you, and you don't plan on changing anything, not a bad choice. They aren't better, just different.

Vista is an inordinatly heavy OS with not a ton to offer in terms of graphic design. In all honesty, unless you bought your computer with a 10ghz processor and 13mb ram, vista will slow you down. It's still very buggy at this point, too. But sp1 supposedly fixed some of that?

I prefer a Linux OS, because if it's good enough for google, youtube, and the us airforce, it's good enough for me. There is some trouble with devices in linux, but most can be overcome with a windows emulator. It's less prone to crashing, bullet proof against viruses, and free support and upgrades for the rest of your life. Can't be beat, except it hates my printer. And I think the brand new corel products won't work on it. Someone must have knocked on corel's door with a handful of cash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
WOW, so much information and most of it incomplete or inaccurate....... where to start????

XP... yes it's a good stable OS, but will be unsupported in a few years and you should not consider XP if you are getting a new PC. Manufacturers are at the end of their program life for XP, on a new systems, some have already axed it.

Linux.... yes very good platform if you are running a web server, web browsing, shooting e-mails all day, or need a simple free OS for basic items. It's not going to run your basic applications that you are used too and configuring linux is not something the standard PC user will be comfortable with.

Vista- The biggest problem with Vista is so many people talk about how bad it is when in fact about half of them have never even tried it or seen it. Microsoft did a little research on this, I will attach the video below. If you are buying a new PC then of course it will run Vista just fine as it was designed around it if you are buying new. If you are upgrading an old system, then stay away from it unless you have the time to properly configure it with the accurate drivers etc.
As for Vista being slow or a hog, well yes it does take a little more power then XP in stock trip or setup, but what many people don't understand is you can turn off and configure Vista to actually be as fast as XP. Most of Vista increased ram and processor usage is all for the "eye candy" this can all be adjusted to reflect what performance you would like to see, all the way down to a basic looking XP style format.
On the max memory for 32 bit applications, yes this is correct and depending on the hardware your max usage is from 2.8-3.5gb of ram, this is more then enough to do anything you would like to as well.

The system I'm typing on now is running Vista and has been since I built it last year, I have turned it off maybe 4 times and that was only to install new software or updates. It has not crashed once and believe me I put it through the paces. I'm running dual monitors and often have 10-20 programs open at once or at least running and have several high usage programs as well.
Specs: Q6600 2.4, 4GB 800MHZ RAM, 500x4 Sata2 HD, bla bla bla


A stable running system has more to do with proper configuration rather then the OS itself, I have had XP units that have had more problems then Vista as well. Again the majority of the problem with Vista is the word of mouth, if any one of you actually used a properly configured Vista system you would never touch XP again.

Ok I have given my .02 (guess what I do for my day job) lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
"On the max memory for 32 bit applications, yes this is correct and depending on the hardware your max usage is from 2.8-3.5gb of ram, this is more then enough to do anything you would like to as well. "

For most things yes this is enough ram. But for high end graphics, 3D Animation, Video post production. I run 8 gigs on board and 8 gigs virtual, Quad Monitors set up and am running on two cross-fired graphics cards. This is way overkill for anything I will ever do on a T-Shirts though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
I almost put in my post the one thing you might need more for was video editing (high end) lol

With the new quads though, if you have the right program to take advantage of the quad, they run pretty well with 3.5, more is always better with video editing though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
I agree with Joe.

I've been using a Mac for 15 years and would never think of using anything else – but really it all boils down to what you're most comfortable using. Both platforms have issues ... neither is perfect.

i wish Apple would make a tablet laptop. That would be sweet.:D
They're working on it. Until then, there's this: Axiotron : Home

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
As for Vista being slow or a hog, well yes it does take a little more power then XP in stock trip or setup, but what many people don't understand is you can turn off and configure Vista to actually be as fast as XP. Most of Vista increased ram and processor usage is all for the "eye candy" this can all be adjusted to reflect what performance you would like to see, all the way down to a basic looking XP style format.
On the max memory for 32 bit applications, yes this is correct and depending on the hardware your max usage is from 2.8-3.5gb of ram, this is more then enough to do anything you would like to as well.
To me, there's just no legitimate reason for an OS to require that much memory to run. What could it possibly be doing that would require that much memory, on top of all the hard drive space it takes up? I'm sure you can agree there's simply no need for it. And 'as fast as xp' isn't saying much. XP is ok, but speed isn't exactly it's strong suit.

Microsoft has made some good products. win98 for example was one of my favorite OS ever. I had a computer running 98 for 8 years without ever turning it off. It was a stable build, and lighter than anything after it. But Vista is "a 30 story building built on a foundation made for a 2 floor house". Like you pretty much said, the OS is only as good as the user, but I feel like microsoft lost their market on this one. It's too complex for your average dell using, myspace browsing teenager, or moms to get their emails on, and I don't think alot of businesses want to spend thier money on new computers that you say can 'run as fast as xp'. If they have XP, why would they upgrade? Bigger is better is a marketing plan that may have worked 10 years ago, but now it's kind of absurd.

And people hating vista because of the stigma, I agree. Not many people can say why they hate vista, but the same is true for linux. Linux is much more than servers or checking mail. It's an exceptionally powerful desktop enviroment. And you can find a build that suits any need. I can't think of any 'basic apps' I can't run on linux, or at least something comparable. Specialty programs on the otherhand, I'll give you that. I'm probably not going to be able to run flexisign on this machine anytime soon. But the security and peace of mind, and the money saved, in my opinion, make gnu/linux the best os around. And I can run it off ram alone if I wanted, without ever touching the hard drive. Now that is lite. The multi-media apps that have been developed are on par with any commercial products, but I think the idea of them not being the name brand scares people. Sadly, people will always pay for excel while gnumeric is free. We're Americans, everyone knows the more cash you put into something, the better it is. If I had the money, I'd put a commercial in the superbowl for Avidemux for the low, low price of 7,000$ and retire some place nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,074 Posts
Actually the key to having a stable machine is buying quality components that don't conflict with one another, if you build your own; or buy from a quality manufacturer who will basically do that for you. The overwhelming majority of instability problems on home built systems are from low quality (or faulty) power supplies. The second most common cause is probably malware followed by hardware and driver conflicts. It still amazes me how many pieces of hardware will not work together reliably even if they are from major manufacturers.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top