apple exec to microsoft. "stop airing your commercials"

[GHOST 2.2]

man.... this is like some crips and blood shit...

anyway PC>mac apple

[Phempa]

the way I see it,

"I'm just not dumb enough to own a Mac."



Apple. Because thinking is too much work.

[owequitit]

Wait, what? I agree with basically all the other things you've said, but I think you're thinking of the wrong operating system here. Millenium Edition was the cruddy one, not 98. 98 did everything that 95 did and more, did it all better, and was more reliable and stable. ME was to 98 what Vista is to XP, but had an even worse reputation, and was more deserving of it. I still have a pc running 98.

98 was terrible. ME was worse. 2000 was not as bad, but was not as good as XP. Vista seems to have declined from XP in terms of solidity. The jury is still out on Windows 7.

I had a well built, compatible machine and 98 did nothing but crash frequently. Every 98 machine I know of was the same way. The term "blue screen of death" didn't come into colloquial use with ME, it started with 98. 98 was also the one that blew the door WIDE open on security issues.

[owequitit]

It's many little things, coupled with just the fact that it works simply.

A ferrari is a premium product, yet a corvette z06 looks better on paper at 1/2 the price. In the market there are premium products, and in my opinion apple has set themselves up in the position as being a premium product.

To name things that I appreciate right off of the top of my head: the charger is magnetically connected, the lid is magnetically latched, the keyboard is backlit, the trackpad is glass, the screen is the thinnest on the market, the computer casings are very thin and sleek, the production of the product is designed to minimize impact on the environment, the hard drive freezes when dropped, and the CD drive is slot loading.

Now I'm not saying NO PC's have these features, but I am saying that PC's at a low end price point typically do not.

If OSX is worth extra money or not, well that's up for debate and very dependent on the user.

Nothing I said was condescending, you simply took it the wrong way. I believe apple markets their product in a premium way. For nearly all products there is at least one company that takes this approach.

See, I guess I am more of a functional, pure guy. To me flexibility, support, availability and free choice mean "premium." By those criteria, Mac is clearly not the premium choice, thus the more expensive choice. Hell, I can't even do what I want with MY property if I am using Apple shit. If I want to transfer MY song, that I paid money for from point A to point B, I have to go through some elaborate method because Jobs and his cronies decided I shouldn't be able to do that, because Apple would be more likely to sell another Mac if the only way I could do it is with a Mac, or through some complex process. To reset the iPod when it freezes, I either have to get on the internet to remember the elaborate button combo to reset it, find the instruction manual, or start pressing things until I remember what it was. My old one, had a reset button, just in case you needed it.

It isn't like a BMW or a Ferrari that is offering something that justifies the price in most cases. It is a tool that crunches numbers just the same. The symbology and methodology is slightly different, but the task is the same. Unless you are in one of several very specialized areas, the Mac isn't tangibly better or much easier to use.

We have already talked about the environmentally friendly part. Show me where Mac is actually more environmentally friendly, and not just advertising that, trying to use it as some selling point.

[ilovemycb7]

See, I guess I am more of a functional, pure guy. To me flexibility, support, availability and free choice mean "premium." By those criteria, Mac is clearly not the premium choice, thus the more expensive choice. Hell, I can't even do what I want with MY property if I am using Apple shit. If I want to transfer MY song, that I paid money for from point A to point B, I have to go through some elaborate method because Jobs and his cronies decided I shouldn't be able to do that, because Apple would be more likely to sell another Mac if the only way I could do it is with a Mac, or through some complex process. To reset the iPod when it freezes, I either have to get on the internet to remember the elaborate button combo to reset it, find the instruction manual, or start pressing things until I remember what it was. My old one, had a reset button, just in case you needed it.

It isn't like a BMW or a Ferrari that is offering something that justifies the price in most cases. It is a tool that crunches numbers just the same. The symbology and methodology is slightly different, but the task is the same. Unless you are in one of several very specialized areas, the Mac isn't tangibly better or much easier to use.

We have already talked about the environmentally friendly part. Show me where Mac is actually more environmentally friendly, and not just advertising that, trying to use it as some selling point.

http://www.justachemblog.net/?p=594&cpage=1

Again, this is not something I particularly care about, but a marketing technique which seems to be quite common today, and often people will pay more for. (prius )

The song argument is weak in my opinion. Downloading with or with out iTunes is the same on a PC or a Mac. Music encoding is an entirely different debate. It's not hard to do anything I want with my music as long as they are in mp3 format. To reset your iPod you push and hold the center+menu buttons? Is that really hard?

It's the details in the Mac that make it seem premium to me.

If you're more of a "functional, pure guy" I see no reason you wouldn't enjoy the Mac. It functions with out headache and is simple enough. Sure a mac isn't as flexible because you can't build your own. But for those who want to buy a prebuilt computer please enlighten to me as how a Mac has less customer support or availability than a PC. I'd also like to know what freedoms people frequently use that a Mac doesn't support. (gaming wins in the PC world and has been said)

To me the Mac does offer nice little touches that I love. The things I listed in my above post. It's like getting a car into a magazine, the little touches all come together to make a nice finished product. Are spoon reservoir covers really necessary? No, but they sure do make the engine bay pop. Is the battery indicator light on the side of my computer necessary? No, but it sure is nice.

If you want to look only at crunching numbers then the Mac looses based on price. However, the computer experience is far greater than that for me.

Oh, and Ferrari's + Porsche's are obviously marked up for their names as well. So you pay some for extra features and you pay some for the name. In my mind, it's similar with a Mac.

[ilovemycb7]

See what I started HA HA HA

That's what I was talking about. Just because you paid more doesn't make it better.

I.E. You can go to the mall and pay $50 for a pair of jeans, I can go to an outlet store and find one of the same quality and style and pay $20...the only real difference...mine won't have the $50 jeans logo and isn't made at their production line. Still the same quality and style...so why is the $50 pair better? JUST because it cost more and has the logo? Same with macs...they are just a computer, same inner workings...just costs more.

I will build my next computer (built my last one)...I will customize it myself to be nearly top of the line. With a laptop and pay almost 1/2 the price of a base model mac, or if I do a desktop I will pay 1/3 the price of a mac.

In truth macs aren't better, they are overpriced...they aren't better with media...they just have a different approach...some like it some don't

On both I will say neither is "better" than the other in terms of usability. Personally I can't stand the way the Macs os is set up...but that doesn't make it a bad product. Some folks just like macs...that's fine...I have no problem with that...you like it, and for you it is better. No one is arguing that point. It's the other thing you said...and...every other mac fan...




Don't tell me the mac is better because you paid more for it...and try to act as if that entails it is better in other ways...it isn't. Especially when my 1/2-1/3 priced custom built computer has more memory, bigger hard drive, faster cpu, better graphics card, AND I can upgrade things as time passes to keep it up to date.

That is the point of discontent...you personally like it...fine...just don't act like something is better simply because you pay more...you don't "pay to play" if you are paying more for nothing extra.

Building a computer is entirely irrelevant in the comparison. Sure a PC is better for you because you enjoy building it, I'll give you that. However, a complete product will come at a higher price because it has already been put together by someone else. I'll bet your computer will come out way ahead of PC's too, or you wouldn't be building it.

150 dollar jeans offer something that 20 dollar jeans don't. Attention to detail. For those who are truly interested in fashion they can spot the 20 dollar pants right away. But, I don't think that a computer can be compared to Jean's. A computer does a lot more than a pair of jeans. The idea of a premium product does stand though, and I think it's likely apple's are marked up a little because of their name. I also think they offer a feel that's equal to their price. To me, holding a product gives a certain feel. When I hold my Blackberry it feels cheap. (it wasn't.) When I held my iPhone it felt like it was worth the $250 I paid for it. (used)

I've covered what I think my MacBook offers extra.

[LinX]

Desktop wise I'll agree.

Laptops are a different story. Depends on your priorities. (size, performance, graphics, screen, etc)

they aren't a different story. We all know desktops are exceedingly cheaper than laptops regardless of whether you choose a PC or Mac. However, PC laptops are still considerably less than their mac counterparts. This makes total sense especially when you consider the fact that there are PC laptops out there that you can purchase for a couple hundred bucks brand new. They are progressively getting cheaper as the more expensive ones focus on bleeding edge technology while the cheaper ones are decent machines that utilize "old technology".

I seriously think Apple execs are out to create a "peculiar" culture in which paying premium prices gets you into an more elitist group of computer users. That's just bullshit IMO.

[lil_dcb7]

macs will never really "Win". The majority of business' infrastructure is already based on Windows. It would be WAY too expensive to switch over to -shudder- macs.

PC's are just superior. Not in every way. But in most ways. I HATE how Macs MAKE you to buy their shit. If you want the mac os, you HAVE to buy a MAC laptop or desktop. Thats not the way with PC's. I, personally hate HP. No real reason.. I just don't like them. But because I dont like them, I can go out and buy a dell. Or a toshiba... Or a samsung.. OR an acer.. OH or a Fujitsu.. -snap- theres also IBM? Meh.. but those can be kinda pricey.. Oh! Asus!

Wait, I can just build my own damn computer!

You DON'T have that kinda variety with Mac. Thats what the whole PC commercials are based on.

I completely agree with Scott. I built my last computer five years ago. I had a P4 HT(3.4ghz OC'd to 3.8ish) with a gig of ram and a 200GB HD. I used it for school and film making. I used sony vegas. It worked perfectly up until the power supply shitted itself FIVE YEARS LATER. It would have STILL been perfect if that didnt happen. Show me macs from five years ago. They are USELESS. Everything else still worked on my PC. Bought an additional stick of ram, KEPT the hard drive, a new case and Power supply for forty bucks, a new MOBO and new processor for a hundred fifty bucks and I had a brand new computer. All in all, i spent no more than three hundred dollars. And when i first built my computer FIVE years ago. It cost me eight hundred dollars. SO. In the span of FIVE YEARS. I've spent a little less than 1100 dollars for a great computer. I dont think i could buy ANY mac for less than that.

PS. and I HATE the creative argument on the mac side. you DO NOT need a fucking Macintosh to be a photographer. To make movies. To be creative. I personally thing that if you NEED a mac to be creative. You aren't very creative. Macs are like fast food in the media industry. import your photos from your Nikon Dsomethingorother or your Canon Rebel Xsomething, hit that "fix" button in lightroom. and Viola! Something you couldnt adjust on your camera is fixed in the software.

A Photographer of 20 years told me best. "If you can't get the picture perfect on the camera, then your not a photographer."

They didnt have Macs fifteen.. twenty years ago.. Did they?

[ilovemycb7]

macs will never really "Win". The majority of business' infrastructure is already based on Windows. It would be WAY too expensive to switch over to -shudder- macs.

PC's are just superior. Not in every way. But in most ways. I HATE how Macs MAKE you to buy their shit. If you want the mac os, you HAVE to buy a MAC laptop or desktop. Thats not the way with PC's. I, personally hate HP. No real reason.. I just don't like them. But because I dont like them, I can go out and buy a dell. Or a toshiba... Or a samsung.. OR an acer.. OH or a Fujitsu.. -snap- theres also IBM? Meh.. but those can be kinda pricey.. Oh! Asus!

Wait, I can just build my own damn computer!

You DON'T have that kinda variety with Mac. Thats what the whole PC commercials are based on.

I completely agree with Scott. I built my last computer five years ago. I had a P4 HT(3.4ghz OC'd to 3.8ish) with a gig of ram and a 200GB HD. I used it for school and film making. I used sony vegas. It worked perfectly up until the power supply shitted itself FIVE YEARS LATER. It would have STILL been perfect if that didnt happen. Show me macs from five years ago. They are USELESS. Everything else still worked on my PC. Bought an additional stick of ram, KEPT the hard drive, a new case and Power supply for forty bucks, a new MOBO and new processor for a hundred fifty bucks and I had a brand new computer. All in all, i spent no more than three hundred dollars. And when i first built my computer FIVE years ago. It cost me eight hundred dollars. SO. In the span of FIVE YEARS. I've spent a little less than 1100 dollars for a great computer. I dont think i could buy ANY mac for less than that.

PS. and I HATE the creative argument on the mac side. you DO NOT need a fucking Macintosh to be a photographer. To make movies. To be creative. I personally thing that if you NEED a mac to be creative. You aren't very creative. Macs are like fast food in the media industry. import your photos from your Nikon Dsomethingorother or your Canon Rebel Xsomething, hit that "fix" button in lightroom. and Viola! Something you couldnt adjust on your camera is fixed in the software.

A Photographer of 20 years told me best. "If you can't get the picture perfect on the camera, then your not a photographer."

They didnt have Macs fifteen.. twenty years ago.. Did they?

Building a computer is great and all. Just not necessarily for everyone. It's not a bad way to go, and if I did it I'd probably run OSX and Windows for fun. Both have their benefits, and yes Mac's will never "win." But they aren't pieces of shit, and they are more expensive but they offer a high end feel in my opinion.

I agree, you don't need a Mac to be a photographer or media person. They help to make life work easily for those people, but they aren't necessary.

I'm not sure why you even delved into post processing at all though, that's completely irrelevant. But while you're on the topic, there are many different styles of photography. Out of cam is awesome, and Chris (J-spec) does this really well. I'd probably say MOST great photographer shoot pretty much out of cam. Perhaps with a little editing. But don't tell me 20 years ago they didn't have a darkroom where they altered their pictures. Plus photography has evolved and changed to allow people to do things they could not do before, nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day a photographer tries to make an image that captures whatever it is they were trying to capture. If editing works in their favor to make that image more interesting then so be it. Photographers do touch up their pictures, it's just how it is. And how it was in the darkroom as well.

[owequitit]

http://www.justachemblog.net/?p=594&cpage=1

Again, this is not something I particularly care about, but a marketing technique which seems to be quite common today, and often people will pay more for. (prius )

Thank you for the link. I will see if it is substantiated or countered on the PC side.

The song argument is weak in my opinion. Downloading with or with out iTunes is the same on a PC or a Mac. Music encoding is an entirely different debate. It's not hard to do anything I want with my music as long as they are in mp3 format. To reset your iPod you push and hold the center+menu buttons? Is that really hard?

I am glad you think its weak. I will remember that when I am beating my head against the wall trying to get encoded songs out of iTunes for use elsewhere and managing my 13,000 MP3's. It is a pain in the ass and it is stupid and needless. Weak or not, I paid a lot of good money for a product that should work for me NOT the other way around. I am king ding-a-ling in my iPod's world, not the other way around. And to think, that is the most universally friendly and easy to use Apple product on the market. Even they will tell you that. What do I have to look foward to with their other stuff?

Apple does it because they think they can. It isn't the format, it is APPLE, and iTunes, because I can do whatever the fuck I want with MY MP3 files in ANY other software but iTunes. There is even a whole little cult of software that allows you to run an iPod without dealing with the iTunes bullshit.

Functionally, most PC based jukeboxes can use any number of programs of MY choosing to store and manage songs, but not Apple. No. I have to use their software, their way, as they see fit, even though I paid a lot of money for both the device and MY MP3's. Like Phempa said, it is a case of Apple thinking you couldn't possibly be smart enough to know what you want to do with YOUR shit. It is not "premium." It had a premium price attached to it, but that is about it.

In other regards, it is an excercise in frustration, bullshit, time wasting and environmental carnage, because in order to get them out of iTunes so I can use them on something other than my iPod, I have to burn it to a CD, and then retransfer it to the place that I want. Not Apple. Me. I can't even get them off my iPod if I want because Apple encodes everything with discreet numbers and letters so you don't know what the fuck you are looking at. If I want to transfer my songs from one of MY computers to MY other computer, I have to empty it (which then fucks up iTunes, because the iPod HAS to be "synced" to iTunes, and can only be slaved to 1 iTunes), and then load everything in mass storage format, which precludes using it. Forget about copying all the shit around using iTunes, even if it is one of your 3 machines, because they won't do it. That way, I could have mirror images of everything on every computer, so I can do what I want, when I want, and always have backups. Why the hell would I want that?

Do you have any idea how long it takes to digitize 13,000 songs? Multiple backups are a lifesaver.

Does that sound easy and convenient to you? Do you know what I did with my 2000 technology Creative Labs Nomad? I plugged it in to a USB port, told it where I wanted the music to go or come from, and it was done. Simple as that. If I wanted to move them around, transfer them, store them whatever, didn't matter. It did exactly as I told it, with no fuss, no fighting, and no bullshit. EVER.

To top it off, the iPod has comparatively shitty sound quality. I had to buy an extra set of earbuds just to get decent sound out of it, because the ones that came with it at $300 were crap. The Creative sounded better out of the box, and it had a discreet frequency EQ to top it off. Apple gives me presets. It better be as bulletproof as my Creative was, since that is apparently all I paid for.

And no, remembering which buttons to push isn't that hard. But you know what? It is sure is more BS then just pushing a reset button. Not to mention that my "stable" Apple product has frozen on me more in the first 10 months than my Jukebox did in the first 3 or 4 years.

Do you know why I bought my iPod? Because my sister spoke so highly of Apple products, I figured I would give them another try after what, like 18 years? I figured, "well, lots of people are buying them, and seem to like them, so they must be onto something." That and it was the ONLY thing available on the market that would hold everything, because 120GB wasn't quite enough. The other thing that sold me on the deal was the widespread iPod support with aftermarket decks, docking stations, etc. I could interface directly with the Alpine in my Accord, as long as it was an iPod. So I took the plunge. And don't get me wrong, the actual iPod itself, I have VERY few complaints about. It has crashed a little more than expected (must be an Alpine thing, because it hasn't done it once in my Civic), it is easy to get through the stuff stored on it, and once you get the playlist thing and the sound thing figured out, I just play and go. But I will be damned if iTunes doesn't erase any ease of use advantage the iPod itself has.

In the end, it occurs to me that the iPod was a fashion trend, just like the iMac. Wasn't really anything way more capable, it was just the brand name to have. My relationship with MY personal first Apple product is VERY bittersweet. Not until I try one and have no such issues am I willing to spend anywhere near $3K for one. I have a very bittersweet relationship with my PC's too, but you know what, my laptop was less than 1/3 of the price, and so far, it does everything I need it to do just as well.

If I want "premium" I will go spend it on the $800 Active Noise Cancelling, Lightspeed Zulu, bluetooth compatible aviation headset. I don't see the need to spend $1600-3,000 on my laptop when the $800 one gives me less frustration and does more.

It's the details in the Mac that make it seem premium to me.

Yeah, with details like that littered all over Macland, I can see why it would be premium. I mean hell, look at all those extra features I just described. Apple products are great if you do A) graphics or editing or B) you live within this extremely narrow set of variables that Apple has determined you SHOULD be within. But God forbid you think freely and step just a little outside those bounds that Apple designed to keep you safe, because Jesus Christ, you are fucked.

I just don't understand how less product for more money is "premium," and I don't understand how having to fight with the product that I paid more money for is premium. I guess I just don't fit that narrow set of criteria Apple thinks I should.

[owequitit]

If you're more of a "functional, pure guy" I see no reason you wouldn't enjoy the Mac. It functions with out headache and is simple enough. Sure a mac isn't as flexible because you can't build your own. But for those who want to buy a prebuilt computer please enlighten to me as how a Mac has less customer support or availability than a PC. I'd also like to know what freedoms people frequently use that a Mac doesn't support. (gaming wins in the PC world and has been said)

Based on the stuff already mentioned, I don't evaluate that as "functional" or "pure." Pure is my shit being obedient to me, without having to "figure it out." Intuitive might be a better word.

For one, I have always been a big flight simmer. PC based, requires lots of computing power, and often, depending what you want to add onto it, additional hardware upgrades from time to time.

While Mac is good for graphics and editing, I happen to know for a fact that at least in the editing world there are several high end PC based solutions that work just as well, even if they aren't as common. On really high end shit you get into SGI anyway.

Programming, publishing, web design, etc all tend to be done on PC, at least by the professionals that I know.

CAD/CAM and engineering type functions seem to be done on there as well, predominantly. CFD and such things, when not being done on a supercomputer. The aerospace industry functions are generally PC based.

I personally like finance and business. While I can do speadsheets and databases on Mac, Office is the standard. Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Access etc are all standard, familiar, available and pretty easy to use. I also can go to what like 85% of all computers and not worry about whether or not it will work correctly. Yeah, I think Apple allows me to convert back and forth, but ultimately, that is just one or two more steps in a process that don't need to be there.

The other thing that I like about PC. If I need software, I can either find it at a bix box retailer with minimal effort, or I can find a website in less than 30 seconds. Same with hardware or any other PC based need. I don't have to scour for it and hope that Best Buy has it on their little 3 shelf display. That is better than it was, but it still sucks.

Oh, and that was another thing I forgot to mention. BB has 1 isle of drives and memory, all PC formatted, one isle of sound and graphics cards, and 1 isle of miscellaneous stuff that may or may not be interchangeable. Including the actual computers, the PC section is literally 4-5 times as large. Apple has a little display table with 6 or 7 computers and about 1/4 of one side of one isle for other mac hardware and such.

[quote]To me the Mac does offer nice little touches that I love. The things I listed in my above post. It's like getting a car into a magazine, the little touches all come together to make a nice finished product. Are spoon reservoir covers really necessary? No, but they sure do make the engine bay pop. Is the battery indicator light on the side of my computer necessary? No, but it sure is nice. [quote]

I just don't see how a magnetic plug, a blinking sleep light, or chassis offsets all of the things I mentioned. Oh and about the magnetic plug, ever accidentally bumped the chord and it came unplugged? Yeah, happend to me, a lot. Oh, and my laptop also has a blinking sleep light, but it is small, and amber, so it doesn't keep me up at night, but accomplishes the same mission.

If you want to look only at crunching numbers then the Mac looses based on price. However, the computer experience is far greater than that for me.

Oh, and Ferrari's + Porsche's are obviously marked up for their names as well. So you pay some for extra features and you pay some for the name. In my mind, it's similar with a Mac.

Yep, but the Ferraris and Porsches deliver what the customer wants, not the other way around. In some ways, like Mac, they don't try to be everything to everyone, but unlike Mac, they don't think they know what is best for you.

Other than the aformentioned 2 areas, the Mac is like the 323i with fake leather, an auto tranny and no sport package. If people want to pay a lot of money to pretend they are "premium," go for it. I have shit to do.

[ilovemycb7]

It's hard to defend the Mac when it has so many weaknesses. I know they are all here I'm just trying to defend a product I love. I know it's expensive, I'll pay (or watch my parents pay) because I love the feel and look of the product.

The iTunes argument is understandable. But irrelevant in a Mac vs PC debate. iTunes is used on PC's and Mac's. And you can download with other programs on both platforms as well. Apple preloads their computers with software I really enjoy. Unlike Windows computers which come with windows media player, something I'm not used to and don't have the desire to learn, as I love iTunes. But the point is, you can choose which software you want on either computer. It just might not be as obvious on a Mac.

iPods have their issues, yet somehow have managed to take over. I love them for their size. (much thinner and lighter than any other HD music player a couple years back when I got mine) A size that is noticeable in my pants pocket. However, lots of small flash based players have popped up I'm sure, but the ability to dock everywhere is so nice. And again, I love the look and feel of the iPod and am willing to pay something for that.

Office for mac has been out for a long time now... so excel and word can be used in their normal ways. No argument there.

I'm sure the business side of things is better on a PC. And again, if you really are switching hardware around then again, a Mac isn't for you.

I see where you're coming from. And a Mac doesn't fit your needs. But for a lot of people it does, and you pay some for the name but you also pay some for extra features that would cost almost as much in a PC laptop. The high end "premium" sony laptops are over priced as well. The difference is you can choose something else so no one bitches. With apple, they don't give you other choices in models. High end or nothing. They are expensive, but for the people they work for they are great.

I hope they don't keep growing, it is, as you've mentioned, hurting their software and quality. It's nice that they are interchangeable, but for me everything I need is already interchangeable. (networking, printing, MS office) I'd love them to plateau and keep themselves less open to virus's and breakdowns.

And since when was less luggage space, worse gas mileage, and a harsher ride more premium? Since you stepped into a porsche.

If it's what you're looking for then it's worth the price.

Since you're not looking for a really sleek computer with extra gadget that you don't need a Mac isn't for you. I love how good everything looks, and how the OS blends in with the frame etc. It's ridiculous, but It's worth it to me.

Unlike a lot of Mac users I run into I'm pretty aware of why I like mine. And why I paid more. For those that just get them because all other college kids are, well shame on them.

[lil_dcb7]

I'm not sure why you even delved into post processing at all though, that's completely irrelevant. But while you're on the topic, there are many different styles of photography. Out of cam is awesome, and Chris (J-spec) does this really well. I'd probably say MOST great photographer shoot pretty much out of cam. Perhaps with a little editing. But don't tell me 20 years ago they didn't have a darkroom where they altered their pictures. Plus photography has evolved and changed to allow people to do things they could not do before, nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day a photographer tries to make an image that captures whatever it is they were trying to capture. If editing works in their favor to make that image more interesting then so be it. Photographers do touch up their pictures, it's just how it is. And how it was in the darkroom as well.

I'm not going to carry on after this because there are two different discussions going on at this time. But i think the dark room DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN to compare to pressing a button. You've used that light room or whatever its called, right? where you just click a button and the image is fixed within a second? Using a darkroom is NOT that simple. I've never physically developed film in a dark room myself.. But I'm SURE its not an easy task. I'm not sure you can adjust the exposure, white balance, etc when in a dark room. I know there are some things you can do.. but nothing like what you can do today.

I'm not saying its bad to use software in media arts. You just DON'T need a mac to shine in the field. Making the arguments that "mac is superior for multimedia" completely idiotic.

Mac, PC.. Photoshop is on both.

and final cut pro? LMFAO. That is NOT the best video editing software. Once you learn premier(which is on PC btw) you can use anything.

You're not limited by what you have. You are only limited by your creativity.

[ilovemycb7]

I'm not going to carry on after this because there are two different discussions going on at this time. But i think the dark room DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN to compare to pressing a button. You've used that light room or whatever its called, right? where you just click a button and the image is fixed within a second? Using a darkroom is NOT that simple. I've never physically developed film in a dark room myself.. But I'm SURE its not an easy task. I'm not sure you can adjust the exposure, white balance, etc when in a dark room. I know there are some things you can do.. but nothing like what you can do today.

I'm not saying its bad to use software in media arts. You just DON'T need a mac to shine in the field. Making the arguments that "mac is superior for multimedia" completely idiotic.

Mac, PC.. Photoshop is on both.

and final cut pro? LMFAO. That is NOT the best video editing software. Once you learn premier(which is on PC btw) you can use anything.

You're not limited by what you have. You are only limited by your creativity.

In no intrest to extend this debate I'd just like to say that I agree with you on many points.

No, I have not used lightroom. But like the darkroom, good editing on the computer takes some skill. Pushing that one button... that's not developing you're own style. Good photogs have their own style. (not me, I suck at editing) Sure you can do more now, but the art of altering your image isn't new. You could do a lot with layers and colors in the darkroom, and of course lightening and darkening.

Yes you can be creative on either platform. Completely agree.

[J-specCb4]

I'm not going to carry on after this because there are two different discussions going on at this time. But i think the dark room DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN to compare to pressing a button. You've used that light room or whatever its called, right? where you just click a button and the image is fixed within a second? Using a darkroom is NOT that simple. I've never physically developed film in a dark room myself.. But I'm SURE its not an easy task. I'm not sure you can adjust the exposure, white balance, etc when in a dark room. I know there are some things you can do.. but nothing like what you can do today.

I'm not saying its bad to use software in media arts. You just DON'T need a mac to shine in the field. Making the arguments that "mac is superior for multimedia" completely idiotic.

Mac, PC.. Photoshop is on both.

and final cut pro? LMFAO. That is NOT the best video editing software. Once you learn premier(which is on PC btw) you can use anything.

You're not limited by what you have. You are only limited by your creativity.

actually ive done both, and im gonna go ahead and comment. it doesnt compare, but the reason it doesnt is because its a different artform. doesnt make it any less justified. im so sick of people trying to difscredit people who use photoshop. anyone who dabbles knows what it takes to create something on a computer screen. if ur gonna discredit post production on the computer u may as well discredit all of graphic design at the same time.

and clicking a button to "fix'' a photo will only take u so far... about as far as dropping off a roll of film at a walgreens.

also i have personally spent extensive time in a darkroom both color and black and white. and believe it or not making adjustments isnt all that different from photoshop.

never, EVER believe that the fix it button makes a good photo out of something that wasnt in the first place.

and no using a mac doesnt make u superior in the multimedia field, but ill speak on what i know. i KNOW my macbook OS and lcd quality make my life easier. so why should i think twice about owning one?