[darcybaston]

I'm starting to really like Windows 7, Steam and the gaming opportunities. I've also been using a friend's $600 quad-core Acer and am amazed at the performance at that price point. I want a quad-core, but the most affordable Mac Pro in Canada is $2800 + Tax. $2800 vs. $600, is a BIG difference. My heavy quad-core lifting is more for converting movies here and there, writing music with plugins/softsynths and that sort of thing.

Anyway, if I switch to an affordable PC and live in Win7 world, what can I do with my investment in Mac apps? I have about 10 years worth of stuff I've paid thousands for. Can licenses be re-sold? Take Logic Express for example. That app phones home during registration. So would I have to get Apple involved to transfer the license to somebody who wants to buy the software from me?

What about shareware apps? I have many more of those to consider (Delicious Library 2, Stuffit, MacHesit items etc.)

How would you handle trying to get a return for money spent on apps that you won't be using anymore?

[ibook_steve]

Somebody's been watching "Lauren" buying a cheap PC.

Since you have so much invested in the Mac, why in the world would you want to switch? Sell you're current machine (the MacBook in your sig?) and buy a high-end iMac instead of the Mac Pro, if you can't afford it. Boot into Boot Camp for your gaming fix, and you're good to go.

There is so much value built into a Mac, I don't see how anybody could switch in the opposite direction. What do you get for $600 other than a computer that is not as easy to use and won't last as long, along with a bunch of headaches?

Steve

[darcybaston]

Oh, I've had PCs in my life since the 80s (and Macs, and Amigas, and Linux PCs). I know the headaches of each. However: PC@$600 = Quad core for 5x less than $2800, want to upgrade my own video card, etc. I have many more reasons. If Apple had a quad core tower that was thousands less, I'd buy that instead, believe me! I don't need i7 Xeon tech though. An AMD X4 at 2.2GHz per core is plenty. Windows 7 is surprisingly good, even for a beta. I've spent a couple months in it and I'm quite comfortable.

I have an intel GMA 945 Macbook. It's horrible for gaming.

iMac doesn't interest me (anymore, used to have a DV SE 400mhz). It's dual core, and an all-in-one device. I had that with the Macbook, and I'm moving away from that experience. I also won't buy a glass/shiny display ever again. My iBook was matted and I loved it. I used it through 3 keyboards, many cracks taped up etc. I just wouldn't give it up. But to get past the Macbook's shininess, I'm avoiding being mobile just so I can use my Samsung 26" matted LCD/TV. The 3GHz iMac would be a good substitute for the speed I'm looking for even as a dual core, but it's $2500+ in Canada, glassy, etc.

As far as $600 not equalling value and creating headaches, I'll say that I've never had a PC die on me. I've never had a Mac die on me either (bless you Apple for the sturdy MacSE I'm still enjoying!). I had a 3 year old eMachine that never had a hiccup (it's now a student's workstation, and has been for 2 more years problem free). So in my bad-experience virginity, I don't feel any concerns. But as a worst case scenario, if 3 of the 5 computers that fit into $2800 died, I'm still saving $1200. And each time one dies, I get something new, faster, better DDR memory etc.

So, about reselling software licenses, any experience with that?

[mduell]

Sell the expensive stuff (Logic, anything Adobe, etc) and don't worry about all the $30 stuff.
I don't see going with a Phenom though... they just don't make much sense. I'd suggest a Q9300 or even Q6600 based system.

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

Since you have so much invested in the Mac, why in the world would you want to switch? Sell you're current machine (the MacBook in your sig?) and buy a high-end iMac instead of the Mac Pro, if you can't afford it.

High-end laptop parts (the iMac) are a far cry from a $600 desktop in terms of CPU/GPU performance and upgradability.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

What do you get for $600 other than a computer that is not as easy to use and won't last as long

Well, if she's into gaming, then what she'll get is a computer that will last way longer than an iMac, since she won't have to chuck the whole thing the first time she wants to upgrade the GPU.

[Chuckit]

If she gives a crap about the GPU, why is she considering a $600 PC? Dell, for example, doesn't even offer a desktop in their "gaming" section for that price.

[CharlesS]

I dunno, I seem to be able to find cheap enough systems that have plenty of slots, including a PCI-E graphics slot in which you can put any GPU you like.

[ibook_steve]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I dunno, I seem to be able to find cheap enough systems that have plenty of slots, including a PCI-E graphics slot in which you can put any GPU you like.

But then it's not a $600 system anymore, is it?

As for the licenses, there's really not much you can do, other than try to sell them.

Steve

[darcybaston]

I'd suggest a Q9300 or even Q6600 based system.

Oh, are those Intel equivalents? Are the AMDs really that bad? They seem to be the more affordable cpus in terms of full-computer purchase price.

Yeah, the $600 price range won't come with a great graphics card. But a 512mb or 1Gig ATI that can play Mass Effect no problem is what...$150? A friend of mine plays it at 1280 wide on an ATI card from two years ago and it's very smooth. Something like that would keep it a sub $1000 configuration, which is really attractive to me right now. (This article is interesting about $500 being enough for gaming: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...y_crysis_40fps)

Thanks for the suggestions with the software licenses. I guess there's only so much I can do with them, and more so with the bigger ticket items. Are people using Toast enough to want to buy one of those licenses do you think?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

But then it's not a $600 system anymore, is it?

Actually, the machine I linked was a $489 system, so if you spend $111 or less on the graphics card, it is still <= $600. If you spend more than that on the GPU, then c'est la vie, but it's still likely to be a lot less than the iMac costs. And I'll admit I don't know much about gaming, but I can't imagine that a Core 2 Quad with a desktop GPU wouldn't outperform an iMac with a laptop Core 2 Duo and a laptop GPU.

Oh, and you'd be able to opt for a top-of-the-line GPU if you wished, without having to worry about constant lockups because the designers were too obsessed with thinness and fan noise to cool the machine properly.

As icing on the cake, I only spent about five minutes finding the machine I linked to. I don't know if it's the best value out there, or even a particularly good value compared to the whole market. There's probably some other deals that are better than that one.

[Big Mac]

You're clearly ill, darcy. Seek treatment immediately.

On the bright side, you could become a laptop hunter and get a free PC.

[Simon]

Darcy, go ahead and build that inexpensive quad-core system. I'd suggest looking at the quad 2.83 GHz Q9550 ($269 shipped at Newegg); it's hardly more expensive than the Q9300. Forget about the Q6x00 Kentsfields; it's older 65nm stuff that runs either hotter and offers less performance (or both). If you're on a really tight budget you could look at the quad 2.33 GHz Q8200 for $165 shipped at Newegg.

But once you get that system ready, keep OS X and your Mac apps. Run them on the PC Hackintosh and save your software investments. Reboot in Win for games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86

It's an inexpensive way to get the best of both worlds and the right sign to show Apple. Non-mobile laptops (Mac mini, iMac) and a high-end workstation >$2500 do not adequately cover the desktop area. The best way to make that clear to them is to buy hardware form companies who are willing to cater to your demands rather than claiming they know what's best for you.

[OreoCookie]

It will be very expensive to switch the OS because of software. Depending on how much software you actually own, the difference can easily equal the cost in hardware (my uncle spent 12 grand in software licenses alone last year; he's an engineer). I reckon that Apple will offer quad core cpus at least as BTO with iMacs and such within the next revision. Also, as strange as it sounds, the most expensive part of the equation is your work.

Have you considered installing OS X on generic PC hardware (which is possible, but you obviously do not get support from Apple)? That sounds as if it is the best of both worlds, no?

[chabig]

You don't have to be stuck with just one computer. Keep your Mac and use it like you do now. Buy the gaming PC for games only.

[darcybaston]

chabig: I had considered that. I could network the PC for media conversion bits and keep the same established productivity on the Macbook. I guess money-wise, I was thinking of selling the Macbook and using that to put towards the tower.

Hackintoshing: how difficult is that? Do you just flash the bios and you're good to go? I know very little about that approach to adding value to a cheap PC. I'll look into it. Maybe it's a better transitional solution than a complete cut like I've been exploring.

You guys have been awesome. Thanks so much for the all the insight!

[msuper69]

You'll be back.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If she gives a crap about the GPU, why is she considering a $600 PC? Dell, for example, doesn't even offer a desktop in their "gaming" section for that price.

Their "gaming" machines are just normal computers that have a few hardware upgrades.

You can get a low-end Studio desktop for $399 with a 2.6GHz Intel C2Duo. Add another $15 for an extra gig of RAM, and maybe $80 for a decent video card (my GeForce 9500GT was like $75 shipped on Newegg), and you've got yourself a perfectly fine gaming machine for under $600. The base machine with a 2.3GHz Quad Core is still only $550.

The cheapest iMac has the mobile GeForce 9400 GPU (which isn't going to be as good for gaming as various PCI-e cards on the market), and it's $1200.

For the specs, Apple's machines are generally quite overpriced. If you want to get into gaming, they're almost entirely useless, since you'll be much better off building your own and getting what you want (with nearly unlimited future expandability). That's just how it is.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by darcybaston 

chabig: I had considered that. I could network the PC for media conversion bits and keep the same established productivity on the Macbook. I guess money-wise, I was thinking of selling the Macbook and using that to put towards the tower.

Hackintoshing: how difficult is that? Do you just flash the bios and you're good to go? I know very little about that approach to adding value to a cheap PC. I'll look into it. Maybe it's a better transitional solution than a complete cut like I've been exploring.

You guys have been awesome. Thanks so much for the all the insight!

It's pretty easy to hackintosh a machine. The current distros available through the expected channels (cough) are already set up to allow you to easily install drivers for a wide variety of hardware.

Just be careful what video card you get and, if you're going to install a wireless card, make sure it's got the right Broadcom chipset - stay away from Atheros and Intel chipsets, as those are a bitch (or entirely impossible) to get working in OS X.

I built a nice machine with great specs for under $500 recently. I'd keep the MacBook if I were you, so you can still keep your foot in the Mac world (and have portability).

Also, WRT AMDs: the C2Duo technology is more efficient and advanced than what AMD has to offer. However, for the kind of stuff you'll use a machine for, as a typical consumer and gamer, I don't think you're going to notice enough of a performance boost to justify the added cost. Just go with whatever fits your budget.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Their "gaming" machines are just normal computers that have a few hardware upgrades.

You can get a low-end Studio desktop for $399 with a 2.6GHz Intel C2Duo. Add another $15 for an extra gig of RAM, and maybe $80 for a decent video card (my GeForce 9500GT was like $75 shipped on Newegg), and you've got yourself a perfectly fine gaming machine for under $600. The base machine with a 2.3GHz Quad Core is still only $550.

The cheapest iMac has the mobile GeForce 9400 GPU (which isn't going to be as good for gaming as various PCI-e cards on the market), and it's $1200.

For the specs, Apple's machines are generally quite overpriced. If you want to get into gaming, they're almost entirely useless, since you'll be much better off building your own and getting what you want (with nearly unlimited future expandability). That's just how it is.

Oh, so no longer are we talking about a $600 computer, but a custom computer that you have to build yourself. I'm not sure that's apples to apples.

[olePigeon]

Why don't you keep your Mac and the investment you've made into it, save up some money for a few months, then buy the $600 gaming PC.

You would have protected your investment in your Mac and you'll have a second computer for gaming.

[olePigeon]

I thought I'd mention that if you plan on ever doing any Photoshop or video editing, you're going to regret every second that it's not on a Mac.

[Simon]

A hackintosh is a Mac. It just happens to be a Mac that precisely resembles the specs you want rather than what Apple forces upon segments they don't chose to cater to (read gamer PC).

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh, so no longer are we talking about a $600 computer, but a custom computer that you have to build yourself. I'm not sure that's apples to apples.

Thanks for misreading what I wrote.

Buying a computer and adding a better video card to it isn't really a "custome computer". You can get a machine from Dell for $400. You can then put whatever video card you want in it. If you can afford a $300 video card, then you can get one. If you can only afford a $70 video card, it's still going to be better (and cheaper) than what's offered in the build-to-order options, and it's definitely going to be better than what's available in the iMacs.

I have to say, it's actually kind of refreshing to hear from Mac fans who are able to recognize that a very limited hardware set is not always the optimal situation for all customers and scenarios. The simple fact is, if you want to play top-end 3D video games, you're not going to be doing it on a Mac. The only Mac hardware that could meet your spec demands for gaming is the Mac Pro, which is insanely overpriced for what it is.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I thought I'd mention that if you plan on ever doing any Photoshop or video editing, you're going to regret every second that it's not on a Mac.

Why?

I hate trying to use Photoshop on my Mac. It's infinitely easier in Windows. What about Photoshop in OS X makes it so much better than in Windows?

[angelmb]

Oh, so no longer are we talking about a $600 computer, but a custom computer that you have to build yourself. I'm not sure that's apples to apples.

Add a Windows 7 license to it. How much is it going to be??

Why is a better option to ditch the Mac to get a PC instead of getting a gaming system be it the PS3, the XB360 or the Wii while keeping the Mac??

I hate trying to use Photoshop on my Mac. It's infinitely easier in Windows. What about Photoshop in OS X makes it so much better than in Windows?

Well, the app itself (ugly and busy UI, inconsistent keyboard shortcuts, inconsistent tool behavior between Adobe apps…) is the same atrocity on both sides.

I don't think I would sell the apps… to own legit apps talk wonders about you, and software may be useful in the near future, see how Adobe was offering a new policy upgrade to CS4 given its poor sales letting you to upgrade even from old Macromedia Studio… Heck, I still have the damn Windows 95 I got the day it was released. Got me schooled on what compulsive buying is. LOL.

[darcybaston]

I once spent two years doing graphic design and publishing on PCs, and the Adobe apps worked great. I got tons done and didn't feel like their being Windows versions held me back at all.

I have a PS3, but there's a different gameplay experience when you can mouse your way around an RTS, so I like to have both available. But more to your point, the PS3 was purchased when I discovered how bad the GMA945 chipset was for gaming.

Thanks to the wonderful feedback, I'm inclined to keep the Macbook and just add a PC tower for the other things I want to do. That way I win either way. Then should the Macbook start failing years down the road, I'll have a backup platform. I've had some nasty experiences on Win7, because an OS is an OS and they all have their quirks. When iTunes was downloading an album, it started sucking up 100% of both cores on the Macbook and Win7 came to a "help, I can't multitask and can't tell the kernel to not give iTunes everything it's got" productivity halt.

@angelmb I'm not so much interested in building one, but getting one in a retail outlet already made, adding a better graphics card, and using whatever OS is already on it. I hope to wait until Win7 is that default OS before purchasing.

I'm very grateful for this discussion. I've learned tons, and like it's been said, it IS very refreshing!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Add a Windows 7 license to it. How much is it going to be??

Well, it's a Dell, so it's probably going to come with a Windows license, so that's going to be $0.00.

It won't be Windows 7, but that's because... Windows 7 isn't out yet. Similarly, a new Mac won't come with Snow Leopard, and you'll probably have to pay extra to get SL once it's released. I'm not sure what's surprising about this.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Simon 

A hackintosh is a Mac. It just happens to be a Mac that precisely resembles the specs you want rather than what Apple forces upon segments they don't chose to cater to (read gamer PC).

Why would Apple make a "gamer PC" when people are just going to play games in Windows?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Why would Apple make a "gamer PC" when people are just going to play games in Windows?

You have mixed up cause and effect. A lot of games come to the Mac either late or not at all because the Mac as a gaming platform sucks. Who says that if the Mac were better suited for gaming there wouldn't be more native games? The PS3 and Wii certainly didn't have any problems attracting game developers.

But the point I was trying to make was actually another one and not restricted to gamer PCs. Apple choses to cater to only a few select markets. If what you want to do is outside of their scope, you can either have them force an unsuitable box down your throat or you can build your own hackintosh. If enough people build a certain type of hackintosh so that Apple sees there is a market there they will consider getting into it (assuming it's profitable). If those same people however only complain on a forum and then set out to buy just another Mac Apple will have no reason to change its behavior. Hence when people come here and complain that Apple isn't catering to their needs I usually suggest they set out and try to BYO the right box for their needs.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by darcybaston 

I'm not so much interested in building one, but getting one in a retail outlet already made, adding a better graphics card, and using whatever OS is already on it. I hope to wait until Win7 is that default OS before purchasing.

Sure you can do. But be aware that if getting the best performance to Dollar ratio is what you're after you will always be better off building your own. Even if you take a company like Dell and you match their specs with components from a place like Newegg you will usually end up paying far less. For the same money you can buy better components. And on top of that you will have learned something and built your very own computer.

Of course if you're more into convenience a ready made box is more suitable. But there's a price to pay and you should be aware of that.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Hence when people come here and complain that Apple isn't catering to their needs I usually suggest they set out and try to BYO the right box for their needs.

I'm not sure I have enough technical proficiency to successfully build a stable Hackintosh, but I suppose I could just sell the box or its components if I couldn't get OS X working to my satisfaction. But Windows 7 really doesn't interest me at all at this point. Windows is at best a necessary evil when I need software I can't run in OS X. My workflow is so terrifically constrained and hampered in Windows compared to OS X that I have to question the competency of anyone who finds the opposite to be true.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Why?

I hate trying to use Photoshop on my Mac. It's infinitely easier in Windows. What about Photoshop in OS X makes it so much better than in Windows?

That's unsurprising since you generally seem to prefer Windows. I don't think it really reflects on Photoshop's ease of use.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

You have mixed up cause and effect. A lot of games come to the Mac either late or not at all because the Mac as a gaming platform sucks. Who says that if the Mac were better suited for gaming there wouldn't be more native games? The PS3 and Wii certainly didn't have any problems attracting game developers.

But the point I was trying to make was actually another one and not restricted to gamer PCs. Apple choses to cater to only a few select markets. If what you want to do is outside of their scope, you can either have them force an unsuitable box down your throat or you can build your own hackintosh. If enough people build a certain type of hackintosh so that Apple sees there is a market there they will consider getting into it (assuming it's profitable). If those same people however only complain on a forum and then set out to buy just another Mac Apple will have no reason to change its behavior. Hence when people come here and complain that Apple isn't catering to their needs I usually suggest they set out and try to BYO the right box for their needs.

Yeah, except you can never upgrade your OS and the networking and sound won't work without spending a ****ing year trying to get the config right. I'd just install Linux if I wanted a system that only half-works. Or have they finally got all that stuff working for mere mortals?

[Big Mac]

Yeah, you're a bit behind the OSx86 news curve. If you choose well supported hardware, you can now use the Boot-132 boot loader that allows for the preloading of essential kexts, followed by the installation of an unmodified, retail copy of OS X that can be updated normally with Software Update. It's still not yet a one-click process to get the OS installed initially, but with the utilities people are releasing (all the work of project leaders, Netkas, Weaksauce12 and Zef it seems) its seemingly getting quite user friendly (assuming you find the right hardware).

[Chuckit]

Is the "right hardware" an extremely small set? You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical, but people keep telling me, "Oh yeah, now it works fine." But then when I go to get specifics on it, the answers always seem to turn into, "Well, I tried this hardware, and it kinda worked. I hear if you use this installer followed by that installer and install this extra stuff, you have an even chance of having a functioning computer at the end of it. Oh, but make sure you don't also have this other hardware or it will eat your children."

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's unsurprising since you generally seem to prefer Windows. I don't think it really reflects on Photoshop's ease of use.

No, I really do want to know why people think that Photoshop is so much easier on a Mac. There aren't enough differences between the two for me to believe that it's that much better on a Mac.

The biggest (and possibly only) reason I like it so much more on Windows is because Windows uses the parent/child window model. I very much dislike OS X's method of having windows floating with no parent container window. I don't need or want to see my IM and browser windows behind whatever I'm working on in Photoshop - I much prefer the neutral gray background of a parent window.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is the "right hardware" an extremely small set? You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical, but people keep telling me, "Oh yeah, now it works fine." But then when I go to get specifics on it, the answers always seem to turn into, "Well, I tried this hardware, and it kinda worked. I hear if you use this installer followed by that installer and install this extra stuff, you have an even chance of having a functioning computer at the end of it. Oh, but make sure you don't also have this other hardware or it will eat your children."

Not anymore. Hackintoshing has gotten a lot easier, and a good range of hardware is supported. Most people who want to get into hackintoshing for their main PC just build a new one with the best supported hardware.

Believe me, it's not nearly as difficult as Linux to install and get working.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The biggest (and possibly only) reason I like it so much more on Windows is because Windows uses the parent/child window model.

Yup, you're a Windows person at heart. Let me guess, you also like to maximize the container window so that it takes up the whole screen, right?

That's a broken interface convention peculiar to Windows, shifuimam. It isn't a virtue to encourage single application tasking (container windows, full screen windows, etc.), but natural Windows users love it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is the "right hardware" an extremely small set? You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical, but people keep telling me, "Oh yeah, now it works fine." But then when I go to get specifics on it, the answers always seem to turn into, "Well, I tried this hardware, and it kinda worked. I hear if you use this installer followed by that installer and install this extra stuff, you have an even chance of having a functioning computer at the end of it. Oh, but make sure you don't also have this other hardware or it will eat your children."

It isn't one click out of the box bliss by any means, but then again neither is a base installation of Windows. I was somewhat shocked that I had to manually find eight or so drivers for my Inspiron after reinstalling XP in order get basic hardware working properly again. It appears to be just about the same deal with OSx86 except a bit more involved and more underground (depending on hardware choices). The hardware support is getting comprehensive, but if you don't want to resort to any hacked kexts (or hacked kernels) you have to choose from a subset of Intel, Asus, Abit or Gigabyte boards according to all the research I've done.

[ghporter]

Maybe having a parent/child relationship between the windows provides "organization?" I know that floating windows with Gimp confuse the heck out of me-which one does this toolbox belong to, or more properly, when I use a control, which window will it impact? That's a royal pain for someone that only uses the app every now and then.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't need or want to see my IM and browser windows behind whatever I'm working on in Photoshop - I much prefer the neutral gray background of a parent window.

Select Photoshop > Hide Others from the menu and you'll see only your desktop.

The maximizing Windows mania is the worst part of the Windows UI. People have browser windows spanning the whole width of a 24" widescreen lcd -- hideous, just hideous.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Simon 

You have mixed up cause and effect. A lot of games come to the Mac either late or not at all because the Mac as a gaming platform sucks. Who says that if the Mac were better suited for gaming there wouldn't be more native games? The PS3 and Wii certainly didn't have any problems attracting game developers.
...

I think part of the reason is because a lot of Windows games use DirectX which is not available on Mac...porting to OpenGL wouldn't be quick or easy.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yup, you're a Windows person at heart. Let me guess, you also like to maximize the container window so that it takes up the whole screen, right?

That's a broken interface convention peculiar to Windows, shifuimam. It isn't a virtue to encourage single application tasking (container windows, full screen windows, etc.), but natural Windows users love it.

You know, I don't really think that it's inherently bad to maximize a window. It depends on what you're doing and how you prefer to do it.

The maximized vs. not maximized is a preference. Maximizing windows is not a "broken" way of doing things, nor does it lack any positive benefit or justification ("virtue"). One is not objectively better than the other. Personally, I much prefer a multiple monitor setup with maximized windows. I like having as much usable area for certain applications (like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Visual Studio, and MSSQL Server Management Studio). When you're juggling a bunch of panes or palettes, it's super nice to have lots of room for them.

Container windows can be good and bad. Applications that used to use them and have moved away from that model - Office comes to mind - have benefited from the change. It's great to be able to have two Word documents open side-by-side (or on separate monitors), vs. being limited to a parent window.

In the case of applications where you don't want the file in question to take up the entire viewport (e.g. Photoshop), however, the parent window model can work very well (depending on your personal preferences). I usually have Photoshop maximized on my primary monitor, and use my secondary monitor to make the most use of various palettes while I'm working.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Maybe having a parent/child relationship between the windows provides "organization?" I know that floating windows with Gimp confuse the heck out of me-which one does this toolbox belong to, or more properly, when I use a control, which window will it impact? That's a royal pain for someone that only uses the app every now and then.

Pretty much, yes. I find it far more disorganized to need to keep the edges of windows showing to switch to them, and I find it way, way, way, way less organized to have a bunch of windows cluttering up my viewport behind an open document in Photoshop (or any application that has windows and palettes floating with no neutral background).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Select Photoshop > Hide Others from the menu and you'll see only your desktop.

I don't like that I need to hide all my other app windows to achieve a quasi-neutral background (if I really want it neutral, I'll also have to switch my wallpaper to a solid gray instead of whatever image I want to use).

The maximizing Windows mania is the worst part of the Windows UI. People have browser windows spanning the whole width of a 24" widescreen lcd -- hideous, just hideous.

To you. That doesn't mean that it's bad for everyone. I know that I've said this many times before, and I know that I'm seen as a nutball and a Windows fanatic (which I'm not) because of this, but it's better to have options with this kind of thing. It's not objectively bad to want a window maximized, and it's pretty stupid to try and push that idea simply because OS X has arbitrarily decided for you that maximizing a window is a bad thing.

I like being able to maximize a window across my 1680x1050 21" display. Sure, making a window take up the entire viewport of a larger (e.g. 24" or 30") display isn't going to work so well, mostly because your eyes and head get tired from moving around so much just to see everything. That just comes with such a physically large display. For me, though, the higher the resolution, the better, because I like being able to see as much as I want or need of a particular application window. That's just how I prefer to work. It's not because I'm stupid, or because I don't know how to use a computer as well as a Mac user, or because I'm a fanatic, or any other semi-insulting reason. It's just because that's how I work. I do the same thing with physical objects - I like having lots of room to spread out when I'm cooking or working on a home improvement project or anything else. I like being able to see as much as I can of something. It's simply more efficient for me.

The whole "you're going to hate using Photoshop in Windows the minute you try it" thing just seems kind of baseless to me. The keyboard shortcuts are the same as any other shortcut switch between Windows and OS X (Ctrl instead of Cmd), so it's not like it's a huge adaptation or learning curve to use one OS over the other with Photoshop.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yup, you're a Windows person at heart. Let me guess, you also like to maximize the container window so that it takes up the whole screen, right?

That's a broken interface convention peculiar to Windows, shifuimam. It isn't a virtue to encourage single application tasking (container windows, full screen windows, etc.), but natural Windows users love it.

i disagree and I agree with shif on this. Maximizing a window does not mean its a broken interface or inherently wrong. It all comes down to personal preference. I've been using Macs since well before osx and so you cannot say I'm a windows person at heart. I much prefer OSX. That doesn't mean I don't like to maximize the window I'm working on (depending on the app).

[shifuimam]

There's also the idea that multitasking is always better.

I can't remember where I saw it, but I read an article about how multitasking can actually make people less efficient, because they start trying to too many things at once and start to lose track of what's going on.

If all you're doing is browsing the Internet (and I mean that's all you're doing), why wouldn't you want the window maximized? Otherwise, you're just wasting your screen's resolution on displaying nothing. Same goes for when you're doing something like typing up a paper you drafted by hand or organizing your digital pictures or buying songs on iTunes. Hell, when I'm at work coding in Dreamweaver, the only two windows I actually need open are Dreamweaver and Firefox (so I can test my changes as I make them). I have other apps open, but multitasking can easily be taken to an extreme. Nobody really needs to have twelve applications running simultaneously, with all those applications' windows visible at once.

[LEStudios]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Sell the expensive stuff (Logic, anything Adobe, etc) and don't worry about all the $30 stuff.
I don't see going with a Phenom though... they just don't make much sense. I'd suggest a Q9300 or even Q6600 based system.



High-end laptop parts (the iMac) are a far cry from a $600 desktop in terms of CPU/GPU performance and upgradability.

Yeah I have yet see a 1080p Quicktime Movie trailer run smooth on a PC. I work on computers! yesterday I had a customer that has the triple core Phenom I played the trailer of New Transformers 2 Trailer that was released last week it was choppy on his PC but it runs natively smooth on a 2007 Mac mini that used the Intel GMA 950 then I got the New Mac mini that using NVIDIA Geforce 9400M. When I go to PC that has 128MB Discrete or more its choppy even if it has dual processors or more. Whatsup with this? Intel Core Duo 2 is this good or all this PCs are crap?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yup, you're a Windows person at heart. Let me guess, you also like to maximize the container window so that it takes up the whole screen, right?

That's the single reason why I hate Photoshop on Windows.

It's not necessarily Photoshop itself, but how Windows presents the application. It is probably personal preference, but I like seeing the contents of my windows even from other applications.

OS X's workflow, in my opinion, is infinitely smoother and easier to work with than Windows. Especially with Exposé and dealing with 8 or 9 documents open simultaneously. I don't know what I'd do without Exposé.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by LEStudios 

Yeah I have yet see a 1080p Quicktime Movie trailer run smooth on a PC. I work on computers! yesterday I had a customer that has the triple core Phenom I played the trailer of New Transformers 2 Trailer that was released last week it was choppy on his PC but it runs natively smooth on a 2007 Mac mini that used the Intel GMA 950 then I got the New Mac mini that using NVIDIA Geforce 9400M. When I go to PC that has 128MB Discrete or more its choppy even if it has dual processors or more. Whatsup with this? Intel Core Duo 2 is this good or all this PCs are crap?

That could just be QuickTime being absolute on Windows. Kind of like how Flash is absolute on OS X.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by LEStudios 

Yeah I have yet see a 1080p Quicktime Movie trailer run smooth on a PC.

Are you playing them with QuickTime? That's your problem.

Play them with VLC or similar.