Something interesting, and I don't presume to speak for anyone else when I say this.
When I'm looking to get a Mac, unless the price is absolutely (stupidly) ridiculous, like say, several thousand for a Macbook Pro ($4,000+, LOL), price is one of the very LAST things I look at. I simply don't care that mich about price. I'll set some money aside and save up for it, or simply wait until I can afford one. I'm after the experience, which I'll get day-in and day-out. THAT is what really matters.
Why go on the cheap on the tool you'll be using daily, probably for a couple of years if not more??
I like a good deal as much as the next person, but I refuse to compromise when it comes to certain things.
If she's a filmmaker, she shouldn't even be going anywhere near PC junk boxes.
Sh should be lookng at a Mac. The tools for the Mac in this area are positively unmatched. By far.
MS will do and say anything to pawn their garbage off on people.
Of course, for users such as her, the usual Mac-envy will inevitably ensue in due course, as it has historically for so many other users, and continues.
The Mac used to be unmatched for years... but Windows 7 is really going to give Apple a run for it's money. You Obviously have an extreme bias... the machine she picked up was really a decent machine and doesn't have the cost near to the Mac route (buying Final Cut Pro). I'm a filmmaker and have been using Macs for 8 years... but I've been very disappointed in the current direction of the company as of late. I wouldn't be so cocky about the superiority of macs... those days are gone.
yeah sure, but then you can't get it in a store like Best Buy, Frys or Amazon. And every PC seems to have 4GB now. Sure you can argue that Macs don't need it but I kinda think they do now too. Apple always skimps on memory and its a hassle for the customer to work around that. There there are a few times that Macs ship with enough memory and its a godsend. Any MBP should have 4 GB.
ok well thats 85. Not 300. In fact, vegas pro pack is only 115 and that includes more than enough for an amateur "artist". Vegas Pro is 550, but from what I'm reading here, that seems studio quality.
I understand imovie blows windows movie maker away, but it won't cost as much as people think to blow imovie away, and that extra 2gb of ram on her system will come in handy with software like that.
I just got back from the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) conference, while Adobe and Sony were present with their editing apps, Avid and Final Cut Pro were the only serious apps being represented, and Apple wasn't even there.
If she is serious about getting into this business, she needs to look beyond a $400 cost increase for hardware. Sony apps are practically nonexistent in this business. Period. She would be better off getting Final Cut Express, and if she's a student, that cost is $179. This package uses almost the same workflow as Final Cut Pro. In fact, she could get Final Cut Studio for $700, which includes Final Cut Pro, Compressor, Motion, Soundstage Pro, Color, and Livetype -- all pro video and audio editing tools. She may have saved some money getting a PC, but her decision puts her at a distinct disadvantage in this market. A stupid decision in my opinion.
The upgrade cost for Apple to go from 2-4GB is $100, not terrible really.
They used to be much worse, but now Apple has made the RAM cost low enough that it was time and energy prohibitive for me to save $30 by going with a 3rd party. On top of that, I get a warranty on the RAM from Apple. Yes, the RAM comes with a warranty, but it's one that requires me to mail it back it on my own dime, which is a PITA in and of itself.
Of course, if RAM prices drop further Apple will probably keep their prices the same so the gap will widen once again.
About $549 (link) if you buy Sony Vegas directly from Sony's site (you may be able to find it cheaper elsewhere. So... let's do a little price breakdown.
PC Route: According to Microsoft's site, the computer is $1049.99 = Software... $549.49= $1598.99 If I were her, I'd go to the 7 Beta and use that instead of Vista and then buy 7 once it's released (I've been testing 7 with Vegas after using OSX with Final Cut Pro) so assuming that the price of upgrading isn't going to move much between Vista and 7... $239.99 http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vista-...dp_ob_title_sw. So her final price is $1838.98
Mac Route: $1999 for MacBook Pro + $1499 for Final Cut Studio (do not bring up that joke Final Cut Express... it does not handle all of the same codecs that Final Cut Pro and Sony Vegas can do.) = $3498.
Would you like to allaborate on the "add to price" that PCs bring? I've been an editor for about 8 years now on the OSX+Final Cut platform and I have now moved to the PC platform. I'm saving money and getting better turn around time in my business.
I'm a PC and I'm a video editor/filmmaker/Local TV producer.
That model machine really is $1,299 not $1,049, you can't go into a store and say, "well Microsoft says this comptuer is only $1,049, and if she's a student (consensus seems to agree) Final Cut Studio is only $699.
Final Cut Studio includes more software, Compressor 3, and Motion 3. Plus it integrates seamlessly with Shake and Logic.
Are there a lot of people in the film industry using Vegas to do their stuff, so when she gets out of school, she can jump right in to work? I know a lot of studios using Final Cut.
Something interesting, and I don't presume to speak for anyone else when I say this.
When I'm looking to get a Mac, unless the price is absolutely (stupidly) ridiculous, like say, several thousand for a Macbook Pro ($4,000+, LOL), price is one of the very LAST things I look at. I simply don't care that mich about price. I'll set some money aside and save up for it, or simply wait until I can afford one. I'm after the experience, which I'll get day-in and day-out. THAT is what really matters.
Why go on the cheap on the tool you'll be using daily, probably for a couple of years if not more??
I like a good deal as much as the next person, but I refuse to compromise when it comes to certain things.
Depends what you need it for, I'm still very happy with my $699 PC laptop, no complaints. I use it for work on a daily basis. Using it right now.
They used to be much worse, but now Apple has made the RAM cost low enough that it was time and energy prohibitive for me to save $30 by going with a 3rd party. On top of that, I get a warranty on the RAM from Apple. Yes, the RAM comes with a warranty, but it's one that requires me to mail it back it on my own dime, which is a PITA in and of itself.
Of course, if RAM prices drop further Apple will probably keep their prices the same so the gap will widen once again.
$100 for 2 GB DDR3 installed is a really good price really.
The Mac used to be unmatched for years... but Windows 7 is really going to give Apple a run for it's money. You Obviously have an extreme bias... the machine she picked up was really a decent machine and doesn't have the cost near to the Mac route (buying Final Cut Pro). I'm a filmmaker and have been using Macs for 8 years... but I've been very disappointed in the current direction of the company as of late. I wouldn't be so cocky about the superiority of macs... those days are gone.
Same was said about Vista before release.
Wait until Windows 7 hits.
OS X is still the Gold Stndard of operating systems.
By nits very nature, a closed, vertical model/system, will always be more reliable, more stable, and more friendly to use than the horizontal MS/PC paradigm in which no company exercises control over any other. The user experience is purely the luck of the draw.
I think our "cocky" attitude is not only well-deserved (for at least 8 years now!) but seems quite sustainable over the long term in light of the garbage that has been rolling out of Redmond in recent years. WinMo, Vista, Kumo (LOL), the Zune, confusing and unwieldy Live Services, etc., the list goes on. MS has no direction and certainly no standards when it comes to the "user experience", starting with lousy interface design.
I think one of the main facts that a lot of people miss is that the PC just can't compete in the 'out of the box' experience. People recommending a PC will send links to different software packages and things for different purposes, but the fact of the matter is - that as a tool for a digital lifestyle, the Mac has HD video editing ready to go, DVD authoring integrated into this, along with near-pro audio software with easy to use composition tools, not to mention very intuitive photo management and easy web publishing.
The fact that all of these are ready to run after you first turn your Mac on pretty much sums up the Mac experience - do what you would like to do as quickly and easily as possible.
I think Windows 7 is looking quite good (although not enough lessons learnt from Vista), but most average users don't care about whether RAM is DDR2 or DDR3 - they are looking for an easy, trouble free experience. For PC users, most of the time they'll call up a geek friend to get them to 'set things up'.
My mother traded in her PC for a Mac and the silence from her is deafening! Instead of asking questions about what would work best - she is actually just getting on with work! Not only this, but feeling more creative in doing so.
This is a massive differentiator here, and requires a fundamental rethink from MS and the PC maker to achieve it.
I just want to comment on the first paragraph... in the ad she says that she is a filmmaker, filmmakers DO NOT use ANY of the consumer tools packaged with OSX. The fact comes to this: she will have to purchase a software package of some kind. Either Final Cut Studio ($1499) or something like Sony Vegas ($549). The "out of box" HD editing tools can't support a lot of the industry standards and the DVD authoring tools "out of box" on a mac is a JOKE! For the average latte sipping, hippy "filmmaker"... a Macbook will work for them. Most of us REAL filmmakers are moving back to the PC because Apple is not pushing anything forward on their platform (in terms of Final Cut Studio).
MS has been working with Intel on multithreading and maximising CPU usage since Apple was playing with those dinky G4 peices of shit (I speak as a former G4 owner, they sucked compared to the Intel boxes of the day, which is why Apple switched.)
Actually, the common belief is that Apple switched for several reasons, but not the one you listed:
1) IBMs inability to scale the G5 into a mobile chip.
2) IBMs failure to break the 3Ghz barrier.
3) The power requirements (and subsequently, heat dissipation) requirements of the G5 were too extreme.
4) Motorola discontinuing its own production of PPC chips.
These are not G4s we're talking about, but G5s. At the end of Apple's PPC era, all non-mobile machines (iMac, PowerMac and Xserve) were running with G5 processors, with the exception of the Mac Mini.
They aren't slack or underpowered processors. In fact, all three major game platform players (XBox 360, PS3, Wii) run a PowerPC processor, with both the Cell (PS3) and Xenon (Xbox) being fairly heavily based on the PowerPC 970 (aka, G5).
In short, Apple switched because they couldn't deliver a viable mobile/high-efficiency platform if they remained on the PPC track. It's not because the G4 was underpowered. In fact, when it was introduced, the G4 was the first consumer processor to break the gigaflop barrier (the then-classification for a "supercomputer"), and export policies had to be changed to allow its sale outside of the US.
About $549 (link) if you buy Sony Vegas directly from Sony's site (you may be able to find it cheaper elsewhere. So... let's do a little price breakdown.
PC Route: According to Microsoft's site, the computer is $1049.99 = Software... $549.49= $1598.99 If I were her, I'd go to the 7 Beta and use that instead of Vista and then buy 7 once it's released (I've been testing 7 with Vegas after using OSX with Final Cut Pro) so assuming that the price of upgrading isn't going to move much between Vista and 7... $239.99 http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vista-...dp_ob_title_sw. So her final price is $1838.98
Mac Route: $1999 for MacBook Pro + $1499 for Final Cut Studio (do not bring up that joke Final Cut Express... it does not handle all of the same codecs that Final Cut Pro and Sony Vegas can do.) = $3498.
Would you like to allaborate on the "add to price" that PCs bring? I've been an editor for about 8 years now on the OSX+Final Cut platform and I have now moved to the PC platform. I'm saving money and getting better turn around time in my business.
I'm a PC and I'm a video editor/filmmaker/Local TV producer.
Sure, but when you add to the equation that you have to use a PC and run Windows instead of OSX, then the results point back to going for a Mac.
I jMost of us REAL filmmakers are moving back to the PC because Apple is not pushing anything forward on their platform (in terms of Final Cut Studio).
I just want to comment on the first paragraph... in the ad she says that she is a filmmaker, filmmakers DO NOT use ANY of the consumer tools packaged with OSX. The fact comes to this: she will have to purchase a software package of some kind. Either Final Cut Studio ($1499) or something like Sony Vegas ($549). The "out of box" HD editing tools can't support a lot of the industry standards and the DVD authoring tools "out of box" on a mac is a JOKE! For the average latte sipping, hippy "filmmaker"... a Macbook will work for them. Most of us REAL filmmakers are moving back to the PC because Apple is not pushing anything forward on their platform (in terms of Final Cut Studio).
If she was really a professional filmmaker:
1) She would not be buying her own PC, her employer/company would
2) Her budget would certainly not be limited to $2000. You cannot make competitive professional work on that budget, not with a PC or even a Mac (not so sure about this last one)
3) She'd know a little better about the differences in hardware between a MBP and her HP
==> She is a filmmaker enthusiast. And that explains her choice...
Okay, I've just kind of laughed at the latest round on Microsoft ads taking aim at Apple, because it takes rhetorical fallacies to a whole new level of bs ... to be completely honest though all companies "bend the truth" when it comes to their advertising, so its not like Apple doesn't do the same thing. The difference with Apple is they usally aren't as blantant in treating their audience as mindless idiots who beleive anything they say ... especially when Microsoft is saying things that even mediocre PC users know isn't true.
Going after Apple and video is something Microsoft just shouldn't do ... its foolish to go there. This is one of Apple's major strong suite.
I am a video editing professional, and have been in the field for over a decade. Perhaps one of the greatest faux pas anyone in the business can do is break out a Windows PC around their collegues ... virtually EVERYONE uses Apple (with very few exceptions). Besides that there are a lot of things I found flat out misleading about this ad ...
Firstly, while the processor speed is important when determining a machines ability to process video information the Cache and Bus speed are just as critically as important. If you have a 25% faster processor in a PC, but it has half the Cache size and a quarter of the Bus speed guess what ... the slower processor is still going to perform better during video editing. This is beyond the fact if you really are a video professional you would never go with the crappy screen on the HP which isn't even HD, and has a glossy covering -- I reinterate ... video professionals loath glossy screens ... especially editors. Glossy screens give a false color calibration reading EVERY TIME! That is very important when editing video.
The Apples are, at a prima face glance, more expensive than a similar looking PC, but that is because they are a much better built and configured machines. Its like the difference between getting a BMW 5 series and a Chevy Malibu ... they both drive, but one does it much better. To get a PC with the same configuration, features, and software as the Apple would easily put it well over the $2k mark ... in some cases it would make the PC virtually twice as expensive as an Apple. When you take that into consideration the Apple is BY FAR a better bargain (as well as far more worry free than a HP laptop).
Why would having only 2GB of RAM deter a real editor ... there is this thing called "upgrading" after market. A 4GB upgrade would cost a grand total of $70 ... not exactly cost prohibitive.
This is beyond the fact they don't even delve into what software she will be using to do her editing -- Final Cut Pro is the de facto gold standard when it comes to ubiquitity in the video editing genre. The Apple comes with iMovie, but professionals wouldn't even touch that. And most of the PC video editing programs out there are just as expensive as that HP she just bought, and they aren't as good as Final Cut Pro
I'm sure I'm probably forgetting something here, but this commercial just really urked me ... Plato once said that Rhetoric is "the art of the convincing the ignorant," and that is exactly who this commercial is targeted at ... the ignorant. No one in their right mind (and especially in the video editing field) would ever buy that piece of crap HP over even the cheapest MacBook Pro.
1) She would not be buying her own PC, her employer/company would
2) Her budget would certainly not be limited to $2000. You cannot make competitive professional work on that budget, not with a PC or even a Mac (not so sure about this last one)
3) She'd know a little better about the differences in hardware between a MBP and her HP
==> She is a filmmaker enthusiast. And that explains her choice...
Comments
When I'm looking to get a Mac, unless the price is absolutely (stupidly) ridiculous, like say, several thousand for a Macbook Pro ($4,000+, LOL), price is one of the very LAST things I look at. I simply don't care that mich about price. I'll set some money aside and save up for it, or simply wait until I can afford one. I'm after the experience, which I'll get day-in and day-out. THAT is what really matters.
Why go on the cheap on the tool you'll be using daily, probably for a couple of years if not more??
I like a good deal as much as the next person, but I refuse to compromise when it comes to certain things.
The upgrade cost for Apple to go from 2-4GB is $100, not terrible really.
That's Ok.
Yeah! Good luck with your budget!
Wise decision Sheila!
HOW CAN U BE SO STUUUUUPID!!!!
If she's a filmmaker, she shouldn't even be going anywhere near PC junk boxes.
Sh should be lookng at a Mac. The tools for the Mac in this area are positively unmatched. By far.
MS will do and say anything to pawn their garbage off on people.
Of course, for users such as her, the usual Mac-envy will inevitably ensue in due course, as it has historically for so many other users, and continues.
The Mac used to be unmatched for years... but Windows 7 is really going to give Apple a run for it's money. You Obviously have an extreme bias... the machine she picked up was really a decent machine and doesn't have the cost near to the Mac route (buying Final Cut Pro). I'm a filmmaker and have been using Macs for 8 years... but I've been very disappointed in the current direction of the company as of late. I wouldn't be so cocky about the superiority of macs... those days are gone.
ok well thats 85. Not 300. In fact, vegas pro pack is only 115 and that includes more than enough for an amateur "artist". Vegas Pro is 550, but from what I'm reading here, that seems studio quality.
I understand imovie blows windows movie maker away, but it won't cost as much as people think to blow imovie away, and that extra 2gb of ram on her system will come in handy with software like that.
I just got back from the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) conference, while Adobe and Sony were present with their editing apps, Avid and Final Cut Pro were the only serious apps being represented, and Apple wasn't even there.
If she is serious about getting into this business, she needs to look beyond a $400 cost increase for hardware. Sony apps are practically nonexistent in this business. Period. She would be better off getting Final Cut Express, and if she's a student, that cost is $179. This package uses almost the same workflow as Final Cut Pro. In fact, she could get Final Cut Studio for $700, which includes Final Cut Pro, Compressor, Motion, Soundstage Pro, Color, and Livetype -- all pro video and audio editing tools. She may have saved some money getting a PC, but her decision puts her at a distinct disadvantage in this market. A stupid decision in my opinion.
The upgrade cost for Apple to go from 2-4GB is $100, not terrible really.
They used to be much worse, but now Apple has made the RAM cost low enough that it was time and energy prohibitive for me to save $30 by going with a 3rd party. On top of that, I get a warranty on the RAM from Apple. Yes, the RAM comes with a warranty, but it's one that requires me to mail it back it on my own dime, which is a PITA in and of itself.
Of course, if RAM prices drop further Apple will probably keep their prices the same so the gap will widen once again.
About $549 (link) if you buy Sony Vegas directly from Sony's site (you may be able to find it cheaper elsewhere. So... let's do a little price breakdown.
PC Route: According to Microsoft's site, the computer is $1049.99 = Software... $549.49= $1598.99 If I were her, I'd go to the 7 Beta and use that instead of Vista and then buy 7 once it's released (I've been testing 7 with Vegas after using OSX with Final Cut Pro) so assuming that the price of upgrading isn't going to move much between Vista and 7... $239.99 http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vista-...dp_ob_title_sw. So her final price is $1838.98
Mac Route: $1999 for MacBook Pro + $1499 for Final Cut Studio (do not bring up that joke Final Cut Express... it does not handle all of the same codecs that Final Cut Pro and Sony Vegas can do.) = $3498.
Would you like to allaborate on the "add to price" that PCs bring? I've been an editor for about 8 years now on the OSX+Final Cut platform and I have now moved to the PC platform. I'm saving money and getting better turn around time in my business.
I'm a PC and I'm a video editor/filmmaker/Local TV producer.
That model machine really is $1,299 not $1,049, you can't go into a store and say, "well Microsoft says this comptuer is only $1,049, and if she's a student (consensus seems to agree) Final Cut Studio is only $699.
Final Cut Studio includes more software, Compressor 3, and Motion 3. Plus it integrates seamlessly with Shake and Logic.
Are there a lot of people in the film industry using Vegas to do their stuff, so when she gets out of school, she can jump right in to work? I know a lot of studios using Final Cut.
Something interesting, and I don't presume to speak for anyone else when I say this.
When I'm looking to get a Mac, unless the price is absolutely (stupidly) ridiculous, like say, several thousand for a Macbook Pro ($4,000+, LOL), price is one of the very LAST things I look at. I simply don't care that mich about price. I'll set some money aside and save up for it, or simply wait until I can afford one. I'm after the experience, which I'll get day-in and day-out. THAT is what really matters.
Why go on the cheap on the tool you'll be using daily, probably for a couple of years if not more??
I like a good deal as much as the next person, but I refuse to compromise when it comes to certain things.
Depends what you need it for, I'm still very happy with my $699 PC laptop, no complaints. I use it for work on a daily basis. Using it right now.
They used to be much worse, but now Apple has made the RAM cost low enough that it was time and energy prohibitive for me to save $30 by going with a 3rd party. On top of that, I get a warranty on the RAM from Apple. Yes, the RAM comes with a warranty, but it's one that requires me to mail it back it on my own dime, which is a PITA in and of itself.
Of course, if RAM prices drop further Apple will probably keep their prices the same so the gap will widen once again.
$100 for 2 GB DDR3 installed is a really good price really.
The Mac used to be unmatched for years... but Windows 7 is really going to give Apple a run for it's money. You Obviously have an extreme bias... the machine she picked up was really a decent machine and doesn't have the cost near to the Mac route (buying Final Cut Pro). I'm a filmmaker and have been using Macs for 8 years... but I've been very disappointed in the current direction of the company as of late. I wouldn't be so cocky about the superiority of macs... those days are gone.
Same was said about Vista before release.
Wait until Windows 7 hits.
OS X is still the Gold Stndard of operating systems.
By nits very nature, a closed, vertical model/system, will always be more reliable, more stable, and more friendly to use than the horizontal MS/PC paradigm in which no company exercises control over any other. The user experience is purely the luck of the draw.
I think our "cocky" attitude is not only well-deserved (for at least 8 years now!) but seems quite sustainable over the long term in light of the garbage that has been rolling out of Redmond in recent years. WinMo, Vista, Kumo (LOL), the Zune, confusing and unwieldy Live Services, etc., the list goes on. MS has no direction and certainly no standards when it comes to the "user experience", starting with lousy interface design.
$100 for 2 GB DDR3 installed is a really good price really.
But remember that Apple is keeping the 2GB that it came with. Still, a good value if you value your time.
I think one of the main facts that a lot of people miss is that the PC just can't compete in the 'out of the box' experience. People recommending a PC will send links to different software packages and things for different purposes, but the fact of the matter is - that as a tool for a digital lifestyle, the Mac has HD video editing ready to go, DVD authoring integrated into this, along with near-pro audio software with easy to use composition tools, not to mention very intuitive photo management and easy web publishing.
The fact that all of these are ready to run after you first turn your Mac on pretty much sums up the Mac experience - do what you would like to do as quickly and easily as possible.
I think Windows 7 is looking quite good (although not enough lessons learnt from Vista), but most average users don't care about whether RAM is DDR2 or DDR3 - they are looking for an easy, trouble free experience. For PC users, most of the time they'll call up a geek friend to get them to 'set things up'.
My mother traded in her PC for a Mac and the silence from her is deafening! Instead of asking questions about what would work best - she is actually just getting on with work! Not only this, but feeling more creative in doing so.
This is a massive differentiator here, and requires a fundamental rethink from MS and the PC maker to achieve it.
I just want to comment on the first paragraph... in the ad she says that she is a filmmaker, filmmakers DO NOT use ANY of the consumer tools packaged with OSX. The fact comes to this: she will have to purchase a software package of some kind. Either Final Cut Studio ($1499) or something like Sony Vegas ($549). The "out of box" HD editing tools can't support a lot of the industry standards and the DVD authoring tools "out of box" on a mac is a JOKE! For the average latte sipping, hippy "filmmaker"... a Macbook will work for them. Most of us REAL filmmakers are moving back to the PC because Apple is not pushing anything forward on their platform (in terms of Final Cut Studio).
MS has been working with Intel on multithreading and maximising CPU usage since Apple was playing with those dinky G4 peices of shit (I speak as a former G4 owner, they sucked compared to the Intel boxes of the day, which is why Apple switched.)
Actually, the common belief is that Apple switched for several reasons, but not the one you listed:
1) IBMs inability to scale the G5 into a mobile chip.
2) IBMs failure to break the 3Ghz barrier.
3) The power requirements (and subsequently, heat dissipation) requirements of the G5 were too extreme.
4) Motorola discontinuing its own production of PPC chips.
These are not G4s we're talking about, but G5s. At the end of Apple's PPC era, all non-mobile machines (iMac, PowerMac and Xserve) were running with G5 processors, with the exception of the Mac Mini.
They aren't slack or underpowered processors. In fact, all three major game platform players (XBox 360, PS3, Wii) run a PowerPC processor, with both the Cell (PS3) and Xenon (Xbox) being fairly heavily based on the PowerPC 970 (aka, G5).
In short, Apple switched because they couldn't deliver a viable mobile/high-efficiency platform if they remained on the PPC track. It's not because the G4 was underpowered. In fact, when it was introduced, the G4 was the first consumer processor to break the gigaflop barrier (the then-classification for a "supercomputer"), and export policies had to be changed to allow its sale outside of the US.
About $549 (link) if you buy Sony Vegas directly from Sony's site (you may be able to find it cheaper elsewhere. So... let's do a little price breakdown.
PC Route: According to Microsoft's site, the computer is $1049.99 = Software... $549.49= $1598.99 If I were her, I'd go to the 7 Beta and use that instead of Vista and then buy 7 once it's released (I've been testing 7 with Vegas after using OSX with Final Cut Pro) so assuming that the price of upgrading isn't going to move much between Vista and 7... $239.99 http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vista-...dp_ob_title_sw. So her final price is $1838.98
Mac Route: $1999 for MacBook Pro + $1499 for Final Cut Studio (do not bring up that joke Final Cut Express... it does not handle all of the same codecs that Final Cut Pro and Sony Vegas can do.) = $3498.
Would you like to allaborate on the "add to price" that PCs bring? I've been an editor for about 8 years now on the OSX+Final Cut platform and I have now moved to the PC platform. I'm saving money and getting better turn around time in my business.
I'm a PC and I'm a video editor/filmmaker/Local TV producer.
Sure, but when you add to the equation that you have to use a PC and run Windows instead of OSX, then the results point back to going for a Mac.
I jMost of us REAL filmmakers are moving back to the PC because Apple is not pushing anything forward on their platform (in terms of Final Cut Studio).
http://blogs.digitalmediaonlineinc.c...erse/entry/529
LOL, sure you are.
I just want to comment on the first paragraph... in the ad she says that she is a filmmaker, filmmakers DO NOT use ANY of the consumer tools packaged with OSX. The fact comes to this: she will have to purchase a software package of some kind. Either Final Cut Studio ($1499) or something like Sony Vegas ($549). The "out of box" HD editing tools can't support a lot of the industry standards and the DVD authoring tools "out of box" on a mac is a JOKE! For the average latte sipping, hippy "filmmaker"... a Macbook will work for them. Most of us REAL filmmakers are moving back to the PC because Apple is not pushing anything forward on their platform (in terms of Final Cut Studio).
If she was really a professional filmmaker:
1) She would not be buying her own PC, her employer/company would
2) Her budget would certainly not be limited to $2000. You cannot make competitive professional work on that budget, not with a PC or even a Mac (not so sure about this last one)
3) She'd know a little better about the differences in hardware between a MBP and her HP
==> She is a filmmaker enthusiast. And that explains her choice...
Going after Apple and video is something Microsoft just shouldn't do ... its foolish to go there. This is one of Apple's major strong suite.
I am a video editing professional, and have been in the field for over a decade. Perhaps one of the greatest faux pas anyone in the business can do is break out a Windows PC around their collegues ... virtually EVERYONE uses Apple (with very few exceptions). Besides that there are a lot of things I found flat out misleading about this ad ...
Firstly, while the processor speed is important when determining a machines ability to process video information the Cache and Bus speed are just as critically as important. If you have a 25% faster processor in a PC, but it has half the Cache size and a quarter of the Bus speed guess what ... the slower processor is still going to perform better during video editing. This is beyond the fact if you really are a video professional you would never go with the crappy screen on the HP which isn't even HD, and has a glossy covering -- I reinterate ... video professionals loath glossy screens ... especially editors. Glossy screens give a false color calibration reading EVERY TIME! That is very important when editing video.
The Apples are, at a prima face glance, more expensive than a similar looking PC, but that is because they are a much better built and configured machines. Its like the difference between getting a BMW 5 series and a Chevy Malibu ... they both drive, but one does it much better. To get a PC with the same configuration, features, and software as the Apple would easily put it well over the $2k mark ... in some cases it would make the PC virtually twice as expensive as an Apple. When you take that into consideration the Apple is BY FAR a better bargain (as well as far more worry free than a HP laptop).
Why would having only 2GB of RAM deter a real editor ... there is this thing called "upgrading" after market. A 4GB upgrade would cost a grand total of $70 ... not exactly cost prohibitive.
This is beyond the fact they don't even delve into what software she will be using to do her editing -- Final Cut Pro is the de facto gold standard when it comes to ubiquitity in the video editing genre. The Apple comes with iMovie, but professionals wouldn't even touch that. And most of the PC video editing programs out there are just as expensive as that HP she just bought, and they aren't as good as Final Cut Pro
I'm sure I'm probably forgetting something here, but this commercial just really urked me ... Plato once said that Rhetoric is "the art of the convincing the ignorant," and that is exactly who this commercial is targeted at ... the ignorant. No one in their right mind (and especially in the video editing field) would ever buy that piece of crap HP over even the cheapest MacBook Pro.
If she was really a professional filmmaker:
1) She would not be buying her own PC, her employer/company would
2) Her budget would certainly not be limited to $2000. You cannot make competitive professional work on that budget, not with a PC or even a Mac (not so sure about this last one)
3) She'd know a little better about the differences in hardware between a MBP and her HP
==> She is a filmmaker enthusiast. And that explains her choice...
Excellent post.