For those who use HDV rack, there is a new update available which corrects the 709 colorspace problem, and flip mode functions for RedRock Micro users. And new full screen options.

There is also a new zoom capability to assist with focus? I'm looking forward to trying it out.

-Jay

I tried it today (the new Zoom function) while shooting a product presentation. It's nice, it zooms within the HD monitor. This saves many manipulations going to full view with Alt+Enter.
Keep in mind, that the new options to process and view full resolution do take more resources. On my P4 3,4 GHz Laptop I had to lower it again to make a reliable capture.

If I don't capture "live" - is there any use for DVRack at all?

Yes sure, the main reason I use HDVrack is to check the live camera input through firewire to check white balance, vectorscope, and waveforms.
And I use it as my HD monitor. All in one package on my Laptop without the need to travel with a lot of equipment.
I use it most of the time without capturing. Capturing is nice to compare shots and to navigate very quickly between them.
Check it out at www.dvrack.com. They have an explanation video.

If I don't capture "live" - is there any use for DVRack at all?
Ram, I second what Marc C. just said: the main reason I bought DVRack was to have my own portable calibrated monitor with WFM and VScope integrated. Now that 709 colorspace is fully supported, it's the easieast way of checking your camera on the field. I compared the colors from my $900.00 HP Laptop running DVRack, against a $3500 Sony monitor and, except for the screen size, they were the same.

Paolo was using his on last week's location shoots and his accuracy was very precise. Remember, though, you're still capturing in a 4:2:0 colorspace when you're using a firewire into a laptop irrespective of the fact that you're coming out the back of the camera.

It's a shame DVrack is not compatible with the one computer that would make it the (nearly) perfect portable monitor/hardrive system: the MAc Mini. I can only dream. Imagine the DVrack on a MacMini and a touch screen. BTW, with respect to what Jonathan Ames says about capturing 4:2:0, the folks at Serious Magic should figure out some type of concoction to interrupt the compression process inside the HD100u and make it so that we can record uncompressed footage. I'm not even sure if I'm wording this correctly, but someone please come up with a way to record footage the way the folks at Reelstream are doing with their Andromeda system. Imagine recording the 24p HDV image from the HD100u's lens straight to the computer with Dvrack. That would be stupendous. Is it so hard to figure out a way to do that? In fact I'm going out on a limb with this one. I suspect that given the relative affordability of the upcoming RED camera and the Silicon Imaging cameras, when they become available, some of us are gonna start feeling "camera envy." But if DVrack (or anyone out there) can figure out a way to record the images from the lens of a camera like the HD100u(hardware modification) straight to the computer (software), then we'd have less of a reason to feel camera envy. And it would still be a more affordable option than getting rid of our cameras and buying new ones...I don't know, I think I've had too many beers tonight...

It's a shame DVrack is not compatible with the one computer that would make it the (nearly) perfect portable monitor/hardrive system: the MAc Mini. ...
There are reasons for it. Mac works only with OpenGL. A XP machine works with DirectX which can do this stuff you see on DVRack.

the folks at Serious Magic should figure out some type of concoction to interrupt the compression process inside the HD100u and make it so that we can record uncompressed footage. ...

DVracks pulls the video out of the Firewire. This is a protocol, you cannot go behind that and pull other data out of the camera. The only solution would be that serious magic starts supporting BlackMagic cards for example.

Paolo and I were talking about this and it really has to do with the limitations on the laptop. Deesktops can carry the horsepower, real estate and cooling needed for 4:2:2; something that laptops are a ways away from. Thus, even the AJA following the exit from the camera is not a solution for a laptop as it is for a desktop. I'm not really well-versed in the suject as Paolo is. I just keep hoping for a laptop solution like you because it would be great to be able to go out to a truly portable solution and not have to carry out a desktop-sized system.

There are reasons for it. Mac works only with OpenGL. A XP machine works with DirectX which can do this stuff you see on DVRack.

Marc, I'm pretty sure that OpenGL can easily be used to do the same, namely color calibration of the display. The fact is Seious Magic didn't spend one minute in thinking how to design the program for portability. There are dozens of programs out there, some even cheaper than SM's products, and are multiplatform. Multiplatform design, as internationalization, two things that I've done extensively, is tougher than just writing the damn software for wathever platform you're familiar with. But it's entirely possible. To draw a parallel, it's similar to mix the dialogues for a film into a separate track so that you can give the score and Foley and sound design tracks to the international market for transalted versions of your movie. SM decided to go for the single track mix.

Paolo and I were talking about this and it really has to do with the limitations on the laptop.
yes, this subject came out in another thread in this forum. The PCMCIA bus of old laptops does not have enough bandwidth to carry the SDI signal so, even if we built a card for component or SDI acquisition, the laptop's BUS cannot pipe the data fast enough.
With the new card interface found on modern laptops and the Macbook Pro we basically have PCI express speed and so it's probably just a matter of time for manufacturers to built acquisition cards that will enable laptops to acquire 4:2:2 signal.

Marc, I'm pretty sure that OpenGL can easily be used to do the same, namely color calibration of the display. The fact is Seious Magic didn't spend one minute in thinking how to design the program for portability. There are dozens of programs out there, some even cheaper than SM's products, and are multiplatform. Multiplatform design, as internationalization, two things that I've done extensively, is tougher than just writing the damn software for wathever platform you're familiar with. But it's entirely possible. To draw a parallel, it's similar to mix the dialogues for a film into a separate track so that you can give the score and Foley and sound design tracks to the international market for transalted versions of your movie. SM decided to go for the single track mix.

Hi Paolo,
In theory indeed it can be possible, but the development time is much longer to do so. And DirectX is getting much more horsepower out of the graphics cards, because they support DirectX features in hardware. OpenGL is a rather simple language which is far behind DirectX stuff. So writing thuff which is developped and available in DirectX is many many times more effective.
Myself I'm involved in the R&D for Media servers (Maxedia) and we have big advantage over the Mac based systems because we can develop real-time rendering and frame blending for example which is simply not supported in graphics card without using DirectX.

Hi Paolo,
In theory indeed it can be possible, but the development time is much longer to do so.

Well, don't mean to sound mean here but the way I see it, if DAZ can make a product like Studio, which is free, multiplatform, then I don't see many excuses for not doing multiplatform developement. Don't mean to make any personal attacks but that's the way I see it. As I said, I've been in multi-platform developement, I've been involved in porting the JVM to Linux, had the first version of JBuilder running on Linux, used cross-compilers etc. It can be done. If Apple has made OS X crossplatform then smaller apps like DVRack can easily be designed for both Windows and Mac OS. In the entertainment industry, for what I saw, Macs are *the* platform of choice for the creative professional. I love Serious Magic's stuff but their decision of not developing for the Mac is, IMHO, inexcusable. Just bad planning from whoever made the decision.


And DirectX is getting much more horsepower out of the graphics cards, because they support DirectX features in hardware. OpenGL is a rather simple language which is far behind DirectX stuff.
OK, that's why Apple has released Core Image+Core Video. They provide the type of rendering that you mentioned and then some.
Some of the services available: Color Dodge, Difference Blend, Soft light, Saturation blend, Hard light blend. Dissolves, Swipes, Disintegrate with mask. Gaussian blur, Crop, Perspective transform, Pixellate, Glass distortion, etc.

These are all hardware optimized operations that are performed directly by the OS with the help of the GPU.
I use both PCs and Mac, some of the PCs I tried are nominaly faster in CPU frequency but my G4 Powerbook still moves video better, faster and smoother than any of the the PCs with all their DirectX glory.
That's why the Mac has the acceptance in the industry that it has. When editing a feature film the choices are pretty much only two: Avid or Final Cut Pro.
To ignore the Mac in this industry is not a wise decision. This of course, is just my not-so-humble opinion :)

Respectfully ...

I love Serious Magic's stuff but their decision of not developing for the Mac is, IMHO, inexcusable. Just bad planning from whoever made the decision.



To ignore the Mac in this industry is not a wise decision. This of course, is just my not-so-humble opinion :)

Respectfully ...

Paolo,

I couldn't agree more, we are about to start shooting a feature with two HD100's and we looked closely at DV Rack, but couldn't justify picking up a Windows laptop with firewire for a ten day shoot.

(Our editing system is all MAC based)

However, if there was a MAC version, I would have dropped the $500 bucks. Instead we pulled a monitor in from Boston Camera.

Tom

Tom, that's exactly what I've been saying to SM for months. They lose business every day. The Mac version, or lack of it, is one of the most debated topics in their forum. One day a competitor will take the opportunity, fill the void and take the whole business away from them. It happened before.

Ram, I second what Marc C. just said: the main reason I bought DVRack was to have my own portable calibrated monitor with WFM and VScope integrated. Now that 709 colorspace is fully supported, it's the easieast way of checking your camera on the field. I compared the colors from my $900.00 HP Laptop running DVRack, against a $3500 Sony monitor and, except for the screen size, they were the same.

There's got to be a catch to this. Aside from the size, surely a real monitor can do things a laptop and hdvrack cannot?

There's got to be a catch to this. Aside from the size, surely a real monitor can do things a laptop and hdvrack cannot?
Yes, a monitor has more inputs. You cannot use DVRack with Component input or SDI. Also, some monitors are defintely bigger than the largest 17" laptop... and some are smaller. Other than that DVRack is a very nice solution. keep in mind that there are limita to the length of Firewire cables and the FW connector is not even comparable to BNC or even RCA connectors as solidity goes. That is a majore problem if the camera is remote or on a crane, for example.

Yes, a monitor has more inputs. You cannot use DVRack with Component input or SDI. Also, some monitors are defintely bigger than the largest 17" laptop... and some are smaller. Other than that DVRack is a very nice solution. keep in mind that there are limita to the length of Firewire cables and the FW connector is not even comparable to BNC or even RCA connectors as solidity goes. That is a majore problem if the camera is remote or on a crane, for example.


Curious. How far can you run a firewire cable before it looses it's signal strength and won't work properly with DVRACK or similar program? In most instances the dp's monitor is a good distance from the camera.
Is there such thing as a firewire repeater or something that will re-strengthen the signal.

Michael:
I use(d) a 20 meter FireWire cable on DV rack. Unfortunally this cable doesn't work when I use HDV mode. DV mode is fine. The reason I don't know yet.
I will be testing boosters in the future to see if that helps.

Paolo:
I second your statement that things are changing on the Mac front for accelerated graphics. I'm not saying Mac is not developing new features, but still there is a big gap between the Mac and PC based systems.
The reason is simple: an XP based platfom benefits with all these advanced DirectX simply because the game market is the driving force behind all these hardware accelerated features. I'm not speaking for Serious Magic, but I can only comment on our own experience with the features we needed for our project. Without this available 2d/3d horsepower, it would take us many years to try to achive the same features on a Mac based system. And concering stability, we are very happy with it. This year we did the Eurovision Song Contest with it with 20 systems. (Video floor and stairs on stage)

The reason is simple: an XP based platfom benefits with all these advanced DirectX simply because the game market is the driving force behind all these hardware accelerated features.
Marc, you got a point there, game development is sorely behind in the Mac platform, although, the debate about OpenGL/DirectX, when talking games, brings up the classic argument by John Carmak about his decision to use OpenGL for the Quake engine.
Also keep in mind that some OpenGL implementations on Windows used to be done on top of DirectX, hardly the right approach and the reason why, sometimes, OpenGL seemed slower than DirectX.
Anyway, I want to be clear that my criticism wasn't direct toward you or your programming effort, I expect multi-platform development from commercial, shrink-wrapped products that want to appeal to the creative market. Your situation is different.

Curious. How far can you run a firewire cable before it looses it's signal strength and won't work properly with DVRACK or similar program? In most instances the dp's monitor is a good distance from the camera.
Is there such thing as a firewire repeater or something that will re-strengthen the signal
I think about 15-20 feet. Marc, 20 meters is about 65 feet, no surprise that the signal doesn't work. And, yes, there are repeaters but it's hard to find good ones. Also, a machine with a FW card acts as a repeater. In other words, you can have a cable going form the camera to a laptop with multiple FW ports. Then a cable that goes from that laptop to the one with DVRack. It works and you don't need to run anything special. Just plug and play.

I think about 15-20 feet. Marc, 20 meters is about 65 feet, no surprise that the signal doesn't work. And, yes, there are repeaters but it's hard to find good ones. Also, a machine with a FW card acts as a repeater. In other words, you can have a cable going form the camera to a laptop with multiple FW ports. Then a cable that goes from that laptop to the one with DVRack. It works and you don't need to run anything special. Just plug and play.


Thanks guys. I appreciate the information. Another question just slightly off subject.... but sort of in the same vein as dvrack. I'm two days away from laying out a bunch of money for a HVX package. I've budgeted for an external (on camera) monitor. Originally I was planning on the Marshall VR70-P, but after learning that it's resolution isn't "native hd" I decided to take a closer look at the Panasonic BT-LH900. So far I've gotten great reports about the Panasonic.... which is encouraging. Granted the Panasonic is much more expensive than the Marshall, however it does offer much more: such as a waveform monitor. My question is: Do you think the waveform monitor on the Panasonic BT-LH900 would in a way replace/lessen the need for HDV/DV Rack?? For me one of the big advantages to HDV/DV rack was: 1. The waveform monitor
2. Being able to use the high resolution of a computer monitor for accurate focus.

It seems as if the Panny HD LCD will do this. It's got a waveform, true HD resoution as well as a on board focus assist.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Hi Michael

I haven't seen the Marshall in action but I have seen the Panasonic and it is truly awesome - but it ought to be, given the price. I think that the Panasonic's built in WFM doesn't really replace HDV rack completely (and don't forget the screen is pretty small) but what is does is give you the option to have decent monitoring and a WFM in the field in situations where you could never drag around a laptop - documentary field work, for example. It's getting a little cumbersome, but you COULD actually attach the Pana to the camera and use that combo in a solo run and gun situation. Try that with a laptop!

I reckon the Panasonic - great as it is - carries a cost totally out of proportion to the camera, so I won't be investing in it. I'm going to invest in a tiny WFM mounted on the camera.

Hi Michael

I haven't seen the Marshall in action but I have seen the Panasonic and it is truly awesome - but it ought to be, given the price. I think that the Panasonic's built in WFM doesn't really replace HDV rack completely (and don't forget the screen is pretty small) but what is does is give you the option to have decent monitoring and a WFM in the field in situations where you could never drag around a laptop - documentary field work, for example. It's getting a little cumbersome, but you COULD actually attach the Pana to the camera and use that combo in a solo run and gun situation. Try that with a laptop!

I reckon the Panasonic - great as it is - carries a cost totally out of proportion to the camera, so I won't be investing in it. I'm going to invest in a tiny WFM mounted on the camera.

Yes it is awesome... and I agree it is sort of out of proportion in respect to the camera. I've been struggling with that fact.

I'm looking at the HVX as a "stop gap" camera of about 18 months give or take a few months. At that time I plan on upgrading hopefully to a 2/3" camera or perhaps RED (if it's a viable at that time). I'm counting on the two "out of proportion" items I'm getting with this package being around for that upgrade. So I'm looking at them as more of a long term investment that will fit nicely with my future camera.
1. Panasonic Monitor
2. Cartoni Gamma Tripod

Both of these items are almost as much as the HVX itself.
Does this make sense?

I think about 15-20 feet. Marc, 20 meters is about 65 feet, no surprise that the signal doesn't work.

The cable I used has special shielding. They use a lot in fixed installations for connecting security cameras with firewire output. In DV mode it did work flawlessy in DV rack. In HDV mode it does not work anymore which is a pitty.

Ram, I second what Marc C. just said: the main reason I bought DVRack was to have my own portable calibrated monitor with WFM and VScope integrated. Now that 709 colorspace is fully supported, it's the easieast way of checking your camera on the field. I compared the colors from my $900.00 HP Laptop running DVRack, against a $3500 Sony monitor and, except for the screen size, they were the same.

hI PAolo.

what are the specs on the laptop you're using with hdv rack? I think i'll take that route. seems like a good compromise solution. What is the resolution on your laptop's screen?

thanks.

I just downloaded the free trial of dvrack to try again on my MacBookPro with WindowsXP running under Parallels.
However it looks like it is still the same old demo version as before (2006.02.14), not version 1.2, which I couldn't get to work properly with the HD100 on my Macbook or on a HP laptop when I tried last month.

The first time I ran the app on the HP 3Ghz laptop it booted and I had control over the different functions, but I could never get a signal from the HD100 (720P24 mode BTW.)

Then I exited, tried again and this message appeared: DV Rack has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

Has anyone else encountered this error? Why can't Windows just tell me what the problem is?

So I just "uninstalled" DVrack Trial and then attempted to re-install it and it tells me it is out-of-date - even though this was the version linked in the email that Serious Magic sent me! Weird.

Does the 1.2 updater work on the trial version?

Tim, how is your configuration? Are you running Windows on your Intel Mac computer?
On a PC to be able to run DVrack properly is to have the right DirectX 9.0c installation. With a tool DXDiag one can check the right settings and installation.

I run hdv rack on my intel macbook pro. I have windows xp pro running through bootcamp, and it runs great with one exception. I just finished a project in 30p and everything works the way it is supposed to. The really cool thing is, I record straight onto a lacie bus powered firewire 800 160 GB hard drive, which is formatted NTFS obviously. OS X tiger reads the hard drive just fine, and I use MPEG Streamclip to get my files onto another mac formatted external drive. The issue lies with 24p. My 30p project worked great, but when I try to record tracks in 24p, the first couple of minutes show on the dv rack player(the waveforms) but the waveforms stops and the player keeps going. In other words, you are supposed to be able to access any part of the footage instantly for review, no problem in 30p, but in 24p, you only get the first 1 to 3 minutes to view. All of the footage is still there, and I can transcode into aic no problem. you just can't review any part of the footage past 3 minutes. I don't know if it is a SM problem or what. I had this problem on my desktop hp pc as well. I have only brought it to SM's attention once, but my schedule has been hectic, and I haven't talked again. I will be on it when I get back from vacation Friday. Anybody else have any similar problems with hd100 24p and HDV rack?

[QUOTE=Jason Coblentz]

does the field monitor display 16x9? in the basic dv rack i can only get 4x3.

[QUOTE=Jason Coblentz]

does the field monitor display 16x9? in the basic dv rack i can only get 4x3.

You need the HDV version for this. The DV mode is 4:3 only.

On a PC to be able to run DVrack properly is to have the right DirectX 9.0c installation. With a tool DXDiag one can check the right settings and installation.
I am running DirectX 9.0c on my Windows side of the computer. Was able to use DXDiag no problem.

After years of seeing bloody Apple not allowing PC users to use their software

Up until very recently Macs have used a completely different architecture than PCs, the hardware itself was incompatible.

Now that Macs run on PC hardware, I could see people releasing software that will let you run Mac software under Windows. I agree, FCP under windows = holy grail. Or at least let me run MacOS on off-the-shelf hardware so I don't have to pay the outrageous prices for Mac hardware.

does the field monitor display 16x9? in the basic dv rack i can only get 4x3.
You need the HDV version for this. The DV mode is 4:3 only.

Not any more. DV Rack 2.0 SD (released today) now has a 16:9 Field Monitor. (and lots of other new and improved features, of course)

Or at least let me run MacOS on off-the-shelf hardware so I don't have to pay the outrageous prices for Mac hardware.
I don't really find the prices of Mac any higher than the PCs. I'll buy a MacBookPro over a PC laptop any day. The perception that Macs are more expensive than PCs is something of the past, check comparable features and you'll find that Apple's products are very competitive.

I don't really find the prices of Mac any higher than the PCs. I'll buy a MacBookPro over a PC laptop any day. The perception that Macs are more expensive than PCs is something of the past, check comparable features and you'll find that Apple's products are very competitive.


yeah right.

Thing about Mac desktops is with a PC you can put your own together, much better than an of the shelf and for cheaper. Macs are proprietary. Besides that, Macs are still more expensive anyways. You can buy a Dell Inspiron 9400 with the same specification as a MacbookPro 2.16Ghz for more than $400 cheaper.
Not to mention Macs look too geek for my tastes. But that may be just me.

Macs are proprietary.
Care to elaborate? Windows is *the* proprietary OS by definition. Microsoft is the poster child of "not invented here" mentality and the main responsible for causing the proliferation of proprietary protocols or proprietary variants of existing ones. That has been always their way of displacing the competition, see what happened with IE. The blatant disrespect for HTML standards has been the hallmark of IE in all these years. Say what you want about the machines but the Mac is one open system and Apple has gone the extra mile to keep the architecture as open as possible embracing open standards (cups, ssh built-in, unix-based architecture, Bonjour, all the standards for internet/html) and even making part of the Mac OS open source (Darwin).
When comparing the two architectures, PC and Mac, is important to have a base in experience. I worked with PCs for about 20 years and switched to Macs 3 years ago. I know both systems intimately. I have no interest in entering a "machine war" discussion and I will not post replies past this one. So the moderators can relax :)
It's the spreading of misinformation that bothers me and that's what pompted this reply. The Mac is one open system, conforming to open standards. The new MacPro systems are so open that 2 days ago Anandtech demostrated how to replace the CPU with the latest Intel CPUs. And don't forget that FireWire, a standard that we use every day, was invented by Apple and now embraced by the whole industry.

Care to elaborate? Windows is *the* proprietary OS by definition. Microsoft is the poster child of "not invented here" mentality and the main responsible for causing the proliferation of proprietary protocols or proprietary variants of existing ones................but the Mac is one open system and Apple has gone the extra mile to keep the architecture as open as possible embracing open standards (cups, ssh built-in, unix-based architecture, Bonjour, all the standards for internet/html) and even making part of the Mac OS open source (Darwin).
I'm not sure they're talking about Windows, the operating system, but rather the hardware.

You can order all the parts for a PC and then put the machine together yourself. I went into a Mac store and they had a handful of models and when I asked about using my existing video and audio cards, adding my existing hard drives, getting a different case, etc. etc. they said that was not possible. It was a completely closed system. I looked at the Mac notebooks and there seemed to only be two models, the cheap white and the tinny silver. There may have been an option for two screen sizes, two. But I think they do this with all their products. There is one style of Ipod, with one type of navigation... and you have to buy special music to use on it, etc. etc. etc.

With a PC you can use Windows but you also have Linux and other options.

You can order all the parts for a PC and then put the machine together yourself.
I looked at the Mac notebooks and there seemed to only be two models, the cheap white and the tinny silver. There may have been an option for two screen sizes, two.


Jack, Apple uses a different approach to customizing their products.
There are 6 models of laptops, 3 MacBook and 3 MacBookPro. The feature list is generally so rich to make endless variants not necessary. More than adding 1GB of ram to my MacBookPro I don't know what I should do. Bluetooth is included so I just bought a bluetooth mouse and it's great. The inclusion of 2 FireWire ports allow me to use about 1TB of external storage. It's a different concept. I stopped building PCs years ago, life's too short. I can build a PC and recompile Linux during breakfast, that's not what I want to do. Just because I can, it doesn't mean that I have to. I switched to the Mac exactly because I needed as system that is up and running in the shortest time possible. If I need an editing workstation on the run, I can just get a MacBookPro, out of the box, and I'm ready to go. Endless permutations based on every little video card manufacturer in Taiwan doesn't buy any more productivity. And at least I know that Apple has verified the working of their OS on every hardware configuration. That concept simply does't exist in the PC world. BTW, the new MacPro has a completely configurable architecture. You can add more HDs, AJA/BM cards, expansions, etc.

There is one style of Ipod, with one type of navigation... and you have to buy special music to use on it, etc. etc. etc.

There are 3 major types of iPods: iPod, Nano and Shuffle. There are several sizes of storage available, depending on your needs and budget. You can play any MP3 file on them. You can use MP3, you can rip any CD, it's a completely open system. You don't want to buy from iTMS? Then don't, buy a CD and rip it.
Forgive Apple for providing the first, global, store for buying CHEAPLY, legal music and making it better every few months. Regarding FairPlay? You really think that the recording labels would have greenlighted music download without any form of protection? Not a chance in hell. It would not happen. In fact Windows DRM is even more restrictive. If anything, we should be grateful to Apple to apply such a lax systems and still provide music that you own and that you can use both on Macs and PCs! Nobody else has anything nearly as simple and open. Most competitors use a single-platform, proprietary encoding: windows media.


With a PC you can use Windows but you also have Linux and other options.
Linux has been available on the Mac for years! I hear that now Ubuntu can be installed on even old G3s, and Intel Linux is not a problem on the new Intel Macs. Not that this option adds anything to value of a Mac or a PC. I can't edit on Linux! But since your brought it up...Linux has been built with multiplatform abilities since... ever! It runs on a IBM 390 for crying out loud. Hardly a PC exclusive. I run my business on Linux, I use a linux machine at home as a Squid cache and print server. It's a wonderful OS that I promoted for years and still promote today. In fact one of the reasons why I switched to the Mac was that I was famiar with Linux and that made switching to a BSD-based system piece of cake. A few years ago PHP and MySQL didn't come bundled with Mac OS, Apache did, and so I was able to take several Linux packages and recompile them under Mac OS.

I hope this sheds a little bit of light on the difference between the two systems. As I mentioned before it's important to be familiar with both platforms before you can formulate conclusions. Since this is probably stretching the limit of acceptable "off topic" in this forum, I'll be glad to provide any more information about Mac and Mac OS and comparison between platforms, via private email.

Gotta go back to editing :)

Paolo,

Thank you for the explanations. Very helpful.