The new WACOM Cintiq range – a review for the CCGB

If you’re a cartoonist with a computer, then you’ve probably heard of WACOM, the Japanese based manufacturer of arguably, the most successful range of graphics tablets in use today – in fact, many of you reading this are using a WACOM tablet, or something similar in your day to day work.  Recently, WACOM announced improvements to its “Cintiq” range of screen/tablet displays, and as a user of a WACOM based Tablet PC, I wondered “Just how good are they?”…

Trying to find someone with a Cintiq to try, is like looking for a Brazilian waxer at a Furry convention, so after making a few calls to WACOM, Digital Photo Solutions in Beckenham came to the rescue, and the club arranged to demo the range at DPS for our interested members.  On hand were Dave Harrison of DPS and David Oduro of WACOM, who fully expected us to arrive en mass, unfortunately, we had a lot of late cancellations, and so just Pete Ellis and my good self were there to represent the CCGB (my stomach counts as a single entity, so that’s three – officially…)

So, let’s cut to the chase –just how good are they?

Cintiq 24HD (with touch)

The 24HD (with touch) is the flagship of the Cintiq range.  For those of you that have never seen a Cintiq, you’ll see from the pictures that it looks like a large drawing board – which is basically what it is – but it’s also a computer screen.  This means that by using the pen supplied, you can draw on the screen as if you were drawing on paper (with the right software).  Because the Cintiqs are input devices, they can be used with any computer that supports them (this includes Macs & PCs) - DPS’s Mac had Photoshop installed, which we used to try out the various features.

First impressions are always important, and you can tell by first glance that this is a quality product.  It feels solid and well made, but is still quite light for its size.  The 24HD comes with its own stand, which allows the screen to be positioned to suit the artist, as well as containing the various port connectors for the required cables (very neat).  Speaking of ports, for the larger Cintiqs, you’ll need a DVI monitor port, as well as a USB port – the only other thing this beast needs is power.  The screen resolution is 1,920 x 1,200 (HD), which is good enough for any art application, as well as designed to reduce eye strain over long periods.  Also, whilst we were using it, I couldn’t detect much heat build-up – make no mistake, they want you to use this as your weapon of choice…

The 24HD comes with 10 configurable express keys, and two configurable touch rings.  The touch rings on our demo were set to rotate the page in Photoshop - a lovely little idea, which would also work well in Manga Studio, but as with almost everything with the Cintiqs, you can set them up (as well as the express keys) to do what you want in the Wacom Driver control panel.

As I’ve used something similar before, I suggested that Pete have the first real play with the device.  Pete uses an Intuos 2 tablet professionally, so I wanted to see long it would take for him to become comfortable with the Cintiq – the answer was, extremely quickly.  If the version of Photoshop had been the same as Pete was used to, it would have been quicker still.  From my own experience, I can report that the 24HD performs well – pen point mapping was good, and there is very little pointer offset (the distance between the point of the pen and the pointer on the screen under the glass). 

The “Touch” option is an interesting feature.  In short, WACOM has given the 24HD both a pen enabled screen, and a virtual capacitive touch screen - which one you use depends on where the pen is.  If the pen is near the screen, the standard pen-enabled features work, if the pen falls outside the screen’s range, the capacitive screen takes over.  This means you can do things like rotate the screen with your fingers, pinch to zoom etc…  It’s a nice idea, which nearly works – I found that it misfired a few times when I was drawing – but you can turn it off if it becomes annoying.

Everything else was as you’d expect from WACOM.  Good pressure sensitivity, responds well, and is easy to work at for long periods.  In summary, the Cintiq 24HD is a quality product, designed for (and intended for) studio use.  The Cintiq 22 is essentially the same device, minus the touch facility and the touch rings, so I won’t bother to elaborate much – it is however, much neater, and may suit your needs better than the larger 24 HD, so compare before you buy.

Cintiq 13HD

Although the baby of the range, the 13HD is the entry level Cintiq, and replaces the 12W – comparison of the two devices is therefore inevitableJ.  The 13HD has a 1920 x 1080 pixel screen, which really is razor sharp, as well as having a wide screen aspect ratio.  WACOM have slightly changed the pen for this display (it’s slightly thinner), but it still uses the same technology, so the pens are interchangeable across the Cintiq range (as an aside, the modern cintiqs can use pens from the Intuos 4 range of tablets, or above). 

There is no “touch” option available, but there are the usual programmable controls that are almost as good as its big 24” brother.  The biggest improvement to the baby Cintiq is in the area of cabling.  The original 12W had a large converter box to which you plugged in your cables – now, the cables are direct into the device – power, USB and HDMI.  Yup, that’s HDMI, not VGA or DVI – you’ll need an adapter to use those (between £10-£20).  To be fair, it’s better for it, as the 13HD feels slimmer and lighter – it also comes with a pretty good stand.

Overall then, the 13HD is a worthy replacement for the 12W, but is it worth replacing your 12W with a 13HD?  To be honest, I think not, unless you REALLY need to get rid of that converter box.

Summary:

Wacom have really put a lot of work into the new Cintiq designs.  It shows – and I WANT one… 

Technical aside:

Some people have asked my how the Cintiq range compares to the DTH or PL product lines that they do, especially as they look similar, and have comparable features, so I asked David Oduro of WACOM about it.  The answer is that the DTH & PL lines are interactive displays, and are designed to be used for short periods, not day in / day out for weeks on end.  If used that way, they can cause headaches etc., whereas the Cintiq range is designed for continual safe usage for as long as the artist requires.

Thanks:

Firstly, thanks to fellow CCGB member Pete Ellis for his contribution.   Secondly a big thank you to David Oduro of WACOM for the technical knowhow (he really knows his stuff) and Dave Harrison of DPS for the venue and demo equipment.  DPS are one of WACOM’s main distributors in the south, so if you want a good deal, please call him on 020 8460 3690, or by email at dharrison@dpsb.co.uk – and don’t forget to mention the CCGB – you might get a discount!

Android? Oh dear...

As regular readers of this tome know, I've been and android advocate for quite some time.  I have access to an android tablet, as well as two android phones, and I've used them in anger for quite a while now - which is why I feel qualified to make the following statement...

Android (as a phone operating system) is crap.

There - I've said it.  Yes, it really is a big pile of pants now, so what has made me change my mind?  Let me regale the story....

9 months ago I moved from a pay and go setup for my phone (at the time, a Sony Xperia Mini Pro android based setup) to a contract, and got a new phone as part of the deal, a Samsung Galaxy Ace.  My wife, who moved onto a contract at the same time, chose to stick with Blackberry, and got a 9320.

In the last 9 months, I have sworn about lack of android updates for my phone.  I have fought with a system that can sometimes take over a minute just to make a phone call.  I have tried (unsuccessfully) to get voice dialing working, and to get a decent signal in some areas. In short, I was at the end of my tether.


To cap it all, I went to a medieval fair, and tried to take some pictures - now remember than my Galaxy has a good camera, but it took so long to set the camera up that I lost the shots - my wife on the other hand, had taken 5 shots using her Blackberry, and pretty good they were too.

Last week in desperation, I tried putting my Sim into a battered old Blackberry 8250 that we had lying about the house, and the difference was astounding.  My calls were clearer, I had more signal, making a call was measured in seconds (not minutes), and I could also voice dial whilst connected to a hands free headset.  In short, this knackered old blackberry smart phone wiped the floor with my Samsung.

Don't get me wrong, not everything in the garden is Rosy.  At the moment, I'm still having to use the Samsung as I need email access, and I can't get the Blackberry set up on Virgin for some reason, but it goes to show that as phones have progressed, sometimes android has not followed.  You could blame this on inferior hardware (and you might have a point), but I believe that android has come too far, too fast - and the cracks are showing.  At the end of the day, if even the most basic android phone can't compete with a knackered, water soaked old Blackberry  on equal terms, then something is fundamentally wrong.

Yes, android has more apps, but apps can't save a platform.  If a phone can't be used as a phone, then it's useless - phone manufacturers please note.  I'm currently looking at getting a second hand virgin Blackberry to replace my android phone - because it works as a phone first, and a "smart phone" second - but does both jobs beautifully...

Graphics Tablets - Mightier than the Mouse?

Graphics tablets - iPad vs Wacom vs Tablet computer

"MIGHTY MOUSE IS ON HIS WAAAAAAAAY!  HERE I COME TO AAARRRGGGHH!!!"

Back in days of yore, ye olde scribes of merriment and hilarity would scritch away on their parchments with trusty metal pen nibs, bringing to life their array of humorous characters for the delectation of the common man.  Ink would blot, spit and spill, and verily, they said unto themselves "Bugger this for a lark - I'm going down the pub..."

But enough about the golden age of Fleet Street.  Today's cartoonists are more modern, dynamic, and techno-savvy (yeah, right).  They have embraced the Digital Age, and that's primarily because of one invention - the graphics tablet.  Never before, in the field of humorous endeavour, have so many grumpy old gits work flow been transformed by one device.

So what is a graphics tablet, what does it do, and how can it help the average cartoonist/artist?

Let's start with the basics.  We've all used a mouse with our computers - that's the little box like device with buttons that we move around with our hand to move the pointer on the computer screen.  Move the mouse left, the pointer moves left, move it right, the pointer moves right - in short, the movement of the mouse in your hand is translated into movement of the pointer on the screen.  Add buttons you can press to perform actions, and you have a computer input device (that's a fancy name for anything that allows you to control a computer)...

Mice were fine for a fair number of years - then some bright spark said "what if we could do the same thing as a mouse, but use a...PEN! You could..WRITE...maybe...DRAW!  MY GOD - it would be BEAUTIFUL..."

Enter the graphics tablet. The tablet is a deceptively simple device - resembling a pad (with a wire connected to the computer) and a pen, the basic graphics tablet works by treating the active area on the pad as the "screen", using a "digitizer" (another fancy term - just means a device that translates one set of co-ordinates (the pad) to another (the screen) ).  Moving the pen on the active area moves the pointer, and pressing with the pen performs the action.  This sort of device was first seen in the 1950's but it wouldn't become popular until the late 1970's, with the arrival of the home computer.  Once the Apple & Microsoft markets had established themselves, one producer of graphics tablets soon became the biggest name in the field, and the one we tend to associate with the technology - WACOM.  Wacom's tablets, such as the Graphire, Intuos and Bamboo models, typify what we expect a graphics tablet to be - a pressure sensitive pen/stylus, combined with a screen ratio "pad" - with this technology, the cartoonist was finally in control...

Well, sort of.  For anyone used to drawing on paper, using a graphics tablet is a bit of a learning curve, because although the pad represents the screen, it does not occupy the same physical space (it's sitting on your desk, after all) - this can lead to a sense of "detachment" when using the pen to draw.  The tablet manufacturers realised that what people wanted was a way they could use the pen by drawing on the screen.  "What if" said an engineer "we put a digitizer behind a LCD screen..."

Enter the Tablet/Screen hybrid, typified by the Wacom Cintiq range.  The tablet\screen hybrid (as it's name suggests) comprises of a LCD screen of some kind, and a pen/stylus, and works by having the "digitizer" of a graphics tablet behind a LCD screen - when the pen is moved on the screen, the pointer follows.  Most hybrids take the form of an extra display unit, that can be used along side your existing monitor, but as we'll see later, there are exceptions.  The tablet/screen hybrid experience is as close as an cartoonist/artist can get to "drawing on paper", and is therefore, the easiest to learn, but the ease comes at a cost, as these devices aren't cheap - most hybrids cost over £700...

Our engineer is a busy old bee, and comes up with another bright idea -" put the digitizer and pen in a laptop..." - and the Tablet PC was born.  These devices are as portable as laptop (sometimes more so), and have all the advantages of a hybrid, but are truly portable, as well as being fully functional PCs.  Unfortunately, only a few manufacturers ever made them, and their initial cost was too steep, but second hand, these devices are exceptionally good value for the cartoonist.

The first generation of Tablet PCs in the Naughties did lead the way for another type of device - the ultra-portable "Pad" device, the best example of which is the Apple iPad.  Unlike a Tablet PC, the Pad has a touch-sensitive screen which the user works with their fingers - they point, the pointer moves, they tap, they generate an action.  Most touch screens use "capacitive" technology (that is, the screen is conductive to electricity).  The screen in normal use, produces an electrical field, which is distorted when a conductive material (such as the skin on your finger, or a stylus) is brought into contact with it.  These devices are usually not sensitive to pressure, or able to work in extreme detail, but these limitations will only be temporary, as the technology continues to develop at a staggering pace.

So what does the future hold?  As touchscreen / Pad technology comes down in price, it will also become more capable.  In the not-to-distant future, the hybrid will become replaced by all-in-one Pad device (probably Android based) that will respond to pressure from both hand and stylus.  You'll be able to take the device anywhere, and work on the move, and the device will be cheap enough to be a no-brainer for the modern artist.  Already, the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 is with us, which comes really close.  Wacom had better watch out, because if they don't keep up, they'll be overtaken...

Right - time to go to the pub, and see who wants to trade nibs...  :)

Raspberry Pi's, Android, and the(mis)hape of things to come...

In my last article, I explained my view on why we need to constantly upgrade our computers.  One vital thing was missing from that view however, and that was the effect of "Backwards Compatibility" on the evolution of computing.  To explain further, we have to go back in time, so let's fire up the old TARDIS and take a look-see (vworrrp, vworrrp, vworrrp...)

In the Eighties, the world (in computing terms) was split into mainframes (think cupboard computers), minis (sideboard computers), and Micros (desktop computers).  Micros were regarded mostly as toys, so the main development was in the larger platforms, but home users started to get in on the act, and in the early eighties, 8bit machines like the BBC Micro / Sinclair ZX81 were the norm.  By the mid Eighties, things had changed significantly, with the arrival of two things - the first was the IBM PC, an 16Bit personal computer (limited by an 8bit bus), designed for business by the biggest  mainframe designer in the business - IBM  The IBM PC started off life as nothing more than a "dumb terminal" to connect to IBM mainframes, but soon, companies realised that this machine could be more productive, and not long after it's inception, software began to appear for it - business software, that would eventually lead to a revolution amongst computing, and eventually give us the most powerful Monopoly next to Disney - yup, you guessed it, it's Microsoft...  As time progressed, the Intel 8086 processor used as the PCs "brain" had extra bits bolted on to give more power (and which changed its name, so 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium etc...), whilst still keeping the ability to run software designed for the older parts - this backwards compatibility became the Intel/Microsoft Windows biggest selling point...

The second event of the Eighties was much more significant - the development of the 16bit processor with a 32bit bus.  The PC ran a chip by a company called Intel, but other manufacturers were developing much more powerful chips, that were far easier to program than the stupid Intel 8086.  Motorola gave us the 68000 range of chips, the power of which can be seen if you compare the IBM PC with the home computers of the time - the Atari ST, Commodore Amiga & Apple Macintosh, all of which were far superior, and could graphically out-perform a PC easily.  A war ensued in the late Eighties / early Nineties, between machines based on the far superior Motorola chips, and the Intel based computers...

As we move forward, the outcome of that war is evident - the Intel/Microsoft became dominant across the world, as did the 8086 and it's subsequent progeny, all the way up to the Intel Dual Core/Quad Core processors used today.  The only survivor of the Motorola camp was Apple, which continued to use Motorola based processors until recently, when (for cost reasons), they switched to the same Intel processors.

Why did Intel/Microsoft win the war?  It certainly wasn't through technical superiority - the Motorola chips were much more powerful, and easier to program than the Intels.  No, the outcome of the war was due to the fact that for the first time in history, the SOFTWARE / USER combination was the driving force.  In the beginning, the two camps were split by usage - the Intel camp was purely business based, the Motorola camp was mostly home based, with some business use (mainly in areas that required advanced graphic capabilities).  At first, business users didn't need the kind of graphical power - no, what they wanted was a number cruncher / word processor that could store it's information.  The IBM PC had a neat trick up it's sleeve - some of it's parts were modular, which meant that you could upgrade it easily.  Need some better expansion ports?  Add a card!  Need a better graphical display?  Change the graphics card!  Need more storage?  Change the hard disk!  This expansion capability led to something else - other manufacturers could use the same parts to create their own version of a IBM PC!  Manufacturers like COMPAQ & Packard Bell were soon making the first IBM PC "Clones", which ran the same operating system (DOS), run the same programs, and even use the same expansion boards!  Business users kept pushing the envelope of what was possible, and what was wanted.  Many more clones appeared...

Over at the technically superior Motorola camp, there was no equivalent business push.  Lots of innovation & technical wizardry (which would eventually be picked up by the business market, but implemented at a business level on Intel based PCs).  Many of the Motorola Camp computers of the time were staggeringly good, but the business market looked at what it already had (many more Intel based PCs around, and many more en route) and market forces went the "PC" way.  The Intel/Microsoft camp's ability to be expandable, combined with it's software "backwards compatibility", triumphed over a technologically superior force... 

As we materialise back into the present, we realise that ALL PC's (including Macs) are now using chips based on the original Intel 8086 design, albeit a design that has been significantly added to, with new capabilities bolted on nearly every day.  A design that is acknowledged as being "difficult to program", compared to most other chip archetectures.  In summary then, the majority of us are using computers based on a chip design that has thrown nothing away, is bloated, inefficient, and difficult to program...

It boggles the mind!

(by the way, If you want to see how inefficient your own computer is, I suggest you take a look at the Raspberry Pi, a credit card sized computer, that can do the same things a PC can, and do it cheaper. )

However, things may well soon change.  Recently, the same software/user combination that created the PC dominated world we live in, has started to evolve itself.  No longer is the business market the driving force, instead, the individual user market is starting to take hold.  New single user devices, such as smart phones, music players & tablets, are coming to the fore like never before, and unlike the PC, these devices are not reliant on old chip technology - instead, they use a new breed of modern CPUs that are cheaper to manufacture, as well as being powerful.  Software is slowly moving away from the monlithic ideas of the past, and is slowly morphing into the "app" model - cheap, powerful programs, that are just a click away.  Where the computer was once the focus, now it is the user who is the focal point.  People argue still argue over which is better - PC or Mac, but that war is over - another war is on it's way, the war between Apple's IOS and Android, and who will win this one? n The technically superior Apple line, or the more adaptible Android camp?  I know who my money's on...

Progress - why you HAVE to buy a new computer every so often...

Do you remember the HOVIS advert?  Que the brass band...

"'Ee were a great computer, my Mainframe!  He could run t'payroll, t'stock system, and t'online transactions, print bloody great reports that consumed reams of green & white paper, and do all that in 512k of memory.  Kids these days - don't know they're born..."  etc, etc....

You may laugh, but this is all true - I know, I was that child.   In 1983, I started my first job - a computer mainframe operator for a large seed grower in East Anglia, and the mainframe I operated was an ICL ME29, with 256k of memory, that did all of the above.  My friend at the time (hi Tony) used a Dragon 32 computer at home - state of the art.

Fast forward to 1991 - I was still operating mainframes (although I was now a Shift Leader, in charge of other operators, as well as doing some COBOL development) and I was operating ICL VME based systems (3960).  At home, I was using a ATARI 512k STFM - a great little machine that had a graphical interface, ran great games, and let me create a newsletter for a club I was with.  In short, a brilliant little all-rounder, that had twice as much memory as my old mainframe...

...1996 - my Atari was a fond memory in the attic, and my main machine was a 486 based PC running Windows 3.11, with a mahoosive 4Mb memory...

...and now, I'm writing this on a Dual-Core PC, with 8Gb memory (that's 32 times as much memory as my PC in '96 - 16 years ago).

Am I doing work that significantly different to what I was doing 16 years ago?  No.  Do I perform my work any quicker?  No.  Is my computer any quicker?  No.  So the question needs to be asked - why, when technology has developed, am I no more efficient than I was 30 years ago?  I'm using more computing power now, than the Apollo Space Program / Shuttle Program had at it's disposal, so why am I STILL screaming at my computer to "GO FASTER DAMMIT!"?

The answer my friends, is one simple word, and that word is...

LAZINESS.

You see, back in the old days, in the Eighties and earlier, much software was written at very low level, often hand coded & optimised to suit the hardware available.  Try any of the computers created during this "golden" age, and you'll find that they seems to run just as fast as anything now - yes, their graphics might be a bit blocky, and their floppy access is SLOW, but you can run a game on an Atari STE now, and it'll seem just as snappy and responsive as a modern game.  This is because of optimisation.

In the late eighties, a programming paradigm became popular - that of code libraries.  The idea is simple - say you write a piece of code that opens a text file.  You'd like to use that code again in another program, so you create a library - a repository of common code that you can use, again and again.  Libraries are a great idea, but they do have a drawback - they promote "library sprawl", a condition where the number of libraries you use grows out of control.  This sprawl, is most noticeable in situations where a program needs features added quickly, and where is the worst offender of library sprawl?  Yup, it's our old friend Microsoft Windows - again...  :(

As an example, I was recently looking into moving the data from a user's PC to another, and I did a quick check to see how much disk space he was using.  Windows itself, was taking nearly 14Gb - compared to my system in 1996, that's nearly 1000 times the size that Windows 3.11 took up on my machine in 1996.  Reliance on existing code, gives faster development turn rounds, but leads to mahoosive computer systems, that require massive amounts of processing power, just to process these libraries.

To be fair, most commercial operating systems have the same problem, this includes OSX and Linux.  Some would say that software grows to fit hardware, but over the years, I come to the conclusion that this is not true.  We HAVE to upgrade our systems because the developers of new software are under tremendous pressure to deliver quickly, which means they HAVE to rely on existing libraries - they have no choice.  It's a sad, but true fact - our software is LAZY, which means we have to throw more computing power at it to get the speed / results we expect.

Think of it in these terms.  A fat man can't run the 100 meters, but instead of losing weight, he gets a bike, but still eats what he likes.  Two years later, he can't ride the bike any more, because he's too fat, but still needs to do the 100 meters, so he gets a motor bike, but yup, he's still tucking into those doughnuts!  Two years further on, he's now so fat, that he can't keep his balance on the bike any more, so he gets a Ferrari-powered dumper truck to do the 100 meters in - stopping on the way, to get a super sized McHeartbreaker Burger with thick shake...

Lazy - oh yes...

IN the 

 

Apple Vs PC - Pointless & Stupid...

In my last article, I mentioned why I wouldn't buy a Mac, with my own money.  Some people have commented that I'm anti Apple, or I'm in the "PC Camp" in the Apple/PC Fanboi debate.

What a load of old tosh!

I've been in the IT Industry for nearly 30 years, I've used mainframes, PCs, Macs - in short, been there, done that. I use PCs at work (because that's the environment I work in), I use PCs at home (because I like the platform, and the value for money it gives me), but I don't always run Windows, because I prefer Linux.  

I've dealt with this type of technology long enough, to know that every platform has good and bad points, but if you're aware of the good points, you should also not be blind to the bad.  I believe I have a balanced view on the subject, because I don't pretend that one platform is better than the other - they all have their strong points.  Apple make some lovely kit, but they do charge a bundle for it, and sometimes, it doesn't play nicely with anything that isn't Apple - that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it, just be aware.  In the same vein, PC kit can vary in quality because it's so varied, but it offers better value for money, combined with cheaper repair costs - but it can be hampered by an operating system that has evolved in strange ways, leading to sometimes weird and wonderful problems - again, that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it, just be aware.  If you don't like windows, try something else!

Any debate  about Apple vs PC is a stupid waste of time.  If you like one, stop wasting time trying to evangelise it's benefits - enjoy it for what it is - a tool.

Why I won't be buying an iMac...

As many of you know, I'm a cartoonist, as well as an IT Specialist, and many of my cartooning friends use Macs - in fact, many creatives use Apple Macs (in various guises) and will continue to do so, no matter what.  Many have tried to convince me to convert, and many times have I thought about it - and declined.

"But why do you decline?" you may ask.  "Surely they're stuff is great!".

Mmmnn...

Let me start by linking a review of the new Apple iMac 21.52 2012 version - this is for balance (!)

Ok - Apple make good products.  They are well engineered, look stunning, perform well, and provide a great user experience.  They are also expensive, difficult to repair / upgrade, and are somewhat proprietary in their nature.  Back in the Nineties, I was using Atari STs at home, PCs at work.  I loved my Atari - it was quick, slick and a joy to use, but it suffered form the same blight as the iMac, as it was expensive to upgrade, and proprietary.  By 1996, I was solely PC based, and have been ever since.

PCs may be a bit clunky, a bit large, and not as sexy as Apples, but they are cheap to upgrade / repair, and cheap to purchase - I can buy a PC that will out-perform an iMac for less money, and for those of you who would argue that buying a PC means that you're locked into that user experience, I would point out that not only can you run Windows on a PC, but you can run Linux (my personal favourite is PCLinuxOS) or even OSX (although you're not supposed to...)

In short, a PC is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, and just as good.  I liken the Apple/PC choice to that of buying a Ferrari/Honda - both will get you where you want to go, but it'll be cheaper and more reliable in the Honda (and yes, I DO drive a honda)...