Mac or PC for image processing

[iPhillip]

Yeah, I see what your getting at (I've just installed the latest beta build of windows 7).

I used lightroom on windows Xp and found it very useful, I'd like to compare it to aperature to be honest as I've never had any experience with it.

[milleniummuppet]

I really wouldn't worry about the issue of which computer you buy ( Mac or PC ).
It really doesn't make that much odds with new computers, the difference between processing speeds is very insignificant.
I have read some comparisons between the two machines ( Mid range Mac & Mid range PC ), and the start-up times do differ by about 3 seconds. Now, this on its own sounds substantial, but when looked at like this : one computer takes 47 seconds, and the other 44 seconds,

You really have to ask yourself "Is that really going to matter".

The same goes with a test on photoshop CS3's batch processing times: about 2 seconds difference when added to about 60 seconds.

Ive personally got no problem with PC's, just running windows XP professional seems to suffice.
I do agree with the 'Vista' problem however, and if you don't have a copy of XP, buying a new PC and being stuck with Vista could definitely cause you grief.
"Vista is the new windows millennium" designed to be the guinepig for Microsofts new operating system, and, while it looks flashy, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

On the plus side is the new 'windows 7', which is at its early stage looking a lot more promising than its predecessor, and is designed to be a gradual 'Update' from windows Vista.
This means if you have vista, you will not have to go and buy the new OS - something that is looking very promising for all those 'trapped' with it.

So my advice for anyone facing this decision, is find what PP program suits you ( be it Aperature or Lightroom ), then think about the price you are willing to pay ( I have to say, you get considerably less computer for your buck if you opt for a Mac ) and base you decision on this.

[Colin Southern]

"Vista is the new windows millennium" designed to be the guinepig for Microsofts new operating system, and, while it looks flashy, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

Honestly, don't get too caught up with the "anti-Vista" thing. When it first came out it's performance was terrible; mostly because we just didn't expect it to consume so much resource. But as soon as we started to run Vista boxes with 4GB RAM and quad-core CPUs - and applied Microsoft's SP1 it started to perform quite acceptably. Just yesterday my accountant (who upgraded from a WinXP machine) commented on how well it's going and how fast it is - I have other customers - some who are very demanding - and I've had no complaints from them either. And in terms of security, it's proven to be BY FAR the most secure OS to date - and yes, that includes WinXP - Mac OS - Linux - and other Unix based systems; some REALLY don't like to hear that, but I can list each and every security hole for each of those platforms and I can promise you that if you think otherwise, you'll lose that fight.

It's had a lot of bad press for sure - hell, I think I personally lead at least 1/2 of the lynch mobs and possie's - and we avoided it like the plague for as long as we could too, but ... after a while we also had to question the wisdom of continuing to install WinXP which at this stage had grown to be a very old operating system (and will soon likely enter the "extended support phase") (Microsoft speak for "discontinued support phase, apart from security fixes), so cautiously, we installed 1 Vista box on a large site - and then another - and then another and to my surprise they've been absolutely fine - no unexplained "Vista funnies" - no crashes - performance is good, and most surprising of all, support calls to tweak things has dropped to almost zero (I really didn't think that would happen in 1000 years, but it has - people are figuring it out for themselves).

I have to say that personally, I'm not a big fan of the fancy interface, but 95% of that can be turned off and the more familiar WinXP / Classic themes are pretty much still there if you want the more traditional look and feel. Additionally, I use it myself on my home machine, and it's fine there too. The only issues we see these days are people trying to run it on boxes with 1GB RAM.

[milleniummuppet]

Yes the OS isnt 'really' that bad, although there were some major security flaws in the first few months after its release.
It IS secure, partially because it tends to ask you questions ALL the time eg "are you sure you want to do this?" " are you sure you sure you want to do this?", lol.
Not quite like that, but almost.
The basic difference between XP security and Vista security put very simply is this:

XP. Everything is my friend / clean, until something tells me otherwise.

Vista. Everything is the Enemy / bad, until something tells me otherwise.

People who new allot about computers found this very frustrating and repetitive, despite the fact that it was very secure indeed, in fact, almost fool-proof.
There were also A LOT of driver/software issues, especially for the software writers as the new Vista system forced them to have to write two ENTIRELY different versions of the same software to ensure that it would work on both new and old systems.

Putting this aside, I do realize that the leap will have to be made at some stage, and that is why I opted to wait for the 'second release' ( as many others did also ), and, as I suspected, Microsoft followed their release patterns perfectly, releasing the test subject into the wild - gathering data - and re-designing.
Like I said before, it was great that Microsoft decided to make Windows 7 a gradual update, to prevent people from being stuck with Vista ( although it doesn't go to badly now ).
I see so many house hold computers stuck with windows Millennium, which they were sadly forced to buy.

I will be trying the new Beta shortly =) .

[Daniel Salazar]

So my advice for anyone facing this decision, is find what PP program suits you ( be it Aperature or Lightroom ), then think about the price you are willing to pay ( I have to say, you get considerably less computer for your buck if you opt for a Mac ) and base you decision on this.

Exactly, that's the point.

It's funny because the guy who started the thread hasn't come back and now we're deliberating on this issue.

If Aperture = Mac OS
If Lightroom = Mac OS or Windows (which one to choose is a decision to be taken by each one)

Cheers,
Daniel

[Colin Southern]

It IS secure, partially because it tends to ask you questions ALL the time eg "are you sure you want to do this?" " are you sure you sure you want to do this?", lol.
Not quite like that, but almost.

The old UAC (User Account Control) used to be like that, but Microsoft dramatically turned down the number of alerts generated with SP1;

Most end users don't get any alerts anymore ... and ... it was always able to be turned off even from first release if it was overly annoying (and yes, I turned mine off pretty quick).

Yes the OS isnt 'really' that bad, although there were some major security flaws in the first few months after its release.

Yes there were - but - there were more in the first 12 months following initial release in EVERY other major OS.

There were also A LOT of driver/software issues, especially for the software writers as the new Vista system forced them to have to write two ENTIRELY different versions of the same software to ensure that it would work on both new and old systems.

Yes. No other way around it when you change the security model if you still want to retain stability. Don't forget that on NT based systems all drivers run in Kernel mode with unrestricted access to all memory - it's a lot of power give to these trusted little blighters - so it's important to get the development of them right (which is why Microsoft like to give them the once over - approve it - and have it digitally signed, but many still don't bother, so badly written drivers infiltrate the OS and according to Microsoft OCA (Online Crash Analysis) stats are (off memory) responsible for something like 70% of fatal exceptions.

Microsoft followed their release patterns perfectly, releasing the test subject into the wild - gathering data - and re-designing.

It's a common gripe, but it really doesn't hold much water. Vista was released in all the usual forms (Alpha to selected people, numerous Betas to many of the interested masses - Release Candidates etc) - much the same as they do for any other OS. It's just a reality that when there are so many applications being run in so many combinations on such a wide variety of hardware (of which a lot ISN'T certified as being compliant) that runtime issues occur. It's been the same for every OS right back to DOS 1 and CP/M which I had and still remember well) - probably the biggest difference then was that we didn't have the internet to communicate these things with the world, and there weren't as many PCs.

Great discussing our mutual love of Microsoft with you - but I think I'll leave this one at that :) (I have 4 large canvases to frame!).

[milleniummuppet]

No problem .
Yes, the main point made was that I prefer to hold back on new products, just to see how they turn out.
Saves a lot of 'Tweaking' time, and grief in the long run because you can be better prepared for what happens.
I tend to have a rather cautious nature I guess you could say .

[Colin Southern]

The main point made was that I prefer to hold back on new products, just to see how they turn out.

I will be trying the new Beta shortly =) .

Tui drinker by any chance?

[Davey]

I am ready to take a pelting for this but I like vista, it's more secure than xp and not as prone to buffer overflow exploits etc. I've used slackware since about 1998 so I'm not a microsoft exclusive user either, slack was my main OS until I switched to zen about a year ago (still slack based but a lot is ready automated out the box and a few other things I like). I think the anti-vista brigade and the smug linux elitists have all blown the vista thing out of proportion. The current state of the OS is stable and secure (or as secure as I'd expect for what it is). Security wise it might not be up to the standard of security industry but they tend to use linux boxes (especially slackware and gentoo) since most the sec tools and the like are unix only or win equiv is feature limited and it's more suited to that role. As far as home machines or your average office comp goes vista is fine IMO.

I think every new OS has it's issues and xp certainly did. Yeah it's a tad bloated but so is a lot of stuff including many linux distros and some bsd out the box solutions are following similar trend. Vista gets a bad rep for the wrong reasons. Many think it's xp with eye candy but under the hood it's quite different hence I forgive it's compatability issues since it's unavoidable and flaws take time to iron out. Vista serves me well and I like it and if I need slim then I use zen with slimmed down boot and services and compile my own vanilla kernel and not much faster than that I've found (especially in xfce).

[Colin Southern]

Unfortunately, our friend and collegue Nocturne was assasinated by a posse shortly after making his post ... (just kidding).

Seriously, I think what you wrote was well balanced - I remember hating WinXP when it first came out, thus hanging onto my beloved Windows 2000, but somewhere along the way we got used to WinXP and it occured to me just the other day that I literally can't remember the last time I installed W2K on a box.

And then along came Vista, and suddenly it was "the new kid on the block". As a IT consultant I had an obligation to get to know it before letting it loose on my clients, and frankly, I didn't like what I found; performance on Laptops was - put simply - abysmal, and we ended up between a rock and a hard place in that new laptops (for a while) came only with Vista, and although we could exercise licence downgrade rights to regress to XP, in reality we didn't have drivers so that wasn't an option, and it was a very uncomfortable situation. One client called out one day to say "Colin - I bought this F___ing laptop because my old one was too slow - AND THIS ONE IS EVEN SLOWER - fix it will you" (pretty much word for word) - on this occasion we were able to install WinXP and save the day, but in the end we had to scour the 4 corners of the earth (it's really flat and square you know!) to get WinXP laptops - and in the end they dried up too - but - by then we had access to laptops with 4GB RAM and faster CPUs - and Microsoft introduced SP1 - and all of a sudden we found "hang on - this isn't so bad now). From then on we tried it on gruntier 4-Core processors and 4GB RAM desktops - and were pleasantly surprised. Yes, still a different interface to get used to (even more so from a setting up / IT Management perspective), but that was more a case of just getting used to the new way of doing things; Personally I cursed Microsoft for changing things so much in that respect, but in their defence, as I mentioned in a previous post, support calls have all but dried up - so although I don't like it, it none-the-less seems to have resonated with end users.

Fast-forward to the present ...

I STILL think of Vista as an OS devotes too much horsepower to the "new age" type interface and graphics (I revert as many as I can to more classic looks), but I guess that the point there is that if you don't like that kind of thing you CAN tweak it to something you like. At the end of the day though it's primary purpose in life is to provide a runtime environment to my applications and their data - and to that end it's absolutely fine. These days I tend to think of it simply as a means to an end - just another tool in the toolbox.

[milleniummuppet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by milleniummuppet
The main point made was that I prefer to hold back on new products, just to see how they turn out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milleniummuppet
I will be trying the new Beta shortly =) .

Tui drinker by any chance

Ha ,

You misinterpreted that slightly - the holding back was on the 'New generation OS'
meaning I waited for the second release ( or windows 7 ).

[iPhillip]

To be honest you have been holding back, the first releases were build 6000 something. Hell its come a long way from then.

And Colin, Yeah Right

[Derek Hopkins]

I can't believe the education I am getting from all your replies to my original question. Thank you all very much, I am thoroughly enjoying the learning process. As I may have mentioned, I ended up with a PC using XP based really on price alone. I have recently added Lightroom with which I am more than satisfied. It will be a long time before I have mastered what that program can do in terms of the organization of my images right through to the printing stage.

I think for me, at least, while XP may not eventually allow me to keep up with all the latest available programs by the time it is obsolete there will perhaps be a cheap up grade. In the meantime, the longer I can put off learning a new OS the happier I will be.

Derek

[hoffstriker]

I just wanted to rehash this thread to say "Thanks" to everyone for their posts. This is an incredible thread in terms of information alone. Since I just found out I can get Photoshop CS4 for student rates (how I love my wifes never ending college career) I decided it's time to get a new computer as well, and all my answers were here. Thanks to all for your contributions. I'm getting a desktop with XP (unless 7 comes out in the very near future) and building it up for any that are wondering.

[Captured]

Found this thread- don't know if there are any more recent ones. I am in the market for a new computer- I have been a PC user...would feel more comfortable with a PC- wondering if I should go with a Mac... My budget is about 1,000 US dollars. Someone suggested I go with a Mac mini, then buy a screen and keyboard from a different brand that is Mac compatible.I know anything can be better than what I have now! HP zv6000 - I've had it for 9,years or so. ...just so unsure of which way to go. Any one can suggest PC's to look into as well.

[Colin Southern]

I am in the market for a new computer- I have been a PC user...would feel more comfortable with a PC- wondering if I should go with a Mac

Hi Krisztina,

Why would you want to go with a Mac if you'd feel more comfortable with a PC?

[oldgreygary]

I haven't read all the posts but I thought I would contribute some thoughts. Apple vs Windows is a bit like Canon vs Nikon. The bottom line is that is down to personal preferences and budget.

I think that possibly the choice is more Windows vs Unix/Linux. First let me declare that I have Windows XP and Linux running on my personal computer. I believe that Unix/Linux is by far the better operating system. I cannot give you black and white facts. All I can say is that Linux/Unix gives the user a far better experience of using a PC. As Apple is a Unix based system then that would seem to be the better choice. There also seems to be some thought that Unix/Linux is less prone to virus attacks.

But, there always is a but, in the UK I think that entry cost for Apple is around £1000. There doesn't seem to be much of a secondhand market either. So, in terms of cost you can certainly buy Windows based systems for at least half that cost. If you went down the Linux route that offers more options in terms of choice of machine. While there is a huge repository of 'free' software for Linux, the downside is that a lot of the major software suppliers like Adobe don't produce software for Linux, which is rather odd as they do for Apple which is Unix based system! So for image processing you have to take that into consideration. If you chose Linux, are you prepared to accept the 'free' software options or do you want to access all the major image processing software? If you are currently using Windows then if you switch to Apple there is also the additional cost of having to buy software that will work on the Apple machine. There are 'virtual' machine options but that will only confuse the choice!!

I can hear people snoring!!! so I will sum up.

If cost isn't an issue I would certainly look at the Apple option first. If cost is an issue then I would go for a Windows based system. Either of these options gives the potential to able to install the major image processing software e.g. Adobe based products. By choosing the Windows based option that could still allow you to have a Linux based system as well which could give you the best of both worlds.

Cheers for now

Gary

[darkslide]

If cost isn't an issue I would certainly look at the Apple option first. If cost is an issue then I would go for a Windows based system. Either of these options gives the potential to able to install the major image processing software e.g. Adobe based products. By choosing the Windows based option that could still allow you to have a Linux based system as well which could give you the best of both worlds.

Couldn't agree more.

I use Windows PC's where I work and Mac at home. I run Lightroom on both systems and my images come out exactly the same. I love using my Mac, I really do - things seem so much more intuitive, but at the end of the day, my MacBook Pro cost more than double my work laptop.

This said, the iMac series (27inch) are, in my view, very good value for money

[crisscross]

Make sure you are comparing like with like: RAM (I immediately filled up my macBook pro to 4GB & that was 4 years ago); HD size (I have recently replaced HD with a 500GB one, srewdriver job, could have been more only i didn't want noise of a 7200rpm disk); screen resolution as well as physical size; video card (don't know much about them except that mac usually uses a state-of-art one. I do like to be able to slip it (MBP 15") into a sleeve in my day bag, yet to see a PC laptop I could do that with or for which I would care to give up having a desk one for altogether.

If Lightroom or anything A***e have ever produced is intuitive, I have been designed with faulty intuition, so mac only wins with eg Nikon Capture & the interface is meant to be identical on both; not sure about running other ancillary progs at the same time, you certainly need the ram.

[Captured]

Hi Krisztina,

Why would you want to go with a Mac if you'd feel more comfortable with a PC?

ONLY because seems I'm behind in technology- and I've always heard Mac is the way to go...trying to get my foot in the loop, I guess.