Mac or PC for image processing

[Captured]

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

Yes, cost is the problem- and I dont know what to look for. :/

[Marty]

For what it's worth... I don't know about the relative power/speed etc between Macs and PCs. I changed over to an iMac 3 years ago and that machine has been running almost day and night ever since. It has been used hard. I have never once even seen an error message or been forced to reboot or force quit an application. I cannot say this about any of the PCs I've used. In terms of reliability and getting the job done with the least amount of hassle, I cannot fault the Mac.

[oldgreygary]

Hello Krisztina,

If cost is an issue I would say that the choice is made for you. I don't know what Apple prices are like in the States but I would think that your $1000 budget would not get you a Mac and whatever software you wanted.

I think image processing software is quite 'resource hungry' so you will need something that can cope with that. I haven't got enough knowledge to advise you on specific makes etc. Perhaps, you might consider going to your local PC store(s) telling them what your requirements are and asking for their advice? Choose a few to get an idea of costs. Personally, I wouldn't use the larger stores but that's just my personal preference.

Also, I wouldn't worry about being 'out of date' with technology. It is more than possible to successfully use 'out of date' technology to accomplish what you want to do.

Cheers for now

Gary

[Tringa]

I have to admit I'm speaking from ignorance - I have never used a Mac but I do not think I have heard of any Mac user who wants to change, they all seem very pleased with their machines.

However, a lot (ie huge numbers) of people use PCs for everything, including photo work, and have no problems.

The main criticism I hear of PCs is they are unstable and keep crashing. Some Microsoft operating systems were terrible to begin with because they were not, I suspect, tested in a real environment before release, for example Vista, but this improved with updates. Others were terrible to begin with and stayed that way - Windows ME.

Things have improved more recently. I use a 6 year old PC running Windows XP and it does not crash. I don't mean very rarely, I mean it has never crashed. XP for me is rock solid. I think the fact that the date for the withdrawal of support for XP has been put back a few times indicates that it is still a functioning OS.

When I hear folks complain about their PCs crashing my first thought is user error. I think that Macs may function in a way that requires less user involvement in nuts and bolts, so to speak, and for some this may be a real advantage.

If, however, you have always been happy with a PC, I don't see a reason to change, it will do all you want.

Dave

[Captured]

I have to admit I'm speaking from ignorance - I have never used a Mac but I do not think I have heard of any Mac user who wants to change, they all seem very pleased with their machines.

However, a lot (ie huge numbers) of people use PCs for everything, including photo work, and have no problems.



Things have improved more recently. I use a 6 year old PC running Windows XP and it does not crash. I don't mean very rarely, I mean it has never crashed. XP for me is rock solid. I think the fact that the date for the withdrawal of support for XP has been put back a few times indicates that it is still a functioning OS.

When I hear folks complain about their PCs crashing my first thought is user error. I think that Macs may function in a way that requires less user involvement in nuts and bolts, so to speak, and for some this may be a real advantage.

If, however, you have always been happy with a PC, I don't see a reason to change, it will do all you want.

Dave

Thank You, Dave. Mine hasn't crashed either. I guess I just need to upgrade to a new PC... need to start researching what is out there!

[proseak]

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.

I had a look at amazon.com, and looked at 2 machines, one Mac, the other PC. here are the links;

http://www.amazon.com/Apple-MC816LL-...9936021&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/CyberpowerPC-G...9935111&sr=1-5

The first one is for the Mac, and I was surprised by how cheap it was -$762.95; I tend to think of Macs, as, well expensive. The PC was cheaper, at $619. I then had a (very) quick look at the differences, and became less surprised.

The mac is much smaller, so small that there's no DVD drive. The PC looks like, well, a PC, and does have a DVD drive. There's also space to add more internal hard drives later. The Mac has 4 Gb of RAM, and the PC 8Gb; both are DDR3 133MHz. Both machines have 500Gb hard drives, but the Mac is only 5400 rpm compared to the PC's 7200rpm. The video card for the Mac has 256Mb of memory compared to the 1024 for the PC. GPU Passmark rated the Mac's card higher, though. As to how much these numbers matter, well, in the first case a lot, the second quite a lot, and the third not as much.

All in all, a PC is much cheaper for a given level of performance, at least at this price-point.

HTH

Peter

[Colin Southern]

I have to admit I'm speaking from ignorance - I have never used a Mac but I do not think I have heard of any Mac user who wants to change, they all seem very pleased with their machines.

However, a lot (ie huge numbers) of people use PCs for everything, including photo work, and have no problems.

In all honesty, I feel that the (enviable) customer loyalty that Apple manages to get from their customers equates more to "evangelism" than anything else; One could be forgiven for thinking that using a Mac is more "religious experience" than it is a "computer experience"!

Now I'm not saying that to start a flame war. In all honestly, I've used Macs, and I don't like them -- but no doubt thats because I've invested a lifetime using PCs. I used to run my PC business in office space leased FROM WITHIN our local Apple dealership -- so as you can imagine, we had a lot of "good natured debates"; and I can tell you, in those days, it was common practice to have to restart a Mac about once a day. The stability of Windows 95 PCs when playing games probably wasn't much better either I might add. These days though, the potential is there for stability in both camps; in all fairness, it's probably true to say that Apple have more consistent quality control (although I must admit to having come across a disturbing number of faulty iPhones) (mine included); from a PC perspective though I can tell you that - with reliable hardware (ie not the cheapest money can buy) - and with stable drivers (ie not written for the cheapest hardware) then modern Windows 7 machines are exceptionally stable. In the same vein, PC viruses are vastly "over-rated" (basically, if one runs a quality AV package - lets the PC install it's critical updates automatically - and stays away from sex sites - then one is unlikely to EVER have a virus problem) (I certainly don't).

I'm trying to put this in a balanced way - although I'm not a Mac power-user, I AM an iPhone power user - and yes, I try to convert other users to them (with good success) every opportunity I have (yep, I'm an Apple iPhone evangelist through and through) - but as evangelical as I am, I none-the-less have to restart apps quite often -- and even the phone every week or so to get things to work properly; Apple producs are by no means perfect - to the point where I'd really have to say (and I do this myself with the iPhones / iPads / Apple TVs) that when the evangelism kicks in folks just get hell-bent on promoting them whilst at the same time, trying to "run-down the competition" (orrible orrible Android phones!!!)

End of the day, both platforms are solid reliable performers; but Photoshop or Lightroom doesn't "run better on a Mac" - it runs EXACTLY the same; If one opens a webpage on Safari on a Mac it looks the same as if opened on Internet Explorer on a PC. They're just tools that allow us to do a job -- and usually those tools work the same regardless of who's tool shed they're stored in.

[darkslide]

If one opens a webpage on Safari on a Mac it looks the same as if opened on Internet Explorer on a PC.

Erm...no - not exactly the same - Microsoft are really lagging behind everyone else in support of HTML5...

[Colin Southern]

Erm...no - not exactly the same - Microsoft are really lagging behind everyone else in support of HTML5...

But don't forget that the only reason HTML5 got any traction in the first place was because Steve Jobs wouldn't put flash support into iOS devices.