New computer - Apple?

I have the opportunity to purchase a new computer. Am currently using a HP

desktop with 1GB of RAM. A friend has said to go for an Apple with the same

RAM - he says it will be faster due to the processor and that Apples are far

better for post-processing anyway. Is he right? At the moment I am not finding

my computer to be too slow (I'm using Elements for some basic stuff) but I am

not sure it could handle my planned move to using RAW and CS2.

 

Is my friend right?

any newer machine will outperform your laptop, but for OS/X and PS on a Mac, I'd strongly

<br>suggest 2GB of RAM. The OS needs room to "breathe" and PS is very memory hunrgy

The newest iMac and Power Mac machines feature the Intel Core 2 Duo, which at the moment, for any given GHz, is the fastest CPU around. But there is more than just the CPU to consider when determining the fastest machines. You also need to consider how fast the RAM operates at, how much RAM you have, and how quickly the hard drive operates.

 

My wife and I recently bought a 20" iMac. It has a 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of 667 MHz RAM, a 256 MB ATI X1600 video controller, and a 500 GB hard drive. I partitioned the hard drive using Boot Camp, which allows me to boot either into MAC OS X, or into Windows XP, for Windows-only apps I need to use. I wanted this configuration so that I would be able to do high-def. video editing, which it should be able to handle quite easily.

 

So far I've been very pleased with the speed of the machine. The iMac's all-in-one form factor, while less expandable than the bigger ATX/BTX-style boxes housing Windows PC's, has all but eliminated clutter around our computer desk. I like the screen on the machine too. It works very well as a Windows machine, a real plus. I've used Macromedia Fireworks MX 2004 for Windows, and it works well. At this time there are few photo-editing apps that were created with Universal Binaries that allow them to run natively on Intel CPU's. The only high-powered Mac photo-editing software that has this feature is Apple's Aperture. Adobe hasn't yet seen fit to upgrade PS CS to Universal Binaries yet, but will ensure the next version has been compiled for them. Some user reports indicate that it runs quite slowly on Intel Macs, which have to use the Rosetta software right now to emulate the PowerPC machines PS CS was compiled for. You might want to consider waiting until the upgraded PS CS for Macs is available until you make your purchase. I won't get any photo-editing software for Mac myself until this issue is addressed.

 

Hope this helps you make a more-informed decision.

I have not verified this myself, but I heard the latest OSX firmware update was geared towards improving PhotoShop performanace. PS now runs faster on Intel MAC than on PowerPC MAC.

Let me second the recommendation to get a minimum of 2GB of RAM. The Intel-processor

Macs like more RAM.

 

The full advantage of the Intel-processor Macs is available now for most software, since

the bulk of it has been updated to run natively on the newer processors. Older Mac

software runs under a form of emulation (that is invisible to the user) on these machines -

these programs run quite well, but not necessarily any faster than on the older G5-

processor systems. Photoshop is one of these programs.

 

So, Photoshop runs fine right now on the new Macs, but it will supposedly run a lot faster

when the next version is released something in the next few months.

 

I teach (electronic music) in a lab full of brand new Intel-processor 20" iMacs and we also

use this lab for a Photoshop class. These machines are working well in both capacities.

 

Dan

Are you used to Microsoft PC's? Do you want to learn a new system, on the off-chance you'll gain a bit of performance? Or not? I doubt there will be a substantial difference, purchasing the latest for the PC camp, vs MAC. And MAC's, and their accesories, tend to be pricey.

<I>....but I heard the latest OSX firmware update was geared towards improving PhotoShop

performanace. </I><P>It was an OS update, 10.4.8, not firmware that supposely improved

Photoshop. Some reports of up to 38% increase in speed.<P>Too much RAM is not enough!

<I>...MAC's, and their accesories, tend to be pricey.</I><P>Macs, not MAC's, are now

cheaper then comparable PCs, not talking about cheap eboxes from BestBuy etc. but the top

end

Mac is $1000 cheaper then the same confirgured Dell. Macs use the same accessories a as

PCs, hard drives, ram, etc. so there is no difference in price there. The "Macs cost more" is

now a myth, get over it.

Sigh.

 

I have a PC with Intel Core2 Duo (E6800 cpu) that is twice as fast using PS CS2 as my good friend's Mac G5 Quad at 2.5 ghz. I can convert a raw file from my Nikon D200 in LESS than ONE second. Your friend is incorrect and is relying on urban myth and hearsay. I use 4 gigs of ram. I would strongly suggest you get at least 2.

 

By the way, because I built my own PC, it was 1/2 as expensive as my friend's similarly equipped Mac.

Just as Steve said, the benefit of a PC is that you can build a <i>screaming fast</i> system for the price of a mid-range Mac. Granted, that is <i>if</i> you know how to build a computer (which is about as hard as putting together a home theater system). PCs are also easier to upgrade since you can buy components piecemeal. For example, I will soon upgrade from a 1.8Ghz/1 gig ram system to 3Ghz core 2 duo (overclocked)/2 gig ram system and I can transfer my hard-drives, video card, tv-tuner card, cd & dvd-roms, floppies, card readers, case and monitor. If you have money to burn, don't want to spend half a day putting together PC components and like the clean stylings of Macs, get a Mac. If you're just going to get a Dell or Gateway pre-built, I'd say it doesn't matter either way.

 

Also, like said above, buy as much ram as possible.

There is a middle ground between Dell and complete do it yourself. Just go with a competent local retail system builder. They exist.

People ultimately buy PC's to do things. It doesn't really matter if it's Mac or Windows, as long as it does what a person needs it to. In the case of our family, a compact, all-in-one design was what we needed. A similarly-configured Sony would have cost more. A compact-case Dell with the same configuration and a 20-inch LCD monitor would have cost nearly the same. Form factor and usability are at least as important for many people as cost. Unlike the way things were several years ago, Macs represent a good value these days. Especially when you factor in the bundled software that comes with it, such as iMovie HD, which is far more powerful than Windows Movie Maker, and the equal of many Windows video-editing software titles. The first computer I ever bought was an old-style Mac. The next one, a Windows machine. (FWIW, I upgraded it several times, and spent at least as much money on the upgrades as the original machine. In my experience, building a machine yourself is not all that cost effective, unless you use the cheapest parts.) This time around I got a new Mac that runs Windows, and runs it well. I've always purchased computers based on my needs. For my personal needs (such as video editing) at this time the Mac side is better, although for work the Windows side is better. I get both in one machine. Mac or Windows PC's will serve people well. The Mac OS X and Windows XP interfaces aren't all that different. If you are used to one you will get used to the other quite quickly. Decide for yourself which platform is better for your needs. Just be sure to stuff it full of as much RAM, Video RAM, and hard drive capacity as you can afford.

<I>Macs use the same accessories a as PCs, hard drives, ram, etc.</i><P>If I corner any rabid Apple user about build quality between a Mac and a PC (Dell), or make a comment about a Mac being proprietary, the typical response from the Apple crowd goes like "Macs use the same accessories a as PCs, hard drives, ram, etc ". So, it's interesting that the Mac is supposedly built with better parts than the PC, and is more reliable (according to Apple users), but it also uses the same parts as the PC. Boy, somebody has some brilliant marketing going on.<P><I>In the case of our family, a compact, all-in-one design was what we needed.</i><P>Contrary to this, my family and the engineers I work with want full size towers with legitmate options of expandibility, and not some twanky laptop pretending to be a desktop bolted into a desktop LCD (iMac), that is engineered and limited in terms of processor to not encroach on their Mac Pro sales. Then again, I know some people love their TV's with VHS and DVD players built into them.<P>Funny one about iMovie being better than commercial video editing software.

In my work, I use both Apple and Windows systems. Without a doubt, the most cost effective solution for image processing and video work is a Mac. With Macs, a framegrabber comes standard. The cheapest framegrabber for windows pc's is probably half the price of the computer again. But it is in the operating systems where the most advantages are gained. The Unix operating system is the most widely used operating system for high-end image processors and has numerous advantages over the Windows system. The Mac OS is based on Unix. If you want image processing power then choose Mac. If you want number crunching power (ie database and statistics apps) then choose Windows.

 

Regards

AN ADDENDUM

 

Now that the Mac is using the Intel dual and quad core chips, even the number crunching advantage of Windows disappears. Because it is the chip and not the operating system that gave Windows PCs this advantage.

Just try your current settup for RAW conversions with CS2 and see if it is really too slow. If it is the older box can still be used as a backup system. Here I have done raw conversions with my T30 IBM laptop with a 1.8Ghz P4M, and older cpu. It has 1 gig of ram and Xppro.

Thanks Sean -- I saw your post and realized it was a saucer of milk to the hissingly rabid anti-Mac Scott Eaton. Good to see Scott's still in form! :-)

FYI, just one recent (out of many) reports showing Apple computers being as cheap or cheaper than competing PCs with the same specs:

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=211

it's nice to see that Scott's fingers and keyboard are still working. I often wonder if being the

Windows tech support guy for a major retail chain has something to do with his testiness on

this subject.

->it's nice to see that Scott's fingers and keyboard are still working. I often wonder if

being the Windows tech support guy for a major retail chain has something to do with his

testiness on this subject.

 

He must be out trying to score the new iPhone. Its been over a month for him. I hate to

point out this "bad" news:

 

Apple on Wednesday posted a record-breaking $1 billion profit on record revenue of $7.1

billion for the first fiscal quarter of 2007 ended December 30, 2006. Earnings per share

for the quarter were $1.14.

 

Apple said it shipped 1,606,000 Macintosh computers and 21,066,000 iPods during the

quarter, representing 28 percent growth in Macs and 50 percent growth in iPods over the

year-ago quarter.

isn't it ironic that the most of the people on these forums who accuse Scott of being an ass about computers (he is) and of being a fanatic (he is) are just as bad as he is.

Anyone else miss Scott's irascible posts? He did add a lot of color to this site. Has he dropped off the planet?

<p>I PN-emailed him today, hoping for the best!</p>