iMAC or PC ?

Lots of sensible answers here. PC's are cheaper than mac's of similar specification. Vista is now quite stable, unlike previous windows version. I've been using it for 4 months now, and haven't had a software crash. Photoshop and Lightroom behave similarly on both platforms, so it would not change your post processing workflow, whichever platform you choose. In my opinion, a pc is sufficient, and since money is an issue, I would say go for the PC.

 

You can invest the cash you saved on the PC on a good pro monitor and some calibrating tools.

 

On the mac side, you get a well designed machine, that comes with all the basic software one needs, a very stable OS, and a different user interface. Many people prefer working on a mac, but ultimately it comes down to your preference.

 

Hope it helped

The iMac is cool; PC not so much.

the simple answer is iMAC. if you add up all the cost to get a PC up to the iMAC level it'll be more expensive then apple. just check the price for as good monitor as iMAC. <br> KN

Writing from personal experience, I use a java-based software for my wedding albums, running on both a Mac and

PC; both machines running very similar hardware. The application tended to hang up a lot running on the Mac, and

runs like a gem on the PC. I now run it on my PC exclusively.

 

I think, IMO, some programs are scripted better for Mac, and some are scripted better for PC. That's speaking in

a very general sense, and really doesn't include the more well-known (and certainly pro-oriented) programs such

as from Adobe.

 

I ran Elements 6 on the Mac, and loved it. I am currently running Photoshop CS3 on the PC, and it's okay. Not bad

performance, but I miss the user interface that Apple is so famous for.

 

It seems to me there is a difference in how the photo software runs on the two computer types - but it's because

of the differing user interfaces and technicality of them. I would ultimately choose a Mac though, if cost wasn't

an issue... they are much more stable, less prone to crashing while you're working, and look a hundred times

cooler than most pc's :)

For me Pc is everything i need. Iv been running the same one for I think 5 years. Back then I built it all for about $1100. The only thing I have upgraded was one GB ram and two more hard drives. Now if I want to upgrade I would get an AMD Phenom 9950, Mb and ram all for about $350 Oh and a decent video card $150-200. I shop on pricewatch.com for alot of my needs and have been for years. BTW what would be a standalone monitor that could give the 24" iMac monitor a run

 

Josh

I know there is a lot of people on both sides of the fence. I built and sold custom PCs as well as building my own for 8

years. Then I decided to buy a Mac G5 when they first came out which was November 2003. I sold my last Wndows PC

and have never wanted one ever since. I can safely say that I will never spend real money on anything that has the

Windows name on it ever again. The only thing I miss is a few games I liked to play, but I don't care because I have never

had a single problem with my Mac. I got fed-up with Windows crashing and incompatibility issues, and viruses. Since going

to Mac platform, I have never been happier.

Seems i have generated a lot of answers...and probably this subject will never dissapear.

 

The iMAC looks really cool and i like that it's so compact. I also like the monitor and has really great colors. But for a newbie photographer i think the better option is to start with something cheaper...and this is the case of a PC.

 

And i understood that the 24" Apple monitor is better than the 20" one. So this will be out of case for me because of the pricing.

 

Thank you again for your answers.

How about the Mac Mini? Dual 2 gig processors and not very expensive.

It is very true that this subject can be more inflammatory than a religious conversation!

 

I have been in the computer biz for 20+ years and for my money, I prefer the stability and ease of use of a Mac. All of my professional work is on a PC, so I do have a true comparison. And in my house I have a mix of iMacs and PCs (Windows XP) and both work fine. But for me, the iMac wins. I have an iMac 24" and for photography and video, it is KING in my opinion.

 

Look for a used iMac or even look at the refurbished ones on the Apple.com site. Save a couple hundred bucks and it is basically a brand new machine with warranty.

 

Just my opinion, YMMV.

I have had both. I switched to a Mac about 3 years ago and I will never go back. The Mac is so much easier to

use once you get used to it. It also is more stable. I have never had it freeze up or crash. I also don't get

all those strange, cryptic error messages. I think that my programs run smoother on the Mac too. I did have to

buy a new printer though, something to think about before you buy. I have also run into websites where I

couldn't complete a form or something like that because I was using a Mac. Using Firefox as my browser instead

of Safari usually solves that for me. I didn't buy a new Mac either. My dad gave me his old 17" lcd iMac, so my

computer is about 5 years old and has never had a problem. He upgraded it to OSX and I put in an extra 1Gb of

RAM and use external hard drives for photo storage. I have used both types for image editing, at home and at

work, and I definitely prefer the Mac for photo work.

 

I think it really comes down to your personal preference. Just try both and see which you like better. Good luck!

 

Katherine

Since 13 years ago I changed my MS operating system for a GNU/Linux system and have never looked back to any other closed software solution again. The GIMP has grown up quite a lot, probably not sufficiently for professional use, yet. But the most important is the philosophy behind Free and Open Souscre Solution (FOSS): you will never be locked in by a specific hardware / software manufacturer, you can adapt or extend any software to your own needs and will not be limited to install the software on a single computer due to licence restrictions.

 

I sincerely hope that more photogs will use the FOSS and go after hardware manufactures of scanners and cameras to open the communication protocols of the hardware and closed format of the RAW image.

 

Just an opinion.

Gerber

It seems to be common knowledge that a PC is cheaper than a PC. I may be wrong but don’t necessarily agree with this conception.

 

I suggest to go to the Apple website store and configure, oh, say a 24 inch iMAC. It is quick and easy, because most of what you need has been included.

 

Next, go to Dell and configure one of their computers. To start, it may be cheaper, but it may be considerably higher until you are done. Unless you are a geek, it is difficult to decide exactly what you need.

 

To further confuse the issue, Vista apparently needs more RAM, and, at least in my opinion, it is not efficient as an Apple computer. On the other hand, Apples RAM is expensive. However, with a PC, you will certainly need antivirus software.

 

That said, I feel each person should look and see which the like best. Both systems are highly useable. I don’t think the price difference between them should be given more consideration that which system you prefer.

Neither a Mac or PC works when they go under salt water; nor will insurance pay a dime on the loss either. BUT both work well on holding down Harbour Freight tarps on the shingle pile. TGhe Mac is less stable in high winds; but looks coller and show you care about the environment; wear turtle necks; care about global cooling; change; saving the naugas that created all thos never ready camera cases. The PC is more stable in high winds; costs less; but has a less prepie artsy fartsy dumb downing. Thus the CPU and ram on this Katrina crap were pulled and used in another old PC box; after an ultrasonic tank bath;and none of the mac got reused. A more is more of a religious toaster; fol;ks chuck them when dead; rarely upgrade them; they love them. PC's tend to be less duffus proof for idiots; thus some folks get dog manure on their PC's and they get hosed. Then they get a mac and want to convert everybody; like thos pesky dorr to door sales chaps. :) Both work fine for photowork. Learn to Use both of them; you are more employable. Folks who dwell on whether a Mac is better than a PC at work are branded as newbies. Its like dwelling on whether a GM or Ford is better to haul cow manure. Both can work great; macs are more idiot proof for the duffus that surf the internet nude<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/KATRINA/P1010025shingleMACPC.jpg?t=1227714787"><BR><BR>BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/KATRINA/P1010044crap.jpg?t=1227715597"><BR><BR>

Kelly, that is the most irrelevant post I've seen in a very long time.

I agree with Kelly. Most of the people I know personally that prefer Macs are also the kind of people who have car

problems because they don't know what a dipstick is. I also agree with everyone else that said Windows sucks. If

you get a PC go with Linux. I like to advise people not to buy from Dell or other like businesses, go to youre local

computer guys downtown and give your next door neigbor your money instead of some mega-corporation that will

send it all to Taiwan. They'll also be able to help you figure out what you need alot better than a bunch of drop-down

menus or someone at the other end of the phone with some indescribable accent.

I think people should not do drugs before posting on this site.

A dipstick is the person who bought a PC instead of a Apple Mac.

<i>Bill Dewberry , Nov 26, 2008; 01:35 p.m.

 

A dipstick is the person who bought a PC instead of a Apple Mac.

</i>

<p>

 

Burn.

Bill, I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I would say that a dipstick is someone who has reoccurring problems with

something and thinks that buying a new version of the same thing is the answer. PCs are made for the mass market,

and unfortunately quality control is limited because of the vast number of different manufacturers components that can

be used to build a PC. Windows itself is encoded and software programmers have to develop software around that code

to get it to work with that system. Macs are built for the professional, and quality control is high because the one

company controls all aspects of computer assembly and operating system development. The Mac operating system is

open source so that software developers have access to every minute detail of what makes the operating system work

so that the programs they make will fully integrate into the OS without having to build elaborate work-arounds. Macs

aren't perfect either, but I'll take their few flaws over PC's many flaws any day of the week.

I think there were two posts that encouraged GIMP and Linux. If cost is an issue, go with this set up. I doubt dishing out on an expensive software like Photoshop will make your photography all that better. It hasn't in my case. Don't be afraid of Linux, it is getting simpler and simpler to use, try Ubuntu.

Unfortunately I think there has been a lot of information here that isn't accurate.

 

The comment(s) regarding Windows running on top of DOS or being a DOS shell is no longer the case and hasn't been since Windows NT became the prevalent version of Windows on the desktop (e.g. with Windows 2000, XP and Vista) -- yes the basic interface is the command/text interface but it is on Mac OS X too, it's just hidden out of the way unless you hold s on startup so the whole Mac OS X is designed out the box to be a GUI is a moot point. (As Mac OS X is based on a BSD system, UNIX in other words)

 

I say this as both a Windows and Mac user myself.

 

For bang for buck and value, a PC is a better choice than an iMac but will likely lack the aesthetic. Also with a PC you can upgrade it over time which would be much more limited on the iMac. If the screen dies, you either replace it or you replace the iMac (assuming it's out of warranty.) Photoshop CS4 runs in 64bit on Windows (assuming you have a 64bit version of Windows installed) whereas this isn't the case on OS X, that's coming in CS5.

 

And as a Mac user since 1993 and Photoshop since v3 in 1995, I have to say I do prefer working in Photoshop on Windows, not sure I can sum up why but it just seems to work better for me but it's identical really from one to the other.

 

I personally would prefer to spend some decent money on a quad core PC and a decent monitor and still come in at less than a 24" iMac. You'll be doing the same things but with a different GUI (ie: Windows instead of OS X)

 

Don't get me wrong, Macs are great and OS X is good, but I also use Vista and have not had a single problem with it and my experience is that it runs faster than XP - maybe I'm the only one! But for value, you will get a better PC with an excellent screen for less money. (Say around £650 in GBP, i.e. £400 for the PC and £250 for the monitor.)

 

If you do want to use a Mac though, a Mac is your only option legally. But like cameras, what you use in the process won't make you better, nobody will look at a print or a image and say "That looks like it came from a Mac" or "That looks like it came from a Windows machine."

Hi, I recently got back to the Mac , use aperture and am very pleased with the results. in general imac and OS is much easyer the other OS.

You can see my first resut at my webpage www.rvfoto.nl

iMacs are nice, so are properly configured PCs. And despite the reservations some may have about Vista, it's better than XP when it's properly installed. I'm running Vista 64 on three PCs and none have any issues and all perform perfectly.

 

One thing about the iMac that for me is a fatal flaw: the damned hyper-glossy screen. I can't stand it. Can't take the reflections when trying to edit photos. I've got an HP 2475 hooked up to a home-made PC and there's no way I'd trade it for any Apple glossy screen. Even the new 24" "Macbook" screen is super-glossy. Big mistake to see such nice hardware handicapped by something like this. You can get a Mac with a matte screen if you buy either a Mac Pro ($$$) or a Mac Mini, which is hopelessly underpowered for photo editing.

Ignore all of us.

 

Use the platform you already know. As a new photographer, you have enough to worry about without learning a new OS.

 

To pre-empt your next question, I prefer Canon over Nikon. :)

"You can get a Mac with a matte screen."

 

Not for long. Apple has said that all of their displays would be LED backlit buy the end of 2009, and it could happen

before that. Note that all ACDs are long in the tooth, way overdue for an upgrade. The new 24" ACD has a glass cover,

just like all of the recently released Mac models, so I would not look for Apple to use a matte screen on new ACDs. It's

also quite likely that additional ACD upgrades will be released at a time closer to MacWorld, right after the first of the

year, if not before.

 

As for the glossy screen, I love mine, and have no issues with it at all.