Mac to PC?

T... I remain baffled why people find desktop computers things of interest in and of themselves. They passed the interesting stage in about the year 2000.

 

When working at a desk, I still like a desktop computer. The larger form factor tends to deliver more processing power at a lower cost. For work, or image processing, I want a 24" or 27" monitor, which might as well be hooked up to a desktop. If money were an issue, then I might make due with a laptop.

 

I've got a bag with a laptop right next to my desk, in case I need to go catch a plane and may need to use a computer in my hotel room. I also do non-critical stuff on my laptop, while sitting in front of TV. It's also useful when I travel for pleasure and want to stay current with my image processing.

 

I think that most people using desktops have a reason for using that form factor.

Thanks, Ed. :)

 

But I will admit that there is a certain way of approaching Mac OS that differs from Windoze.

 

That why they used to have company evangelists.

;}

 

I became a Mac user in 2012. I was working on my literature seminar in graduate school when my 18 month old Toshiba laptop decided to turn off and not turn back on. The problem was a terribly corrupted Windows install.

 

I was in a bit of a bind with two weeks to go, and really didn't have time to rebuild the Windows install from scratch. Fortunately, at least my lit seminar work and papers were intact and I was able to pull them off with some external SATA cables. A friend lent me his "retired' 2008 aluminum MacBook, and although I fought it a lot I managed to get my seminar finished.

 

I passed, and the day after went to the Apple store and plunked down the cash for a new MacBook Pro(late 2011 13"). I've been a Mac convert since then.

 

As part of my job, I use both Windows and Unix(real Unix, not Linux) for various tasks, albeit I do a lot more with Windows. Heck, I've been trying to repair an IR spectrophotometer, and the computer operating it is running Windows 3.11. Someone was there when I powered it on for the first time, and they were amazed when I hit the DOS prompt and just typed "win" without thinking. In any case, assuming I can get work to cough up the $3K or so for parts that it's going to require(I can make a good case) the next step is to upgrade the computer, OS, and operating software(the last is the difficult part). I require an ISA slot since $800 for a PCI interface card on top of everything else isn't going to fly, and need to run Win 2K or XP if I want people to use the thing(I USB need mass storage support so folks can get their data off easily). Fortunately, I ran across a dual P3 with ISA this afternoon, so that should serve me well.

 

As more or less a full time Mac user, though, I get frustrated sometimes trying to do things in Windows. I used every version between 3.1 and Windows 7 full time at some point or another(with the exception of ME) so can USUALLY figure stuff out. I can also find my way around the DOS prompt pretty well, although I have to remind myself to use commands like dir and del rather than ls and rm :) . I can figure most anything out, but it always seems like such a relief to go back to a Mac.

There is a command prompt in OS, but the only people I know who uses it are my son and brother (yes, my "help" files are all in the family). Windows, on the other hand, was at least a once-daily proposition. I do not want to be a hacker, I've got work to do. Give me a hammer that stays attached to the handle. I sympathize with your Windows 3 experience. It it academic or industrial? Schools can't seem to afford up to date equipment, and industrial users are loathe to install updates, much less upgrades, once something can be made to work.

 

I would not have upgraded to Sierra (10.12) from Yosemite had I less confidence in Apple's integrity. It was two upgrades of OS and 3 of Adobe Media Encoder before I could do video without crashes that required a hard power down to break. Neither Apple nor Adobe were any help. (The root cause was a race between two processes using the disk drive to read and write. My work around was to write to an SSD, giving the source disk a break. It's no longer necessary, but I use the SSD to streamline my work flow.)

Edited June 1, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

I use Terminal in OS X probably once every other week on average. There are times when I'm playing with an old computer and am trying to make OS X do things it's not supposed to do, or otherwise access something that has been "dumbed down" out of OS X. As an example, the new Disk Utility that came out with 10.11 is an unmitigated disaster, and although all the functions of the old one are there many can only be accessed through Terminal.

 

As for Windows 3.1-I'm the scientific instrument specialist in the chemistry department at a research university. We have an early 90s Nicolet Magna 560 FT-IR and Raman that was given to us a while by GE back but was mothballed and I don't think ever put into service. This is a superb instrument, and would be a real asset to the department as we don't currently have a bulk Raman instrument. As it sits, the instrument has several damaged parts from poor storage. Glass is opaque in the mid-IR region. To get around that, MOST of the optics are front-surfaced parabolic mirrors but a few are made of potassium bromide. Humidity has destroyed the potassium bromide optics, and I have to get the department to cough up $3K to replace them(there's no repairing).

 

Once I have the instrument functional, I focus on upgrading the computer, but from my perspective there's no point in doing that until I actually have a working instrument. I can do all the set up and calibration from Win 3.11 and in fact I'd leave it there indefinitely were it not for the fact that floppy disks and 8mm tapes don't fly for other users when it comes to getting data off.

 

The person I'm working with on parts tells me that the newest version of the software that will work with this instrument does not work reliably with anything newer than Windows XP. There again, the interface card also limits how new of a computer I have.

 

BTW, this instrument would probably be in excess of $100,000 to replace, so buy a new one isn't an option especially with a budget cut edict from the president.

My main experience is with Windows, but I've had MacOS X before. Based on my experience, OS X was the one where I frequently needed trips into its control panel, help pages, support site and the terminal to change more advanced settings. On Windows, I hardly need any of that. On Linux I often simply get lost if I need to change some setting. Same for mobile OSes, really.

 

It's all a matter of habit, experience and whatever works best for you. Neither OS is inherently better than the other, and any individual experience about system A not working well at all is offset by a similar story to the contrary (a.k.a. a nice bunch of anecdotes).

 

So, really, one can only decide for oneself which OS to take, and whether you or I like that OS better or not is pretty irrelevant. There is always one more anecdote about some system being very good or very bad....it's all just opinions. When deciding on the hardware, I think the choice of OS should be the very first consideration. So, take what you prefer using, and go from there.

How do you know which system you prefer until you use it, or decide based on what others have to say? In a good discussion, relatively objective statements of good and bad things come out. Not every decision is logical, but pragmatic, even emotional (some really like silver and white). In my case, it would make sense to have the best video card available, which is only possible in a PC (or Mac Pro). I selected an iMac with a good video card, at least good enough. In five years, if I'm still looking at computers (and not the dirt side of grass), I'll trade this iMac for a better one, or a better PC.

 

It is sometimes said that Apple is for people who don't like computers. I like computers well enough, but I don't like beating them into submission five times a day.

I agree that it's hard to know which you prefer without having used them. In my case, I've had immersive experiences in both OSs and while I'm certainly not a Windows dummy I still much prefer OS X(or macOS as it's called now).

 

My first month with OS X, I was lost and about ready to pitch the computer out the window more than once. Among other things, I've come to realize that, when in doubt, drag and drop is usually worth a try. I appreciate the fact that with many settings, system preferences actually illustrates what they do or otherwise checking the box makes them happen immediately so you can see the effect.

 

System Preferences won't LET you do anything that will drastically mess up your computer. If you need to change things beyond what it allows, you have to do them from terminal and often elevate your privileges to be able to do it. Just don't tell your non-computer-savvy friends to type sudo rm -rf in terminal :) .

 

BTW, Macs are not immune to malware and the like, but one advantage of having a Unix-based OS is that by default you don't have access to the deep underpinnings of the system(called the root user or root access). That makes it difficult for stuff to burrow as deeply as it does in Windows, and consequently is also easier to remove.

Threads like this are fun. :)

 

Personally as a Mac guy, I think Apple has put way too much emphasis lately on aesthetics and making things laser thin. An employee of mine walks around with two dongles hanging off his new Macbook Pro so he can plug into ethernet and a projector for meetings. Kind of makes the whole idea of super thin laptops a little pointless.

 

So I think it's a good sign (and a little funny) that one of the big features on their new iMac Pro is ... a real ethernet port.

 

Cables that can be plugged in without worrying about whether you've got them upside down or not is a good thing. It's also a good thing to have the same port being able to accept anything from a power cord, to ethernet, to flash drive, to ethernet. But the transition is rough and Apple moved too fast. I think they've figured that out.

 

Supposedly a new (real) Pro model is coming out in the next year or two. If you've ever looked inside one of their older (pre-trashcan) pro models, you know they're very capable of doing it right. They can make upgrades real easy if that's what their goal is. The other thing that is true is that you will pay for it. It's not gonna be cheap. So the question is always whether or not paying the Apple premium is worth it to you. On the other hand, if you do pay the premium, you can be reasonably certain that the resale value will be pretty good.

 

It's also a very valid and legitimate choice to go with a PC and Windows. I have a preference for Macs and macOS but have spent a lot of time working in Windows and I could manage just fine there if that were my only option.

Edited June 7, 2017 by tomspielman

Personally, I appreciate the emphasis of the new MBP on thinness. I bought a 13" model rather than the 17" to carry the concept of portability one step further. My card readers get a lot of workout, and it's a lot easier to replace a dongle and an internal reader. Thunderbolt 3 is so incredibly powerful that each port is multiplied by 4 or more, although my BD burner has to go in its own port. My nightly routine in travel is to backup the days photos to BD and charge batteries. My MBP weighs less than the power supply alone for my Lenovo laptop.

 

Of course the laptop has do do a basic set of jobs, including photo processing and running Pro Tools for real time recording and post processing. No problem there whatsoever.

Ed, I think it's fine that they have models that meet your needs. I also value portability and carry a laptop on my bike back and forth every day. But if in order to get that compactness, I have to pack a bunch of other things along with the laptop that could just be part of the laptop itself, have I really gained anything? So yes, have models that are thin and light and still powerful. Call the new MacBook Pros, "MacBook Air" Pros. But they should have other models that weigh slightly more and are slightly thicker but provide the things that many people use on a daily basis.

 

In fact there is a product that fits on the bottom of the new MacBook Pros that provide all the ports that Apple recently took away. What you end up with is something thicker and heavier than the previous generation of laptops that had all that built in. You end up paying more to get a heavier and thicker version of what you had before.

There' a place for a docking bay which has all of the ports provided on larger, heavier laptops, but for me, that place on on the desk, not on the road. I choose to carry an external SSD drive for photos, an external (very slim) BD burner for backup, and a card reader. The cables are the same as always, and the dongles necessary to drive them are small and light. I chose to load only Photoshop and Lightroom, rather than the complete Adobe Creative Suite, which I use but not on the road. Unlike for the PC, I don't need a mouse. The track pad on the MBP works identically to the one on my desk at home.

 

Your mileage may vary, and a laptop may need to perform every task normally delegated to a desktop. I choose otherwise. Carried to extremes, do I carry a pair of near field monitor speakers that weigh 35# each, or stuff a pair of headphones in the front pocket? Do I need a scanner, three printers and 12 external hard drives? Nothing comes close to a good desktop system, and I find I don't need more than minimal capability on the road.

 

My advice is, don't load up your road gear without definite needs in mind. If you do need desktop performance, with a calibrated monitor and good ergonomics, a bare bones MBP is still a good choice.

Oh dear, oh dear. I have indeed used modern Macs, and fail to find them significantly better than PCs. In fact I have worked and currently work in offices that have both.They are different and have different names for items and processes. I am intimately involved in all kinds of software at work and home, so the condescension is not needed. I also happen to like desktop computers too for my photography (no idea where people got the impression I was talking about laptops). I have a work laptop, but never use it for photography. I was an Apple evangelist from 1988-1995, but I am no longer. Many Apple folk seem to assume that Apple features are only available on their machines and therefore assume everything Apple does is special, when they are common to PCs too. A trait not uncommon among camera owners as well.

I use PCs (Windows 10) at home, and I support the art department's Mac lab (all iMacs) where I work. Either works.

 

Why do I use a PC at home?

 

1) I can pick my display. I hate glossy displays, I always have. My display always lasts more than one computer.

2) I can get a substantially more powerful computer, generally for less money. And that's even without building one myself, which I'm about to do again. I can build a six-core i7 with a pretty high-end graphics card, a 2TB SSD, and 32GB of RAM for less than either a maxed out 21.5" or a similar 27" iMac. Since (besides gaming) one of my kids is messing around with 3D rendering with apps like Blender, the extra horsepower is helpful. Being able to easily upgrade individual components over the lifetime of the computer is a plus for me as well.

3) I set Windows up in a really, really specific way that works for me (in some cases changing a substantial number of defaults). I just can't quite make macOS work the way I want - that's not Apple's philosophy.

 

Over the years, I've probably used a dozen different operating systems, so switching from one to another isn't a big deal. For any specific task, they all have pluses and minuses, I'm not even going to criticize someone for not wanting to take the time to look at a different platform - if what you have is working, why invest the time? If your current solution is bothering you enough, you'll put the time into exploring other options.

am not sure if I want to move to PC since photo industry is somewhat Mac friendly(my school have only Mac Pros) especially printing and calibration. I like MacOS but I don't see its future. What should I do? Just move to PC?

What does "Photo industry" mean to you?

• If you get hired to work for somebody on their Mac, you will need to know what to click instead of saying: "??? Help, I'm a windows guy and haven't seen no *Apple* key all my life, WTF is this I am supposed to work on?" - I suppose the machine you own right now taught you the essentials and you'll most likely do well enough switching back to a Mac 5 years from now?
  
• If you get hired to deliver homebrew results to somebody's Mac all you need is an unspectacular iMac to see what your results will look like on a client's machine. Keeping what you have should be sufficient for the next decade if the Mac lasts that long.
  

Whatever else you'll do in private doesn't matter, as long as you get your tech working for you. Yes, I read Overgaard (workshop host) making fun about clients Windows laptops still running updates when his maxed out Macbook already had done the edits he wanted to do. But: How frequently will you shoot and edit side by side with somebody else? - My understanding of "the industry": Almost everybody is too cheap to hire a photographer at all. So who will be there to pull your leg?

 

I know little about high end computers. Before buying a Ryzen, maybe double check if Adobe's seasoned code really flies on it. I am watching YouTube reviews about it right now and seeing the opposite mentioned. IDK if I'll care. - I might be on an Intel again when I'll decide to finally get a subscription for that stuff.

Before buying a Ryzen, maybe double check if Adobe's seasoned code really flies on it.

 

Say what you will about Adobe, but their code optimization is out the wazoo for a given architecture and they really can get the most out of any given system.

 

Back in the pre-OS X days, the "Classic" Mac OS(OS 9 and earlier) couldn't-at a system level-use more than one processor. It didn't stop Apple from shipping them, though. Granted in the G4 days OS X(which can fully utilize multiple processors and/or cores) was on the horizon. Still, though, I have a 9600/200MP which can do asymetric multiprocessing on its two 200mhz 604evs in OS 9 and earlier(although not OS X). That computer is an absolute beast with Photoshop 6-the newest that will run on it. Photoshop can use both processors(and all 1.5gb of RAM) and is faster and a lot "snappier" on that computer than even a higher clocked G3.

 

The first generation G4s were really just G3s with a floating point unit(called Altivec) tacked onto them. A lot of software-clock for clock-ran about the same or even a hair slower on G4 vs. a G3. Photoshop was, again, one of the first pieces of software to use Altivec. When you ran it on a dual G4, it would kill pretty any contemporary on the market.

• Apple now uses Intel processors, and has for a long time.
  
• Apple has continual updates, just like a PC. Adobe CC issues updates about weekly. Apple is nagging me to update to High Sierra, and the notifications are hard to turn off.
  
• There are differences between Apple and Windows images, mainly in interleaving. However I have found no problems viewing either form on either platform.
  
• Apple and PC video is a lot different. Apple will not display PC MP4 files (causes jitters), but PC works just fine with the Apple versions. Solution - deliver video in Apple format. (the difference is how the two systems interleave video and audio).
  
• The keystroke and menu commands in Adobe products is almost identical between platforms. Translation of Control/Alt to Control/Option/Command is inconsistent, especially Ctl v Command.
  
• It your work product is an image, it makes no difference which key strokes you used to produce it.
  
• File extensions are required in a PC but optional in a Mac. My advice is to always use file extensions. You never know how or who will use your files.
  
• Apple would like to tuck your files into locations of its own choosing. My advice is to use Finder (file explorer) to name directories and designate their location.
  
• You don't need a super-video processor for still images. Very few operations require even a GPU. Calibration is more important than any small gains in speed, so something better than basic may help.
  
• Memory is important. I suggest at least 16 GB, more if you can afford it, and the largest hard drive available. You usually can't upgrade an Apple laptop.
  
• More memory lets you work with larger images without swapping memory with the hard drive.
  

Both work.

Apple vs. Windows, I think, comes down to what you're used to. I was just in a workshop with a lady that switched from Windows to Apple and she was having all kinds of interface problems, mostly related to different key-stroke functions and some differences in the interface with LR. I suspect that going the other way would present similar problems.

 

I've been on Windows forever. I've had absolutely no issues with Windows 10 64-bit. I was running circles around the Apple users at my last workshop, but my computer was the newest there. I would guess that either will work equally well, if the system is up to date and configured for image processing. Your proposed Windows setup would work very well.

mostly related to different key-stroke functions and some differences in the interface with LR.

 

If you are a "power user" who uses keyboard shortcuts, there certainly is a learning curve with switching platforms.

 

With that said, at the end of the day I think that in general across-the-platform use Apple has more. Many of them are the same as in Windows, but use the Command key(Apple key, four leaf clover) in place of alt. Others are just simply a lot more logical to me-as an example if I want to type a degree sign(º) I just hit alt/opt+0 to get it rather than having to use an alt code or go into the character map.

 

There again, most LR shortcuts are the same with the exception of using command instead of alt. Others are quite simple-like pressing "P" with an image active to flag it.

If you are a "power user" who uses keyboard shortcuts, there certainly is a learning curve with switching platforms.

 

With that said, at the end of the day I think that in general across-the-platform use Apple has more. Many of them are the same as in Windows, but use the Command key(Apple key, four leaf clover) in place of alt. Others are just simply a lot more logical to me-as an example if I want to type a degree sign(º) I just hit alt/opt+0 to get it rather than having to use an alt code or go into the character map.

 

There again, most LR shortcuts are the same with the exception of using command instead of alt. Others are quite simple-like pressing "P" with an image active to flag it.

 

Well said, yet, simple as it is, people have trouble. The Apple file system seems mystifying to some PC users, including me. Why can't I simple Cut or Copy and Paste, or Drag and Drop. When I want to put files on an Apple device, iTunes or some other interface gets in the way, often trying to tell me how to arrange things and offering stupid guesses as to what else I might like.

 

Anyway, these days, they both work as well for the things that most photographers do.

There is always plenty of support available on the internet for both MS and Apple. I don't pay over the top Apple prices, as I find no benefit from them. I don't particularly like Windows, but find 10 nice and stable, but I find iOS also not particularly likeable either. Apple is cool and PCs are not. I remain baffled why people find desktop computers things of interest in and of themselves. They passed the interesting stage in about the year 2000.

 

I'm surprised, not that you're an Apple guy, but that you think that a desktop not "of interest." Much as I love my Surface Book when I travel, I love my superfast desktop and large 4k monitor when I'm at home. I'd never process on my laptop, when my desktop is available. Thinking about OLED and full RGB for my next upgrade.

 

"Coolness"? Only the uninformed are swayed by that.