iMac vs. Dell PC! Please help

Hi!

 

As my computer is getting old (4 years?) I will have recently felt that I need a new computer dedicated for my

photography work alone.

 

At school and (at this point) at home I use a pc, though I know that Mac are supposed to be amazing for working

with photography and such.

 

I recently got a commercial flyer at my job, where I saw this computer which seems to be really good due to its

low price. This is what got me thinking of bying a new pc. The problem is that I really dont have any knowledge

of what to look for in a computer. The only problem is that the iMac is almost dubble the price of the PC, though

I can afford them both. So my question is really if it is worth the extra cash? :)

 

Here's the PC (Dell Vostro 200):

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=brdw2af&c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&pg=review&kc=productdetails~vostrodt_200mt

 

 

Norwegian price = roughly 800 dollars

 

And here's the iMac (If I go with an iMac, I will choose the 20"):

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTE3MDM

 

Norwegian price = roughly 1,600 dollars

 

I would appreciate it so much if any of you could take a look at these links and tell me what your opinions of

these two :)

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Regards,

Kristian

Hi Kristian,

I am running Photoshop on both a PC and Mac.

 

I have PS CSII on a Windows XP Home

and

Photoshop CS on Leopard 10.5.4

 

I would have to recommend the mac simply because of the rebooting required while running windows. That fact by itself is

enough to make me avoid working on my windows machine.

 

Windows requires some sort of reboot daily while I can go 20 day's without EVER rebooting my mac.

 

That's all I will say regarding this because it certainly boils up some strong opinions/preferences .

Hi Kristian,

I am running Photoshop on both a PC and Mac.

 

I have PS CSII on a Windows XP Home

and

Photoshop CS on Leopard 10.5.4

 

I would have to recommend the mac simply because of the rebooting required while running windows. That fact by itself is

enough to make me avoid working on my windows machine.

 

Windows requires some sort of reboot daily while I can go 20 day's without EVER rebooting my mac.

 

That's all I will say regarding this because it certainly boils up some strong opinions/preferences .

I went to a professional photography school and we only used iMacs. There weren't any Dells in there! I have an intel iMac

and LOVE it.

They can both do a great job now, not quite like before when Mac was king of the photo world. Can you afford to replace all your PC software with Mac compatible software? If not stick with the PC. If money is no object, get whatever you are comfortable with, they can both do the job.

Get the Mac, you can buy Parallels software or use the free bootcamp software from Apple and load Windows onto the iMac and have the best of both worlds.

When using Photoshop, or any given specific program, you'll notice essentially no difference between the mac and pc versions. The differences are in the operating system, windows vs mac osx. People get quite emotional, eg non-rational, when getting into the mac/pc discussion. I use both and all things being equal, I prefer the mac, but there are others, who feel the opposite. If you can, spend some time doing operating system things, not just running a given program, on both and see what appeals to you. Be wary of extra cheap pc's, they may lack decent hard drives, memory, and video systems.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

wow! thank you so much for the quick response! I really appreciate it!

 

I was about to order the Dell computer yesterday, but I am leaning more over for the iMac right now, both after reading here and at other websites.

 

Michael:

I will be able to get PS CS3 with a nice student discount through my school, so the software should really not be any problem :) hehe

 

My final decition will have to wait two more weeks until I get my next paycheck :)

Im the meanwhile, feel free to drop by with your opinions of pros and cons on both the mac and the PC :)

 

Again, thank you so much for the responses!

 

Kristian

I jumped into the Mac world. The small things seem to make the biggest difference on a Mac. From a cold power off (not hibernate or standby), I can press the power button and in <20 sec, my desktop is ready -- no hourglass, no hard drive on constantly.

 

And Spaces, oh, Spaces! Got to love Spaces multiple virtual desktops, and Automator. I'll never go back.

 

You might be able to get a discount on Mac hardware -- if not direct thru your school, perhaps thru Apple directly. Give your school and Apple a call.

Thanks Reichard! I will definetley give them a call!

 

By the way! do any of you have any experience with the monitor on the 20" iMac?

Since I will use it for photography, I really need a good monitor

 

Kristian

The 24" display is far better for photography than the 20" model. There is more difference than just size, they are

completely different displays. You can get an education discount from Apple, and nobody gets a better price on new Macs.

You can save even more by buying a refurb of the current, or previous models, from the Apple website.

 

<http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?

sf=wHF2F2PHCCCX72KDY&nclm=CertifiedMac>

Kristian - have you thought about building your own computer? It's very simple.

 

Adobe Photoshop CS4 will only have 64-bit support on Windows computers. Apple computers won't support it. Not only that, but Apple charges way too much for RAM upgrades. Windows computers are easy to upgrade. I'd recommend going for a computer from a Windows based vendor, if you're not willing to build your own, and upgrading it yourself by putting in a extra RAM.

 

If you're looking at spending $1,600 on an iMac, why not spend $1,600 on a Dell? The 2407WFP is a very nice monitor.

 

That being said, if you are looking at $1,600, I would really recommend going to a website like www.newegg.com , buying all the parts yourself, and assembling them yourself. I built my dad a media server with 2,000GB of storage space [yes, 2TB], 3GB RAM, a DVD burner, a decent speed Core 2 Duo and a dedicated video card for only $640, not including the monitor. The case I used is a "Shuttle", which makes small form factor computers. The size is small enough to carry around anywhere you go, it's about the size of two boxes of A4 paper. The deals you can get on the raw components are spectacular. Much, much better than buying from a computer company.

 

That being said, I'm typing this on a Dell M1530 that I bought used and upgraded. Price was just over a $1000, plus about $400 extra for the parts I bought. It has 320GB space, 4GB ram, a 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo, and an 8600GT. The screen's max resolution is 1680 x 1050, which I find is great for Photoshop.

 

If you'd like to learn more about building your own computer, contact me at charlesviper @ gmail . com. I'll help you learn what parts to get, choosing a case, etc.

By the way - I leave my computers on full time. I never have to restart. Both run Windows Vista Ultimate. What to look for in a computer?

 

- RAM - get at least 3GB. This is 2008, RAM is cheap and really speeds up Photoshop.

- Processor - get a Core 2 Duo - at least 1.8GHz.

- Hard drive space - get at least 320GB. This is 2008. 2 terabytes of space costs US$179 if you build it yourself

- Monitor - get a screen size of at least 1680 x 1050, 15" or larger.

- Video cards - Photoshop doesn't need a good video card, but make sure you get a "dedicated", not "shared" one.

 

That's pretty much it. I hope you make the right choice!

By the way - I leave my computers on full time. I never have to restart. Both run Windows Vista Ultimate. What to

look for in a computer?

 

- RAM - get at least 3GB. This is 2008, RAM is cheap and really speeds up Photoshop.

 

- Processor - get a Core 2 Duo - at least 1.8GHz.

 

- Hard drive space - get at least 320GB. This is 2008. 2 terabytes of space costs US$179 if you build it yourself

 

- Monitor - get a screen size of at least 1680 x 1050, 15" or larger.

 

- Video cards - Photoshop doesn't need a good video card, but make sure you get a "dedicated", not "shared" one.

 

That's pretty much it. I hope you make the right choice!

I think Carl Stone is right. I was about to get the 20 inch iMac and then saw a review providing tests of that, the 24 inch

model, the MacBook Pro 15 inch and also some separate monitors (the 24 inch Mac and two or three very expensive

monitors). The iMAC 24 inch came very close to the professional monitors in results, and far ahead of the MacBook and

the 20 inch iMAC. It was all in a Spring edition of the French review "Chasseur d'Images", a well-known photography mag

from France. The tests were very comprehensive. The article mentioned that most MACS are not terribly good for their

screens, in terms of their use for photographic images. The iMAC and the separate 24 inch screen were considered a

welcome change.

I have a 2004 G5 iMac still running fine.

 

One thing about an iMac I just love is that the display is closely integrated with the system for doing some very precision type

color work. This became more evident to me not just in calibration but when I decided to calibrate my Pentax K100D raw PEF's

using an X-rite Color Checker Chart. The chart comes with a pamphlet that has the CIE Lab numbers measured at the factory.

 

Since most raw converters don't have Lab readouts and switching to sRGB output space clips some of the colors and using

the Fors script doesn't give the most accurate results both visually and by the numbers, I used Apple's Digital Color Meter to

give me the CIE Lab readouts and adjusted accordingly in the raw converter for a very close exact match visually and by the

numbers. When done and opened in CS2 the Lab readouts were the same as Apple's Color Meter.

 

This and other small imaging conveniences is what's kept me using a Mac since 1998.

Kristan,

 

Ah! PC vs. Mac - the eternal debate. Seriously, people will still be talking about which is better, even after

both Jobs and Gates pass away. They are both incredible systems, and their difference is becoming less and less

apparent (in terms of hardware at least), because new macs come with the same intel processors that you find in PCs.

 

Leopard can run on sufficiently powerful PCs, so any software edge that was available to Macs only

is available to all of us now. But, since you're already familiar with PCs, why bother changing systems. Any

benefits that you would get from switching to the Mac, you will be able to achieve with PCs - at much less cost.

 

I would suggest the PC for you. Charles Watson, the only other PC supporter on this thread, has some really good

advice. With Apple, your choice is limited, but you are assured of a good product. With PCs though you have an

abundance of choice, but if you select wisely, you save a lot - and still get the performance that a Mac would

give you. Its also so much easier to upgrade later. There are plenty of good articles to get you started on the

selection process. Or, you could start another thread about building your own system, you'll get very good responses.

 

By the way, Disney, DreamWorks and other studios are switching to LINUX for their production, because its faster,

cheaper and better. Just google it to find out more. I'm not kidding. Maybe there will be a new LINUX standard in

the future for photography. Some things to keep you thinking....

Good points, Haleemur. One thing about Linux though - the reason DreamWorks and Disney use Linux is that they simply do not need the extra resources Vista, XP or OSX use. Things like MSN messenger, SuperFetch, Spotlight, etc. Many processes that run in the background on OSX or Windows machines are completely unnecessary for computers that aren't even hooked up to monitors, that are constantly rendering image frames in a locked air conditioned room. Photoshop CS3 and CS4 are not supported on Linux, and the GIMP, Linux's main image editor, is not nearly as powerful as Photoshop. CS2 runs, though, if you use "WINE", a Linux program that can run Windows programs natively [or semi-natively].

 

However, if you don't consider yourself comfortable with the technical workings of a computer, I'd recommend staying away from Linux. Plus, with Linux, you're pretty much forced to build your own computer.

 

Looking to the future, Apple computers are upgradeable, but they will void your warranty if you do. It's very easy to upgrade or modify a PC, especially if you build it yourself, because you will be familiar with all the parts.

 

Since OSX will not support 64-bit Photoshop CS4, it could be a good idea to buy Vista 64-bit edition, and buy a 64-bit processor. You will notice a very large speed boost when running a native 64-bit application, and even 32-bit applications get performance increases on 64-bit computers. With 32-bit computers [pretty much 95% of computers out there are 32-bit], you can use up to 128GB of RAM. However, with Vista there is a limit of 3GB [4GB with an update], and a limit of 4GB on Leopard / OSX. I've built a Photographer friend of mine a 64-bit computer with 8GB of RAM, and it was far faster than an iMac will ever be. Cost was around $1,300 USD.

 

Another tip. If you buy a Mac, beware of their "upgrade" prices. While the basic costs of a Mac are quite competitive, they realized pretty quickly that they could make a significant amount of money by charging huge premiums for upgrades. For instance, if you look at the iMac on the Apple website, upgrading to 4GB of RAM costs a whopping $200! The difference in cost between 2GB of RAM and 4GB of RAM from a very reputable company like Kingston is only $45, from $42.49 for 2GB to $89.99 for 4GB.

 

I'd very much suggest building your own computer. You can get the specifications you need, like a computer with hundreds or thousands of GB's of space, which Apple or Dell don't offer. Plus, the extra $600 or so that you save could go to a second monitor, a high quality inkjet printer like the Epson R2400, or a color calibration suite like the ColorMunki, which will profile your monitor and printer together.

Sorry, I made a mistake in that essay of a post. I said "With 32-bit computers [pretty much 95% of computers out

there are 32-bit], you can use up to 128GB of RAM". I meant to say, "With 64-bit computers you can use 128GB of

RAM". 32-bit computers can only address 4GB of RAM.

Hi Kristian,

 

Let me start by saying congratulations. Buying a new computer is always a very exciting process. That being said, I have used both macs (at work) and PC's extensively and would recommend buying a PC for several reasons.

 

1. Cost. This is a biggie. The components that come in a mac are the same that you can find in your dell, hp, whatever. Apple has established a name for itself as the image quality king among desktop computers. Their displays are stunning. No one will argue with this. HOWEVER, Apple also has a nasty habit of marking up the price of the components in their desktop computers. There are some phenomenal displays that will connect to your Dell. I would recommend saving that money for some new lenses, etc.

 

2. Software compatibility. This is almost a toss up for photography. Adobe produces Photoshop for both platforms. If you like Aperture (Lightroom's Mac kin) then buy an Apple, but I think that Photoshop Lightroom is great software that will run on either OS X or Vista/XP. There is a reason that Mac users use bootcamp. Almost all professional software (minus the ones developed exclusively by Apple) are produced for PC. This is not necessarily true in the reverse case.

 

3. Security. This is a big one. It irks me to no end when I see posts that Macs are "more secure" than Windows. There is a kernel of truth in this, and that is that until now many "hackers" haven't bothered developing malware for macs because they weren't as main stream as Windows. This is becoming less and less true as Apple's market share grows. There is a plethora of free and pay to use software that provides anti-virus and firewall protection available to PC users. Microsoft has gotten a really bad wrap because they choose to be transparent about the types of vulnerabilities in their machines. These sorts of things exist in Mac OS X as well, but Apple likes to keep that their secret. In fact, Snow Leopard, the next generation OS X, is supposed to be focused almost primarily on patching security holes in Leopard.

 

4. iMacs lack upgradeability. Often you can stretch the life of your machine by adding a couple more sticks of RAM, or throwing in a new graphics card (depending on what is slow). Apple makes it very hard to upgrade components. Apple encourages you to buy from their site if an upgraded component even exists. This means that you pay the Apple premium. I can walk into "Best Buy (don't actually shop here... way over priced)" and buy a new piece of hardware, go home and stick it in my PC. most things take about 10 minutes to install and then you're golden.

 

Here's the bottom line. I use Macs and PCs every day. The machine that I use at work is a Mac. There is a lot about the interface that is much better than PC, but that is about the only advantage it gives you. As I have said, there are some very stunning monitors that you can buy without paying the Apple price. If I had unlimited funds I would buy a Mac, but for those of us who are worried about cost, Apple is not the right choice. What you are paying Apple for is more eye candy on their desktop. OS X is a lot prettier than Vista, but functionally they both do the same thing for regular users like yourself. You also get a better built in display, but you lose the ability to really upgrade components. I would seriously recommend saving that extra few hundred dollars and investing it in more power (processor speed and ram are critical for photoshop work) for your PC, or buying yourself that new lens you always wanted (even a $20000 machine can't make up for taking that amazing picture in the first place).

 

Sorry. This post is probably getting lengthy. For that I apologize, but I do have a lot to say on this subject. One argument for Apple is that you can dual boot with XP/Vista (via bootcamp) and Mac OS X, so that offers you some flexibility.

 

This is a long term investment. I would recommend taking some time to sit down and play with Vista and OS X for a few hours and decide which you are more happy with. Also, don't let any Apple fanboys tell you that PC sucks. I have my own reasons for disliking Microsoft, but let's be honest. In the end both computers will do exactly what you need them to do. These are the real reasons to buy a Mac:

 

1. You like the linux feel (using a command prompt to navigate around) but also like to use Microsoft Office.

2. The desktop is "prettier"

3. You do A LOT of sound/video editing.

 

I have just thought of one last argument for Apple. This is probably the best selling point I can think of for Apple. Apple makes it VERY hard for the computer user to have any actual control. They prefer to hide things in obfuscated menus or make it only accessible through the terminal (command line). This is not a great thing if you liking having absolute control over everything, but it is a good thing if you're primarily using your computer to surf the web, check e-mail, and do photo editing. All this control makes it very easy to screw something up in Windows. Over time (if you aren't careful), the performance of your PC will start to drop off. This comes from installing too much software or installing something incorrectly. Apple limits control and makes it much harder to screw things up. You can still expect things to slow down over time with Mac OS X, but it can happen a lot more easily with Windows.

 

Best of luck! Let us know what your final decision is. One last tip. Buy a machine with an intel processor (both manufacturers have computers that use them). AMD hasn't been so strong lately.

Charles makes a very good point. Apple currently doesn't support 64-bit architectures (this is the way of the future). A 64-bit application will run much better than a 32-bit application. Almost every processor that intel makes is now 64-bit (but can also be used with 32-bit operating systems). Most modern software will run on 64-bit Vista. Even if the software is designed for 32-bit systems, Microsoft provides an emulation layer that allows you to run 32-bit applications on 64-bit Vista. That being said, there have been some problems with getting older software to work (ones that are 16-bit or have 16-bit installers). I really don't anticipate you running into this problem, and if you do happen to find something like this, there are other very similar pieces of software that will work. My bet is that Apple is developing Snow Leopard to have 64-bit support. This is something Apple will probably address with the next operating system release.

A Mac these days can run windows too. So the only drawback with a Mac comes when it costs more.

The cheapest high end Mac is no more expensive than building the same spec PC yourself:

 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,review-31192.html

 

However you end up spending more and get something more far powerful and luxurious than you perhaps need.

 

So if you do buy a Mac Pro, expand the disk and memory buying at the cheapest PC outlet, apple make a big margin

on upgrades, which they have to buy in and provide support for. This is where they make cash on high end Macs.

 

The problem is that between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, there are desktop PCs offering lots of power, right in

the middle of the best power per $ range. Apple offer nothing comparable. So would be Mac users in this price

range are building their own Hackintoshes using off the shelf PC parts:

 

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

 

It would cost someone about $600 to build an illegal Mac clone that could also legally run windows about as well

as that Dell. Perhaps they would use the same processor, and an ASUS P5KPL-VM mainboard, etc.

 

I have a PC that is twice the power of my old generation G4 Mac Mini. The PC stays turned off, until I need to

access my Minolta film scanner (SCSI interface). For that, I need a PC with a SCSI card. The mini has no SCSI or

PCI card slot.

Couple of things, John. First off, the single most expensive component of a laptop is the screen. Choosing a 17" 1920 x 1200 screen is a very easy way to rapidly increase the costs of a laptop, and something Tom's Hardware probably did just to settle the prices. Secondly, the poster is in the market for a desktop, not a laptop.

 

Also, "Hackintoshes" are illegal. Much like saying you can "save" money by downloading Windows Vista over P2P. While I did in fact setup a Hackintosh, I uninstalled it because dual-booting is a very frustrating process. It's much easier to keep a single operating system running. My school's photography department has a full range of MacBook Pros, but I choose to use my own [cheaper] Dell laptop.

 

They listed a Dell laptop at $1999. For $1978 [as close as I could get to the MBP], I got this setup.

 

15.3" 1440 x 900 pixel screen

2.4GHz Core 2 Duo

Windows Vista Ultimate

320GB, 7200RPM HDD

Dual Layer CD/DVD burner

Intel Wireless a/b/g/n card

256MB nvidia 8600M GT

85 cell battery

Surround sound audio

 

So that's an extra 120GB HD space, a faster hard drive, 2GB more RAM, larger battery, $20 cheaper.

faced the same issue a few months ago. Bought the 20" mac and have not regretted it. My new mac never freezes up on me, and the

screen (yes, even the 20") is wonderful. I have had virtually no file compatibility problems (e,g,. PC versus Mac tiffs) either. The Mac was

actually cheaper than a Dell tower with a decent 20" screen, so I don't see the tradeoff.....of course you have to buy software, but even

that wasn't that bad......

 

Cheers,

joel

Charles, you are the voice of reason. You are also very knowledgeable about computers (which means that I'll bug

you for tips

when I'm getting a new pc, hehe)

 

Kristian, I'm sure Apple will address the 64 bit processor in their next release. But right now, you could invest

in the latest tech, and still save money. Money you can spend on some drool-over-me ultra fast lenses, or more

practically, upgrade your camera, buy flashes, tripods, filters as your photography grows. There are so many

other ways to splurge, be creative.

 

Apple makes great products, and they just seem to work, the average apple user complains far less than the

average windows user. By limiting the available software, and the advanced controls, apple makes computers that

are more idiot-proof. But for me, the cost of a Mac is prohibitive, and I can make my PC idiot-proof by locking

up the idiot in me. Also I back up all my stuff, and apply the following dictum: when in doubt reinstall! Works

like magic.

 

I hope you now have a better idea of what is right for your type of photography. Do post some feedback on this

thread to let us know what concerns you.

 

Haleemur