Mac or PC best for digital imaging and workflow?

[andrew_grant2]

"There have also been tests done where Photoshop running on a Mac ran filters much master than a PC"

 

...which, I believe, is what we're talking about. MS Office for Mac is a perfect example of what was mentioned w.r.t. software being better adapted/designed for different computers. Sure it's handy and goes fine on a Mac, but it just functions better on Windows. Something more useful to a photographer like Photoshop, on the other hand...

[michael_chmilar]

Photoshop CS (or 6 or 7) is identical on both the Windows and Mac platforms. So the choice really comes down to "all the other stuff".

 

Windows is currently a security nightmare if you connect it to the internet. You can minimize the risk by: using a router, ditching Outlook and Internet Explorer (which are the gateways to uncountable virii) in favor of other email and browser apps, and turning off a lot of "services" that Windows has "on" by default (you can find some websites that tell you which ones).

 

In terms of performance, the Apple G5 and Intel/AMD are competitive with each other. Different benchmarks show different winners. Either is fine for Photoshop. The fastest (and very expensive) AMD chips probably have a performance advantage.

 

Mac OS X is ahead of Windows as far as technology and features goes. Current OS X 10.3 has features that will appear in Windows "Longhorn" in 2006/2007, and next year's 10.4 has features that Microsoft is cutting out of Longhorn (not enough time to implement and test). Some of this technology (such as 10.4's CoreImage) may be very useful to imaging users (if Adobe integrates it in Photoshop, it can provide substantial speed improvements).

 

Color Management seems to be better integrated into Mac OS X. It is system-wide and "you just don't have to think about it".

[Nicholas Barry]

In the interest of full disclosure, I currently have a Linux box, a Windows PC, and a Mac on my desk. And each has its strengths and weaknesses (for both day-to-day activities and for graphics). The only thing that makes me wary of Windows, and specifically XP is that it's not really a secret that Microsoft is trying to move to Windows being a rental platform. So you pay $99 for the OS, but then you pay $X/month to use your own computer. There are a lot of high-end software packages out there that do this already (Unigraphics and Synopsys Design Compiler are two that come to mind). I'm not too keen on having to pay a monthly fee just to keep using my hardware. So as of right now I stick with Win2k and Win98SE when using my x86 box.

 

Will Apple move in that direction? Perhaps. But given the manner in which they've tried to maintain user rights with music (via iTunes) vs. the way Windows is trying to lock everything down with WMA I doubt Apple will go there.

 

The final answer is just use that with which your are most comfortable. The overall interface issues have gone away (now that Microsoft has taken all of Apple's ideas which Apple lifted from Xerox PARC) as have stability issues. Basic home-built PCs are cheaper, but full-featured big boxes are about the same price on both platforms. Just pick your poison because in the end, all computers suck. :)

[scott_eaton]

<I>First off you're not supporting the Microsoft Gates monopoly</i><P>Vs a blabbering Steve Job's who's not creative enough to sell a product without an 'i' in front of it, and still tries to control every facet of the computing experience for novice computer users. You should also really spend some time in a corporate server farm and notice the absolute lack of anything with a faggy Apple on it some time. Case in point, my own experience with those Apple based graphics bureaus that are frustrating to work with because they are so dumbed down they are incapable of solving a problem outside a wizard or drop down. "Color off on your print? Must be your color management on your PC because RA-4 paper never changes. Want to talk about how awesome OSX is?" {stroking motion with hand}<P>After putting up with hearing how wonderfull Macs were for imaging for 10 years, and seeing the damn things were nothing more than an appliance in the same sense of PC's, I learned how to think for myself and not be treated as an open wallet for Apple or Microsoft. Microsoft treats all their platforms like they are locked in a secure room with no exposure to the internet and oblivious to their own obtuse complexity, while Apple treats all computer users as an 80 I.Q. moron and brags about inventing everything on the desktop computer including solid matter and UNIX. Jeesus at least the PC users are thinking for themselves vs being told.<P>The G5 is a really slick machine....used a few and respected the integration of hardware and software even though I find OSX no more dramatic or stable than Win2K on a PC, Solaris, or my AS400s, etc. etc. It ought to be because Apple controls every facet of hardware unlike Microsoft who has to negotiate with hardware vendors. Too bad Dell doesn't sell Precision workstations in stores like Apple does so you can try them out, or AMD for that matter with dressed to kill AMD64s. These vendors assume you'll have the intelligence to test various platforms and come to your own conclusions vs being told by one company who build both the hardware and OS. With Windows you're basically stuck with dept store crap PC's to compare against top of the line G5's costing 3x as much, which I'm sure Apple appreciates.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Vs a blabbering Steve Job's who's not creative enough

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Well, someone's blabbering, or creative enough, but I suspect it's not Steve Jobs.

[michael_chmilar]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>Apple based graphics bureaus [...] incapable of solving a problem outside a wizard [...].</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<P>

"Wizards" are Microsoft's name for the hand-holding setup scripts for the dummies using Windows. They are for the users who are too smart for Microsoft BOB and our buddy "Clippy". Microsoft is the company that thinks its users are stupid!

[Brad_]

Scott should cut back on the dietary fiber - its bringing out the best in him. Futzing with

computer hardware, drivers, and software is probably good for the type of person that

would rather do lens testing than shooting. Buy a mac and you're productive right out of

the box. 3 Macs, 2 years+ operation, ZERO crashes.

 

Yeah, that Steve Jobs guy - nothing creative going on there... iTunes, iPod, a

breakthrough music distribution business model that probably saved the industry,

*successful* retail stores, FireWire, 802.11g, computers with blazingly fast I/O processors,

built-in optical drives when others were still pushing floppies, and on, and on. And Pixar,

heck, that cartoon company can't possibly make it...

[j_a]

Digital workflow=digital color.

 

If you're serious about how your photos look,

 

If you're serious about how your photos print,

 

there really isn't an option then.

 

MAC.

 

People can debate the finer points of PC's vs MACs all year long.

 

But as long as windows is dedicated to the worst ICC Profile in the short history of ICC Profiles-sRGB-its color calibration will always suck.

 

End of discussion.

[jim_koral]

Windoze has infectious viruses.

 

Macs love you long time.

[testingname]

Ethan my man, where'd you get your numbers?

 

Dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5

$2,870 configured to match PC

 

Dell Precision Workstation 670

$2,257 configured to match Mac

 

That's with bare bones OS on the PC: win2000 not XP or XP Pro.

 

PCs come with 30-day evaluation copies of everything. There will be something like 3 or 4

image editing applications on the PC, none of them worth $20, and all of them expiring or

self-crippling in a month.

 

So you'll need anti-virus software, firewall software with the PC for sure. Plus spyware

detection software, like Ad-Aware, which thankfully is free. With the PC you'll get USB2,

which isn't as fast as Firewire, let alone Firewire 800, which comes standard on G5s.

[daniel_bliss]

Also on the economics of it, you'll likely find the Mac keeps you going longer. I have a 2001 Mac G4, and recently tired of the 466 processor, but did not want to walk away from an otherwise perfectly functional machine with a big hard drive and lots of memory (1.25GB). Solution -- a $400 processor upgrade which has doubled to tripled the speed of the system. Very easy. I do 4000dpi scans and large format printing on this machine (for fun) as well as statistical analysis (for work). Frankly, 466 wasn't bad, but for the fun and games the processor upgrade is nice.

 

That, and Mac software upgrades lately have sped up the system, not slowed it down. Also for those who suffered through Mac OS 7 and 8 and fled the platform, OS X is a different beast altogether; my compatibility problems with my PC workplace are a thing of the past, and system instability is limited to the occasional problem relating to an Adaptec 2930 SCSI card which, thanks to the retirement of my SprintScan 4000, is about to be ceremonially ripped from the computer to the sound of a dirge (there are multiple known compatiblity problems with this particular card, if you need SCSI don't get this card).

 

And rare indeed is the Mac with second-rate components. My G4 tower is simply far better built than the PC boxes I've seen.

 

So by the time all is said and done in about 2006 or 2007, this is a system that will have lasted me five or six years of very heavy use. Very few PCs have that kind of staying power.

 

-- Daniel Bliss

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <i>Very few PCs have that kind of staying power. </i><BR><BR>Here I still run DOS with 2 engineering drawing scanners; and have several dual boot boxes; that work in DOS; and Windows 2000. NT based Microsoft products that I have used naturally allow a dual boot build; which radically helps when maintaining hardware that is ten years old. NT based software is stable. Not all your stuff has to be internet connected; and do the ritual updates. One can set up an old NT box on a LAN; and hide it from the internet; and never do any upgrades at all.<BR><BR>The PC versus MAC debate is ancient. I worked on the motorized floppy ejector; for the original MAC. The dictate was that MAC folks should not be bothered with the trouble; brainpower; frustration; of manually ejecting a floppy disk. Steves edict.

[Jochen_S]

I sorted it out the easy way: Who is willing and able to service my Mac for a can of beer & "thank you"? - nobody. Does my RAW file converter work fast enough on a so called good Mac to justify the price difference? - No. That's why I use PC. I suppose I'd rather buy and run 2 PCs than 1 Mac.

[andrew_grant2]

"Who is willing and able to service my Mac for a can of beer & "thank you"?

 

I am! The only catch is you'll lose your warranty :-(

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> The PC versus MAC debate is ancient. I worked on the motorized

floppy ejector; for the original MAC. The dictate was that MAC

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

People who are unfamiliar with the machine call it MAC. It's Macintosh, or Mac. MAC

stands for Machine Address Code. :)

[hyunyu]

Or the Military Airlift Command.

[Brad_]

MAC = Multiplier-Accumulator - for people into signal processing and digital filtering.

[cooper8168]

<i>The dictate was that MAC folks should not be bothered with the trouble; brainpower;

frustration; of manually ejecting a floppy disk. Steves edict.</i>

 

<p>So what? Why don't we just eliminate power windows in our cars, timers on our

toasters (because we can't be bothered with the trouble and brainpower of manually

ejecting our bread before it burns), and automatic sprinkler systems while we are at it?

This is a ridiculous argument which has been brought up more than a few times in this

thread and in the other recent one like this. I don't see what's wrong with a little

convenience and automation - it's called progress.

 

<p>I fully agree that it's all about what software you want to run and which

ultimately what flavor you like, but I absolutely disagree that the Mac and PC versions of

certain titles are identical. True, they may have the same functions and result in the same

output, but the way they function within their respective OS is at times completely

different. As a previous post mentions, it can be annoying, for instance, when you want to

open a new window in the PC version of PS and your old window disappears, unlike in the

Macintosh environment. Of course, this doesn't mean that Mac is better than PC, but there

are fundamental differences.

 

<p>I also don't understand the argument that Mac is inferior to PC because Mac's aren't

present in major server farms. This statement, aside from being patently false, doesn't

take into account two things: 1) Apple only got into the server market fairly recently, and

2) How in the heck does this apply to a guy who only wants to run a few graphics

programs on a local machine? Another ridiculous argument.

 

<p>And finally, I don't understand the argument that Mac is inferior because it has a

market share of less than 10%. That number refers to worldwide computer sales, including

large corporate sales. Apple has never actively gone after that market sector - they have

chosen to concentrate on the individual. If you take away the large corporate sales,

Apple's market share is somewhere around the mid-30's (if I recall correctly). Besides, this

is another so-what argument. As many have said, go to the Apple Store and play with a

few models. Then go to Fry's Electronics or whatever you have where you are and play with

a few PC's. After doing that, I trust that you will be able to make up your own mind.

[brandonhamilton]

This has already been beaten to death, then beaten alive again. I have used both, but I choose Windows XP.

 

There hasn't been a SINGLE time that I have been doing digital photo work on my winxp machine, and said anything to the affect "shoot, this isn't working right, I wish I had my mac". Never.

 

Also, if you know anything about PC components, you can put one together yourself (3gh p4, 1gram, etc) For about 1000$. Good luck getting away with that on a mac.

[grant_.]

zzzzzzzzzzz

[cooper8168]

<i>Also, if you know anything about PC components, you can put one together yourself

(3gh p4, 1gram, etc) For about 1000$. Good luck getting away with that on a mac.</i>

 

<p>Another so-what argument (no offense). Yeah, and I can get the parts for a 78 Pinto

and build one

myself, but I'd rather hit the road now. Many people don't have the inclination or the time

to DIY - they want to buy something that works, and works correctly, right out of the box.

What's with this

quasi-macho aversion to ease-of-use and machines that can configure themselves?

[michael_chmilar]

There are two kinds of computer users:

 

<P>

<OL>

<LI>

Those who are interested in the computer itself. They love to build, upgrade, and configure their computers. They want to install their software, reinstall it, customize it, reconfigure it, hunt down virii, and do system administration.

 

<P>

These people should use Windows on hardware they have built themselves.

 

<P>

If you talk to them, they will gnaw your ear off telling about their new graphics card and how a) fast or b) cheap it is.

 

<P>

They will invite you to admire their computer. They will show you the frame-rate in Quake.

 

<P>

They will try to get you follow their example, and suck you into their hobby. If you want to spend your free time messing around with your computer, then you should go for it.

 

<P>

Occasionally, these Windows user might actually use their computer to <I>do</I> something. (After they have reinstalled the necessary applications, scanned for virii, and optimized their system.)

 

<LI>

Some people have a task they want to accomplish on their computer. These people should use a Macintosh.

 

<P>

They cannot tell you what MHz their processor is, but the machine "seems to work fine".

 

<P>

They will show you the wonderful, creative work they have accomplished on their computers.

</OL>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Inside the Macintosh case; ie the hidden hot side of the mold; is where the KO (knock outz ) ejector pins are; the mold numbers; mold cavity number; etc. The Macintosh core team's names are on some of the parts; they were put on the molds. <BR><BR>PC users should be thankfull the MAC exists; because ther is little trouble jumping between Photoshop 3 to CS . If the MAC didnt exist; Photoshop would be like Autocad; were they purposely move the tools and settings; for no real reason at all.

[testingname]

As Daniel mentioned, Mac OSes -- at least so far in the 3-year-old OS X family -- get

faster with each major revision. Jaguar (10.2) was faster than 10.1, and Panther (10.3) is

faster than all of them. It's a neat perk of using OS X. I also look forward to 64-bit

optimized OS X, so that my G5 will be even snappier.

 

That's part of the reason Macs have a longer useful life (for everyday people -- I'm not

talking about the odd techie that can make a 486 do 3D modeling).

 

Old Mac not going as fast as it used to? Upgrade the OS. That's cool.

[van_camper]

Michael, I heard of Photoshop for dummies, now you make it sound like it's Macs for dummies? LOL. No offense meant to anyone. Just thought it was funny, just like the books are.