Apple O/S vs Windows

[jasleinstein]

At the risk of setting off a flurry Mac vs PC posts:

I am finding my photo system ( a dual Xeon, 4 gigs of memory, 30 inch Apple

Cinema Display, 3Dlabs graphics card) developing an electrical problem that is

going to cause me buy a completely new system soon. I have been flowing the

emergence of the Intel Apple platform very closely.

I have been on the fence for ever thinking of trying the Mac O/S, and of course

have plenty of technical well wishers giving me their opinions on why they love

Windows or their Macs.

I know I can run Windows on the Apple hardware.

This system is only used for my studio work so all of my business doings can

stay on Windows which is a separate system.

 

I have been evaluating Lightroom and feel that product, and of course with

Photoshop, which I have always used, will become my baseline digital dark room

products. I have been using ACD products for management but don't have a long

term commitment to it. Photoshop Bridge seems to have taken over much of what I

used ACD for.

 

Between purchasing a reliable hardware platform, the next service area we are

going to focus on will be a workflow and file back up system.

 

I shoot the Nikon platform with the D2X as my gear. I mange file back up like

most every one else, I have multiple firewire drive arrays and keep three

copies of all of our digital work from our servers.

 

It seems that most pros I talk to have pretty much grown up with one platform

or the other and it seems more pros use Apple because that is where they

started. Having said that there does not seem to be huge compelling issues

between one platform over the other. It seems color management has been better

on Apple but Windows has pretty much caught up.

 

If you have specific thoughts or experiences please let me know.

 

I apologize if this is a duplicate post as I am new to the forum and didnﾒt

find similar posts during a search.

 

Thanks for any help.

[adam rosser]

You are clearly a high-end user. Perhaps the most compelling argument to buy a Mac Pro is that they are cheaper than equivalent machines from other manufacturers and that you can run both Mac and Windows simultaneously. Sounds like a no risk approach to me.

 

Cheers

 

Adam

[amul]

If you're sure that compatibility isn't an issue, and since you seem to dismiss Systems Familiarity as a consideration, then I'd guess that the only factors left to consider for you are budget and software compatibility (eg, which OS are your programs native to?)

[pico_digoliardi]

If you go to adobe.com they have an article telling of their plans to migrate Photoshop to the new Mac/Intel platform. The bottom line is that Adobe WILL port it to native code. At this time it runs though an emulation routine so it's slower than one might like.

 

I have eight well endowed WindoZe units in the lab, and only one Mac G5 DP 4GB RAM and two discs on the bus with the same screen you use. My goal is to upgrade to the next big Apple they come out with but only when CS is native, and only when Apple has a huge platform that supports four discs on the bus, and ESPECIALLY file sizes greater than 4gb for external drives. No kidding. It's pathetic. 4gb? :) Video eats it up quick.

 

Why? BSD U*x! Scripting, pipes, all the good stuff underneath, native Lightroom, that awesome Adobe code.

 

I truly do not think "most pros use Apple", but whatever makes ya happy is what works.

[digitmstr]

>>eveloping an electrical problem<<

 

What would that be? The power supply? The mobo? What?

 

If you know what the problem is you can certainly fix it otherwise, you are throwing away a perfectly good machine. BTW, a dual Xeon with 4gb or RAM is way more than enough for most editing tasks.

 

As for Mac VS PC is non-issue. I have both. If your software is running on WIN XP there is little reason to get a Mac...unless you have a fetish for everything Mac.

 

IMO, the best photo-management software is Photomechanic. Most services use it so, it's also a compatibility issue.

 

If you are buying a Mac to run WIN XP on it, might as well get a PC. OTOH, if you are planning on buying Mac-only programs it's a moot point. Though, I wouldn't count on running demanding WIN-XP applications smoothly on the same machine. But, I haven't had a chance to test that feature yet.

[william_john_smith]

<I>Though, I wouldn't count on running demanding WIN-XP applications smoothly on the

same machine. But, I haven't had a chance to test that feature yet.</I><P>If you haven't

tested Windoze XP on Macintosh hardware how can you make the above statement? The first

tests done show that in fact Windoze XP runs faster on a Macintosh then a Dell of the same

specs.

[jasleinstein]

Thanks to all for the responses. Lets see what other comments we get.

To answer the "what is bad question":

 

I backed my self into a corner in putting together a top end system.

 

I wanted three things. I really liked the color rendition, image resolution real-estate of the 30 inch Apple Cinema display. Working with so many photos, and I have a large music library I was encoding, I was convinced by technical folks, that a dual Xeon system was the way to go three or so years ago. I also wanted a system that was somewhat quiet.

 

My system crashes, in powers its self off, more and more often. I had a top notch hardware guy look at it and he is sure it is a problem with the mother board and tells me it only a matter of time before it goes.

 

Because of the need to use the 30 inch monitor the only graphics card we could use at the time was a 3DLabs Wildcat 200. It has to fit in a AGP Pro slot. No modern dual Xeon motherboards have AGP Pro slots anymore as they have a gone to PCI ( something) express?

Also the memory is special ECC something and is very costly.

Lastly with the need for quiet. When we first built the machine, because of the use of these Xeons, which really take power, the system was as noisy as a Boeing 747. We got a water cooling system and now it is still loud but tolerable.

 

Needless to say I have spent more time than I ever wanted dealing with hardware and never want to back myself into a corner again, hence the interest in the Apple Pro and asking smart people like all of you about your experiences.

 

This technical guy works at a Seattle firm that does high end photos and video editing. He tells me Apple engineers simply focused on integrating the right hardware to make the system fast.

If we can salvage the CPUs and Memory we can use them in one of our servers that are long in the tooth. The graphics card I can sell on Ebay.

 

Between the basic management needs and workflow choices we have to make, I hope we have the time to evaluate Windows, OS/X, Photoshop, Lightroom, a workflow system on a couple of Intel platforms, including the Mac Pro before my system does it�s final death dance.

 

Is there a place on this forum, or others that people are sharing their thoughts on Workflow Systems for photography?

 

Thanks to all of you for the responses.

[erik scanhancer]

"My goal is to upgrade to the next big Apple they come out with but only when CS is native,

and only when Apple has a huge platform that supports four discs on the bus, and

ESPECIALLY file sizes greater than 4gb for external drives. No kidding. It's pathetic. 4gb? :)

Video eats it up quick."

 

Pico, what are you talking about? I do a lot of video on my Macs and can easily capture entire

DV tapes into one file. Single file sizes surpassing 10GB on external discs are perfectly

possible with any Mac, including your model.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Perhaps the most compelling argument to buy a Mac Pro is that they are cheaper than equivalent machines from other manufacturers </i><P>Most of the hardcore (and technically adept) G5 owners I've talked to are showing indifference at the new Power Mac, and for once I agree with them. <P>According to Apple, the new Power Mac is cheaper than the equivelant priced Dell. Big Deal, because nobody is buying the Dell because no IT dept wants to spend $2500 on a stupid quad core 2.66ghz when you'll be able to buy faster Core 2 Duo boxes for less than a grand 6 months from now. Two cores at 3ghz will simply win about 95% over the time over four cores at 2.66ghz regardlss of the OS you are using, and 3ghz Core 2 Duo box will be drastically cheaper to build. So, the new Power Mac is a BAD investment for Windows because E-machine and HP will be selling faster machines for $799 at Best Buy around christmas. Hopefully Apple will release faster Core 2 Duo desktops fairly soon, although I'm no sure what their explanations will be to their Intel Power Mac owners.

[andrew_rodney1]

Scott, instead of finding EVERY Mac post and providing pretty lame advise, maybe you

should stop the duck and cover approach you're getting famous for here and answer

those posts where folks call you on your questionable (and often incorrect) trolling about

Apple products. In the last month, I can recall at least 3 posts where you left a stink bomb

about Apple and then left the scene of the crime when anyone with a compelling argument

(usually technically correct) in response to your propaganda replied you. This is getting

old. It's obvious you have an agenda. It's obvious you have a "thing" about Apple, Mac's

and Mac users. OK fine. But at least be a man (or even a little boy) and either stop this

nonsense or reply.

 

You appear to have some technical capabilities in some area (Mac's not withstanding) and

it's a shame that we have to now dismiss what might be usable advise from you based on

what appears to be a political, I would say religious belief system concerning Apple. It's

getting real tired. Stop, grow up and get a life! Did an Apple Mac somehow fall out of the

sky and kill your parents?

[andrew_rodney1]

Oh and Scott:

 

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/opinion/dellmacprofollowup/index.php

[Brad_]

<I>My goal is to upgrade to the next big Apple they come out with but only when CS is

native,...</I><P>

 

I think that's a really smart approach. By the time universal binary photoshop comes out,

Apple may well have freshened their MacPro with a couple of speed upgrades. Makes sense

to wait. My dual G5 works great right now.

[._._z]

If I remember correctly, Macworld testing found that the stock Mac Pro, running Photoshop under Rosetta emulation (built in Motorola emulation), runs about as fast as a dual 1.4GHz G4 Mac. Not too bad, considering that was probably state-of-the-art 4 years ago, but hardly a screamer today.

 

Adobe ought to have a native version of Photoshop running sometime next spring, when OSX 10.5 will be out, and a small refresh of the Mac Pros may also be released.

[._._z]

Oh and Scott: <p>

 

<u><A href =

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/08/23/ap2968854.html>

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/08/23/ap2968854.html</a></u>

[jasleinstein]

Thanks for all of the um,,, debate. My areas of interest are in production and operational issues. To be honest in areas of CPU, memory, hard ware for a photographer there is more than enough available. Maybe video producers need that sort of horse power. My Dual Xeon can handle ten or fifteen 20M Raw images expanded into 300M files in Photoshop just fine. If I have to wait five seconds for a resolve in Photoshop vs three seconds its just one more sip of coffee.

 

Andrew, I think you seem to be a color management specialist. I struggle keeping my current system consistant for color management. I think Microsoft as made big strides in the last version of Windows with color management. How would you compare that to OS/X?

 

If we think the universal binary of photoshop comes out next spring it seems to me I should prey my current Xeon system doesn't die a firey death as I bet it is faster than an emulated layer.

 

What work flow products do you use?

 

We really struggle with managing multiple iterations of an image for our gallery. If we take the original, correct for contrast and balance, stage one. Save that off. Stage two, light balance for a paper print, re-balance for a digital display. Save that off.

Focus in on the images and edit out unwanted small images in the picture, power lines, birds, etc. Save that off.

 

It seems we are trying ACDsee on the low end and extensis on the upper. What are other choices and are they different for Apple vs Windows systems?

 

thanks all for the help.

[andrew_rodney1]

-->Andrew, I think you seem to be a color management specialist. I struggle keeping my

current system consistant for color management. I think Microsoft as made big strides in

the last version of Windows with color management. How would you compare that to OS/

X?

 

There's nothing really that unique in either OS. Apple has let the ball slip IMHO with the

ColorSync utility in Tiger (it does all kinds of cool stuff that is mildly useful for anyone who

wants to be a color geek) but its' not all that intuitive. What is interesting is stuff like Core

Image and Quartz Filters which no one has done much with but the potential is there. As

for a photographer who just wants to work in Photoshop and similar ICC aware

applications, it is on parity for both platforms. There's some useful automation for color

management in Tiger with either Applescripts or Automator. Again, how useful that is to

any one user is hard to peg.

 

We'll have to see what MS does in Vista. On paper, it's real interesting stuff but I have no

idea if it will run as intended or not. The good news is MS is looking (finally) at color

management at the OS level in a more robust way. However, will that break something in

the Adobe suite? Only time will tell.

[andrew_rodney1]

One more Mr. Scott:

 

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/5386/983/

 

Imagine, using it JUST for Windows?

[._._z]

As is Scott's habit, he deposits his ant-Apple troll like a dog with diarrhea, scoots his butt along the ground, then hightails it to another patch of dirt.

 

He's already made another snarky anti-Apple post somewhere else on this site.

[andrew_rodney1]

Yes, I saw the completely unnecessary reference in that post of Scott's. What a big chicken

s#@t to continue this duck and cover.

 

Here's yet another one for you Scott if you're lurking:

 

http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Mac-Pro-Beats-Dell-Hardware-on-Price/story.xhtml?

story_id=120006Y5BHPC

 

Maybe we should all pitch in and get him a single share of Apple stock.