iMac vs. Dell PC! Please help

[tendyke]

I use an iMac with 4 GB of main memory. a 24 inch screen, Photoshop CS, Aperture, and really enjoy working with it. I

particularly appreciate the size and quality of the screen and would not want to do photo editing with anything smaller

because of the need to have several windows open at the same time. I don't worry about viruses. I don't know about cost

comparisons, but on a comparable basis there isn't usually much difference. And when you spread it over five years, it is

more important to get what works for you than to save a few dollars (or euros) up front.

[jon_thomas2]

First, a couple of points to clarify...

1) Mac OS X is a 64-bit architecture. http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html

2) CS4 will only be 32-bit on OS X, but that won't be an issue for most users including what it sounds like this situation is. http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/03/photoshop-cs4-64-bit-in-windows-only-32-bit-in-os-x/

 

Now to add my two cents to the discussion.

 

I grew up learning computers in a mainly Unix environment, moved into the world of Microsoft and eventually took the leap into the world

of the Mac. This was not just me playing around in Mom's basement with a couple of machines and calling myself an expert. I worked

with this stuff for a living and was/am very good at it.

 

My most recent personal purchases have been Macs and it's what I've been recommending to family and friends. For this discussion,

it's also what I'd recommend. Why? The Mac "just works". Set up is a snap, things work when you plug them in and it has better tools

included than anything in the Windows world.

 

Not ready to go down the Aperture or Adobe path? Use iPhoto which is a handy entry level tool for cataloging and minor tweaks to

photos. Go with the Mac.

 

Want to spend time working with your photos or even taking them? Go with the Mac.

 

If you really enjoy the idea of building a PC, then go that route. I've done it and I enjoy it. But be aware of the time that's going to take--

first when you build it and later when you're fixing it. If what you really want is to take pictures and work with them on a computer, get

the Mac. You won't regret it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In the USA often the government dumps/sells/auctions off older "obsolete" computers; like the PC I picked up 4 years ago for 35 dollars. Its a nice IBM Pentium III with a 1 Ghz CPU and 1 gig of ram and a 80gig hda. I added PS 3, PS5.5; PS 7, CS and CS2 to it. PS loads in about 1.2 seconds; CS2 in about 12. With my Phase One 35 megapixel 105 megs files they can be rotated 90 degrees in 2.4 seconds. Raw conversions from my Epson Rd-1 digital are about 7 seconds. One could parallel all the computers in the world and make these huge numbers ZERO; BUT that would cost more that 35 dollars. Its just a surplus PC andf works grand with windows2000; it plays videos well too; it has no issues like some Mac folks mention as the standard dogma. Its hardware cost has been thus about 9 bucks a year. Many Mac folks cannot fathom buying a used PC that has a nil cost and has no issues; it doesnt fit their agenda. This computer has been used to retouch many hundreds of images; its used with giant 35 and 50 megapixel images; its used with my scsi scan backs too. A mac is a better bet for folks who are careless; like to click on crud; who surf the internet nude; the assumers of life. There IS NO LAW that a PC has to be always connected to internet; or used as a trial box for your neighbors games. Its total total total BS that all PC's arre futzed with; it just point to some who have had badluck or are careless too. Here many 2 dozens computers are mostly all pc's; some still running from 1994 with nt3.51 used to rip images; with NO upgrades or issues at all.

[johnw63]

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

 

Um ... If the poster knew enough to BUILD a box, they wouldn't be asking what to buy and looking at a Dell.

 

I think one of the biggest factor in deciding what platform to get is the users ability to "work on" the computer. If you know enough to install hardware and upgrade it, and you know how to clean Windows up, scan for viruses, malware, and the like, then I think the PC is a better value. ( Personally, I'd give Vista a skip and get a copy of XP Pro instead. ) . On the other hand, if you don't want to get into the computer and hope it just works and lets you do what you want, then I would suggest a Mac. Yes, Apple has ALWAYS charged way to much for their upgrade options. I don't use their options. I get memory from Kingston and install it. This is normally an easy upgrade and does not void any warranty. Installing a bigger HD on the iMac or a laptop will.

 

The link to the Tomshardware web site is a good one to look at. Often, it's the list of things you DON'T need to buy, with a Mac that even things out.

[ddexter]

Hi Kristian,

 

I wouldn't recommend building your own computer. Even for "experts" this can be a problematic task. I've built

4 or 5 with no problems, but just recently my brother decided to build one. It turns out he was shipped a bad

motherboard... had to send it back and basically start building from scratch. Granted, it doesn't take very

long, but it is certainly an inconvenience. The components that Dell puts in their machines are pretty much the

same you would be putting in a computer that you build yourself (my suspicion is that they have always been a

little bit worse in terms of build quality), but still I know people who own dell's that have run for years with

no major problem.

 

Anyway, I just noticed that the Dell you are looking at ships with a 22" LCD display. This price is going to be

hard to beat. And every review I've read says that Dell monitors aren't so bad.

 

If you decide to go with the Dell, here is what I would do to "customize it" (you can do this on their site and

they will take care of everything while they are building it, so you won't have to worry about upgrading by

yourself):

 

1. Upgrade the processor to the 2.83GHz version. Processors more than anything determine how fast your computer

will be as the years go by. ($110)

2. Dell 22" UltraSharp Digital Display ($160)

3. 500 GB harddrive (for all those pictures) ($50)

4. 19 in 1 media card reader ($30)

 

Now you have a much better machine that the $1600 Apple computer, but you're still paying $450 less for it.

[allan_jamieson2]

No question whatsover, get the Mac, ditch the Dell!

 

I've used Mac's for 6 years now at home and had forgotten how bad PC's can be until I made the terrible mistake of buying 2 Dell

desktops for my business, which were just a little bit cheaper than an equivalent iMac at the time. The Dell's came with Vista on them,

which was completely unstable and made using them a nightmare, Dell's customer service is somewhere in Bombay and not very

interested in sorting out problems. We were charged £100 call out charge for an engineer to come out and look at the Dell's; which

should have been free under warranty, the extra work and grief this caused our business was ridiculous and one of the Dell's crashed

totally and had to be replaced. In the end we upgraded the Dell's to XP Pro, but now at about 1.5 years on, one of them is becoming

unstable again with software working erratically; which just doesn't happen with Mac's. I've just bought one Mac Mini to try out, using the

Dell 22 inch screen, which is about the only good thing that they sent us!

 

PC's might be more commonplace with more software that works with it, but they are handicapped massively with the Windows

operating system, which no matter how it tries is just not as stable, reliable or lets face it, fun to use.

[chrissyone]

I've been using Macs for years, but I use both Mac and PC in my work on Photoshop and several other Adobe products.<br>

 

Simply put, the Mac will give you more enjoyment and less headache than any machine running Windows, and it will last

you years longer than any Dell. Sure, you can do everything with a PC that you can with a Mac (well, aside from having

a decent ColorSync workflow...) but Mac OS X takes far less time and effort to keep running well. I have one Mac that's

been running my website for the last 5 years and I've barely touched it, other than to update software and add drives.<br>

 

I would, however, suggest that you get the 24" iMac over the 20". As has been mentioned above, the display in the 24"

is a higher quality LCD than that of the 20". Personally, I went one step further and added a 23" Cinema HD (same pixel

dimensions as the iMac, but higher density and higher quality LCD panel) as a second monitor. It's my dream setup for digital

photography, as I can

run Lightroom and Photoshop side by side. <br>

<a href="http://www.wileytradegroup.com/~chrissyw/krissys_krib.jpg">This is that it looks like.</a><br>

My only beef with the newer iMacs is the glossy screens. I don't personally like them,and while they can be pleasing to watch a DVD

movie on, they're a bit too contrasty for Photoshop work, and tend to block up the blacks a bit.

OS X also has a feature called Spaces, that lets you have a grid of workspaces that simulates as many monitors as

you like. Hit CTRL + DownArrow and your windows slide up and out of the way, creating a new empty workspace. Once you get used to

this you will not be able to live without it, especially if you run a lot of real-estate hungry apps like Photoshop, Lightroom, Dreamweaver,

etc...

<br>

-c

[chrissyone]

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

<p>

You forgot to mention that you have to run Windows.

<p>

Not worth it.

[charles_watson]

What's with all the Windows bashing? I left a computer running Vista Ultimate on all summer while I was out of the country, running my website's server. It never once skipped a beat, even while it was downloading the backups of my photography and my brother's 1080p videos. The traffic log said it downloaded 740GB over a two month time period. I have never had the stability problems other people have, but it could because I have built my own systems and understand how to use a computer. I mean, have you used Vista? I find it good, but once again, I might just be justifying the fact that I built a 2TB photography workstation and server for under $800. It's completely possible that I'm just being biased, it's hard to remain unbiased when you're defending your passions.

 

I think that truthfully, considering your workflow would probably be using Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Bridge, and Adobe Photoshop, all of which use their own file management windows / systems that are not the same as the computer's, you will get a good experience on either. If you are familiar with OSX, buy a Mac. If you have had a good experience with PCs so far, or you want to build your own, do it yourself.

[aplumpton]

Christina, the over brightness of the 24inch iMac was one of the picadillos in the French test report. I have turned my

brightness control down to nil to get better match between my printer output and the screen image, but I understand a

colour profiling (with a spectrophotometer device like Munki or Spyder) is the best way to go to control the MAC image.

 

Maybe too cool or too cloistered for your tastes, but a black cloth hung behind the operator (like a moveable shower curtain) and

perhaps black clothing (not to mention a Darth Vador mask) may be the only way to minimize the bad effects of the

iMAC's glossy screen

 

Otherwise, the 24 inch iMAC with extra RAM is a great Photoshopper.

[chrissyone]

I forgot to mention...<p>

 

Using Spaces in conjunction with VMWare Fusion, you can run a full-screen session of Windows XP or Vista inside OS

X on Mac. So switching to a different space gives you full-on PC action, in case you have Windows versions of certain

apps or you have to use Internet Explorer for some web-based app.<p>

 

No PC that you built or bought from Dell can do this. But you can save money and buy a cheap put-together PC and it

will run fine if you know how to make it do so, and you enjoy fiddling with the registry and device drivers. It's all the

same I guess. In my experience, however, the Mac leaves me more time for photography.

[chrissyone]

" but I understand a colour profiling (with a spectrophotometer device like Munki or Spyder) is the best way to go to control

the MAC image."

<p>

I use a Spyder on the iMac (older, non-glossy) monitor and the Cinema HD and it's definitely the way to go. I have found

that the iMac internal is a touch cooler than the HD, but otherwise I've got them pretty close. The HD is just a touch better

at saturation and contrast, and I do all the color work in LR over there.

[Carl Stone]

The brightness was turned all the way down on my 24" iMac, then I calibrated it with the Spyder 3 pro. It has been great, no issues at all.

The glossy screen has not interfered with me either, I don't even notice it. However, I don't have it setup to where any lights, or other light

sources, can reflect on it.

 

I'm not going to get into the Mac vs PC wars, but the fact that we use Macs exclusively should tell anyone what we think about it.

[moultonphoto]

I had the same question when it was time for me to buy a new computer. I purchased a iMac 20in Core 2 Duo, and I

love it. I have Vista :( installed, but never use it. My husband will use the PC side to play a game that is not

Mac compatible. I use it for all my photography and graphic design. When I was using CS2 on my PC it was lock up

on my all the time. I have never had an issue using CS2 or CS3 locking up. That was enough for me. Now I won't

rule out that there was something that needed to be fixed with my PC that would fix the locking up issue, but it

was time a new computer anyways. I will soon be getting the 24in iMac, oh and I also use a MacBook Pro

[artpets]

I've used mac and pc and support both at work as technician. Both pc and mac sucks if you use it for the wrong purpose. The

games works best with PC, apparently, there are more updated games. If you are interested playing Warcraft type of games, and

interested in playing games like Eve Online, use the PC, and for graphics and pre-press use the Mac for general purpose like

home works and school works either are fine. For internet and internet television watching, and corporate office, even the

cheapest are fine. That's the business bottom-line. It's not what others use pc or mac. They chose a computer and computer are

expensive choice to make. No one can't make the best choice for you. Best bet is to do the research, ask friends to let you touch

their mac and pc or go to the computer store and ask the salesman to show you what your needs are and see if that fits your

needs and price range. It's like buying a car. Mustang vs Mini-cooper. I have Dell Laptop, Canon Camera, and Apple iMac. I like

my mac, and I hate that Yahoo Messenger has better functions when used with Windows version than Mac OS X. I use Skype

instead for webcam phone calls instead of Yahoo Messenger. It's business decision to go with PC for Yahoo. There're more

consumers with PC because many chose PC based on price and needs. Mac followers like myself, chose out of loyalty and trust

in quality and knowing how experience using it before works so well with software I use most like photoshop.<div></div>

[duane_mills]

Both platforms have their strengths. The graphics package off the shelf is superior in the Apple MacIntosh. If

you're planning on running multiple applications like PhotoShop, Quark an Illustrator for creative purposes then

MacIntosh (a Unix platform) is the way to go. If you're looking at simply PhotoShop CS3 then either PC or Mac

will do well. The trick with PC is to go with a fast Core 2 Duo (there's not enough Quad Core software written

yet), dual HDD's, max out the RAM (4 GB minimum) and upgrade the video and sound cards with something more

substantial than base components (you have to decide what your needs are). If you want a Mac, I'd get a 24" IMac

over a MacBook Pro because the video memory in the IMac is dedicated and not shared. With the IMac you may want

to wait another month since Apple is releasing a new 24" IMac with a much faster processor. Don't skimp out on a

20" because you'll regret it in the long run. Also, although you can run boot camp and windows applications on

MacIntosh - integration with Bill's (Gates) software has a few bugs and some programs like Simply Accounting are

a nightmare on a partitioned Mac. I use both Mac and PC but for very different applications. Video editing with

Final Cut Pro rocks, but a PC is a required evil for Simply Accounting. Hope this helps. Cheers.

[Carl Stone]

iMacs were just updated in April of this year, they won't be upgraded in a month. What Apple is upgrading is the MacBook,

and MacBook Pro, they are expected next month.

[ryanjoseph]

I have a self built desktop running Windows Vista Ultimate, and I have not rebooted it in over two months. I think the reason

Mac users like to bash on Windows so much is because they no idea how to use computers properly, and for that reason

the crippled software in Macs is perfect for them. I spent less than 2000 dollars on this computer, the specs are as follows:

 

Gateway 22 inch LCD

Intel Q6600 quad core overclocked to 2.8 ghz

6 GB DDR2-800 Mhz RAM

Gigabyte P35 Mobo

500 gb HDD

Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 Mb

700 Watt PSU

Mid-tower case

OEM Vista 64 Bit

 

My PC blows away all my friends Macs in Photoshop CS3 performance, and never crashes. The performance problems in

Vista are related to some stock settings related to real time defragging and indexing that can easily be resolved by a quick

Google search. I have 10x more software compatibility than a Mac, and have the option of repairing and upgrading my

computer myself. The only reccomendation I can make to you is to look a little more carefuly. I have worked with Macs, and

see them crash just as much as XP/Vista PCs, and are even harder to diagnose as to why because of Macs poor error

system. I work in Jamaica, so I can't simply dump a Mac and get a new one if it breaks, or easily send it to Apple to have

repaired like in America. I have to do these things myself.

 

If you are technical go ahead and build your own PC, if you aren't interested in going deeper into your computer and

getting the most performance for the buck, then a Mac is probably for you. Please just remember PCs are not as bad as

Mac users make them sound, they have just bought into Steve Job's bull.

[chris_werner]

I use both Windows and Mac - intensively and extensively. Do you want to spend your time rebooting, defragmenting, virus scans etc.? Or do you want to spend your time using the computer? Both Windows and Mac have their places, but - get a Mac - you'll never look back. any Windows user whho has never actually used a Mac doesn't know the difference.

[chris_werner]

"I think the reason Mac users like to bash on Windows so much is because they no idea how to use computers properly, and for that reason the crippled software in Macs is perfect for them."

 

I'm sorry - this is just completely uninformed, and completely off base. I say this as an intensive user of both who has built many computers. With all due respect to Ryan, he needs to restrict his comments to what he actually knows.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In a strange way the doom and gloom BS dogma by Mac users is actually GOOD for photoshop; it keeps some non PC users using photoshop; and thus the knob-logy doesnt get ruined. Here I have had little if any of the BS windows problems mentioned by die hard Macs; thus these problems come across as a kick back agenda; maybe folks are mac dealers; or they are careless folks. The worst bang for the buck computer we have bought in the last 2 years was a 20" Imac; bought for a Mac retoucher who didnt even know what "curves" is in photoshop; but was Photoshop certified; as an apple logo on his car; an apple trim frame on the license plate frame.

[p_cho]

The difficulty in making a recommendation is that you know Windows but know nothing about Mac and OS X.

 

That being said, OS X is a very power operating system and well designed. The OS is the reason why to consider a Mac - not the hardware. It is UNIX at its core. Mac OS X is very well designed. Microsoft has been emulating and adopting Mac OS features for the past 20 years. In addition, Apple also is a forward looking company and has no qualms about disrupting backwards compatibility to make a better OS or computer (which can cause short term grief and/or pain). Windows on the other hand goes to great lengths for backwards compatibility, and (in my opinion) is becoming a convoluted mess. Vista came out late, and even now quite a few people prefer XP over Vista. Obviously, depending on your opinion, you might think one model of software development or the other is preferred.

 

Most of the people here who encourage you to go windows without even trying a mac focus on the hardware/price, not on the OS/usability. Most windows people assume that OS X is the same in usability as Windows, which in my opinion is very wrong. Likewise most Mac OS X users can't do a good job of explaining why a Mac is better because it is difficult to explain an opinion/preference and Macs aren't about hardware or cheapest price. Usability preference is a personal decision that can only be made by each person. Some will naturally find windows better, others will find Mac OS X better. Until you try a Mac, you will never know. People's opinions are no substitute for direct experience.

 

The bottom line is you really need to try a Mac to make your own determination. If you do not have free access to a Mac (ie store or friend), you can always buy a Mac first and then run Bootcamp/Windows if the Mac OS is not to your liking. Yes, you could play it safe and stick with windows, or you can gamble to see if you like something better - it's your personal decision.

[ryanjoseph]

Chris I am sorry I offended your cult but I stand by my statement. Macs can get viruses, Mac hard drives get

fragmented but the OS does it in real time like Vista (manual and automatic defrags both have their merits and

disadvantages). I used Macs extensively at college for four years, and I can confidently say Chris their relative

advantages are just marketing hyperbole. Try to stay on topic rather than attack me, it works much better.

[hal_a]

P Cho, turn back the clock to the year 2000, and the latests Macs were outperforming the latest PCs on every

Photoshop benchmarking tests. IMO, that is why the Imaging Industry favored Macs. The Mac OS - being derived from

UNIX was also a lot more stable than Windows 98/NT (Thank goodness Microsoft didn't design cars). If anyone asked

me for advice on what computer to buy for imaging work in 2000, I would have suggested an Apple.

 

Right now things are different. Macs don't give you any advantage. There are many photographers using Macs, but a

lot of them have been using Macs from when Intel Pentium was inferior to PowerPC, and they're inertial to change

 

Photoshop runs the same on either Vista or Leopard, working on either will not change one's work flow. Other user

experience details aren't very relevant to a workstation dedicated to photography

 

Vista is very stable now, as is Leopard -both are extraordinary softwares, so the only deciding factor is

hardware - which is what we're focus on in our comparisons and recommendations.

 

Here's my 'in a nutshell' comparison:

 

PC:

 

Cheap

 

Customizable (pick the features you want)

 

Easy and inexpensive to upgrade

 

Offers stable OS within limits (i.e. not idiot proof) and risks of virus attacks

 

Compatible with almost all non-apple 3rd party hardware

 

Works well with Photoshop

 

 

Mac:

 

Expensive up front

 

Not very customizable

 

Very expensive to upgrade

 

Offers a stable OS, with excellent user interface and a low virus risk.

 

Works well with Photoshop

 

Mac's are prettier/trendier?

[mnigro]

Mac's are overpriced. Ten years ago their reliability justified their price. Today, Dell and Gateway machines are just as good at 1/3 the price. I run Photoshop CS3 on a $350.00 Gateway with 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB Western Digital hard drive. The machine is fast-boots up in 25 seconds. NEVER attach your graphics computer to the internet. Buy a cheap used notebook for surfing the web.