iMAC or PC ?

[kyle obrien]

Simion,

You mentioned that you were looking at the 20" version of the iMac with 1G of RAM added, correct? That is the EXACT

machine that I am working on and Photoshop and all other Adobe programs run just fine with that setup. I have had times

where I have Photoshop, Bridge or Lightroom, an internet browser and instant messanger open at the same time and the

computer handled just fine. But everyone else that said that it comes down to preference. The main reason that I got the

Mac is that I had been using them in my photography classes and I became accustomed (sp?) to the way that they

handled. So I would say that if you are used to working on the Mac or dont mind just a little bit of a learning curve, and can

afford it, go with the Mac. Hope that helps.

[dmanthree]

carl,

 

You can use any manufacturer's screen with either of the "headless" macs as long as they have a standard DVI port. No

need to limit yourself to Apple monitors.

 

Funny thing about those glossy screens, we all seem to either love them or hate them.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here we have a 20" iMac thats about 2 years old and its capped with 2 gigs of ram; it works Ok; abit weird since its a Mac.:) BUT I think the 24" Imac has a better screen for Photoshop work than a 20" unit; not just the size but the way the screen is for photo images.

[mats nilson photography]

Windows Vista is in most respects a carbon copy of Mac OS X. Says it all, doesn't it. Renaming 'Widgets' to 'Gadgets' shows the standard

of creativity at Microsoft.. Macs are for creative people, PCs are for accountants..

[RaymondC]

I am using a old computer and a slow one which is someone else's. My own laptop is 2000, 8 years old. I am looking at a desktop computer.

 

I don't know, which would be better - Mac or PC.

 

What I can say is that I don't load a lot of software and I ama computer whizz kid kind of, been pulling apart PC computers since I was 13yrs old, I know how to build them up and troubleshoot and backup and install software etc. I can say that a PC can be v stable or not stable at all.

 

I can agree, that if you buy a iMac and then buy decent brandname parts for a PC that is equivalent, there is not much difference.

 

If you are a whizz kid and able to source parts from cheaper places, and use cheaper brandnames for some less essential parts, like a cheap mouse/keyboard, cheap case and power supply, 3rd party HDD and RAM and motherboards, the PC can be around 33% cheaper in my country. If you didn't build it or go to a independent computer store and just bought a Dell for example, I wouldn't be surprised if the two are the same prices or just 10% difference.

 

If you look at the Mac Pro, they are much more expensive and for a Mac, the Mac Pro is the only one that you can get Quad Core CPU and for RAM greater than 4GB. For a PC, you could spend under $200US equivalent for a Quad Core CPU and maybe as little as $100US for a matching motherboard. I am not sure, but if Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2 supports 4 Cores, this is the "area". Having a cheap PC running with 4 Cores may have the edge over 2 Cores (iMacs). Because if you don't have the money, you cannot get 4 Cores Mac Pro.

[pbarnes]

"Macs are for creative people, PCs are for accountants.." there is a lot of nonsense spoken in this debate, and this about takes the cake. If only it were true, and owning a Mac would make me a better photographer...I know Apple likes to put this message out, but I did not think anyone actually believed it.

[mats nilson photography]

What WOULD make anybody a better photographer is being out there with a camera, rather than spending time on various

internet forums.. :-)

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Windows Vista is in most respects a carbon copy of Mac OS X."

 

Microsoft tried to copy the Mac interface but, as usual, they did a poor job. The underlying OS, however, is completely different.

[robertjewett]

When one asks religious questions like, "Mac or PC" or "Nikon or Canon"; one should expect passionate responses. Passion aside, most replies are not exactly informative. Often, they are strictly subjective but laced with techno-jargon so as to sound plausible.

 

Get out of this forum, and do your own research after deciding what your priorities are. For all practical purposes, the difference to a photog between Mac & pc is marginal.

 

In my case, I needed a notebook with exceptionally high resolution and one that had an integral CF card reader. So, my only option was a Sony VGN-AW120J. I love it. Mac wasn’t even close in features at the time.

 

So there you have it. You can listen to us argue, or decide what you want and buy that… : )

[Carl Stone]

"Get out of this forum, and do your own research after deciding what your priorities are.

 

With all due respect, the OP came here to ask about computers with relation to photography, so telling him to go elsewhere is not helpful.

Regardless of which platform anyone chooses, laptops do not compare with decent external displays for photo editing. That's why many

laptop owners use an external display to edit their images, and why Apple has setup their new 24" display to power their laptops while

connected to it.

[wentbackward]

Contrary to what people say about mac's and dipsticks, I've been in the IT industry and an engineer for over 20 yrs. I switched to mac when OS X came out. It's powerful, it works, it's simple, I love it. Windows just sucks. A month after buying my first mac, I changed my wife's laptop to a macbook too. She is the 'typical' mac user as described above. So both extremes.

 

Get a mac, and an external harddrive if for no other reason than it has enterprise class backups built in that is better than anything I've seen for personal usage. You'll need it for your photography.

[robertjewett]

Carl,

 

My point was in the last half of the sentence. What are the OP's priorities? Once we know this, it is as simple as looking at lists of features.

[colin_james]

"Windows Vista is in most respects a carbon copy of Mac OS X. Says it all, doesn't it. Renaming 'Widgets' to 'Gadgets' shows the standard of creativity at Microsoft.. Macs are for creative people, PCs are for accountants.."

 

Oh the irony.

 

Many of these so-called "Apple innovations" appeared in alpha and beta releases of Vista long before Mac OS X. Microsoft took longer to get them to RTM (Release-To-Manufacturing) status because they totally revamped the underlying security foundations of the platform, whereas Apple simply did their usual hatchet job, resulting in an insecure platform that has new security flaws discovered almost on a daily basis.

 

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac-OS-X-hacked-under-30-minutes/0,130061744,139241748,00.htm

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

 

http://www.itworld.com/mac-hacked-first-in-contest-080327

[Carl Stone]

"Oh the irony.

 

Many of these so-called "Apple innovations" appeared in alpha and beta releases of Vista long before Mac OS X. Microsoft took longer

to get them to RTM (Release-To-Manufacturing) status because they totally revamped the underlying security foundations of the

platform, whereas Apple simply did their usual hatchet job, resulting in an insecure platform that has new security flaws discovered

almost on a daily basis.

 

(link)

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

 

http://www.itworld.com/mac-hacked-first-in-contest-080327"

 

Are you bloody serious? ALL of those have been fixed long ago. The first link is from 2006, the second from 2007, and the last is from

March of this year. I've NEVER had a virus, trojan horse, or ANY malware issues running OS X, I've been using it since it first came

out, and I do NOT have any AV software. Out of the hundreds of Mac users that I have daily contact with, not one has reported any

problems with security running OS X.

 

Your scare tactics won't work, people aren't stupid.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Macs tend to be more goober proof; folks can do dumb things and the Mac protects them. <BR><BR>Thus here with a PC thats from 1988; or 1993; or 1996 they dont have any issues; they turn and "and just work". Even my zoo of several dozen newer PC's just work. Maybe its because I have been using computers since the 1960's and had enough of the futzing;and just run a cleaner ship. <BR><BR>Friends that have major issues with PC's almost always either run no virus projection and surf the internet nude; and or they hijack all their software off of torrents; and are constantly playing with keygens. I know folks were every piece of software is bootleg; even the OS. <BR><BR> One person who jumped ship to a Mac gave me their old PC; it was a rats nest of trojans; rootkits; keygens, crud; it appears to never been defragged; and had dozens of *.tmp files from crashes that were 100's of megs each. The darn thing was so full that there was no room to properly operate; thus one reason they love new computer is its faster. Today its a great computer; I formated the HDA and it works well with no issues .<BR><BR> The same folks who gave me the free PC tend to get sick alot more that I do; maybe they dont wash their hands and thus are leading a more risky life in the eating dept:) <BR><BR>Like getting sick some folks will always have problems with computers; thus a mac is often more goober proof and loved by folks who want an all in one box that avoids manure of the internet better. <BR><BR>There is no rule that says one has to run a Photoshop box aways connected to the internet; downloading everything in site; visting weird risky sites; try clicking on everything. For those who do a Mac might be better; its more goober proof for the goobers who like the dark side and have little respect for the dangers that lurk. <BR><BR>PC's versus Macs are an old subject; it existed before the first mac in 1983/1984 with Apple versus IBM PC's. <BR><BR>The bulk of computers that run often are run on PC software; its in the checkup at Home Depot; in gasoline pumps; in McDonalds in embeded forms of NT4 and XP embeded;and more recently unix types are in several of our copiers guts. <BR><BR> Mac users love to mention in their religion that Macs just work; and really dont want to hear that many folks do not have all these terrible issues with PC's; or saved enough in the last two decades to buy a couple cars; its against the dogma. For many folks too maybe a P&S would be better; since there is no issue with dirt; loosing lenses;and details.:) <BR><BR>Mac versus PC threads are fun. <BR><BR>Folks get all emotional and preach on a soapbox that all graphic artists; photographers use Macs; like its a college preppie follow the leader drink the koolaid thing to do. <BR><BR>One person who bought a mac loves them; he once tried changing the oil in his car and ended up draining the manual transmission; and could not figure why the car would onely take 1 1/2 quarts oil. He drove the car from the San Fernando Valley to San Diego; on the way back it made noise; he drove it ALL the way back and ruined the manual transmission. The other buddy who is a PC user discovered the error; topped of the transmission and the Mac guy took it back under warranty and acted dumb. The dealer replaced the transmission for nothing. Thus there is an air of truth that a PC user *tends* to understand were the<b> dipsticks; </b>drain plugs and fill plugs are compared to a Mac user; who has the toaster attitude.! :)

[kelly_flanigan1]

The lone iMAC we have here is a 20" unit thats capped at 2 gigs of ram. Some newer models hold more. It not a bad box for photoshop; we loaded CS2 on it 1.5 years ago. PS 6 would load; since the Mac defines what software one can use. With a Win2000 box we have alot of photoshop versions and illustrator versions. The 24" Imac gets better reviews in the monitor area. If somebody brings in CD burned with Microsoft VISTA; it cannot be read on this 20" Imac; or even a windows2000 box; only *some* XP boxes will; or the lone vista box we have. Its interesting that the Imac 20" here thats only 2 years old cannot read a disc written with dipstick Bills vista burner software. IF these vista users go to walmart and get a nero program then one can read the discs on the Imac here; or win2000 boxes; and more of the XP boxes.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Having the same type computer as a local friend; or one that costs nill to call has some advantages. It saves time figuring out an issue on how to do something radically quicker. Thus if a buddy has an iMac 24" or Acme PC and you get one too there is a benefit. This is rarely mentioned on these types of threads. you might live were there are a huge number of mac users or few at all.

[Uhooru]

Kelly, I too, used and built my own pc's for several years and never even considered going to mac until I started using 1 at school. My opinion is that PC's run Photoshop and Light room fine. There's really no intrinsic difference I could find, except when I got my first G5 iMac and compared it to my single processor amd at the time, two things became clear. Both had 2GB of ram. Windows 2000 (which I liked). The G5 mac could run more stuff without problem, it would just chug along, even if it slowed, but I could for instance work in Photoshop (CS2) and burn a dvd plus have an internet window going etc. Plus the monitor was really very good. Whereas in the PC i had to be careful if burning a disk about anything else being open, I cold surf while burning, but if I decided to do any other thing, it got very shaky. Also, I had to be very careful to update anit-virus ware up-dates, anti-spyware, etc. Defrag, plus, if I ever upgraded there were often not difficult but definite drive issues to work with. I think the macs give you less choices in hardware, but because of the hardware/software integration, it does away with a lot of issues.

 

Now I'm on a 24" white model so it has the dual core. As its now over 2 years ago, it still runs great and plan to keep on if for another year or so. Point is when people say macs "just work" that's not "religious" sentiment or anti-logical emotional reactions, it's actually based in real experience. As you say, you don't have to run a PC connected to the internet, but then what? Have another computer for that? Most of us, don't wish to have more than one computer. Its impractical for many. But your statement regarding that is a very strong practical argument for owning a mac. You really don't need anti-virus etc with the speed hit that gives on your system.

 

So does that mean PC's suck? Not at all. Is the mac a better performer? Not in terms of speed really or anything one could really perceive, except solidness in the OS, but if you include the time involved in maintenance and twittering, or even worrying about such stuff, I think the mac is better.

 

If you can handle a glossy screen, iMac 24 is an excellent photo processing machine with a very good monitor. Put maximum ram at 4GB and you will be good to go for sometime. Than you can spend more of your time taking and processing photographs, the main point for all of this.

[Dave Luttmann]

"Are you bloody serious? ALL of those have been fixed long ago. The first link is from 2006, the second from 2007, and the last is from March of this year. I've NEVER had a virus, trojan horse, or ANY malware issues running OS X, I've been using it since it first came out, and I do NOT have any AV software. Out of the hundreds of Mac users that I have daily contact with, not one has reported any problems with security running OS X.

 

Your scare tactics won't work, people aren't stupid."

 

 

You don't get any with a MAC because there's no point in writing a virus that's only going to effect 8 people.

[Carl Stone]

Yes, that's right, and if the OP bought a Mac, he'd be number 9. Is some some special benefit to being among the gajillions of PC users

that DO get those issues?

 

As Brad has said, it's about the OS.

[Dave Luttmann]

Here's what I know. My scanners and printers all work perfectly attached to XP or Vista. When I start Photoshop, it

runs. It doesn't crash. In fact, I haven't crashed a Vista workstation since its release. The two time I crashed XP,

were because I was dorking around in the Registry.

 

When I'm working on photographs for print, I'm not aware of the OS.....just Photoshop. Doesn't matter if I'm using a

Mac or PC in that case.

 

64bit Photoshop anyone? Yup, that'll go to the 90+% market share....not to the 8. ;-)

[josheudowe]

Simion, for what it's worth - after the many posts on here already... I've been a PC guy for years. I recently made the

move to Apple and will NEVER go back. It's a seamless move and everything is better on the Mac. I use Lightroom2 and

Photoshop, an Epson scanner, a Nikon D300, etc. It's an outstanding combination. Macs are just made for photography,

for visual arts, etc. The PC is great, but no where near an Apple.

[Dave Luttmann]

Josh, can you maybe explain to me how Photoshop is better on your Mac? How does your Epson scanner work better on your Mac than a PC?

 

I attended a small computer show last year where the volunteers at the Mac booth (there was one booth for Macs and probably 100 for PC and PC related goods....point) and this poor fellow was trying to tell me how Photoshop was better on the Mac. Everything he did was exactly the same as my PCs running XP or Vista. He actually tried the C: prompt boot topic as though PCs still booted to the DOS screen. Talk about desperate. In the end, he showed me nothing other than a pretty OS interface that made no difference to Photoshop use whatsoever.

 

All my equipment from cameras to scanners to printers have been installed easily without issue.

 

It seems the only issue there is are the stupidly inane ads the Mac puts out trying to convince people that all PCs can do is spreadsheets.

[Carl Stone]

Dave, you can't even be objective when talking about Macs, go back and read what you've posted. I don't care what platform anyone uses,

but you obviously have some ax to grind when it comes to Macs. When you post outrageous remarks, people put your credibility in the

trash. Try not to be so close-minded.

[garrison_k.]

Dave's post sounds fine to me, an accurate account of his experience. Re the adverts, Mac has had two

ad campaigns pulled from UK airwaves recently for misleading viewers. Tell a lie long enough...

 

For the 99% of computer users that only do email and play on the net, I always recommend Mac. In the

last three years or so, I've put at least half dozen on iMac's and such. They put the best hardware in

there, have awesome customer support, and not to mention an Unix based OS. It's way faster than what they need

and they don't worry

about it. And that's what a personal computer is supposed to be. The $1000 difference between a cheap Dell and an

iMac spread over four years is nothing.