Going digital, why buy a MAC?

[zoe_ellabp]

I'm a long time wedding photographer that is incorporating digital

along with film in 2004. Other photographers are advising me to get

away from my windows based computers and go MAC. Can anybody give me

the reasons why or can I stay with my current P4 to keep my cost from

getting out of hand?

Thanks!

O-Town Rob

[dan_vidal]

It really comes down to personal preference. Software packages that are useful to you are present for both platforms. Macs were better at one point, but not anymore...

 

I'd personally stay with your P4, it's what you are used to, and the system is probably plenty fast for graphic and photo work...what are the specs on it, just to be safe?

[ritwick]

The quick answer is - you shouldn't. There really isn't a valid reason left to prefer a Mac over a Windows (or Linux) based PC when you're talking about performance or availability of software. On Windows, you can work with the same software suites that you can do with the Mac, and the P4 you have should be plenty powerful for Photoshop.

 

Now, if you want 'cool', that's a different story. The G5 is the by far the coolest thing in the market. But its also a couple grands out of your pocket...

[m_.]

A MAC is arguably better than a PC for photo editing as it was made for that purpose in mind. But switching from a PC to a MAC is not necessary, in my opinion. If you have to start all over, try the MAC. It sure is more user friendly when it comes to photo editing.

[Troll]

DON'T! I did, last year, and wish I'd saved the money. I think that the latest Windows XP works better than Mac's iPhoto, and the changover nearly drove me nuts. The Mac now sits alone on my desk in a corner while I continue to use my old HP PC.

[jon_austin]

"A MAC is arguably better than a PC for photo editing as it was made for that purpose in mind. But switching from a PC to a MAC is not necessary, in my opinion. If you have to start all over, try the MAC. It sure is more user friendly when it comes to photo editing."

 

The Macintosh platform was no more made with photo editing in mind than was the PC (Windows) platform made with number crunching (or word processing or whatever) in mind. Since the first few generations of Macintoshes had monochrome or greyscale monitors, (color) photo editing would have been pretty much impossible.

 

The Mac WAS designed from the ground up as a GUI machine, so that gave it the early lead in graphically oriented applications (desktop publishing, etc.)

 

The Windows and Macintosh operating systems have long since achieved rough GUI parity, and numerous image editing programs are available for each platform, so the choice usually comes down to which OS convention you prefer, and this is largely (although not entirely) driven by first exposure and familiarity: users tend to prefer the OS they used first or have used the most.

 

When buying a first computer, first decide which (photo editing) application you want to use. If it's only published for one OS or the other, your decision is made for you. For someone like Rob, who's new to digital photography, but who already owns a (reasonably current) PC and is familiar with Windows, a Windows-compatible photo editing application (and there are several to choose from) is the natural choice.

[e_lin]

Pcs are generally faster. most people can't afford the super high end models that CAN be faster than PCs, but both types of pcs have plenty of power for Image Editing. photoshop doesn't use that much resources unless you have a gigantic Image.

[garry edwards]

If you were a commercial photographer supplying images to advertising agencies, nearly all of which use Mac's, there would be some justification in making the switch - but for your purpose a decent PC with plenty of RAM and XP Pro will be fine.

[wcroninger]

Never being able to stay out of a Mac vs PC argument!! I do want to echo the advise

of a number of the responders so far, if you are comfortable with your PC and if it

does the job for you photographically there is no reason to switch platforms. The

previous writer's suggestion that you allow the applications software you plan to use

to determine your choice of platforms is excellent advice.

 

If you were starting over again or new to the field I would definitely argue for the Mac.

Much as I personally believe the Mac represents a superior hardware-operating

system combination I think you will do just fine where you are! Good luck.

 

Bill Croninger

Maine

[l._nelson]

<p>I prefer the Mac because it "just works" while the PC is always having some problem or another. I use the Mac for both music and photography because I don't want technical problems getting in the way of my creativity. Also, everything from color management to networking is simpler on a Mac.

</p><p>

Not that you'll NEVER have a problem or crash - just many less than you would on a PC.

</p><p>

What everyone else says about PC's being faster is not really true anymore. The Mac GUI tends to feel a bit slower to PC users, but actual operations are comparable, or faster, especially for Photoshop.

</p><p>

For example, <b>my Mac is about 3 times faster opening large TIFF files</b> than my PC. And check out the relative specs:

</p><p>

PC: single 1100 MHz P4, 7200 RPM hard drive, Windows 2000<BR>

Mac: dual 500 MHz G4, 7200 RPM hard drive, OS X

</p><p>

I do all my film scanning with a Coolscan 4000 hooked up

to an iBook 800 G3, which just screams compared to the PC

at that task (of course post processing is done on the Mac with

the CRT).

</p><p>

So go for the Mac if you want everything to just be right. OTOH there is <b>nothing that you can't also do on a PC</b>. You'll just be happier doing it on a Mac, and working more efficiently. The Mac is unquestionably a more professional tool. Take the advice from PC-only users with a grain of salt.

</p><p>

Someone mentioned iPhoto, and they are right, it's not too good, but it's strictly a consumer tool, and completely beneath your radar.

</p><p>

As my girlfriend (who switched a year ago) says, "Once you've had Mac you don't go back!".

</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

You can read opinions until you are blue in the face as to which is better. What you

should do is go sit down with different photogrphers who are using Apple G4 or G5

or similar high end PC rigs and see how they work with them and ask questions.

 

As for photo editing software for either platform, if you make your living from

photography there really is only one choice: Adobe Photoshop CS.

 

Yes there are other

programs that may cost less but as a professional you will be dealing with other

professionals (labs, etc.) and they will all be using Adobe Photoshop: and you need to

talk a common language. Plus there is a literal tone of second party plug-oid

designed to enhane weither the way you work or the final quality of your companies

products. Every

other program out there has to either reverse engineer or come up with some other

way to do what Photoshop does.I'll say it one more time: If you are a professional,

the standard editig or "digital darkroom' program is Photoshop.

[ellis_vener_photography]

rewrite:

 

Yes there are other programs that may cost less but as a professional you will be

dealing with other professionals (labs, etc.) and they will all be using Adobe

Photoshop: and you need to talk a common language with them. Plus there is a

literal ton of second party plug-oid designed to enhance the way you work

(as well as there being several tons of "experts" --some who actually know what they

are talking about) and the

final quality of your product.

[markci]

There's very little difference these days. If you're the type who dresses all in black you should probably get a Mac. Otherwise a PC will probably do you just fine.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>There's very little difference these days. If you're the type who dresses all in black

you should probably get a Mac. Otherwise a PC will probably do you just fine.

</I><P>

 

 

 

 

I'm wearing blue jeans,Merrill cross-country hiking shoes and a tan t-shirt and I

have

a baby sleeping in the crook of my arm & I'm using a Mac. But then again I also live in

the real world and prefer not to deal in smug no nothing fantasies.

[scott_eaton]

Mark's comment did make me chuckle a bit. :-)<P><i>Can anybody give me the reasons why or can I stay with my current P4 to keep my cost from getting out of hand?</i><P>How about two percent market share for Mac, granting your Mac user friends the ever annoying and typical "alternative is better" attitude vs tangible improvements they won't be able to quantify. Another negative for Apple; continued negative marketing that amounts to claiming $2500 Macs are better than PC's that cost 1/3 the price, and claims Apple store clerks are the only salesmen on earth that tell the honest truth (gag). Stick to tier one PC's and you won't have those problems. Or grab a new G5 (nice box), but truthfully neither will run Photoshop any better. I've used all the platforms and Photoshop runs about the same on all of them.

[michael_flaherty]

I bought my first Mac 3 years ago. One of the smartest moves I've made in awhile. It's slower, in general, than my pc's but has proven to be infinately more reliable. Sure. It crashes occasionally and I've had some software/hardware incompatibilities to deal with - but the thing is rock stable, when compared to any pc I've ever owned. I keep a couple of pc's around for compatibility purposes (software I can't run on the Mac - like Neat Image as an example).

 

Another thing...I've had to call Apple support twice in 3 years. I always was able to talk to a live person who was ready and ABLE to provide the support I wanted WITHIN 5 MINUTES of calling them. Once was on a Christmas Eve! Try that trick with Microsoft.

 

I have to admit, however, that Windows XP Pro is a vast improvement, in terms of overall pc stability, and brings pc reliability closer (but no cigar) to Mac's.

[scott_eaton]

Then what exactly does the Mac do better?

 

Photoshop is functionally the same on all the boxes, and the last I checked there was no secret, low level interface between OSX and applications that made them work better. Applications do the work - not the OS.

 

I'm also sorry to dissapoint you that no current PC's are shipping with buggy Win95/98/ME on them and haven't for years. This means the stability arguement is left to PC users choosing to buy cheap hardware which causes the vasy majority of stability problems vs Mac users not having that option. Never a valid point in my book.

[steven_clark]

People still recommend Mac's because they stopped paying attention to PC's a decade ago.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>People still recommend Mac's because they stopped paying attention to PC's a

decade ago.</I>Keep dreaming. BTW: I am not an Apple fanatic. In general I hate

computers. And while I can't quantify why ihappen to like working on an Apple G4

more than working ona PC, I think it has something to do withthe human machine

interface. I jsut sem to like the experience more. In the end either a Mac or a Windows

machine is just a bunch of silicon and metal parts in a metal and plastic box with

some sort of television screen about 24" in front of your face, and a keyboard

somewhere below that. <P>As I said above Rob: <B>Go actually visit some of the

photographers you have talked to and see how they work with their machines.</B>

Ask questions.

[jamiew]

It's all a matter of personal preference.

[wayne_seanard]

Stevan, how can you make a statement like that when PCs control more than 80% of the consumer market place. Why do you think Bill Gates has so much money? That statement is ignorant bliss. As for the question at hand according to Adobe, PCs outperform Macs. See for yourself. You can look here or on Adobes Website.

http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/38445/38445.html

[l._nelson]

<p><i>Then what exactly does the Mac do better? </i>

</p><p>

I'm glad you asked! While reading this remember that I use both platforms daily.

</p><p>

<b>No device driver issues.</b> You'll never struggle for hours trying to get your new whatever gizmo to function on a Mac.

</p><p>

<b>Applications rarely update the system.</b> The biggest flaw in windows (well, up there anyway) is that installers routinely update system files, making mistakes and introducing incompatibilities along the way. That's why when you install a new program on a windows box, some old program will frequently stop working.

</p><p>

<b>System Libraries are Versioned.</b> In the rate circumstance where a Mac application updates the system, the old system files stick around, correctly versioned, so that the old programs that depended on them can still find them. All this happens transparently.

</p><p>

<b>Consumer apps.</b> Mac's come with everything an average consumer could want, except an office suite. A very credible office package is availabled from Apple for $69 (Appleworks).

</p><p>

<b>Can be set up by anyone.</b> The average buyer of a PC system has to spend hours on hold with non-responsive and bullying tech-support just to get things going.

</p><p>

<b>Single Vendor Sanity</b>. Because both the software and hardware come from a single vendor, there is no finger-pointing from multiple vendors as is so common in the PC world. Furthermore, PC vendors tend to install loads of badly written, over-promised "gimmick-ware" in an attempt to differentiate themselves. This software is always more trouble than it's worth.

</p><p><b>Real install disks.</b> PC vendors no longer supply real OS install disks, under pressure from microsoft (white boxes excluded here). SOMETIMES there is a CD-image restore, more commonly it's on a hidden hard disk partition. Either way, you're stuck with the third party junk, and in the case of the hard disk partition it's easy to lose it entirely due to an accident or hardware failure - and then you have to buy a new license from MS. Apple provides real OS disks, allowing to come back to a clean system anytime you feel the need (after a hard drive upgrade, for example).

</p><p><b>Better OS upgrade support</b> The OS upgrades on a Mac happen seamlessly on line. There is never any worry about upgrading.

I've never had a failure due to a Mac upgrade routine.

</p><p>

This is in contrast to Microsoft which constantly introduces new bugs when fixing old ones. Also with MS, you have to be on the lookout for certain upgrades that are actively user-hostile. I don't have time to keep track of which is which any more.

</p><p>

<b>I could go on for pages.</b>

</p><p>I think the <b>bottom line</b> is that Macs are for people that who place a greater value on their time then initial hardware cost. The undeniable fact is that Mac users are more productive. I can make a blanket statement like that because I use both and deal with both types of users daily. Mac users rarely spend any time thinking about their computer, while PC users virtually make it hobby!

</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

This is abit of a funny thread; it really makes little difference. <BR><BR>File opening times are almost always dependent on ones controller; and hard drives actual media transfer rate; ie the real transfer rate in Megabytes/second; after a system is configured. Some PC systems are poorly setup; and have low transfer rates; due to buggy controllers and or poor hardware. <BR><BR>It is good that some people use photoshop with MACS; this keeps adobe from making absurd changes; or just changes to make changes. Pure PC programs many times are abit full of gas; and make changes just to make changes<BR><BR>2 decades ago; I had to go to the Bay Area; to the Purple Palace; Verbatim. I had to sign my life away; to get one single 3 1/2" disk; blueprints and all. We worked like dogs to get a Mac 3 1/2" floppy drive where no button had to be pushed for ejection. This is because Apple had the directive that manually pushing a button was to difficult; such is the Mac; designed to be simple.

[robert_landrigan]

Pricewise, if you are having to purchase software for either platform, a mac is going to

run about the same as an equivalent PC. Not the same as a best-buy special of teh

week, or the lowest-end dell, but the same as a mid to high end Dell, Compaq/HP,

Viao, or Alienware system.

 

The G5 systems are amazing, very powerfull, with exceptional I/O speeds that

translate into very fast disk-intensive operations - and the dvd-burner allows for easy

archiving, and with iDVD included, you can make digital wedding albums, out of the

box, quite simply. The newest iPhoto is substantially better than before, and although

not a pro tool, can be used as a serviceable tool for some purposes.

 

If you're just looking at either getting a Mac, or staying with your current rig, then off

course, staying would be cheaper. But being able to create DVD's easily, the speed

and stability of the G5's, and the fact that current systems are 64 bit, rather than 32,

means that when 64bit aware photo apps and future OS releases that are fully 64bit

enabled, your system will get faster without having to change a thing but software.

 

I use both PC's and Macs, i make my living supporting them - and while my clients are

about 50/50, i make 80% of my money fixing broken PC nonsense.

 

If you do get a mac, i'd wait a bit - it's not long till we should see a revised powermac

line, and you can get a bit more for the money.

[joshroot]

Mac/PC, it really doesn't make a difference to most people. You can do good things with both. 90% of the time, making sure that your monitor is calibrated, you have lots of RAM, and have fast hard drives will make much more of a difference in your computing speed/power/accuracy than an OS choice will.

 

I agree that the Mac platform (esp under OSX) is more stable than Windows (though XP is an improvement). And I've never had to do something like chase down a PCI card IRQ conflict or re-install drivers 4 times with a mac.

 

But on the other hand, I've never gotten a mac for under $1200 either. The Win machine that I'm typing this on was $350 without a monitor. True, it's not a particularly powerful box. But it's Athlon 2100+ XP gets the job done, especially with some more RAM packed in there. And I could have three of them for the price of one eMac. One for scanning, one for video, and one to play games on.

 

Then again, my iBook has been across the world with me. And I'm not particularly gentle with it, I've dropped it 3 feet onto concrete at least once, and it keeps on ticking. If I can scrounge up the cash I'll be buying the cheapest of the G5's later this month as a replacement (though I will keep the ibook for traveling).

 

Bill Gates got rich partly because he "borrowed" the Macintosh UI to create the Windows desktop. But don't blame him for Apple's small market share. Jobs et al have made plenty of blunders themselves (cube, newton, licensing the mac OS to other manufactures, ending the licensing program, etc). What's going to be interesting is to see how far Apple will go down the "lifestyle device" road that they are on. They are slowly alienating software developers by creating software themselves. Adobe has quit Premire for Mac developing because of Final Cut Pro and Express. The new Garage Band app is going to cause sales of Mac recording programs to drop like a stone. How long until they come out with iWrite and cause Microsoft to give up on Office for Mac? It's an interesting plan by Apple, and they ahve had some real success. But how long will it last?

 

And Kelly's story about the floppy disk drive is really funny. Especially considering the number of times I ended up having to use a paperclip to eject the disc from an old mac anyway.