Who uses a Mac? Looking to buy, need opinions

[Village Idiot]

i guess no one should post anything ever then...
considering this forum and every other is based soley on the collection of information and opinion gathering to help make the most informed decision possible. might as well just listen to the ads on tv and be done with it.

the point to my posting is that i have a professional viewpoint to offer. i work in computers as i have my whole life. i work with every brand and every OS. i work in a data center with over 2000 servers and i work for a company that has over 20,000 PCs and Laptops floating around. being someome with a lot of experience in the computer field and not as much experience in direct photography i utilize these forums to learn as much as i can about photography and when i think my opinion or knowledge on computers is valuable i try to give it.

and when someone can lay down an alternate viewpoint whether it be biased or not can still help the OP in making an informed decision in the end. i lay down the pros and cons of each and the bottom line is the OP is looking for something to work with in photography. well, sadly mac has left that market and how caters to their "niche" fad following. i've seen a lot of media guys and photo guys here in our marketing department recently switch from the older macs to new IBMs and HPs just due to the fact that they provide a much wider range of products and they offer products that suite exactly their needs. for me, i wanted a desktop replacement on a single platform designed around music and photography. i looked at all options and the Studio was the one that looked like it was designed for me.

bottom line is, when the OP makes a post about a PC they've already made up their mind on and then ask a question like how will Adobe run on this? well, it will run on it period. but it will run much better on any Windows 64-bit platform.

But there's still issues with incompatibility with drivers. If MS was smart, they would have built one 64 bit OS with backwards compatibility to 32 bit.

Anyways, I work in IT, use multiple platforms and everything else. Blah blah blah, I'm a tech god, bow before me my peons type stuff, etc...

There will be no real discernable performance difference between Photo Shop on a well equipped OS X machine and Photo Shop on a Windows 64 bit platform.

You're talking fractions of seconds with filters and actions. You'd only really notice with something like batch processing that would take 30 minutes +. And when Snow Leopard is released, it's going to support OS level routing of processes through multipl CPU's which will make exsisting hardware already faster.

 

[keith204]

I'm not concerned with minor performance increases/decreases, but rather stability & simplicity. You have answered my questions - I get the general idea that the specified iMac isn't an underpowered machine for the sake of portability, but a rather powerful machine that will more than suffice for photo editing and the occasional video project.

Great call on the refurbs. I checked out the list and there are a couple in there that look nice. There was a 24" 3.06ghz, 2gb, 500gb, nVidia 8800gs 256 machine there for $1599. The 500GB HD is good enough for me (I have a handful of 640gb external drives for storage) and the cost of 2 2gb sticks is a very cheap upgrade to make 4gb.

I'll keep my eyes on that list for awhile to see what comes up. Also, I am a student and am able to get the Apple student pricing (the $1799 iMac first mentioned would cost $1699). I'm certainly not in a hurry.

 

[itznfb]

But there's still issues with incompatibility with drivers. If MS was smart, they would have built one 64 bit OS with backwards compatibility to 32 bit.

Anyways, I work in IT, use multiple platforms and everything else. Blah blah blah, I'm a tech god, bow before me my peons type stuff, etc...

There will be no real discernable performance difference between Photo Shop on a well equipped OS X machine and Photo Shop on a Windows 64 bit platform.

You're talking fractions of seconds with filters and actions. You'd only really notice with something like batch processing that would take 30 minutes +. And when Snow Leopard is released, it's going to support OS level routing of processes through multipl CPU's which will make exsisting hardware already faster.

from my own experience we are not talking fractions of seconds.. we are talking 30-90 seconds per image of standard post processing. say i was going through 200 images... that's almost 2 hours of time saved at a minimum. granted a lot of people don't mind waiting a few seconds for an edit to apply but i can't stand it. i want it to be complete before the finger fully releases the mouse button.

if you're a photoshop user, i don't know why you'd ever buy a mac. adobe has been recommending the PC platform since 2003 and even backing that it is indeed much faster. plus it's starting to look like they'll never release a 64 bit version for mac. they are talking the same story they did with CS4, saying it'll be 64 bit on both platforms if things go right blah blah, then it comes out as windows only. at the very least it's obvious adobe has much less interest in the mac platform.

 

[DScience]

the point to my posting is that i have a professional viewpoint to offer. i work in computers as i have my whole life. i work with every brand and every OS.

You mean the two (2) most widely used OS's?

 

[Village Idiot]

from my own experience we are not talking fractions of seconds.. we are talking 30-90 seconds per image of standard post processing. say i was going through 200 images... that's almost 2 hours of time saved at a minimum. granted a lot of people don't mind waiting a few seconds for an edit to apply but i can't stand it. i want it to be complete before the finger fully releases the mouse button.

if you're a photoshop user, i don't know why you'd ever buy a mac. adobe has been recommending the PC platform since 2003 and even backing that it is indeed much faster. plus it's starting to look like they'll never release a 64 bit version for mac. they are talking the same story they did with CS4, saying it'll be 64 bit on both platforms if things go right blah blah, then it comes out as windows only. at the very least it's obvious adobe has much less interest in the mac platform.

This is from 4/03/2008

Right after announcing the release of 64-bit support in the Lightroom 2 beta, Photoshop Senior Project Manager John Nack dropped a little bombshell on his blog, announcing that the next version of Photoshop (CS4) will be available in both 32- and 64-bit versions for Windows, but only a 32-bit version for OS X. The reason: Photoshop on OS X is written with the Carbon API. Last June Apple decided to kill 64-bit Carbon, forcing all future 64-bit application development on the Mac to Cocoa. Adobe had originally planned to ship a 64-bit CS4 as a Carbon app and port to Cocoa for CS5, but now the 64-bit version will have to wait for the CS5 Cocoa build.

The (relative) good news is that this will primarily affect users working on "very large files on a suitably equipped machine." The average speed bump "due to running in 64-bit mode is around 8-12%" when not "using a large data set." The bad news is that it is precisely those professional users who buy Mac Pros maxed out on RAM that will likely get penalized. It'll be a sad day when the Photoshop jockeys have to run in Boot Camp to get the most out of their Mac Pros.

I bolded some important parts. Adobe doesn't have an less interest in OS X. They make a ton of money off of OS X users, more so than most dual OS program designers do. It was because of Apple that CS 4 wasn't released.

If you weren't so oblivious, you'd notice that any time "what computer do you use" comes up on a photography forum, it's at least 50/50, if no a little more biased towards Apples some times. Why would Adobe not want to develop for a platform where they get a lot of business from? That would be bad business.

And as for filter times? There's only a few that take that long, and that's with editing a 21mp file. With the previous 8mp camera I had, it didn't take any time at all. Now, I get a little bit of a wait, but the files are more than 2 times the size.

 

[itznfb]

You mean the two (2) most widely used OS's?

huh? i'm not really sure if that's a question or not. but no... i work with 9 or 10 operating systems. not on a daily basis; i primarily work with HP-UX, some Windows 2003/08 and a propriatary HP OS, then on the desktop all flavors of Windows, OSX, and Fedora/RH.

I bolded some important parts. Adobe doesn't have an less interest in OS X. They make a ton of money off of OS X users, more so than most dual OS program designers do. It was because of Apple that CS 4 wasn't released.

while that part is true, Adobe does indeed have little interest in supporting mac. this is why new Adobe products come out on windows first and are then ported to mac.

If you weren't so oblivious, you'd notice that any time "what computer do you use" comes up on a photography forum, it's at least 50/50, if no a little more biased towards Apples some times. Why would Adobe not want to develop for a platform where they get a lot of business from? That would be bad business.

you make so many mature statements like this i'm not surprised at all you're still here. bad business? bad business is having to support 2 platforms which is why so many software manufacturers refuse to produce software for macs. windows much more profitable for software developers also partly due to the fact that windows is easier to develop for as well. this is why apple's market share is so small and why it will continue to be that way.

And as for filter times? There's only a few that take that long, and that's with editing a 21mp file. With the previous 8mp camera I had, it didn't take any time at all. Now, I get a little bit of a wait, but the files are more than 2 times the size.

on a 8mb raw file a simple sharpen with default settings on a cityscape took 28 seconds on the imac, took 0 seconds on the PC. again, not every comparison will be this way but this is from the hour or so of testing i did yesterday.

 

[S2K1]

I run several Macs for photo/video editing and graphic work. An iMac G3 266 MHz which runs Photoshop 5.5 better than my year and a half old windows PC, a Dual 450 MHz G4 Power Mac, and a 2.2GHz C2D MacBook Pro that runs Photoshop and Illustrator CS2, iMovie 08, Dreamweaver, and usually Firefox all simultaneously without breaking a sweat. And it only has 2 gigs of RAM and a 128MB vid card. Granted my video files are 640x480, but with your specs, you should be able to handle the 5D Mk II.

 

[keith204]

I'll probably go with the ATI Radeon 4850 HD 512 card if I get the new iMac. Strange enough, I have an ATI Radeon 4850 HD 512 card in my PC right now...

 

[Guido44]

I'm no computer expert or a "photo pro" like so many here, but I can tell you I love my little mac.

I only have the "super mini" and I really enjoy mine. I was told it's just basic laptop components put into the mini box, but I don't care.

Apple software to me, is better and more fun. I love iPhoto and iMovie.

No viruses either

JMO

dan

 

[bhop]

on a 8mb raw file a simple sharpen with default settings on a cityscape took 28 seconds on the imac, took 0 seconds on the PC. again, not every comparison will be this way but this is from the hour or so of testing i did yesterday.

That's actually not normal at all. I think the mac you were using must've had problems because it usually takes 0 seconds for me as well on a 5 year old computer. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison of mac vs pc.

 

[dcclark]

Remember, all PC-vs-Mac debates eventually boil down to one of the following:

- A single data point representing every computer ever (as we saw above)
- "No viruses!"
- "Only one button on the mouse? That's dumb!"
- Expense
- and of course, a holy war that nobody wins.

 

[itznfb]

well in reality it comes down to what i said in my first post:

so if you like OSX better then get the mac with the best specs you can afford. if you like windows then get the best PC you can afford or build your own.

but no matter what when you ask for opinions on a computer choice whether you've ask for "alternate" view points or not you are going to get them. which should be viewed as a good thing. looking at things from all perspectives is the best way to make a good choice.

 

[usayit]

i guess no one should post anything ever then...

Don't go off the deep end.... the discussion was about a particular system that was chosen... a mac. The OP wasn't looking for a debate on Mac versus PC.

I guess each and every Nikon thread should have a Canonite saying Nikkors suck and each and every Canon thread should have a Nikonian saying that L-lenses suck. Again.. what is the purpose of that? (or are you going to say that we all should just never post anything?) Nothing you have contributed is new nor insightful.... just simply trolling.

Honestly.. TV commercials are more entertaining and informational.

I think Tharmsen already said it:

He was asking a very specific question about a system he's planning on buying. He wasn't asking for a sales pitch for a Windows machine.

Did you really expect him to go, "Oh gee - I've never heard of Windows before! Please tell me more!"?

 

[usayit]

I
Great call on the refurbs.

Not only does Apple have a wonderful refurb selection but so does a Microcenter. The one near me is always selling clearance items that all still qualify for Apple care.... it is a tax abatement area too (1/2 sales tax).

Micro Center - Computers, Electronics, Computer Parts, Networking, Gaming, Software, and more!

 

[keith204]

To those of you whom I have misled: there is no prize for influencing me.