Mac or Pc $1300.00 to spend

[Mully]

If you need a computer with some horse power PC's are always the best bet. If you want something that looks cool at a coffee shop, get a mac.

You need to stay away from those coffee shops and get to use a Mac so you know what you are talking about.

 

[stpierre87]

I had to of assumed I would be starting a Mac vs. Pc debate. As for the 'Specs' references, arn't really good Specs something I should be lookng for in the case of program usage. The 'User Interface' is alot simplier on the Mac, but will that be worth the Lack of Specs it will have for up and coming program upgrades and requirements. Considering this is a computer I will have this for the next 4 or 5 years, depending on my future budget. I was looking at the brand new IMac 21.5in. 2.7ghz, Thats roughly my price range, But at the same time just Built my own HP on there site and was able to get double the 'Specs' for the same price.

Tough choices,
Thanks for the help.

 

[Mully]

Buy a used Mac Pro, you can upgrade it till it screams ....you won't be sorry.

 

[unpopular]

I think MacOS is a bit more efficient in a lot of areas, but it still really depends. Adobe has a long history with Apple, and MacOS is built on a solid, proven foundation. In many ways, Microsoft's legacy is still holding it back, though to a lesser extent, post-Vista. MacOS is 64bit, you don't have to worry about getting a 64-bit "edition". MacOS uses OpenCL to a greater extent and the framework is implemented at the system level. Apple seems to believe in OpenCL, and I think that OpenCL is the future. I am not sure where Microsoft stands on this technology.

My macbook pro is from late 2008, I do have some power management issues with it, and I did have to replace the DVD drive - but performance-wise, I do not believe there has been an issue. At all. I do not have any real need to replace this machine in the near future. Even with only 2gb of memory.

We're editing photos here. We're not doing protein sequencing (though Apple products do have a long history in biosciences, though that has more to do with it's OS X server's ease of clustering). I am pretty certain that your iMac will be perfectly capable of handling what you throw at it. Many photographers, videographers and graphic artists, some likely doing much more demanding work than you, use a Mac with no problem. Most of this is probably tradition - but the bottom line is, Apple products do work and work well in this field.

 

[Light Guru]

If you need a computer with some horse power PC's are always the best bet. If you want something that looks cool at a coffee shop, get a mac.

You need to stay away from those coffee shops and get to use a Mac so you know what you are talking about.

Exactly. The decision is not at all based on looks its based on user friendliness of the OS and the level of support you get from the maker.

The Mac OS is hands down the easiest OS to learn, and the easiest to fix when there are problems.

As for support when you buy a PC the hardware makes always blame the windows for weird issues and windows always blames the hardware makers for the issues. With an Apple computer they make both. Apples support has continually ranked number one in the tech industry for years.

 

[unpopular]

and it's not like you can't get in and really muck about if you really wanted to. While Apple has an obnoxious habit of obscuring things from it's users, it's all right there if you know how to and need to access it (or just want to destroy file systems). Many windows users complain that you can't access underlying systems on a mac, and that simply isn't true.

You can futz up a Mac just as much as you can a PC, it's just a matter of knowing how.

In fact I prefer Mac over Windows in this area as Apple doesn't tend to spew shared libraries all over everywhere.

---

But as pro mac as I am, the ONLY reason why apple is the choice for "creative professionals" is because Adobe used to be a Mac-only developer. As such, PostScript was only available on mac. PostScript is what made everything in desktop publishing possible in the early 1990's, from laser printers to digital typesetters. It really has nothing else to do with anything other than tradition. This tradition has allowed apple to market to creative professionals, and implement features which creative professionals might appreciate. But in the end, it's just tradition, and nothing else.

 

[John27]

Just something to remember, Apple displays are pretty top notch when it comes to using them for Photoshop, et al. An iMac or an Apple laptop will have a better display than a PC with a cheaper display, or just about any PC laptop.

That said, I use a homebuilt PC. For about $1300 I got a machine equivalent to a very high end mac pro. Add a few hundred more for an IPS display, and I have a machine that does a pretty good job in post. On the flip side, I deal with a much less reliable operating system, and despite some incredible horsepower (4GHz quad core, 16GB of RAM, SSD, etc.) I still have to deal with occasional hiccups that you wouldn't have on a mac. OS X is based on rock-solid unix, it's just a better operating system. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't allow you to install OS X on a PC. It CAN be done, but it's such a complicated process that yields unreliable results with, obviously NO support from Apple (including no updates) that, in my opinion, makes it no more than a novelty and no better than just running Windoze.

There's a lot to weight. With a $1300 budget, I don't think either would be a bad choice. You can't look at an image and say 'ooh, that one must have been done on a mac', unless the comparison was one done on a macbook vs one done on a PC laptop with a crummy inaccurate display!

If this were a discussion about laptops the display alone would lean me to suggest the Macbook, but when it comes to desktops, I think both are valid. Good luck!

Also, if you go the Mac route, don't discount the Mac mini. It has very similar specs to the iMac, but you can pair it with a good IPS display and come out a little cheaper, FWIW. Pair it with an Apple Cinema Display (one of the better displays out there, with an incredibly high resolution which is really nice for working on high resolution images), and you're only a couple hundred bucks over your budget, something to think about. (Or a $400 PC and an Apple Cinema display)

So, in my humble opinion, a decent multi-core processor and a decent amount of memory will handle the latest photo editing software. Your budget should REALLY consider an excellent display, as that is a crucial component of photo editing. Dell, Apple, and Hewlett-Packard all make fantastic IPS displays for this kind of work. Though I'm partial to the Apple and certain Dell offerings because of their very high resolution (2560x1440). When you 'zoom out' on an image you are working on, there is a level of distortion and a level of inaccuracy to the color because several pixels are now crammed into one. A high resolution monitor allows you to view the photo at 100% (pixel for pixel) while still retaining a workable size, AND the color accuracy of a good IPS display really improves your end result. I have an IPS display and a second monitor (NOT used for photo editing outside of a place to stick the tools windows or the 'workflow' in lightroom) that is an older HP model, and the difference in color is incredible... makes me wonder how people get away with editing photos on something like that!

So if it were me, the options would be;

An iMac for $1300,

A mac mini and $1000 for a display,

Or $1000 for a Display, and $300~$500 on a decent PC (that would be, spec wise, in line with the iMac anyway)

I think ANY of those three would be a good combination.

You DO NO have to just like one or the other. Both Macs and PCs are excellent machines that can do any work you'd like, each with their unique advantages and their unique disadvantages. I've owned both all my life, at the same time, and at different times.

and it's not like you can't get in and really muck about if you really wanted to. While Apple has an obnoxious habit of obscuring things from it's users, it's all right there if you know how to and need to access it (or just want to destroy file systems). Many windows users complain that you can't access underlying systems on a mac, and that simply isn't true.

You can futz up a Mac just as much as you can a PC, it's just a matter of knowing how.

In fact I prefer Mac over Windows in this area as Apple doesn't tend to spew shared libraries all over everywhere.

---

But as pro mac as I am, the ONLY reason why apple is the choice for "creative professionals" is because Adobe used to be a Mac-only developer. As such, PostScript was only available on mac. PostScript is what made everything in desktop publishing possible in the early 1990's, from laser printers to digital typesetters. It really has nothing else to do with anything other than tradition. This tradition has allowed apple to market to creative professionals, and implement features which creative professionals might appreciate. But in the end, it's just tradition, and nothing else.

+1. In the 90's Apple was the creative professional choice. Period. Bar none. No exceptions. If you weren't using an Apple computer, you were severely limiting yourself. It's like "professional photographers" using a point and shoot camera. Do they get pictures? Yes. But they are severely limited and the quality of their product is sub par.

Now, however, you can do all of it on the PC. But many have never felt a need to shift over, and many people who make a living as a graphics professional on a computer have no desire to learn a new interface or learn how to tackle new challenges. They, in turn, teach the next generation, and so on. So Apple remains the most-used system for creative professionals. That's not ALWAYS the case though. I've got a relative who is a creative professional, does marketing/graphics design/photo retouching (for ads and articles) for a large firm. He now runs a PC with 3 30" high-end calibrated IPS displays. The PC has the software he needs and runs a few specialty pieces of software not available on Mac OS. He has worked there for close to 30 years doing this same job, and as long as there has been a Macintosh (just about), he has been using it, all up until now. Does that mean PC is better? No. Does that mean Mac is better? No. It means the two have converged to a point that either one can be a winning combination in capable of hands, whichever has the software availability and features you need is the one you should choose!

 

[gerardo2068]

Adobe also stopping support on older windows OS.

 

[unpopular]

^^ well. They've stopped support on PPC macs, too. That's just kind of how things go.

 

[JLMILLS]

You do get more PC for your buck compared to MAC. However, that extra power is overkill for everything I do. I don't game. I don't render video. I process photos and watch HULU. 1300 Bought all the MAC I need. I still have a PC as well. Ok several, but MAC's OS is so intuitive. It just makes sense. I'm on a Macbook Air witch is the weakest they make. I've never experienced a bottleneck. I do, however, keep my PC around for when I need more horses. I just upgraded the HDD to SSHD and It is like a brand new machine. (the pc, i mean) Mac came with a SSHD

 

[John27]

^^ well. They've stopped support on PPC macs, too. That's just kind of how things go.

Was about to say the same thing. PLUS, the OP is looking to buy a NEW PC, which means he will be running Windows 7 or 8, not Windows 98!

They will be dropping support for XP, and a lot of people DO run XP (I do on my laptop, it came with vista, which was awful, so I 'upgraded' to XP. Don't do photo editing on it though!), but Microsoft has also stopped issuing new licenses for Windows XP, meaning ANY new computer will run at least Windows 7

As an add, Apple switched to Intel based macs in 2005, and Windows XP was released in 2001. CS6 works on Windows XP (2001) but not OS 9 or PPC versions of OSX (pre-2001 to 2005) so really, the PC's got a longer support run than Apple did!

 

[Dave Devoid]

Would always go for Mac over PC now...Had my Mac for 2 years...Its still as fast now as the day i bought it..Ive not had one virus/malware etc and it copes with everything i chuck at it...One more bonus is the OS upgrades are dirt cheap..The latest mountain lion was like £13.99 from the app store..

A no brainer in my opinion...

 

[unpopular]

They will be dropping support for XP, and a lot of people DO run XP (I do on my laptop, it came with vista, which was awful, so I 'upgraded' to XP. Don't do photo editing on it though!), but Microsoft has also stopped issuing new licenses for Windows XP, meaning ANY new computer will run at least Windows 7

When you support old operating systems in a time like today where there are these big shifts you're only holding yourself back either performance-wise, or economically. Up until the 21st century computing power has been primarily about RAM and Clock Speed. But today demands on computers have become so sophisticated, distribution of tasks had to be addressed. Todays technology really doesn't have a lot in common with 20th century technology, beyond the most basic premis that both are devices that make calculations using binary logic. But the architecture that lays on top of that foundation is more or less all new from the ground up.

 

[TheFantasticG]

...Had my Mac for 2 years.....Ive not had one virus/malware etc ...

That has more to do with the user than the software/hardware. If you don't open up malware/virus infected content you'll most likely never get a virus. I haven't had a virus in years on my PC. It's a matter of using what common sense you are blessed with or else you will get farked no matter what OS you run. It's a common misconception that Apple OS machines are less likely to get viruses and malware. Not to mention the more popular they get the more they will targeted.

 

[unpopular]

Here's the thing though. If you're talking about security, what is more secure - essentially having no possible threat, or having a threat which you must take precautions about?

On a Mac, you don't even THINK about it. You don't. You don't need virus software. You can pretty much download ANYTHING. You don't have to be "careful", you don't need "common sense". It's a total and complete non-issue. Will it ever be? Sure, and it has been. But the simple fact of the matter is right now harmful code is simply not an issue on a mac.

End of story. It's not a misconception. What is a misconception is that macs are immune to future threats.