Mac or Windows?

[Neil S.]

I am not hip enough use a mac. You need funky hair, dark rimmed glasses, skinny jeans to be able to use a mac.

or this guy:

Hey at least he didnt have Bill Gate's mug shaved into his head!

Now that would be scary...

 

[usayit]

Neil S... you had to start this thread?

Mac user here. Even convinced managers at work to put one on my desk.

I have nothing against windows (but they do frustrate me at times).. I deal with that O/S (and others) daily at work.





Most Mac users are Windows users too.. the opposite is often not true.

 

[Neil S.]

Neil S... you had to start this thread?

Umm no lol...

I can't be held responsible for people wanting to argue about something, that is on them.

The question of the thread was "do you use Mac or Windows to edit photos?" not "is Mac or Windows better?"

I am trying to get an idea of how many people here use each platform, thats all.

Do you blame the noob asking if he should get a Canon or Nikon when it turns into a giant 20 page mess of a thread?

Edit: To be honest I was hoping someone might provide some insightful information about WHY they use one or the other for photo editing. I dont know much about Macs, but I hear they are very good for photo/video editing. I am always trying to learn, and I hope you realize thats all I was trying to do here too.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Neil S... you had to start this thread?

Umm no lol...

I can't be held responsible for people wanting to argue about something, that is on them.

The question of the thread was "do you use Mac or Windows to edit photos?" not "is Mac or Windows better?"

I am trying to get an idea of how many people here use each platform, thats all.

Do you blame the noob asking if he should get a Canon or Nikon when it turns into a giant 20 page mess of a thread?

Edit: To be honest I was hoping someone might provide some insightful information about WHY they use one or the other for photo editing. To be honest I dont know much about Macs, but I hear they are very good for photo/video editing. I am always trying to learn, and I hope you realize thats all I was trying to do here too.

I do like that macs come with iPhoto, its somewhat useful for newbies. It is better than nothing. What does windows have? MS Paint?

 

[usayit]

yeh... I understand but these usually degrade into such discussion... Yes.. there are past threads that specifically stated "for editing photos"

To answer your question.

For the most part, it doesn't matter. Unless you have an urge to use Aperture 3 (which doesn't support Windows), you should stick to whatever you feel most comfortable with (kinda like choosing between Canon and Nikon). The key here is

1) Make sure you have enough resources to support the software and the file sizes you intend on working with. In general, max out memory.
(note: video editing is more resource intensive than photos)
2) Make sure you get a good monitor
3) Make sure you get something to calibrate that monitor
4) Make sure you think about backups.

The whole, Mac is better for video and photo editing is a long played out cliche that really just doesn't apply any longer. What you do on a Mac, you can accomplish the same on a Windows box.

I still prefer Mac.


[EDIT]

A little off topic... anyone running Vmware ESXi on a Mac Intel workstation?

 

[Neil S.]

I do like that macs come with iPhoto, its somewhat useful for newbies. It is better than nothing. What does windows have? MS Paint?

lol

I am having flashbacks of trying (unsuccessfully) to edit photos with ms paint.

Its funny because its still there in Windows 7.

I think most people would agree that its pretty fail...

 

[timbearden]

This question is like comparing Nikon to Canon. I love my macs for so many reasons. All my editing is done on my macs. My PC is super slow as I have had it for years. I used to do all my websites on PC, but have converted that to macs as well.

There are pros and cons to both. A lot of software doesn't cater to mac, which is a downside for me. However, with macs I never have to worry about viruses, or virus software slowing down my computer.

 

[Neil S.]

yeh... I understand but these usually degrade into such discussion... Yes.. there are past threads that specifically stated "for editing photos"

To answer your question.

For the most part, it doesn't matter. Unless you have an urge to use Aperture 3 (which doesn't support Windows), you should stick to whatever you feel most comfortable with (kinda like choosing between Canon and Nikon). The key here is

1) Make sure you have enough resources to support the software and the file sizes you intend on working with. In general, max out memory.
(note: video editing is more resource intensive than photos)
2) Make sure you get a good monitor
3) Make sure you get something to calibrate that monitor
4) Make sure you think about backups.

The whole, Mac is better for video and photo editing is a long played out cliche that really just doesn't apply any longer. What you do on a Mac, you can accomplish the same on a Windows box.

I still prefer Mac.


[EDIT]

A little off topic... anyone running Vmware ESXi on a Mac Intel workstation?

See now thats what I am talking about.

Ty for the insightful and informative post.

This is kind of what I was thinking already, because most of the major photo editing programs are on both platforms.

I thought there may be some stuff that I didnt know about Macs though...

 

[usayit]

Hardware is hardware. Period It's not about the hardware.

Well it seems to be about the hardware for Apple.

This is why they make their own cases/monitors/etc. and dont allow you to build your own machines. They want you using THEIR hardware only.

Not the entire truth...

UNIX systems maintain stability via strict control over the hardware they support. This is why most will only support the hardware they retailed that has undergone their expectations of test and quality assurance. It doesn't mean that they actually build all the hardware BUT they strictly try to limit third party because of a certain commitment to uptime / reliability that can potentially become a liability.

HPUX for example have sourced their SCSI cards from LSI and previously QLogic. The cards are then reflashed with HP's firmware which has been specifically tested with their O/S and drivers. This means that HP and only HP is responsible for the reliability of that operation. No need for HP to worry (and waste resources supporting) problems/issues that could have been introduced by some third party hardware, firmware, or software. Even if they could deny liability/support when unsupported third party items are introduced, it still sours the relationship between the customer and HP. Afterall, the HP-UX O/S is the most visable portion. Let's not forget that it costs $$$ to HP to even make that determination.

Ask any Windows IT guy... most have been stuck with a problem with Microsoft pointing fingers at the third party vendor and the third party vendor pointing fingers at Microsoft. It is extremely frustrating for all parties and very costly.

I have no doubt that much of the "Windows Sucks" experiences are steming from misbehaving drivers/software/firmware/hardware that came from other vendors and Not Microsoft.


On the other hand..


It is a double edged sword because it means you cut out most third parties which limits availability of hardware and support software. It is a trade off.. flexibility or reliability through stricter control.

Apple's treatment of MAC OS X and their hardware is following this model. The hardware they deliver is of higher than consumer level quality.. which costs. The only reason why it seems expensive is that there are no cheaper alternatives. Some would say.. its not that Mac hardware is expensive is that others are so darn cheap. Their laptop prices are on par with high end Sony's, Lenovos, HPs, etc... its just people keep insisting on a comparison with lower end Dells...

After a career experience in all sorts of platforms, I will say Mac can be as bomb stable as many production Unix servers I have worked on. The internals of my old G5 Mac workstation are definitely outfitted with good quality components for that time.


I personally think Apple doesn't much care for taking over the entire market from Microsoft. I think they perfectly happy remaining the niche alternative... doing well at it too. Let's not forget that Microsoft pushed out other competitors through business moves that limited availability to other O/S's... I'm sure Apple does make some $$$ from this same move... they are all guilty of it to a certain extent....

 

[cfusionpm]

Apple's treatment of MAC OS X and their hardware is following this model. The hardware they deliver is of higher than consumer level quality.. which costs. The only reason why it seems expensive is that there are no cheaper alternatives. Some would say.. its not that Mac hardware is expensive is that others are so darn cheap. Their laptop prices are on par with high end Sony's, Lenovos, HPs, etc... its just people keep insisting on a comparison with lower end Dells...

Back in summer of 2008, when I was shopping for a new desktop, I seriously considered a Mac. I ended up with a Dell box because of the following:

I purchased this Dell XPS 420 desktop (Q9450 2.66GHz quad core, 4GB ram, top line 8800GT 512mb, 750gb HD, 24" 1920x1200 monitor) for $1,800$. At the time, the most comperable iMac was the 24" model. The 2.8GHz was nice, but it was a dual core, not quad. It only had 2GB ram, a 320gb HD, and a ho-hum Radeon 2600 256mb video card. To bring the specs as equal as possible (4GB ram, 750GB HD, 8800GT), the price was brought to $2,300; which is $500 more than the Dell. And despite being that much more, it still didn't have a quad core processor, and was stifled from any kind of internal upgrades, like the bluray drive I added to my box a little over a year ago.

So this is where I personally get my "overpriced" mindset from. I'm not sure how things faire now, but since my PC still runs like a champ, I haven't looked to anything new anyway. Well.. other than the recent pump from 4gb to 8gb RAM.

With that platform and Creative Suite tools from Adobe.... Why would I need a Mac for anything?

 

[DC-Photog]

PC - only because I've been building my own system for many years. My editing workstation is incredibly fast, doesn't crash, and I have an external rack system for my hard drives.

Monitor - Apple Cinema Display from 2005. Hands down the best monitor I have ever owned. I ran a series of print tests with three labs, and the prints were so accurate to the monitor that I didn't need to run any calibration. My Eye One puck has been collecting dust ever since.

Software - Current version of Photoshop. I upgrade every time.

Other Software - Custom plugins for PS that I write.

That's it.

 

[usayit]

So this is where I personally get my "overpriced" mindset from. I'm not sure how things faire now, but since my PC still runs like a champ, I haven't looked to anything new anyway. Well.. other than the recent pump from 4gb to 8gb RAM.

It might not matter to many consumers but open up the two boxes and check out the components spec'd. That's were the differences lie. You have to look beyond the sheer specs.

I once worked in a data center that was equipped IBM servers as well as racks of Dells. We had higher failure rates out of the Dells but then again.. expected as the powers that be chose to save a few bucks with the lower ends. Once you figure in the quality of the components, the higher end Dells might have been just as good as the IBM servers but the price was pretty much a wash. Its not that Dells are cheaper its simply that they have a cheaper alternative to the more expensive IBMs. Its the same with Apple... the misunderstanding here is that Apple doesn't have "low" and "high end"....

one example....

Apple memory freakin expensive for the Powermac workstation line. I can source them from third party at 1/3rd (or less) the cost from Apple Corp. Out of curiosity, I priced out the same amount of memory for their Xservers. Guess what.. the same price.. Its the EXACT same memory bank! The same memory intended for a production based commercial server is sourced for my powermac at home. This is like buying a hammer from the Military to their specs to be used to hang a picture on my wall. That's why it gets expensive.

Honestly... I don't particular care... I am primarily a mac user for the O/S not the hardware (hence I have a hackintosh too). But I do appreciate the components when I break open one of my powermacs.

With that platform and Creative Suite tools from Adobe.... Why would I need a Mac for anything?

Absolutely nothing.... if it doesn't matter you.

 

[Neil S.]

So this is where I personally get my "overpriced" mindset from. I'm not sure how things faire now, but since my PC still runs like a champ, I haven't looked to anything new anyway. Well.. other than the recent pump from 4gb to 8gb RAM.

It might not matter to many consumers but open up the two boxes and check out the components spec'd. That's were the differences lie. You have to look beyond the sheer specs.

I selected every part in my computer myself. I picked very high quality components, and my computer is extremely fast and stable while still being affordable.

Look at this screenshot.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no Macs no matter what you pay that run this fast. This will likely be the case for some time still, even though my PC is almost a year old.

Keep in mind that I have been running the same overclock since day one of the build.

I just speced a Mac Pro to close to what my hardware is, and they want $4300 for it. For just my base hardware I doubt I spent over $2,000, and that was with an Intel 160GB G2 SSD back when they cost over $600. I just configured the Mac with a cheap 2TB HDD.

The Mac I built on the site had a 3.2Ghz quad core mind you, and mine runs all day at 3.8Ghz stable as a rock. My processor cost under $300...

To go from 3GB to 12GB of ram right now they want $1200...lol?? My 12GB ram kit cost me under $300 A YEAR AGO.

Macs are cool, but they are way overpriced and not my style. If I was rich though they are pretty sexy...

 

[table1349]

Since your original question was about editing, here is a comparison with various processors, OS and versions of Photoshop.
Improved Photoshop Benchmark CPU speed test for both Mac & PC – Free Radial Blur filter test Photoshop Keith Simonian Wedding Photography – San Francisco Bay Area – Napa Valley – Monterey – Carmel

The 1 second advantage the Quad core 2.93Ghz Nehalem has over the Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown overclocked to 4.70 GHz is insignificant when it comes to speed. It is kind of interesting that the 2.93 Nehalem is faster than the overclocked 4.70.

For fun I would like to see the specs for a 2 X 2.93GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (12 cores) 32GB (8x4Gb) w/Two ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB running Snow Leopard with CS5. I wouldn't want to see the price tag though.

 

[Kalemine]

My desktop is a PC, and more power, and my laptop is a Macbook Pro. Since I do most of my editing on the laptop, I ended up choosing Mac in the pool.

I like the 8 hours battery, the screen with very nice color, the low weight and the fact that Mac OS X can show RAW and PSD files directly in the finder.

But honestly, there isn't that much of a difference between the two system nowaday on a photo editing perspective. Choose what you like.