Mac, PC(Windows), or Linux/Unix

[Opher]

The real problem with editing under Linux is that most hardware used to calibrate screens don't work with Linux.

This is why i dual boot

 

[Djixer]

I use for work/home, including for editing photos, Debian with KDE. Linux already for a long time have ceased to be OS for geeks, it quite a user-friendly operating system.

 

[mathewhayden]

Hello..
Actually I am confused between Mac,PC (Windows) and Linux because I have already used this operating systems and these operating system are good to operate. These operating systems are also user friendly. For me I prefer windows most because it is really easy to use it. Thank you friends for your different opinions.

 

[smokey breeze]

caveat: photography is just one of many things I do and enjoy, and I'm a certified geek.

I built my own workstation - Intel Core i7 2.93GHz, 12GB RAM, 2TB SATA RAID (8 spindles), two dual DVI Graphics cards, 4 LCD monitors (2-20", 2-24") - runs Ubuntu 9.04 workstation, 64-bit.

For processing large datasets (many hundreds of MB) with tens of thousands of files, there's just nothing like UNIX or Linux and the command line (sed, awk, xargs, etc...).

I run a new iMac 20" (OS X 10.5, C2D 2.66GHz, 4GB RAM) for some work I do with Canon's software suite and various other processing. In fact, I used this just yesterday to upgrade my camera firmware.

I run Vista-64 on my Lenovo ThinkPad W500 (C2D 2.8GHz, 8GB RAM). I find that Vista-64 is a heckuva lot more stable than Vista-32 ever was, and it can use all of the RAM in this laptop.

I run Ubuntu workstation 9.04 64-bit on my old ThinkPad T61p (CD 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM).

I run a dual Xeon 3.06GHz, 16GB RAM, 14TB SATA RAID array (16 spindles) server (Ubuntu server 9.04, 64-bit) as my primary network data store, first level backup storage location for Mac OS X and Windows, and main CPU cruncher. This server houses my x0,000 RAW, x0,000 JPG, and my edited photo collection - it's also my main music server feeding the whole premesis, the main file server for the LAN, and the main Virtual Machine server.

For Windows XP, I find it's much more stable running as a virtual machine in VirtualBox (free and Open Source) on top of Linux - that and it boots completely in like 15 seconds flat. This runs QuickBooks and other utility software that I need.

I run a couple of Thecus n5200a NAS devices (Linux) as nightly and archive disk backup systems (rsync'd via cron). I also have the ability to rsync across the Internet to a remote location for offsite backups.

When I need to get more advanced with my post-processing workflow, then I'll find the product(s) that fit my needs and put them on the O/S that they run most reliably on.

Frankly, I don't know what I would do if I had to choose just one platform.

 

[Mike_E]

Windows 7 x64, no grief not even a burp. I never had problems with XP either.

Clean out the garbage and run a registry cleaner once a month and you're good to go. Being behind a router helps too.


BTW on the virus thing? from what I've heard Mac is catching up so whatever anti-virus for Mac's you choose, be sure to have it running.

 

[Overread17 5]

Clients From Hell

PC win!

 

[Opher]

Clients From Hell

PC win!

I would use Apple over Microsoft any day... Maybe apple is the forbidden fruit but Microsoft is pure evilness.

 

[seankc132]

Been using windows for my whole life and I love it. I've used macs at school and at many of my friend's houses and even though I do like windows a lot more I plan on buying a macbook in the near future, since I do really like snow leopard

 

[Brookstone]

From the beginning of fingering personal computer till now, Windows has been accompanying me over 15 years, from Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME, XP, Vista until Windows 7. I experienced most of these Windows version though I run only Windows 2000/XP on my own PC/Laptop. Windows has stepped into the depth of my heart.

I used Mac and Linux at other places, they are so cool. However, I still don't a plan to change my operating system or PC. I even can't image what can I do without Windows.

 

[aivzdog]

I am a proud mac user. Always have been always will be. Once you go mac you never go back.

xx
Anna

 

[hjf]

Macs are OK, but they're not "a little bit more expensive". They are way, WAY more expensive at least where I live. You can get the 27" Cinema Display for $999 in the US, but down here (Argentina) it goes for $2499. Yes. That's over twice as much. Considering taxes for that kind of stuff is well under 30% you notice that macs are targeted at an elite market. Yes, Mac users are usually elitist douches - sorry guys, but you are. I have talk to many of you, and you're constantly bragging about not having virus and how "superior" is the Mac in every aspect. I don't really get that. Linux users do that too. We, Windows users aren't bragging about how, I don't know? How cheap our computers are? How flexible windows is and the fact that you can build your own machine from assorted parts and be sure it will work with windows? (I also use Solaris and Linux too on a regular basis. I happen to be a system administrator).
I hate these Windows vs. Mac fights. You see, Steve Jobs has betrayed its Loyal User Base many times. Apple said the G5 was superior to Intel in every way and one Keynote Speech later, it was all Intel. And now they've done it again with the Firewire interface (I do remember the USB-vs-Firewire issue too). And every Windows vs Mac fight always comes down to "macs dont get viruses". Come on guys, I've run Windows without an antivirus since about 2001 (when XP was out). You don't just "get" viruses by browsing sites. I don't know what people do to get them, but at least I don't.

 

[FemFugler]

I am a proud mac user. Always have been always will be. Once you go mac you never go back.

xx
Anna

LOL i actually know quite a few people who have gone 'back'.

 

[j-dogg]

Solaris 8 ftw

 

[hjf]

And to add another thing:
Let's go back in time some 25 years and try to remember (well I'm only 27 ...). At that time, the PC was in very early stages. The PC itself was something IBM thought would never catch. They thought "who needs a PERSONAL computer?". Computers were very specific products targeted to the enterprise, they have been since the 60s. IBM's market was to sell you "Big Iron" and then charge you for support, the same business model that is still used today by companies like Oracle, IBM, etc.
Someone at IBM wanted to test the "Personal" market, so they made a computer from "junkbox" parts, an open specification, and talked to Bill Gates who "made" DOS for them (that's another story).
So the first PC was ugly, bulky, but certainly much faster (at 4.77MHz) than the "Micros" (microcomputers, like the Commodore VIC-20/64/etc). It was also a lot more expensive: base system was over $1500. But it was a "real" computer. With a keyboard, a dedicated monitor, and especially, real software. The "micros" were $300 "toys" that connected to your TV.

Just like today, parallel to all this, Apple was developing their own computer, the Apple, Apple II, etc. They were competitors to Commodore actually, releasing their Apple line about the same time as Commodore's PET. There were many BBSs of the time. Some used Apple, others used Commodore (much like PC vs Mac or Nikon vs Canon, or Ford vs Chevrolet).

It was all boring text and funny colorful games on your TV until 1983, when Apple went over the top. They developed the Lisa, a $10.000 computer (I have no idea how much would that be in today's USD. But even today $10k for a computer sounds a bit much). It was nothing new, actually. Xerox had developed the ALTO computer system many years before. It was Apple who brought that to the masses, like they brought portable MP3s to everyone: when the 5GB Firewire iPod was released I was still using my parallel-port based 32MB (yes Megabytes) Diamond Rio PMP300.
Moving forward: the Apple Macintosh. It was a serious machine, with a decent price, which allowed to do RIGHT what people were trying to do on DOS and failed: desktop publishing. And that, ONLY that is why we're having this discussion. That, and only that, is what saved the Mac. Apple allowed small newspapers (and big newspapers too...) to have a digital "workflow". Soon photos followed, and the Mac quickly took over the Design market. That's why designers use mac, and that's why people think "macs are good for design". And I haven't even mentioned Photoshop.
The truth is that Apple is good at one thing: take something already existing, give it a spin, put it in a nice package, and sell it to the masses while the rest of the industry laughs and thinks "no one would pay THAT!". They did it with the Mac, the iMac (who would buy an ugly transparent computer???), the iPod, the iPhone, etc. Apple sets trends, and the rest of the industry follows. It takes a few years for the rest of the industry to catch up with Apple, but they do.
The facts:
The whole Adobe Creative Suite runs on Windows and Macs in the same way
Macs now are PCs and there's no reason for any program to run in a Mac faster than on Windows (save for a little tweak or OS hack)
If you're a PRO and use Windows, and don't get your software from shady "warez" sites, or promiscuously plug and unplug your USB drive in every computer you have access to, you DON'T get viruses. OK? You just don't.
Steve Jobs is a control freak. He's always been, and always will be. The Mac has never been an open platform. Neither has been the iPhone. Apple is in the middle of a fight with Adobe (no idea why, but we know Jobs needs no reasons for that). And now with the next Mac OS and the App Store, it gets even worse. It will get to the point where you won't be able to install non Apple-approved software (you can't on your iPhone). You can't install Mac OS on a PC either. I mean you can, but the license won't allow you to (why?).

Microsoft is a company using their position to take advantage in business. Apple is a company that wants to control everything you can and can't do on your own computer. I'm not sure which one is more evil here.