MAC v PC as you Photo computer

leinsterman

Ok ... my PC just died again and I having it repaired ... I'm considering getting a new one because, well frankly, I'm fed up with the bloody thing!

I use it for the most part for photos ... but it also serves as my home entertainment system ...

So ... I might consider a Mac instead of a PC ... I have always used a PC ... from the very beginning (in my case this was back in the 80's and the days of DOS) ... so the PC is a comfort zone for me .... but I notice the Mac appears to be the pro photographers and publishing industry default machine ... and now they make intel MAC's into which you can load up both OS anyway ...

the question is why MAC v PC ? ... or rather which one and why ?

... any advice on the spec for a MAC which will be used for Lightroom, CS3, home entertianment (music and video) would also be welcome ... these machine aint cheap compared to a PC ...

Now ... I know this could open up one of those inflammatory religious debates a la Canon v Nikon ... and I can Google for reveiws myself ... but I would appreciate real objective opinions based on personal experience ... and no emotive brand love banter if possible :rolleyes:

So ... over to you guys ... please be gentle with each other ...

digitalage

How much are you willing to spend?

City-Exile

Ok, I'm very firmly from the Microsoft side of the house, despite having worked for Apple. When people tell me that their PC is a pile of poo, I can normally show them how their own usage habits, have contributed to the poor running of the machine.

If you fail to maintain a Mac & pile on loads of freeware apps, it too will become less efficient.

If you only need the machine for photography & entertainment, then I'd suggest a laptop, with Windows Vista.
You'd want to look for an Intel Core 2 Duo processor & 2GB of RAM minimum.
There are some great deals around at the moment.

If you've got a PC at the moment, with a decent monitor, I'd hang onto the monitor and use that with the laptop, while at home.

rymus

You know my take on this.. but anyway,

I've always used a pc too but since moving to a mac it makes me cringe somewhat when I have to use windows at work. I haven't turned my windows pc on at home since I got the macbook pro (in Feb).

As you say, get a decent sized hard drive and you can load up xp or vista on it anyway if you find one of your windows apps that you cant get on mac.

The why for me would be speed (the bootup is ridiculously fast) and general speed of operation. Very very very few crashes. Dodgy software can crash in os x and it doesnt bring down the entire system. Ease of installation and removal of software. User friendlyness; everyone just seems to know how to use it. There is a bit of a learning curve with moving to a mac but within weeks anyone will get it.

I would have always considered myself an anti-mac activist in the past but now that I've actually owned one (as opposed to just being forced to use them in college and previous jobs) I can safely say that I'll never own another beige box

I think digitalage's question is the only important one. Spend up to your limit. Maybe get a mac pro and add bits and pieces as you go along?

Fajitas!

I use PC and Macs day in, day out.

I prefer PC because I was brought up on them, and my laptop is as fast if not faster than any of the studio macs, so my main reason for using macs is software.

If you know how to use a PC well, and have plenty of decent RAM, I'd stick with a PC. I don't really need extremely fast boot up times, nor can I afford another grand onto what I spent on this laptop for the same spec Mac. But I'm sure there'll be plenty out there to disagree with that.

Roen

I use a Mac in work and a Pc at home. As I said in the thread above, one is as bad as the other.
Seeing as you're used to a Pc I'd probably stick with one. Then again you might need a fancy new younger model in your life to rekindle the love for technology.

City-Exile

I've got XP SP2 on my laptop and its bootup time is as fast as any Mac. That said, I do take care of my kit.
If you install a load of crap, such as Real Player, etc., they all want to load at start-up. Of course your machine is going to be slower!
I disable everything but the essentials, on start-up.

Goto Start --> Run, type "MSConfig" (without quotes), Click OK and then look at the Startup tab.
From there, you'll see everything that wants to start with Windows. If you're unsure about anything, don't make any changes but you can disable loads of programs from here.

FreeAnd..

Not too familar with Mac's its been a few years since ive been near one..wiped my own laptop a few weeks back - only installed the bare minimum of what i need and have minimum services running...the difference is unreal..starts up in seconds, everything runs fast and smooth..now the 2gbs of ram feel like they should..

mikeanywhere

I am in the same boat here wandering whether to get a mac just for the photography side of it all but my new(ish) machine is doing ok with all the applications I have on it using 2GB of RAM on XP Pro. I might invest in some RAM upgrade in the future just to give it that extra bit of go.

So I will be watching this thread with interest.

Oriel

MAC is a cosmetic.
Mac is a computer.

City-Exile wrote:

Ok, I'm very firmly from the Microsoft side of the house, despite having worked for Apple. When people tell me that their PC is a pile of poo, I can normally show them how their own usage habits, have contributed to the poor running of the machine.

If you fail to maintain a Mac & pile on loads of freeware apps, it too will become less efficient.

Look Microsoft boy, Apple are far better for photo editing and printing, considering that you have a good monitor.
I think even PC gheyboys admin that much.

PaulieC

Oriel wrote:

MAC is a cosmetic.
Mac is a computer.

Macs are mainly cosmetic in my opinion...;)

Paulw

I've always been a PC person, but have worked with Macs before.

It's about how you run and tune your PC. A PC can run just as good as any Mac.

If you want it mainly for photography - 2GB RAM, and 2 hard disks. Photoshop loves to use swap space on disks when you process images, and having 2 disks means it can do this more efficiently. You also need a very good video card.

Most new PCs come built in with card readers, and multiple USB ports.

Have a browse through the Dell website - E-Value code - IEDHSONL-D05925a

Good specs, and should be very good for just doing photography and general home entertainment.

leinsterman

Roen wrote:

I use a Mac in work and a Pc at home. As I said in the thread above, one is as bad as the other.
Seeing as you're used to a Pc I'd probably stick with one. Then again you might need a fancy new younger model in your life to rekindle the love for technology.

Hmnnn ... now there's an angle I had not considered ... and being a self confessed tech head ... I am as much into technology as I am into photography ... in fact the interest in technology spawned the interest in technology ... so that is food for thought ...

I see from some of the posts above the emotive stuff is starting to creep into the thread ... like I said be objective, quote real experiences, give advice based on what you know (though a little of what you feel is also good to see) ... and respect the opinions of others ... no need for a slagging match ...

City-Exile

Oriel wrote:

Look Microsoft boy, Apple are far better for photo editing and printing, considering that you have a good monitor.

Your editing software and your printer, are what determine the quality of your processed images.

leinsterman wrote:

... in fact the interest in technology spawned the interest in technology ... so that is food for thought ...

Indeed!

Roen

leinsterman wrote:

Hmnnn ... now there's an angle I had not considered ... and being a self confessed tech head ... I am as much into technology as I am into photography ... in fact the interest in technology spawned the interest in technology ... so that is food for thought ...

I see from some of the posts above the emotive stuff is starting to creep into the thread ... like I said be objective, quote real experiences, give advice based on what you know (though a little of what you feel is also good to see) ... and respect the opinions of others ... no need for a slagging match ...

Two brand new €3000 powerbooks in the office here, both going back to Apple because of hardware failures a week in. Real enough for me not to buy one. Then again it's not like Apple have a monopoly on trouble.

Fenster

A Mac is a PC. Christ. They have identical hardware, and believe it or not you can run OS X on commodity hardware.

/rant

Yes, I'm a Mac owner, but I fail to see the holier-than-thou association with Macs being better. Absolute honest reason I purchased an MBP? OS X natively uses the bash shell.

Of course I'm wired to PS CS3 and Lightroom now, but I can run those both under Windows. I definately plan to go back to Linux when Gimp 2.4 is out of beta.

leinsterman

leinsterman wrote:

in fact the interest in technology spawned the interest in technology

Hmmmnn I meant to say the interest in technology spawned the interest in photography ...

... but somehow my original quote seems to be more apprpriate ... if not a little freudian ...

thebaz

City-Exile wrote:

If you only need the machine for photography & entertainment, then I'd suggest a laptop, with Windows Vista.
You'd want to look for an Intel Core 2 Duo processor & 2GB of RAM minimum.
There are some great deals around at the moment.

If you've got a PC at the moment, with a decent monitor, I'd hang onto the monitor and use that with the laptop, while at home.

i'm going to get new hardware too, was going to get a new laptop , but to save money desktops seam to offer better value, unless you need potability -- i'm supposedly getting a half decent desktop from dell for under 500 , will re-use an old crt monitor , and when i get an extra 200 or so, get an ultra sharp dell flat screen, or pick one up second hand --

both microsoft and apple run excellent marketing departments , so don't believe the hype.

leinsterman

I have to say ... I'm leaning towards having an XP system with a Linux partition so that I have access to gimp ...
why ... well familiarity in the case of XP ... plus I can re-use whatever H/W from my old system that did not get fried with the mobo (with the exceptino of the four expensive Corsair match pair dimms!!!:mad: ... keep an eye on items for sale, they'll appear there some day soon)

AS for Linux ... well that will give me something new to learn about and keep the techie geek in me happy ... a la Roen's comments ...

thebaz

are ther any problems running abobe products on Vista , or do they all run smooth eneogh , aparently there are issues with many 3rd party software on Vista !

is that why you are going for xp ?

leinsterman

No ... I may yet go for Vista ... depends on my supplier ... but I hear it is a pain in the bum ... so I'd prefer to stick to XP until they sort it out ...


I'd be very interested in opinions about Vista and CS2 / Lightroom if there are any ?

magicbastarder

i see no reason to move to vista yet.

PaulieC

I have a HP 64-bit AMD machine with 1GB of RAM Vista Ultimate. I'm using Lightroom and CS2 with no problems. OK, it's a teeny bit slow, but someone just left another 1GB of RAM on my desk yesterday, so that should speed things up a bit

melekalikimaka

Paulw wrote:

You also need a very good video card.

why? i think any old card with 128mb o ram would be grand, what benifits would it be to have dx10 for photoshop?

Paulw

You just want to make sure that the image you have is being displayed properly. A poor graphics card won't show the image as well as it could. Of course, you also need a quality monitor.

When you alter an image in photoshop, it renders the image and then displays it. But, if it is slow in displaying the image, then obviously you're just sitting and waiting.

128mb on a video card should be plenty.

City-Exile

It's very hard to buy a machine, off the shelf, with XP on it now.
XP SP3 could be out before the end of the year.
Vista isn't much more than a skin for XP.

Paulw

Dell still give you the option to buy with XP rather than Vista.

Oriel

City-Exile wrote:

Your editing software and your printer, are what determine the quality of your processed images.
Indeed!

The user is what determines the quality of the images!
And the user is helped by a Mac!

thebaz

melekalikimaka wrote:

why? i think any old card with 128mb o ram would be grand, what benifits would it be to have dx10 for photoshop?

i currently have 250 mb of ram, and ps cs is paifully slow , hence my hoped for upgrade , also lightroom needs al least 1GB of ram.

mikeanywhere

Paulw wrote:

Dell still give you the option to buy with XP rather than Vista.

I was just about to ask that as it seems a lot of the vendors dont offer the choice as they no doubt are been hard pressed to get Vista numbers on the up.

Valentia

thebaz wrote:

i currently have 250 mb of ram, and ps cs is paifully slow

I would imagine even windoze is finding it difficult, never mind PS.

PaulieC

mikeanywhere wrote:

I was just about to ask that as it seems a lot of the vendors dont offer the choice as they no doubt are been hard pressed to get Vista numbers on the up.

The other way around in fact - vendors are using Vista as a tool to sell machines.

And in presonse to an earlier post, Vista is a whole pile more than an XP skin. Sure, from a user's point of view, it does pretty much the same thing (don't all OS's ??), but there are multiple improvements over XP, native support for RAW files, direct from the manufacturers for one thing

mikeanywhere

cambo_gueno wrote:

The other way around in fact - vendors are using Vista as a tool to sell machines.

And in presonse to an earlier post, Vista is a whole pile more than an XP skin. Sure, from a user's point of view, it does pretty much the same thing (don't all OS's ??), but there are multiple improvements over XP, native support for RAW files, direct from the manufacturers for one thing

Apologies, my definition of a vendor was the likes of Dell, HP not the actual boys and girls selling their wares as an add on to a manufacturer's product.

I know what I meant

thebaz

Valentia wrote:

I would imagine even windoze is finding it difficult, never mind PS.

sorry mele -- i thought you were refering to ram -- its one of those days

440Hz

Oriel wrote:

MAC is a cosmetic.
Mac is a computer.

Thats what I was going to post!!

Im not going to say anything more than.... shiny.white.perfection

(or titanium if you really wanna marry your computer like me)

and Fenster... give your Mac back... or to someone who will care for it and love it. A Mac is for iLife, not just for Christmas.

melekalikimaka

thebaz wrote:

i currently have 250 mb of ram, and ps cs is paifully slow , hence my hoped for upgrade , also lightroom needs al least 1GB of ram.

i'm refereing to ram on graphics card not system ram :rolleyes:

leinsterman

OK ... thinking of going PC with the following spec (ingore the omissions, I have not provided everything)

CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2,13GHz LGA775 FSB1066
Mobo - ASUS P5B-E
Case - Antec P180
PSU - Antec Phantom
DIMMs - Kingston 2GB 800MHz DDR2 (matched pair of 1GB)
OS - Vista or XP SP3 ????? ... leaning towards XP for stability ...
Graphics - Not sure but looking at ASUS EN7600GS 256MB 2 * DVI
CPU Cooling - ASUS Silent Square
OS Hard Drive - Western Digital Raptor 36GB SATA (data will be kept on slower standar SATA II drives)
plus the rest ...

The big doubts I have are OS - Vista or XP ... I hear Vista is full of problems

The other big doubt is Graphics card ... maybe should up to spec but can't decide ... any thoughts ?

Valentia

Any decent graphics card will do for 2D stuff. Honestly. The speed of refresh and things is not due to the speed of the graphics card as indicated earlier. I did say decent though but you certainly don't need a state of the art jobbie for imaging work.

JMcL

leinsterman wrote:

.... but I notice the Mac appears to be the pro photographers and publishing industry default machine ....

This probably dates back to the mid 80s when what Windows meant to Microsoft was the thing you looked out to see what was going on in the outside world. The Mac had a very stable, usable windowing environment from the start around 1984, and gave birth to a host of graphic design and desktop publishing software. It wasn't until Windows 95, or arguably XP (I say either of these with a degree of measure) that MS produced a usuable GUI environment, The Mac therefore was the only game in town for graphic design for many a year, and became the defacto standard.

As to what one has over the other? The Mac has the more stable OS, and is less prone to viruses (though note that this is due to PCs being more prevelant), and is nice to use. PCs are cheaper and errrr... Other than that it's down to software, and most of what you'd be wanting should run on both. The only notable exception from the photography perspective being Aperture

rymus

leinsterman wrote:

OS - Vista or XP SP3 ????? ... leaning towards XP for stability ...

Definately XP. It's like being given a choice between being kicked in the balls or punched in the face though.

City-Exile

leinsterman wrote:

OS - Vista or XP SP3 ????? ... leaning towards XP for stability ...

The big doubts I have are OS - Vista or XP ... I hear Vista is full of problems

Well, first of all, the release of XP SP3, has been pushed back to the first half of next year. Its primary function will be to provide the necessary security functionality, required for Longhorn. I can't really see a benefit for home users. It will essentially be a full operating system, not an individual service pack. Like Server 2003 R2, for anyone familiar with that.

XP SP2 is very stable now, provided you take care of it.

We work with Vista and haven't had significant issues.
Sufficient RAM and a Core 2 Duo processor make the world of a difference.
Check application compatibility, before you switch though, if there's something specific you require.

leinsterman

City-Exile wrote:

We work with Vista and haven't had significant issues.
Sufficient RAM and a Core 2 Duo processor make the world of a difference.
Check application compatibility, before you switch though, if there's something specific you require.

My main processor and memory hungry apps are -

CSx (2 or 3)
Lightroom
Picasa
Firefox
DB Poweramp (for converting music files between lossless and lossy formats for use in my iRiver)
Light gaming with Microsoft Flight Sim, Combat Flight Sim 2&3

I also use it as a media centre ... mostly for Music and occasionally as a DVD player ...

So at a guess I'd say I'm covered for App stability ... but maybe I should google it

PaulieC

I've been running Vista in various guises for at least a year now and can honestly say that it's very stable. As was mentioned, check that drivers are available for any hardware you are using. The spec you have described looks very adequate for running Vista. If you go for the home premium or ultimate editions, you get media centre built in.

daedalus2097

City-Exile wrote:

Well, first of all, the release of XP SP3, has been pushed back to the first half of next year. Its primary function will be to provide the necessary security functionality, required for Longhorn. I can't really see a benefit for home users. It will essentially be a full operating system, not an individual service pack. Like Server 2003 R2, for anyone familiar with that.

XP SP2 is very stable now, provided you take care of it.

We work with Vista and haven't had significant issues.
Sufficient RAM and a Core 2 Duo processor make the world of a difference.
Check application compatibility, before you switch though, if there's something specific you require.

If you have RAM and processor power to spare, and the software & hardware you want to run work with Vista, then go for it. But IMHO XP lets you get at a bit more of the raw power and resources of the machine. Comparing an XP SP2 machine with an AMD XP2000+ and 768MB to a brand new Dell Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM running Vista - the XP machine starts quicker, gets you working on your photos quicker, and is generally more responsive...

Haven't used a Mac for serious work in a couple of years now (since OS9 in fact), but always preferred the feel of it over a PC of equivalent power. Being an engineer though, I'm not a huge fan of the "kid gloves" approach of over-simplifying some things as MacOS seems to do, something Vista is tending towards as well... I'm probably in a minority, but I actually like editing config files, pages of options in software and total user control.

The odd time I fire up the old Amiga for some photo work though, and that just runs rings around the other two boxes as far as startup times and responsiveness go tis a shame it doesn't have the raw horsepower to keep up with my PCs or it'd see far more use...

Valentia

daedalus2097 wrote:

The odd time I fire up the old Amiga for some photo work though, and that just runs rings around the other two boxes as far as startup times and responsiveness go tis a shame it doesn't have the raw horsepower to keep up with my PCs or it'd see far more use...

Absolutely. I still miss my Amigas. The best operating system by a mile but sure that counts for naught.

leinsterman

thanks for the great advice guys ... leaning towards Vista ...

PaulieC

there is a lot of FUD around regarding Vista. It's fine in most situations and there are more and more drivers coming online all the time.

thebaz

leinsterman wrote:

thanks for the great advice guys ... leaning towards Vista ...

i'm supposedly also ordering my new box today, and will get vista basic edition -- i'll buy a dell ultra sharp monitor , when i get a few more hundred together

nilhg

Has anybody any experience of readyboost on vista with photoshop or lightroom? It seems that it should be a big advantage for Vista over XP on similar machines for ram hungry applications.

PaulieC

you'd be better off buying more RAM, it would work out cheaper...unless you need the portable storage. Performance is noticeably increased though

nilhg

cambo_gueno wrote:

you'd be better off buying more RAM, it would work out cheaper...unless you need the portable storage. Performance is noticeably increased though

Yeah but most of us here will have plenty of flash memory available and it only takes a few seconds to enable readyboost on a flash drive.