PC vs Mac

Kbeg3

I'm looking to upgrade my PC

I'm looking at the iMac

I'm not sure whether to stay with Pc or change to Mac
I know all the pro's use Macs

I will be mainly using it for photo editing in Photoshop

Any opinions?

Thanks

Fajitas!

Have you used the Mac OS?

Have a play about with it and see if you like it - At the end of the day, it comes down to what you like more. I use Mac and Windows.

Hugh_C

As Fajitas says, it's a personal choice.

If you already own all the windows stuff, you can also run it on the Mac platform using a variety of tools like Bootcamp for instance.

I use Mac for everything.

Hugh

DaireQuinlan

It -obviously- depends on what camera system you're bought into !

Nikon -> mac
Canon -> PC

which ... uhhh ... makes Pentax linux then I guess, and Olympus can be BeOS or something.

See ? Easy !

SemperFidelis

Stick with the PC

davmigil

Kbeg3 wrote: »

I'm looking to upgrade my PC

I'm looking at the iMac

I'm not sure whether to stay with Pc or change to Mac
I know all the pro's use Macs

I will be mainly using it for photo editing in Photoshop

Any opinions?

Thanks

I am sure lots of pros are using macs, but not many using iMacs I would guess.

Photoshop, Lightroom and Photoshop Elements is available on both platforms (though Elements tends to be a version behind on Macs). Aperture available on Mac only. Intel Macs will let you install Windows natively as a dual boot setup, so you get to use both.

Macs tend to be more expensive compared to similarily specced PC, but you do get a lot of extra value included (e.g. lots of good software packages included). Macs tend to depreciate less than PCs so you might get a bit more back if you sell/upgrade.
iMacs have limited potential for upgrades though. Unlike a PC you can't just swap out the graphics card (though you can upgrade the memory and hard drive). The arguments are endless. Not sure what the quality of the LCD is like on the iMac for photoediting (don't know if they have matt or glossy screen options available), but you will be stuck with it.
Decide on your budget and what specs you need and see what you can get. Maybe try asking in a few of the computer forums. It is a bit of a religious question though!

CabanSail

I have been using PC's for years but just won a Macbook.

have only played with the Mac for a few hours so far & getting used to it, but so far I like it. Will probably keep a foot in both camps though. If i had not won the Mac I sort of doubt I would have bought one.

ScumLord

If your already using a PC and don't know much of anything about Macs I don't see why you'd want to change, I'd say the main factor behind pro's using Macs is that, that's the way they where thought and their not going through the hassle of learning new ways when they don't need to.

Overall there won't be all that much difference in the end results and PCs are cheaper and more common, meaning easier to get fixed or upgraded.

wasper

davmigil wrote: »

I am sure lots of pros are using macs, but not many using iMacs I would guess.

Photoshop, Lightroom and Photoshop Elements is available on both platforms (though Elements tends to be a version behind on Macs). Aperture available on Mac only. Intel Macs will let you install Windows natively as a dual boot setup, so you get to use both.

Macs tend to be more expensive compared to similarily specced PC, but you do get a lot of extra value included (e.g. lots of good software packages included). Macs tend to depreciate less than PCs so you might get a bit more back if you sell/upgrade.
iMacs have limited potential for upgrades though. Unlike a PC you can't just swap out the graphics card (though you can upgrade the memory and hard drive). The arguments are endless. Not sure what the quality of the LCD is like on the iMac for photoediting (don't know if they have matt or glossy screen options available), but you will be stuck with it.
Decide on your budget and what specs you need and see what you can get. Maybe try asking in a few of the computer forums. It is a bit of a religious question though!

Macs are more expensive, but nearly zero trouble shooting time wasted.
The OS X is far superior than Vista or XP.
Make the jump.
Some people will come here & say but not all s/w is available. Well name a major s/w that you will be needing that is not available on the Mac.

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

It -obviously- depends on what camera system you're bought into !

Nikon -> mac
Canon -> PC

Apart from Nikon beginning to work more with Windows and creating a Windows OS only RAW format...

Silly silly people...

Phototoxin

the mac is simipler and less fiddeldy.

Macs tend to be more expensive compared to similarily specced PC, but you do get a lot of extra value included (e.g. lots of good software packages included). Macs tend to depreciate less than PCs so you might get a bit more back if you sell/upgrade.

On a hard ware to hardware comparison then yes macs are more expensive however the OS takes less to do the same job so in the case of a pc running vista and a mac running osx with the same phyical specs the mac will run better.

imacs are a bit sillyilly priced for what you get imho Maybe research into getting the smallest one available and upgrading the hdd, ram and suchlike yourself. It will work out a lot cheaper.

as its all built in one unit you would need to make sure that the screen is good although the new laptop screens are crappy they tend to be colour calibrated I think

I myself use my pc for my photoediting if possible as i have a bigger screen and my mouse's shortcut buttons work on a pc. That said if my pc died it'd be an imac that i'd replace it with once I'd gotten useage out of my macbook

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

Apart from Nikon beginning to work more with Windows and creating a Windows OS only RAW format...

Silly silly people...

?? Thats not actually the case is it ? I thought there was some sort of native support for NEF in windows. Thumbnails and the like, so the OS could treat them more like, say, a JPG on the file system or something. I don't see how they'd make an actual -file format- OS specific

MagicMarker

I switched from pc to mac a few months ago, love the mac and you get used to it quickly enough. I think i'd stick with the mac in future, funds permitting.

Cabaal

Its a personal choice as already stated, however I've been using Windows for donkeys years and hell I'm even the Windows Mod on boards, but I bought a MacBook last year while in Las Vegas after only using Mac OSX for maybe 3 hours total before hand and I'm very very happy with it.

Basically to sum things up when I need to replace my current Windows desktop I'm buying a 24" iMac

Overall the Mac runs smother, has only crashed once on me, apps seem just less buggy and bloated (lightroom is a perfect example when compared to it on Windows), and backup on Mac is a life saver and is piss easy :pac:

While there is a slight learning curve if your used to Windows I'd recommend a Mac over a PC specially if the person is willing to learn.

stcstc

i saw a review recently where the writer compared the cost of a macbook with similar speced branded windows boxes

there was almost nothing in the difference in terms of cost

it used to be the case. but its a bit of a myth now

BUT this only is correct if you compare with major brand machines.

Having used both and installed both into visitor centres etc for over 10 years now, i can say the actual cost of ownership is less on a mac over its lifetime. as they generally require less maintenance etc. BUT when a mac fails it generally fails proper, ie major fixes required.

bmcgrath

Ok hope this helps a bit...
This comes from a person who uses both Mac and a PC with Windows.

I first got a Mac about 10 years ago. It was a really cool iBook that I had won. It was a pretty cool machine but after many years, I needed to upgrade but couldn't afford to replace it with a new Mac. So I had to go the PC route which was rather a shame....

Back in 2006 when Apple switched to Intel, it made Macs much more comparable to PC's and also brought the price of them down a bit too. I bought myself a Macbook Pro for my photography needs and to be honest I would never use Windows as my main machine ever again.

I find Mac OS simply a joy to use. It's quick, reliable, and zero viruses to worry about. So no need to keep an eye on anti virus software.

The other thing I was really interested in about the Mac was Aperture for my photo management. It's very easy to use, and integrated nicely into Mac OS. I've also compared my Macbook Pro screen to other laptops out there on the market and I've yet to find a screen as good as Macbook Pro. It's sharp, colour accurate and plenty bright.

I know Macs tend to be more expensive to purchase but that price is well worth it compared to the hassle I find I have to deal with Windows. Less troubleshooting to be done.

But at the end of the day... It's what you prefer. If you like MS Windows then stick with it. If you like the Mac then get a Mac. It's really that simple.

Creamy Goodness

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

It -obviously- depends on what camera system you're bought into !

Nikon -> mac
Canon -> PC

which ... uhhh ... makes Pentax linux then I guess, and Olympus can be BeOS or something.

See ? Easy !

can you explain why

nikon -> Mac
canon -> PC

i honestly don't know why, i have a macbook which i use to edit and manage all my photos on and i also have a canon camera. there was no hassle with it apart from downloading a raw plugin for CS3.

AnCatDubh

linux? that explains my irrational attraction towards better optics and more solid builds

*/runs for cover/*

Fajitas!

I reckon he's taking the piss

DaireQuinlan

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

can you explain why

nikon -> Mac
canon -> PC

i honestly don't know why, i have a macbook which i use to edit and manage all my photos on and i also have a canon camera. there was no hassle with it apart from downloading a raw plugin for CS3.

uhhh ... I wasn't really being serious. Mac versus PC debates are the original Canon vs. Nikon debates (or more seriously, Amiga vs. Atari ST but thats a while back now and I could never afford an amiga, I had a C64 instead). For the stated purpose there really isn't much to them nowadays, they've more or less equalised in price at this stage as well.

challengemaster

Phototoxin wrote: »

On a hard ware to hardware comparison then yes macs are more expensive however the OS takes less to do the same job so in the case of a pc running vista and a mac running osx with the same phyical specs the mac will run better.

You're not really taking into account that Vista is the biggest pile of ****e to come out since Windows ME. Also have you got a source for these claims? Benchmark results?

bmcgrath wrote:

I find Mac OS simply a joy to use. It's quick, reliable, and zero viruses to worry about. So no need to keep an eye on anti virus software

There's no viruses because virus coders couldn't be arsed writing viruses for mac. There's simply no point. Widnows is the majority in the world, so why waste time coding viruses to target minorities. You code a virus for mac, it effects a few personal owners, maybe 1 or 2 editing companies. You code for windows, it effects probably 70% of people with a pc, most companies, etc etc. You're right, there are no viruses, but its not because Mac OSX is a magical thing.

I'm currently using Windows XP, Ubuntu, and Vista. XP runs perfect, never crashes, and is great for things. Gives me no hassle. Vista doesnt really trouble me either, slow loading up, but its vista.. has to load all its bloaty crap. If I wanted though I could slipstream it. Ubuntu is linux. Nuff said.

And tbh, I would buy a mac, but the only reason is because I'm a very impulsive buyer and go 'ooh shiney' *buy*.

melekalikimaka

challengemaster wrote: »

You're not really taking into account that Vista is the biggest pile of ****e to come out since Windows ME. Also have you got a source for these claims? Benchmark results?

vista is sh1t faster than xp, over 4gb ram, xp cant handle large amounts for ram half as well as vista, like 98 was with over 512mb ram, the os limitations are clearly visable, xp bottle necks round 3

Creamy Goodness

Fajitas! wrote: »

I reckon he's taking the piss

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

uhhh ... I wasn't really being serious. Mac versus PC debates are the original Canon vs. Nikon debates (or more seriously, Amiga vs. Atari ST but thats a while back now and I could never afford an amiga, I had a C64 instead). For the stated purpose there really isn't much to them nowadays, they've more or less equalised in price at this stage as well.

*facepalms for my own stupidity*.

preilly79

if you're considering going with the iMac you need to be aware of some things that may be of concern.

the screen on the 20" version does not natively display 16.7 million colours as advertised. It uses some non-standard method (that i'd like to call dithering but I know it's not) to display colours outside of its gamut.

the screen on the 24" is known for uneven lighting and a search of the apple support forums show that it's quite common. I had the screen replaced on my own 24" iMac for this very reason, and even the replacement is not as good as i'd like/expect it to be. I'm not doing press or colour critical work so I ignore it, and only under very very specific conditions do I notice it.

as for performance ... very very good. do as another poster said and buy with base memory then throw 4gigs in from an online supplier. very cheap and it makes a noticeable difference.

mloc

I just ordered a 17" MacBook Pro, my first Mac since the 90s.

Matte screen, and the 320 GB 7200 RPM hd, other than that as is. I look forward to it.

It just seemed to me, for what I'll be using it for (photography and music creation), the obvious choice.

5uspect

I use XP, Vista and Ubuntu through various machines at work and at home. XP after years of patches has become quite a nice OS, but don't forget it was as much of a piece of crap on releaase as Vista was a year ago. I was quite skeptical of Vista but I have to say Ultimate runs quite nicely on my work Q6600 powered XPS with 4GB of RAM. Of course that defines Vista doesn't it?
I use Ubuntu on a few laptops I'm designing heat sinks for. Wonderful way to get into Linux.

Macs are just expensive toys.

thedarkroom

I have been using Macs for 22 years now since the first Plus came out and I would never consider anything else. I know it is a personal thing and some would swear by the Mac (me) and others would swear by the PC (85% of everyone else) but I just find it so easy to use and the system logical and easy to decipher. Every time I sit down at a PC I just end up getting irritated at the way it's operating system and menu system seems to purposefully set out to confuse me. I know, I know, I'm old and losing it and my brain only functions at 25% of everyone else's capacity.
Like I said, I have been a Mac user for 22 years and have progressed to a G5 for my work and at home I have a G4, and iBook G4, and have just purchased a new Macbook for my son for his college work. We do have a PC at home and I consider it a disaster and now relegated to a dustcatcher in the spare room. We have an old green G3 iMac which still runs perfectly using Photoshop 6 (I think), Microsoft Word, Pagemaker (honest to God!), etc, etc on OS9 and the kids use this almost daily for school work. We did make one concession this summer and one of my sons bought a Dell Studio 1535 laptop because he is in to music creation and he was interested in some particular software which would only run on PC so we relented. We had a problem with the screen on it (it died after a month) but top marks to Dell, a technician personally called and replaced the screen within a week of us reporting the problem.
The Macs just seem to go for ever and I will always use them. They're a pleasure to use and easy and intuitive for a novice. I will be buying a new iMac before Christmas for the extra features it offers and I reckon it is about time that we upgrade our G3 version. I will be getting myself a new Powerbook as soon as budgets allow and almost certainly some time next year, if I can, I will be changing my own G4 for a souped up G5. I work in the education sector and am involved in some freelance photography and graphic design so you can see where my background lies and why my preference.
Once you buy a Mac you become evangelical about them (You never would have guessed!!!) and it would be extremely unlikely that you would change from them back to PC, particularly now that you can run Windows if you really need to.
Do you want me to go on? I could!

Valentia

melekalikimaka wrote: »

xp bottle necks round 3

So does Viata unless you use the 64 bit version AFAIK.

Biro

melekalikimaka wrote: »

vista is sh1t faster than xp, over 4gb ram, xp cant handle large amounts for ram half as well as vista, like 98 was with over 512mb ram, the os limitations are clearly visable, xp bottle necks round 3

That's a load of crap, and from that post it seems like you don't know what you're talking about. If you have a Windows 32-bit OS, be it Vista or XP, then you can't address more than 4GB of RAM. Due to the way Windows uses RAM (shares it a bit), you'll probably only see around 3.2GB or maybe a bit higher, depending on your graphics card etc.
64-bit Vista can address 128GB of RAM, but so can 64-bit XP. So you need to compare apples with apples.
Out of the box, Vista Home Premium will sit there using between 700MB and 900MB of RAM after booting. XP Professional will use around 300MB. (Both 32-bit versions). Vista is more resource intensive than XP. If you have decent hardware however, there isn't a massive difference between them.
@OP - you could always buy a Windows PC (Intel Based) and buy OS-X and install that as a dual boot!

Hugh_C

Biro wrote: »

@OP - you could always buy a Windows PC (Intel Based) and buy OS-X and install that as a dual boot!

Now there's a load of crap, as you put it. This isn't legally possible, I'm not sure if it's even illegally possible.

challengemaster

Hugh_C wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's even illegally possible.

It is. Since pcs and macs are now so alike (hardware is pretty much the same), its made it easier for the hacking community to make this possible. There's even an entire community dedicated to making OSX available to use on PC (hackint0sh). All you have to do is google 'osx on pc' and you'll find out for yourself. It's entirely possible, but due to the legalities of it, I won't discuss it further.