# Mac v. PC?



## michelekraus (Jun 22, 2011)

Okay, here's the scenario. My daughter is getting very serious about her photography as a career path, rather than a hobby. We are ready to make the leap to buy her a computer to be dedicated to the photography handling. 
She will be running Adobe Lightshop 3.4 and Photoshop CS (not sure of the version, but higher than 5?), mostly.

So, do we get a Mac or PC? Assuming that money was not the issue (within reason), which system would you recommend and *why*?

I have been delving into the Macs all morning, and it seems to me that I can get a kick-ass PC system for about 1/3 less than the Mac system. We are a PC family, having had only one disasterous brush with an iMac back in the early 00's. The closest we come to Apple is the Touch and Nano.

But, I guess what I'm asking is if there is something less tangible that I am missing when it comes to Mac v PC in regards to photography. Other than the "arteest" being able to say "I am genuine, because I use a Mac!", is there something the Mac can do that the PC can't?

I am truly on the fence for this one. 

Thank you for your insight. 
~Michele


----------



## loopy (Jun 22, 2011)

michelekraus said:


> But, I guess what I'm asking is if there is something less tangible that I am missing when it comes to Mac v PC in regards to photography. Other than the "arteest" being able to say "I am genuine, because I use a Mac!", is there something the Mac can do that the PC can't?



No, its a matter of personal preference.


----------



## Dao (Jun 22, 2011)

oh no ...     Nothing against you.  Mac vs PC thread = Canon vs Nikon = Ford vs Chevy =   popcorn.

My advice is, go with what you like, not what other people like.  As far as photography goes, both platforms are the same. It should be able to do what the photographer want it to do. So it is just a personal preference.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't think it even matters - you would likely be using the same software on either one.


----------



## michelekraus (Jun 22, 2011)

I figured I was opening up a can of worms, but we've never seriously considered a Mac before, but all through the years, all I've heard is that Mac is for "artists": graphic design, photography, etc. But lately, I've been reading that PCs perform just as well for much less money, and so it is more of going with what you are comfortable with. I will say though, Apple makes a _beautiful_ computer. 

I did want to add another question: I have heard that the monitor is very important, in order to get "true" color resolution. What should we be looking for when it comes to a monitor?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 22, 2011)

michelekraus said:


> I figured I was opening up a can of worms, but we've never seriously considered a Mac before, but all through the years, all I've heard is that Mac is for "artists": graphic design, photography, etc. But lately, I've been reading that PCs perform just as well for much less money, and so it is more of going with what you are comfortable with. I will say though, Apple makes a _beautiful_ computer.
> 
> I did want to add another question: I have heard that the monitor is very important, in order to get "true" color resolution. What should we be looking for when it comes to a monitor?



It's a stereotype perpetuated by the fact that Apple's PPC was supposed to be better with vector graphics and the Intel chips...in the 80's...

With Apple computers running Intel chips, the only real difference will be the OS. Now as far as the price goes, you're a bit off there. The reason why it's so hard to compare Mac to Wintel computer costs is the components. If you compare other all in one computers to a Mac, the prices will be a lot closer than comparing just a PC tower with no monitor. I built a PC that's as fast if nor faster for Mac Pros for about $600 less than a Mac Pro. I could have put a cheaper video card in it and saved anoter $200-$300. The thing is, I used a consumer grade Intel I7 chip and parts where Apple uses server grade parts like the Xeon processors in their Mac Pro. That explains the difference in price. Can I get better performance for the price? Yes, but the cost is in what components are used. It's not like the Mac Pro has the same consumer lever parts that I have in my PC at $600 more for a fancy case.

I do all my photography work in OS X, though. I started with a Mac Pro and absolutely loved the way Adobe's software works in OS X, so I stuck with it. I built a desktop and figured out how to get OS X working on that. Personally, I prefer Apple notebooks to the standard Wintel offerings.

See if you have an Apple store near by and go mess around on the computers. As was said earlier, there's not much difference between the two choices so it's preference. You can even install Windows on a Mac so that you'll have to ability to run Window's programs if they're needed.

Oh, and they do hold their value well. I've had 2 Macbook Pros I've used for about 2 years and sold for about $200-$400 less than the original purchase price.

Edit: Monitor - Get something with at least an IPS panel and not a TN panel. A TN LCD panel can't truly be calibrated and has terrible viewing angles. The refresh rates are usually faster, but that may be one of the only plusses.


----------



## SBphotography (Jun 22, 2011)

I've had both, I find Mac more user friendly for me personally and the resolution is a lot higher on the iMacs. I have a 15" MacBook Pro and prefer editing photos on it rather than my 19" LCD with Windows. Just my .02, like everyone said it's all what you prefer. 

??? vs ??? is always subjective


----------



## Derrel (Jun 22, 2011)

Macintosh. Why? Reliability and longevity. Apple makes the hardware from high-quality components, and also makes the operating system, so that the hardware and the operating system are integrated. Macs have a much lower incidence of problems with viruses. A lot of people like PCs, many of which are made from components sourced from the lowest bidder, to increase profit margins in the HUGELY-crowded market of Pee Cee makers. Sure, you can purchase a cheap PC. Anywhere. Cheap PC's are abundant. If you want a computer and a software system that is basically, 95% less-likely to be disabled by a virus, just buy a decent Mac. And use it. Hard. Every day. And not have all the 'issues" PC's are plagued with.

Look at total cost of ownership. Macs have less down time. Require fewer hours of tech support per seat in office situations. Fewer issues with viruses. Far fewer issues with hardware/OS incompatibility. If you like having a beater car that always needs to be worked on, and which sucks up weekends as you fit it with repair parts, and causes you to perform countless diagnostic and preventative maintenance routines, then buy a PC. If you want a reliable, modern "vehicle" that just works, buy a Mac. And get rid of the PC headaches and the dumb software system that Windoze is infamous for.

What kind of performance do you want here to have? Kia-like, or Mercedes-like?


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 22, 2011)

PC + (a really great lens) = $XXX.XX = Mac

Honestly, a quality PC will last just as long and do everything a Mac will do.  Even more actually when you consider all the software available for use no a PC that's not for a Mac.  And there is no down time if you do regular maintenance (as with a car).


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Macintosh. Why? Reliability and longevity. Apple makes the hardware from high-quality components, and also makes the operating system, so that the hardware and the operating system are integrated. Macs have a much lower incidence of problems with viruses. A lot of people like PCs, many of which are made from components sourced from the lowest bidder, to increase profit margins in the HUGELY-crowded market of Pee Cee makers. Sure, you can purchase a cheap PC. Anywhere. Cheap PC's are abundant. If you want a computer and a software system that is basically, 95% less-likely to be disabled by a virus, just buy a decent Mac. And use it. Hard. Every day. And not have all the 'issues" PC's are plagued with.
> 
> Look at total cost of ownership. Macs have less down time. Require fewer hours of tech support per seat in office situations. Fewer issues with viruses. Far fewer issues with hardware/OS incompatibility. If you like having a beater car that always needs to be worked on, and which sucks up weekends as you fit it with repair parts, and causes you to perform countless diagnostic and preventative maintenance routines, then buy a PC. If you want a reliable, modern "vehicle" that just works, buy a Mac. And get rid of the PC headaches and the dumb software system that Windoze is infamous for.
> 
> What kind of performance do you want here to have? Kia-like, or Mercedes-like?



Or you buy a good brand PC and not an Acer and even then your car comparison is stupid when you consider for the cost, you get equal or greater performance for less money with most PCs. Maybe a Camaro vs. your standard C230 Mercedes.

It's a nice post full of stereotypes, but when you look inside a Dell and find the same hardware components that are in an Apple, you start to look at things differently. Apple doesn't make anything, they assemble their computers and if you think every component in an Apple computer is a high end piece of techonological marvel, then you've definitely been drinking the Kool Aid. Ever hear of a company called Micron? They make memory for Macs and other manufactures. Toshiba? They make DVD drives you can find in Apple notebooks and other brands of pre built computers. LG makes Apple screens and Dell Screens.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 22, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Macintosh. Why? Reliability and longevity. Apple makes the hardware from high-quality components, and also makes the operating system, so that the hardware and the operating system are integrated. Macs have a much lower incidence of problems with viruses. A lot of people like PCs, many of which are made from components sourced from the lowest bidder, to increase profit margins in the HUGELY-crowded market of Pee Cee makers. Sure, you can purchase a cheap PC. Anywhere. Cheap PC's are abundant. If you want a computer and a software system that is basically, 95% less-likely to be disabled by a virus, just buy a decent Mac. And use it. Hard. Every day. And not have all the 'issues" PC's are plagued with.
> ...




^^This.

Mac may not have many viruses either atm, but that is surely changing. Its not cuz apple is more secure (not saying it is), its because not that many people have macs and there are way more targets on windows, except more and more windows users are installing firewalls and antivirus programs and getting smarter about clicking bad links. Hackers are starting to find ways to create viruses for macs because nobody attacks them and nobody is ready to protect themselves against them. Less than 10% of mac users run anti-virus.

Good "mac defender" on the latest huge security threat to mac user.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 22, 2011)

pc's are a better value, the only issue with pcs are the standards, or lack of them.  pcs are open platform, with thousands of individual manufactures, but as long as u buy from a reputable company (dell, alienware) your pretty safe.Those that claim macs are higher resolution, faster, or perform better are ignorant--because of the open platform, technology typically hits the pc market first. There was a long time where mac had an edge due to its 64bit desgn, but those days are past.i would buy a pc because it supports the widest variety of software; if its not a desktop publishing app youlp be lucky to be able to run it on a mac.

btw macs have less viruses then pcs for the same reason rossie odonald has less stalkers then angelina jolie.


----------



## michelekraus (Jun 22, 2011)

Thanks so much for everyone's input!I have to say that I'm not any more committed one way or the other than when this all started.

However, we decided that all things otherwise being equal, we were going to go ahead with a Windows-based laptop and be able to get the second monitor, color calibration software and docking station. Once she actually gets into college and perhaps gets some hands-on use of a Mac (depending on what they might use there), we can make a decision then. Going to the Apple store and playing with one for ten minutes isn't really a good test. In the meantime, she'll have a very good laptop in an OS that she's already familiar with. One less thing to adapt to as she's learning to use Lightroom!

We'll used the money saved to purchase a lens or other photo equipment. 

Thanks again!
~Michele


----------



## cedricb (Jun 22, 2011)

My recommendation is to get a custom built PC. Lots of components have either 3, 5 or lifetime warranty on them (you generally pay shipping to the company and they ship a new one back for free) making it a much better alternative to basic warranties on both MAC and PC (that BS sold by HP/Acer/Toshiba [avoid at all cost] | worst case, get one from Lenovo). Get a GPU that supports hardware acceleration and you should be mostly set. Then you decide hackintosh (Apple OS's kernel is a bit better at optimizing hardware acceleration) or PC (more versatile) and that's it. This way you save a few hundreds to invest in a good IPS panel or new lenses.

Cheers!


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 23, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> btw macs have less viruses then pcs for the same reason rossie odonald has less stalkers then angelina jolie.



OS X is built on a UNIX platform which is inherently more secure than Windows. All the latest "viruses" from Apple you've heard of lately have been trojans and such where the user actually has to install the program for it to infect their computer.



cedricb said:


> My recommendation is to get a custom built PC. Lots of components have either 3, 5 or lifetime warranty on them (you generally pay shipping to the company and they ship a new one back for free) making it a much better alternative to basic warranties on both MAC and PC (that BS sold by HP/Acer/Toshiba [avoid at all cost] | worst case, get one from Lenovo). Get a GPU that supports hardware acceleration and you should be mostly set. Then you decide hackintosh (Apple OS's kernel is a bit better at optimizing hardware acceleration) or PC (more versatile) and that's it. This way you save a few hundreds to invest in a good IPS panel or new lenses.
> 
> Cheers!



And this is the worst recommendation in the world if the person has never seen the inside of a computer and I'm betting the OP has never built a computer before because if he had, then he probably wouldn't have even started this post.

Oh, and a GPU that "supports hardware acceleration"? That's the point of a video card. Hardware acceleration is the computer using hardware to perform a function instead of allowing the software and the CPU to control it. A GPU that doesn't support hardware acceleration is called a banana in your PCI-E slot. Where are you getting your information from?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2011)

"a Windows-based laptop"

Rotsa ruck with that!!!! Ewwww, bad decision....


----------



## Rekd (Jun 23, 2011)

In years past Macs have handled media better than PCs. I imagine they've still got an edge over PCs. 

If it's dedicated to photography I'd go with a Mac.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Macintosh. Why? Reliability and longevity. Apple makes the hardware from high-quality components, and also makes the operating system, so that the hardware and the operating system are integrated. Macs have a much lower incidence of problems with viruses. A lot of people like PCs, many of which are made from components sourced from the lowest bidder, to increase profit margins in the HUGELY-crowded market of Pee Cee makers. Sure, you can purchase a cheap PC. Anywhere. Cheap PC's are abundant. If you want a computer and a software system that is basically, 95% less-likely to be disabled by a virus, just buy a decent Mac. And use it. Hard. Every day. And not have all the 'issues" PC's are plagued with.
> ...



You forgot that Apple is the ONLY mass-market computer company that also makes the operating system....and, obviously, you need help with reading comprehension. I did not suggest that Apple manufactures the components (like memory, hard drives, etc,etc) but that they "make" the hardware, ie, they make hardware, as in the computers they sell..."make the hardware" in the sense that they manufacture hardware...as well as software. No need for you to be a dumb-ass, nor a smart-ass Village Idiot; who would think that say, YOU, a Village Idiot, would "build a computer" and think that you would be the one building the memory modules, or the hard drives or the video cards used? I mean, you can barely construct an argument, let alone a memory module...

Equal or greater performance for less money from a Pee-Cee. I bet you're still drinking Boone's Farm wine and eating at McDonald's. Life's too short to use ****ty computers.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



If comes down to this: You said 





			
				Derrel said:
			
		

> Apple makes the hardware from high-quality components


 and then put down Wintel machines for being utter crap when they use the same "high-quality" compontents. 

You just can't ever admit to being wrong.

How much did you spend on your Mac? I have a computer I built that's going to be 3 in October. Go get the xbench software from www.xbench.com and I'll stack it up againt my computer that I built 3 years ago for $1700. That's $1700 which included a 1.8GB GPU that has still ran almost everything I've thrown at it on max settings at 2560x1600 resolution.

That is unless your computer is like your photography and is all talk.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 23, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> btw macs have less viruses then pcs for the same reason rossie odonald has less stalkers then angelina jolie.



OMG! I'll definitely be re-using that line!


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2011)

Mike_E said:


> PC + (a really great lens) = $XXX.XX = MacHonestly, a quality PC will last just as long and do everything a Mac will do.  Even more actually when you consider all the software available for use no a PC that's not for a Mac.  And there is no down time if you do regular maintenance (as with a car).


 Actually it is the other way around.  My Mac will run everything your Windows machine will since I can boot into Windows 7 if I need as well as running all Mac software.  I can even run the two operating systems side by side if I choose to.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 23, 2011)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > PC + (a really great lens) = $XXX.XX = MacHonestly, a quality PC will last just as long and do everything a Mac will do. Even more actually when you consider all the software available for use no a PC that's not for a Mac. And there is no down time if you do regular maintenance (as with a car).
> ...



My self built desktop has OS X and Windows 7 on it. It'll run everything that a Mac will and faster than most of them.


----------



## NikonME (Jun 23, 2011)

I like Coke over Pepsi, Chevy over Ford, Nikon over Canon, PC over Mac, Women over Men, Planes over Trains.. Let the carnage begin..


----------



## fooby (Jun 23, 2011)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > PC + (a really great lens) = $XXX.XX = MacHonestly, a quality PC will last just as long and do everything a Mac will do.  Even more actually when you consider all the software available for use no a PC that's not for a Mac.  And there is no down time if you do regular maintenance (as with a car).
> ...


This is the other great advantage. Technically you can run OS X on a Windows machine, but it's nothing but hassle. I love OS X because it works so much better than Windows, you don't have to worry so much about anti-virus and for people saying you can't run all the Windows software, you can run Windows itself either through boot camp or VMware. And as for Mac apps, there's a ton of them that aren't available on Windows, and I've found that free Mac apps tend to be ALLOT better than free Windows apps. It is all down to personal preference, but if you don't want to have to worry, buy a Mac. Every time I use a PC these days I end up getting annoyed with it because there's always something going wrong. And for price, buy used. Whilst Macs do hold their value very well you can still pick up a slightly older model for allot less that still does almost everything the new ones do, I picked up a MacBook Pro for £800 less than retail, and it was only a month old.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 23, 2011)

fooby said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Mike_E said:
> ...



Funny, I've never had problems with or had to reinstall Vista or Windows 7 since I've had them on my computers. I did have to reinstall OS X once when it booted up to the universal do not enter sign. That was scary. I was in the process of transferring files from a local computer to a server and this happened when I was only half way through. Fortunately I didn't lose anything and only had to waste time on reinstalling OS C on my MBP instead of also having to worry about recovering files.


----------



## loopy (Jun 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Macintosh. Why? Reliability and longevity. Apple makes the hardware from high-quality components, and also makes the operating system, so that the hardware and the operating system are integrated. Macs have a much lower incidence of problems with viruses. A lot of people like PCs, many of which are made from components sourced from the lowest bidder, to increase profit margins in the HUGELY-crowded market of Pee Cee makers. Sure, you can purchase a cheap PC. Anywhere. Cheap PC's are abundant. If you want a computer and a software system that is basically, 95% less-likely to be disabled by a virus, just buy a decent Mac. And use it. Hard. Every day. And not have all the 'issues" PC's are plagued with.
> 
> Look at total cost of ownership. Macs have less down time. Require fewer hours of tech support per seat in office situations. Fewer issues with viruses. Far fewer issues with hardware/OS incompatibility. If you like having a beater car that always needs to be worked on, and which sucks up weekends as you fit it with repair parts, and causes you to perform countless diagnostic and preventative maintenance routines, then buy a PC. If you want a reliable, modern "vehicle" that just works, buy a Mac. And get rid of the PC headaches and the dumb software system that Windoze is infamous for.
> 
> What kind of performance do you want here to have? Kia-like, or Mercedes-like?



This post is a bunch of bull. To use your car analogy.... Mercedes parts are more expensive to fix. Same applies to a mac. If your going to compare PC to a car, compare it to a Chevy. 1) Easier to fix 2) cheaper parts 3) Will last if you maintain it properly. 4) Fast and sporty if you buy the right model.


----------



## cedricb (Jun 23, 2011)

Village Idiot said:
			
		

> OS X is built on a UNIX platform which is inherently more secure than Windows. All the latest "viruses" from Apple you've heard of lately have been trojans and such where the user actually has to install the program for it to infect their computer.
> 
> And this is the worst recommendation in the world if the person has never seen the inside of a computer and I'm betting the OP has never built a computer before because if he had, then he probably wouldn't have even started this post.
> 
> Oh, and a GPU that "supports hardware acceleration"? That's the point of a video card. Hardware acceleration is the computer using hardware to perform a function instead of allowing the software and the CPU to control it. A GPU that doesn't support hardware acceleration is called a banana in your PCI-E slot. Where are you getting your information from?



Your screen name suits you well!  First, being a Unix derivative does't mean it's more secure at all; it is still left open for various viruses and exploits depending on what services are running. As other have stated, OSX is not more secure because it's made by Apple; it's more secure because crackers aren't as interested in hacking it (less people use it and not as popular for enterprises).

With that out of the way, regarding my post... I never said to build his own PC, I said to get a custom PC; this can mean for various source, although building his own PC is very easy nowadays and can be done by a 10yr old.

As for hardware acceleration, what the video card is generally doing is called video processing. While it is a form a offloading, it is NOT hardware acceleration. What hardware acceleration is, it's a special API (such as CUDA) allowing the card to process bits of code that are runner much faster on parallel processing RISC cores. Not all cards support this kind of processing and not many applications can take advantage of his feature (it's a specific API) but one of them is the adobe suite.

Before accusing people of not knowing there stuff, I would consider doing some research. As far as to where I took my information, it's coming from my experience designing hardware and my previous designs of RISC pipelined cores.


----------



## hxdrummerxc (Jun 23, 2011)

I may be new here, But I have been working on computers for years, 
Ive built / repaired quite a few. I run Linux and Win 7 on my PC. And have used Mac OS quite a bit.
 So im gonna chime in....


Like others have said, its all personal opinion. If you have the extra money and you like Mac, then get one.


_*To Derrel, who said that Apple makes the hardware and that its much better than the hardware inside PCs....     YOU ARE SO WRONG*
_*Apple don't even make the internal hardware. They use Intel processors, and other name brand hardware that you can get in any pc. Which is exactly why people build their own Intel based PC and are able to install a legit copy of Mac OS on it (provided the hardware that you use, is supported)
*
The truth is, you can build a pc, for $1,500 that has so much power that it would cost $3,000-5,000 in a mac. 
I am not knocking Mac. I won't say that one is better than the other.... but that it is all personal opinion.

I will say that my custom built PC will walk all over Derrel's "High quality components" Mac and for a lot less money. 
So go ahead and call my "Pee Cee" ****y. But I guarantee you its got more power and reliability than your Mac can dream of.

Intel i7 quad core Overclocked to 4.3ghz
12gb DDR3 Tripple channel Ram
Two GTX 460 Graphics cards,
An OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS SSD drive (550mb/s read and write)
1tb Western Digital Black HDD
2tb Seagate HDD
And top all that off with a water cooling system....
Lets see you buy a Mac like that Derrel. Life's to short to spend all your monthly earnings on a MAC computer that's hardware is probably already outdated.


Anyways,
People say that you have a less chance of getting a Virus/Trojan with Macs. But its nothing that isn't repairable. 

Its all personal opinion. Neither is really superior. It comes down to two main points.
1. How much money you want to spend
2. Which Operating System you like better


----------



## tenthumbs (Jun 23, 2011)

I use both on a daily basis for work and personal. There is no correct answer to this question regardless of anything anyone says.  There are pros and cons to both and there always will be.  PC vs Mac discussion is the same as debating the best band or the best camera or the best wine.  The best way to insure you make the right choice is to try them all and pick the one that makes you happy.  Down the line your opinion may change but that's true for anything.


----------



## AmazingGrace0385 (Jun 23, 2011)

I currently use a PC, but since I'm getting more serious about my photography as a career myself, I plan to Mac eventually. I've heard it doesn't get viruses, runs faster, and is great for editing. Just my 2cents. My PC doesn't do a bad job! But I'm getting sucked down the Mac road.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 23, 2011)

cedricb said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ur such a smart feller! U made a joke about my user name!

UNIX is inherently more secure than Windows. Windows is improving, but it's still not there. With OS X, like Linux, when you create the admin account, it doesn't run as root. Any time you have to install something or make changes to the OS, it prompts you for a password where as everything pre vista would create an admin account for first time logins and would not require any permission to install. That's why hackers targeting OS X are primarily using trojans where a user has to run a program to get it to install the malicious code. 

Hardware acceleration is using hardware to perform a function faster than it is possible with software on the CPU. That's what a graphics card does. There's no way an Intel CPU could run the graphics that a modern day 1.5GB-2GB GPU could. CUDA is a type of hardware acceleration, but for you to say, "Get a GPU that supports hardware acceleration" is completely redundant. Every GPU supports hardware acceleration. That's the point of the card.


----------



## Bynx (Jun 23, 2011)

Does anyone know why, in every tv show or movie, when someone is using a computer, the white apple is always glowing brightly? Does Apple pay for product placement and always outbid the PC crowd?


----------



## ngaerlan (Jun 23, 2011)

Hello I'm Mac, and I will perform the same way years from now as if you purchased me yesterday, You don't need to purchase an anti-virus on me 99% of the time, I'm not prone to malware or spyware 99% of the time. I am very user friendly and also work with your ipod touch. I suggest you use Aperture 3 for photo editing, but I can also run Photoshop and Lightroom from Adobe. As far as monitors go, you can purchase an iMac or if you want to go a step above an iMac go with the Macpro. 

Eternal Eights Photography


----------



## cedricb (Jun 23, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Ur such a smart feller! U made a joke about my user name!



Thanks, it came to me just like that! :thumbup:



Village Idiot said:


> UNIX is inherently more secure than Windows. Windows is improving, but it's still not there. With OS X, like Linux, when you create the admin account, it doesn't run as root. Any time you have to install something or make changes to the OS, it prompts you for a password where as everything pre vista would create an admin account for first time logins and would not require any permission to install. That's why hackers targeting OS X are primarily using trojans where a user has to run a program to get it to install the malicious code.



You are right but it would be unwise to claim that these are the only reasons that make OS X more secure. As it gain popularity, it is expected that the threats against it will also gain popularity.



Village Idiot said:


> Hardware acceleration is using hardware to perform a function faster than it is possible with software on the CPU. That's what a graphics card does. [...] CUDA is a type of hardware acceleration, but for you to say, "Get a GPU that supports hardware acceleration" is completely redundant. Every GPU supports hardware acceleration. That's the point of the card.



Agreed, however, the industry has decided to specifically use "hardware acceleration" (in the context of graphics card) when referring to running non graphic related code through a specific API on a GPU processor.



Village Idiot said:


> There's no way an Intel CPU could run the graphics that a modern day *1.5GB-2GB GPU* could.



Be careful, this is misleading; the memory on a card does not affect the speed of the code, it is important for gaming where you don't want your environment to be redrawn all the time when spinning in circles but in the case of accelerating other type of work, unless dealing with large files (like an image a few gigs in size), the look ahead and prediction algorithms (usually they cache the following pages/blocks in sequential reads) should be able to cache data fast enough the prevent the units from waiting. The speed in Hz and the number of units would be a better indicator of performances for code acceleration.

Bottom line, I think we both agree to say:

If the OP gets a MAC, it will be more secure
If the OP gets either, make sure the graphics cards can handle one of the acceleration APIs supported by Adobe




Bynx said:


> Does anyone know why, in every tv show or movie, when someone is using a computer, the white apple is always glowing brightly? Does Apple pay for product placement and always outbid the PC crowd?



Yes, companies have a tendency to do it. Both Apple and other companies (cell phone companies are another group that push product placement a lot) are known to do product placements!


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 23, 2011)

Bynx said:


> Does anyone know why, in every tv show or movie, when someone is using a computer, the white apple is always glowing brightly? Does Apple pay for product placement and always outbid the PC crowd?


I've been noticing a few different Linux distros on TV/movies a lot lately too.  I'm guessing because it's 'different' and most people wouldn't recognize it right away, and it looks cooler.

In the case of most linux distros and the software on them, it might also be because it is open source/free.  There would be no issues using it in a movie - nobody to get permission from.  Not sure if that actually matters though...  I mean, I don't know if that's how it would be anyway, or if the producers would have to get permission from Microsoft to show an XP machine and MS Office in a movie...  (The same way they would have to get permission to use a song.)


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes, because when you are using a Mac the white apple glows.  It quits glowing when the machine goes into suspend mode.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 23, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1xnxKvu0HA





End of discussion!!!    :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Overread (Jun 23, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Not sure if that actually matters though...  I mean, I don't know if that's how it would be anyway, or if the producers would have to get permission from Microsoft to show an XP machine and MS Office in a movie...  (The same way they would have to get permission to use a song.)



I've always thought that unless the production was making specific reference to the product being shown, that they (the film producers) didn't have to seek permissions - in similar light to editorial use of photos of people. Simply showing cars or computers (as examples) in scenes wouldn't count as direct marketing or affiliation - however they also know that many companies will pay big money for marketing advantages found through obvious media presentation - and thus they most likely sell any clear product possible shots to the various companies. As a result if you don't give them a permit for a brand association scene they just use a blank no-name item (probably a custom unit with some random name splashed on it or no name at all) whilst if you pay they more than your competitors they'll let your brand appear


----------



## usayit (Jun 23, 2011)

Mac for everything because I am primarily a unix guy....  so its comfortable


that



and IT department would rather die than touch my workstation


----------



## Raian-san (Jun 23, 2011)

Village why would you suggest them building their PC and use Hackintosh? You have to buy all the right parts that will work for OS X and install all the driver. I'm pretty sure like Derrel said, they probably never seen the inside of the computer. Now I have both, custom built PC that runs i7 and all that stuff but I also have a Macbook Pro. I've been using a Mac for years and never had a problem with it. So if I were to choose to have one, I would choose the 15' Macbook pro with i7 and buy an external monitor, then I would have a laptop and a desktop.


----------



## guitarkid (Jun 26, 2011)

As people have said, it's your own personal preference.  I can go on and on about how I love mac way more than pc.  This is coming from ME!...A pc tech / network guy since 1996!  I have owned, built and networked pc's FOREVER!  It's what I do for a living still.  I switched to mac 2 years ago and will never go back.  All my workstations are gone and the only pc machine I have at home is a laptop, which is barely used.  Sure, pc's are 1/3 or 1/2 the price and that's for a very good reason.  Macs are made in USA by ONE company.  All the design and hardware and software are made by THE SAME CO!  Everything works together because it's done by ONE CO...I think you get my point.  also, as someone mentioned, you cannot beat the screen resolution for editing photos.  NIGHT AND DAY!  Monitors for pcs are like your color tv's from back in the day, whereas macs are like plasma tvs.  I use my imac for HD video production and my macbook for photo editing offsite and on the train during travel to work.  In the end it's up to you.  I also love never having to pay for antivirus software or doing any maintenance on the operating system.  My macs are also faster than any pc I've ever owned...better operating system has a lot to do with that.


----------



## martin_tapalla (Jun 26, 2011)

As guitarkid said, everyone is going to have their own personal preference. I have worked with, and actually still am, both a Mac and a PC. I have a iMac sitting at home with a 24'' inch monitor extension. But then I also have a HP dv6 laptop. I do a lot of heavy Graphic Design, Motion Graphics, and Photo editing on both of them and I have never had an issue with either one. Yes, your PC based one is more prone to getting viruses but as long as you don't do what you aren't suppose to or go where you shouldn't be, you should be fine. I've had my PC for about a year now and I have never gotten a virus, never had to take it to the shop to get it fixed. So as long as you, or I guess in this case your daughter, takes care of it, it should run perfectly fine. Longevity on either machine is up to you. My iMac is 2 years old and its running like a stallion, but you know what so is my PC. Being a design student, I've seen a lot of Macs (and I do mean a lot) and users who mess up their $1600 laptop like no other... so it REALLY is up to you on how long the machines lasts.

Somethings to consider is if you do get a PC (which you said you were) and it so happens to have some issues, is where to take it. Apple has the Genius Bar, PC... has... exactly, not much really. Yeah theres, Geek Squad at Best Buy, but those "Geeks" don't know a lick about computers. I had a friend, or a friend of a friend, who took her computer to get it "fixed," they ended up charging her $200 for a job that I could do in a matter of minutes... and they didn't even fix it!

But as far as software, they both pretty munch run the same programs. lol.

Recap: 
&#8226; Longevity is up to your daughter 
&#8226; Both are perfectly fine as long as she takes care of it.
&#8226; Apple has Genius Bar, PC has not a whole lot.
&#8226; Programs, in most cases, are on either machine. 

Happy Hunting and Good luck!


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 26, 2011)

...I just can't stand the Mac GUI.  Can you change it?  Er, the 'desktop environment', I guess you would call it...

Personally, I use Linux.  I love that pretty much everything is customizable.  My desktop environment is probably somewhere between mac and windows...  Not really either, but close enough to both.  (No matter what you use at home, you could figure out how to do **** on my machine fairly quickly.)

I know I could 'learn' to use a mac in a day or less, but I just can't get over where/how stuff is.  Linux just makes so much more sense for me...  Everything is how you want it - if you don't like it, it's your own fault.  And you can change things up any time you want...

I think if I ever did go with something other than linux, I would probably go Mac - just because it's close to what I'm used to...I still can't stand it though...lol.  I guess after a while I could learn to like it...


----------



## guitarkid (Jun 26, 2011)

Geek squad, what a JOKE!  I also had a friend who's father's pc was down with some issues.  They showed up in their little conformist car and spent 3 hours at his house!  COULDN'T FIX IT AND CHARGED $250!  THEY MADE IT WORSE.  I fixed it over the phone in 5 mins!  They're posers and nothing more!  I have spoken to a few of these people at geek squad and it's so odd how they all know NOTHING of the basics.  One of them told me there is no such thing as a monitor calibration tool.  He said your good monitors should have a color adjustment and that's good enough!  Aren't you supposed to be a geek?  These are mainly kids working their first I.T. job for a retail chain.  I can't tell you how many best buy customers I helped after the poser got done with them in the isle, giving them all sorts of bad / incorrect info!  Steer clear my friend!  Find an I.T. friend!


----------



## HurtNoMore (Jun 27, 2011)

I read like 40 pages of a thread on this years ago. My conclusion:  15 years ago Apple was the industry standard for graphics and design, but ever since then their edge is has been slipping. But when it comes to photography software their is no discernible difference anymore. 

Mac's do have some sweet uber-HD monitors though...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 28, 2011)

I like macs for laptops and windows for desktops as I built them.


----------



## adversus (Jun 28, 2011)

1.  A Mac is a PC.  Get the terminology right.
2.  I have a hybrid household: 2 MacBook Pro's, 1 Mac Pro, 1 off-brand.
3.  My entire professional career working on Windows and Mac OS platforms as an IT Manager and developer
4.  Is The "Apple Tax" Real? Mac vs. PC Value Analysis - HotHardware

Derrel is partially right.  Apple doesn't make the components that go into their products.  A lot of times they have a hand in the design, but Intel makes the CPU, chipset, bus, etc.  AMD and NVIDIA make the graphics cards.  Hitachi and Seagate make the hard disks.  You get the point.

What Apple does well that Windows does NOT is they make the drivers.  Apple creates 99% of the hardware drivers that they use in their systems, as opposed to Windows where each driver manufacturer provides their own drivers (Microsoft provides basic ones for emergency use).  Because Apple has complete control over the software/hardware integration, the system is inherently more stable.  Anybody who's ever had a hardware induced BSOD on Windows, or an IRQ conflict, or a Memory conflict feels the pain of the fragmented Windows market.

Apple does have a premium on their products, but it's not what people think.  The premium is $50-$200 at best.  I'll use the example of my Mac Pro:

My Mac Pro is a _*workstation class machine.*_  That's the key.  I paid $2499 for it.  Could I get a Dell for $699? Sure.  But they aren't nearly in the same class. If you compare flashy numbers that the marketing people want you to pay attention to (13140897.4 Ghz!!!!!!!!!!), the comparison looks silly.  I'd trust my $2500 workstation that runs on a tightly controlled software/hardware integrated platform over a $1200 HP/Dell/Asus/Whatever.

Spec for spec, the price difference between a Mac and a non-Mac is really small:

1.  A Mac Pro is a workstation, and a workstation with the same hardware from Dell or IBM is almost exactly the same cost
2.  A Macbook as a mobile device is about the same price as a Windows machine if you include size, weight, and body materials (aluminum vs. plastic) (and really, who doesn't when choosing a laptop?)
3.  An iMac, with an included monitor, is only slightly (~$200) the same price as a Dell/IBM/Whatever for the same components + buying a 3rd party monitor

Most people get sticker shock without actually comparing the components and performance of each machine.

*** EDIT ***: I just priced out a Dell Precision workstation to match my Mac Pro, and it was $185 more expensive. But it does come with a crappy Dell monitor!


----------



## DaniellaChristine (Jun 29, 2011)

I need help deciding on a new PC asap!I'm in the process of starting up my  Photography studio. I just finished up my portfolio, I have the space/location, now I need a computer that doesn't make editing pics in CS5 take twice as long as it should. I don't have alot of time as I have been having issues with red & green sparkles on my current Sony Vaio all-in-on Model# VGC-JS160J which a tech told me meant my video card was failing. Also its driving me crazy when trying to edit photos and save them. I'm considering the new Sony Vaio all-in-one Signature L Series Model# VPCL21SFX/W. Through research I made a list of specs that most people said were important. I'm the kind of person that likes to have just a little bit more than what I "need" just in case. Specs look good from what I compared to my list except it comes with a 2TB storage which makes it 5400RPM.  Should I get it? Is it "inappropriate" (so to speak) to use an all-in-one for professional photography? I will be doing heavy photo editing in Photoshop CS5, Lightroom & occasionally Photoshop elements.  I shoot all my photos in raw format and after adding layers the files become VETY large.  The folder I'm currently editing  is over 100gb and I'm not finished. I also need  a 24 or 27 inch ips monitor. I'd like to try other software as well. I would also like to offer videography down the road for wedding and special events so I need to be able to efficiently & in a timely manner also put together Full HD videos. I love Sony's movie maker software and the fact that the Model VPCL21SFX/W has a Blu-ray Burner (not just player. Its a very attractive PC as well which is important to me as it will be on my desk in my office where I meet (impress) clients but mostly cause I'm a girl so I like pretty things..lol. Only drawbacks I can tell is the 2TB storage gives it 5400 RPM and I read somewhere that 5400 is a lil slow for windows 7 and I don't see anything that says it has a firewire port. Do I really need that? I haven't yet. Could someone please help me decide what would be best for what I'm doing? If this model isnt good, my other options are a Mac or building a PC with a dual monitor system.  Mac is an option because I know I can get that sleek, "pretty" design that I'm looking for and because I've always been horrible with maintaining my PCs so it would be nice to not have to worry bout that so much.  Would I have any compatability issues or extra steps when uploading things/photos online with a mac?  My fiance had a Mac Laptop a few years ago and he installed, whatever the software is called that lets you put windows on your Mac, and its never worked right after that. He knows about as much about computers as I do which is what scares me.  I don't want that to happen to me if I try to do the same.  I'm weary of building one mostly cause there is no big company to call if something goes wrong.  How do I find out what the prob is? Prob have to pay someone to figure it out, pay to purchase another and pay someone to install it.  But I like that I could set up a dual monitor system and potentially have EVERYTHING the way I NEED it and then some. I dont know anything about computers except the specs I apparently need for my particular workflow and even that I'm not 100% on. I've been researching for weeks and all I see is the same ol MAC vs PC debate...but no real answers, just who likes what better. PLEASE HELP!  Opinions are great but just a few options of stuff that will def do the job (and that no one else disagrees with..lol) would be nice to.  Thank you in advance for any help you provide


----------



## KenC (Jun 29, 2011)

DaniellaChristine said:


> ...but no real answers, just who likes what better.



That's because there are no "real answers" - everything has its advantages and drawbacks and it all comes down to what works for you.  When you're starting out, that could be anything.  Just get what seems most comfortable to you based on your own experience with either or both systems and you will be fine if you make sure you have lots of RAM.  I'm OK with 4 GB on a Mac, but I don't typically generate huge layer-rich files, so you should get as much RAM as possible and then you won't regret not having bought more.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 29, 2011)

I don't know if this has already been mentioned but the new Mac's can run both Windows AND MAC OS...  a PC can only run Windows.  Thats a plus in my book.  Plus Mac's are built better... much better.


----------



## Rekd (Jun 29, 2011)

adversus said:


> 1.  A Mac is a PC.  Get the terminology right.



RAWR!!!! :twak:

I'll take the PC over the Mac unless I'm doing just graphics.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> I don't know if this has already been mentioned but the new Mac's can run both Windows AND MAC OS... a PC can only run Windows. Thats a plus in my book. Plus Mac's are built better... much better.



Did you even read this thread? My self built Wintel machine is running OS X and Windows 7. That has already been mentioned.

I had a Macbook Pro that had the power button fall into the case. The keys were also crooked. It was built better that way.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Jun 29, 2011)

As usual whenever this 'debate' comes up anywhere the majority of posters divide themselves into 1 camp or the other. There are some fundamentally wrong statements that keep getting made, including:

'the build quality of macs is better than pc' - whilst obviously there are cheap, substandard pc's around, to lump all pc's in together is just false, end off...
'macs are better because they don't get viruses' - not true - macs can get viruses just the same as a pc, only reason they tend to get less is because of a number of factors including the fact that Os X is based on unix, but inherently macs aren't virus proof...
'There's software you can't get for macs that is available for pc's' - whilst this was i'm sure once the case now things are MUCH better, and pretty much any software you're likely to need can be found for both mac and pc.

In answer to the OP's question (and the one slightly later), I use a dell with 1Tb of storage, 8gb RAM which runs at 7200rpm easily enough to cope with the largest files i ever work with, it runs Lightshop, CS5 and PSE 9 (for when i need to do basic tweeking) and an HP monitor with H-IPS. Looked at the dell ones but they weren't great. Total system was just shy of £950

And no, there is nothing a mac can do that a pc can't, or vice versa...


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 29, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if this has already been mentioned but the new Mac's can run both Windows AND MAC OS... a PC can only run Windows. Thats a plus in my book. Plus Mac's are built better... much better.
> ...



You're living up to your name.  

I think the 'I don't know if this has already been mentioned' part explains that I didnt read the 4 pages of replies to see if anyone had mentioned that.  Your self built machine might run OS X but most prebuilt desktops and laptops I don't believe will, at least not natively.  Just because you had one of the OLD plastic macbooks that had a button fall in, doesn't mean they were poorly built.  I'm a software developer and used to need a new laptop once every 18-24 mos.  The entire plastic bodies would be cracked, keys worn to where you could barely make out the characters, significant degradation in performance over time even with complete format and reinstall of OS, battery would no longer hold charge, etc.  With the newer aluminum macbook... I've not had any of those problems.  I've had it for about 30 mos with heavy use and it still looks like new.  Still performs like new and even the battery still holds several hours worth of charge.  Yes, in my experience they are built better. Better resale, better parts, better aesthetics.  If you are doing any kind of photography, a Mac display is MUCH better and more accurate than most PC displays (Notebook and Desktop).


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



You think you're clever making such an obvious insult about my user name, yet your lack of comprehension is a shining example of why people shouldn't speak if they don't know what they're talking about.



Village Idiot said:


> I had a *Macbook Pro* that had the power button fall into the case. The keys were also crooked. It was built better that way.



See that? Macbook Pro. Do you know what the Pro at the end of the Macbook designation stands for? If you need some help, I'll get you a link to Apple's website. I've owned 2 Macbook Pros and one Macbook and have had issues with both Macbooks that have required repair. 

Since installing Vista then Windows 7, I've never had to reinstall and OS. One of my Macbook Pros did have OS X crash so bad that it required me to completely reinstall the OS for the computer to do anything besides protect my coffee table from the condensation on my beer bottle.

I bought a 30" HP monitor over the Apple 30". It has better response times and calibrates better. Compare ACDs to comparable IPS panel displays from other manufactures and your statement because false. It's like comparing crap Wintel machines to Apple computers. It's just a way for insecure Apple owners to justify their purchases.


----------



## lukeb (Jun 29, 2011)

Long time visitor, first time poster 

You will have so many different opinions on this it will be hard to take any solid answer away.  Just too many variables

"macs are more reliable" Both my roommates have 2 year old macbooks and they were both down at the same time.  One with a hard drive failure (resulting in loss of data) another with a faulty batery.

"PC's are way cheaper" Windows crashed on my mothers pc several years ago, resulting in a repair bill that would have easily paid for a mac.

In the end, it comes down to your personal preference.


----------



## nickzou (Jun 29, 2011)

When it comes to photography it doesn't matter one lick. In terms of overall usability... if you're a PC user and just a casual computer user in general, I'd say get a nice PC laptop (ASUS, Sony, etc...). However if you want a well designed machine with a GUI you are willing to spend a bit of time to learn (the OSX GUI is NOT intuitive and seems to fail usability tests at every turn, we do app development at work right now and just some of the **** we have to deal with in xcode and Snow Leopard, absolute garbage) and willing to pay a few extra bucks, a Macbook Pro is an excellent excellent machine. Historically, Apple seems do not know how to install the proper RAM for their motherboards, because I've had some many stories about Macbook Pro's dying and it was all because of some kind of RAM issue (so this idea that Macbook's being problem free isn't exactly true either).

In the end, I think that if photography is your focus and you don't really want to worry about your computer much, get a Macbook Pro. Worth the money. But for computer enthusiasts, most of the hardcore Mac users I know actually have Hackintoshes or just run Windows 7 or some Linux build. I like photography and computers so I tend to lean towards PCs. But that's a personal preference.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 29, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



LOL you're still living up to that name. My comprehension skills are just fine.  Yours, along with your 'Legend in your own mind' attitude, on the other hand may need some work. 

You yourself even admitted that Apple uses server grade parts in their pro lines while other manufacturers use consumer grade.  Now you're trying to argue that apple doesn't use better parts?  And just because you had a Macbook 'PRO' doesn't mean it was one of the *newer *aluminum unibody's that I was originally referring to.  I thought the older Macbook PRO's were plastic as well since the unibody's only came out in 2008, I was wrong about that, big deal.  They've made Macbook PRO's since 2006, of which were not the Unibody's and I would hardly consider as one of the newer models. 

 I also never said that there arn't any other vendors that make displays as good or better than apple.  My statement was with regards to the general consumer whom is going to purchase either a desktop that comes with the monitor in a package deal, or a notebook with no external display.  I stand by my statement that for these cases, the apple display is almost always going to be better.  And if you think you are going to 'school' me on computer hardware, then you might want to bark up another tree.  And F your HP monitor... I've got 3 Eizo's for my WinBLOWs machine.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> LOL you're still living up to that name. My comprehension skills are just fine. Yours, along with your 'Legend in your own mind' attitude, on the other hand may need some work. Just because you had a Macbook 'PRO' doesn't mean it was one of the *newer *aluminum unibody's that I was originally referring to. I thought the older Macbook PRO's were plastic as well since the unibody's only came out in 2008, I was wrong about that, big deal. They've made Macbook PRO's since 2006, of which were not the Unibody's and I would hardly consider as one of the newer models.
> 
> I also never said that there arn't any other vendors that make displays as good or better than apple. My statement was with regards to the general consumer whom is going to purchase either a desktop that comes with the monitor in a package deal, or a notebook with no external display. I stand by my statement that for these cases, the apple display is almost always going to be better. And if you think you are going to 'school' me on computer hardware, then you might want to bark up another tree. And F your HP monitor... I've got 3 Eizo's for my WinBLOWs machine.



_I'm_ living up to that name? You're the one that seems to be pretty unclear on what you're talking about. I've had the older model and the new unibody designs there bud. You're pretty good at being wrong. I haven't seen you be right about anything so far.

The general consumer is most likely not going to be a photographer that's worrying about monitor quality. Anyways, unless you blow over $2,500 on a Mac Pro that's probably already outdated or a mini that's good enough for browsing the internet, then you're going to be stuck with whatever panel Apple decides to use at the time. 



mjhoward said:


> And if you think you are going to 'school' me on computer hardware, then you might want to bark up another tree.



You're right, I don't think you're capable of learning anything so it would be a waste of time trying.



mjhoward said:


> And F your HP monitor... I've got 3 Eizo's for my WinBLOWs machine.



I see using the internet is obviously a stressful activity for you.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2011)

lukeb said:


> Long time visitor, first time poster
> 
> You will have so many different opinions on this it will be hard to take any solid answer away. Just too many variables
> 
> ...



I agree completely. I use Win 7, OS X, and Windows Home Server at home currently, but I've been through every iteration of Windows, used numerous Linux distros, and other OSes throughout the years. Use what you enjoy and what you're comfortable with, just like picking a camera.



nickzou said:


> When it comes to photography it doesn't matter one lick. In terms of overall usability... if you're a PC user and just a casual computer user in general, I'd say get a nice PC laptop (ASUS, Sony, etc...). However if you want a well designed machine with a GUI you are willing to spend a bit of time to learn (the OSX GUI is NOT intuitive and seems to fail usability tests at every turn, we do app development at work right now and just some of the **** we have to deal with in xcode and Snow Leopard, absolute garbage) and willing to pay a few extra bucks, a Macbook Pro is an excellent excellent machine. Historically, Apple seems do not know how to install the proper RAM for their motherboards, because I've had some many stories about Macbook Pro's dying and it was all because of some kind of RAM issue (so this idea that Macbook's being problem free isn't exactly true either).
> 
> In the end, I think that if photography is your focus and you don't really want to worry about your computer much, get a Macbook Pro. Worth the money. But for computer enthusiasts, most of the hardcore Mac users I know actually have Hackintoshes or just run Windows 7 or some Linux build. I like photography and computers so I tend to lean towards PCs. But that's a personal preference.



I agree completely. Most photographers I see using Mac Pros like the OS X interface but wouldn't know where to start with putting a Hackintosh together. If Apple released OS X for use on anything, it would make a lot of people happy, but end up bankrupting them. The problem is when you get Apple zealots that believe that Steve Jobs ****s gold and walks on water. Both platforms have issues and there's no way around that.


----------



## Dao (Jun 29, 2011)

I would like to point out that, as a Data Center provider.  I signed up my company (few years ago) as the provider for Apple Xserve .(The silver looking 1U rackmounable server) when they were available.   To my surprise, the Apple Server hardware was not as good as others especially when I noticed they just use regular Maxtor PIDE drives in their server at that time while others were all SCSI enterprise disks.  The good thing about partnering with Apple was, I got employee discount.  But we drop that line pretty soon.

Of course, it may have nothing to do with the quality of their desktop or notebook lines.

Is Mac look cool?  Yes, I do think so.   Do I need to? hum...   I'd like to try one since I am also a Unix/Linux/BSD person.    But at the end, I opt for PC because that is what I like.  And it does what I need to do.   And it did cost less at the time when I price it against a similar Apple product.

If you use Apple computer and happy about it, why not?   After all, it is a nice product and it does what people need it to do.


----------



## table1349 (Jun 29, 2011)




----------



## usayit (Jun 29, 2011)

To be fair....  You are referring up to 2004 which was replaced with the SATA equipped G5 xserve.... which was only the second generation xserve started in 2002.    Apple has never been a server farm provider and the xserves are glorified rack mountable powermacs with optional dual power supplies.   They were never intended to compete with SCSI equipped Servers from the larger higher end manufacturers in price nor performance.  You should be familiar with the cost difference between the two technologies.... its huge.

I assure you.....  they were not the only ones using ultra ATA at that level server.  Furthermore, ultra ata 133 in real world use was on par with scsi ultra 160 introduced in 1999 just two years prior to the first Xserve at again... A HUGE discount.  The main advantage to SCSI being the number of target/luns you can daisy chain o  a single channel; 16-1 TID x 256 LUNs.  This advantage could not being leveraged by a single U server with only a couple hard drive bays.  So the cost of implementing SCSI was not worth it.  This btw is not only related to Apple but to many single U servers; similar to the low end DElls (850 series if my memory serves) of the same time period.

The second gen xserve went to SATA for the same reasons.  Lower priced alternative to SCSI in a small chassis while leveraging higher performance storage in fibre disk racks.


So in short for the non geeks....  A server of that level equipped at tjat time with nonSCSi interfaces is neither out of the norm nor a cost cutting measure.      



BTW.... I still find small and medium business servers from a variety of vendors using SATA which is still ATA with more critical data raids equipped with SAS.


----------



## Dao (Jun 29, 2011)

Yes, usayit.  I do agree they were complete with the low end server.  But not with the low end price.    What I saw at that time was, it was truly a over price product.  Once we started to market the product (mainly via buying google key words), we had some inquiries about it.  But most of them do not have a clue what to do with it.  Often that, they like to use it as the Web server.  Running Apache, php and MySQL.     I remembered there was a company choose the xServe simply because they use Apple computers in their company.  So they want to use Apple as their company Web server.

But the thing is, getting a Dell or something similar with Linux or FreeBSD is a much better option as far as cost, performance and compatibility concern.   However, they liked it and happy with it and that was all matter.


----------



## usayit (Jun 29, 2011)

Dao said:


> I remembered there was a company choose the xServe simply because they use Apple computers in their company.  So they want to use Apple as their company Web server.



This is exactly what they are aimed towards



> But the thing is, getting a Dell or something similar with Linux or FreeBSD is a much better option as far as cost, performance and compatibility concern.   However, they liked it and happy with it and that was all matter.




You forget that cost of running a machine includes the cost of administration and maintenance.  If you had a shop that was already familiar with Mac OS X with little IT support in house, then the cost of running a Linux box (for example) can easily outweigh the cost of the server.  Furthermore, a company that depends on critical operations doesn't want to go with "free" or "DIY" hardware solutions NO MATTER HOW CHEAP....  they need a business entity to responsible for continued support and operations.  Last time I checked, Redhat enterprise support is on par with Apple's for example.  As for cost of the O/S, most apple servers come with it... if not, its $500 which is pocket change for even small business entities.  

Lets put sheer cost aside....  A privately owned established business or start up has to prove to its investors that their investment is secure.   This includes discussion over protection of business operations and/or intellectual property.  Can you, with a straight face, approach them with a plan that includes servers you built with off the shelf parts, with no maintenance contract, no support contract, and a free O/S.   Good luck with that.

I work for a relatively small and financially conservative company.  The minute a machine is off maintenance contract, they move the machine out of production and into test lab/development.  That's just the way it is to keep the big wigs confident of continued operations.  From what I can tell, this is a very very very common practice.



Its easy to get all caught up on the techie details but there is a whole lot more than just specs and cost of hardware/software.


PS> I am not responsible for support/maintenance contracts from what I hear Microsoft is fairly expensive... you get even more into the premium cost with the big UNIX providers; think IBM.   At some point in time, we had enough knowledge and staff to provide support for our own servers and reduced contracts down to same day hardware replacement only... that still wasn't cheap at all.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 29, 2011)

This thread has jumped the shark.


----------



## usayit (Jun 29, 2011)

All PC versus MAC threads (and Canon vs Nikon) all jump the shark upon the first post....


Do you remember where "Jumped the Shark" saying came from?


----------



## Dao (Jun 29, 2011)

Thanks Usayit .  I understand what you are saying   .  But one very important point is, Apple don't quite know what they were doing with Apache, php and MySQL and often ran into issue.  And support cost were about the same with both side.   

I think there is a common misconception that using Linux or opensource applications were free and so everything is going to be low low cost.  In most cases, the total cost of ownership are lower, but not low.  Running Redhat Linux server in production machine are quite common and that come with support from Redhat.  And if you ask me Dell + Redhat  or Apple xServe (cost was able the same for similar hardware) as a web server, I would have to choose Dell + Redhat.

I do not know if Apple still have the xServe platform now, but before we drop it, the xServer was 2 grand server (hardware + OS).  At that time, Redhat was $800 - $900 with regular non-phone support.  With a comparable Dell hardware, it is still cheaper.  But course, the client need to maintain the support contact year after year.  After all, Apache, PHP and MySQL runs better with Linux.  I think  

But course, things are much different nowadays.  With the virtualization and cloud stuff.

BTW, those Maxtor drives kept dying in the 24x7x265 environment.  LOL

Usayit, always nice to chat with you on this.


----------



## usayit (Jun 30, 2011)

yup  nice divergence...

Mainframe was generally a thin client topology....
Linux environments kinda somewhere in the middle depemding on application deployment..... 
Windows environments push things back to the edge with thick clients...

Cloud comes along to push applocation and storage to remote cloud infrastructure pretty much back to a thin client topology.... and this is suppose to bleeding edge... LoL.   Ok being sarcastic... a little.    lol.  


just rambling...


----------



## JClishe (Jun 30, 2011)

usayit said:


> All PC versus MAC threads (and Canon vs Nikon) all jump the shark upon the first post....
> 
> 
> Do you remember where "Jumped the Shark" saying came from?



The Fonz


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 30, 2011)

I thought that jumping the shark had morphed into riding the fridge.


----------



## usayit (Jun 30, 2011)

JClishe said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > All PC versus MAC threads (and Canon vs Nikon) all jump the shark upon the first post....
> ...


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 30, 2011)

Sweet. People have to resort to insults and such via PM now? It's a real shocker if you can't figure out who the sender is... :er:


----------



## Dao (Jun 30, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Sweet. People have to resort to insults and such via PM now? It's a real shocker if you can't figure out who the sender is... :er:



You know, sometimes people just need to get something out from their body.     Let it be.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 30, 2011)

With the service contract we had on our Dell servers and EMC arrays, they would send techs out to provide support since the devices were on a network that didn't have internet access. Did Apple ever provide support like that for their servers?


----------



## Dao (Jun 30, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> With the service contract we had on our Dell servers and EMC arrays, they would send techs out to provide support since the devices were on a network that didn't have internet access. Did Apple ever provide support like that for their servers?



We use Netapp here but did talk to the EMC folks and they said they monitor the units themselves and will send tech to replace a shelf if they noticed a problem before the end user even know about it.


----------



## usayit (Jun 30, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> With the service contract we had on our Dell servers and EMC arrays, they would send techs out to provide support since the devices were on a network that didn't have internet access. Did Apple ever provide support like that for their servers?



Yeh... I worked at a place (going back more than 6 years ago) that had rows and rows of EMC frames (128TB).  Occasionally, some guy would show up and request an escort to a frame in the secured area to replace some part or disk.  First time it happened, I was like.. "I didn't call you?".  He laughed and said the frame did....   That was cool... wonder how much that support contract is worth.   

I'm now in primarily a NetApp shop...  nice stuff.. really nice.  EXPENSIVE.   They recently purchased LSI's Engenio division which I thought was an interesting maneuver.  


Apple's support seems on par with the lower end contracts from the likes of Dell.   They claim that you can keep critical parts on site at all times for a quick repair.  They stress that the Xserve is designed to have easy swappable parts so service can be done quickly and easily.     Not exactly to the level of EMC or NetApp... maybe.. just maybe ok for SMBs.     We only have 2 and they've been out of production for a while.... I've swapped a couple drives.. but that's it so far.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 30, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Sweet. People have to resort to insults and such via PM now? It's a real shocker if you can't figure out who the sender is... :er:



If you're referring to me, 'Feel Better?' is hardly an insult.  I thought it be more appropriate to Private Message you than to further clutter an already derailed thread.  Apparently you don't share that sentiment.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 30, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Sweet. People have to resort to insults and such via PM now? It's a real shocker if you can't figure out who the sender is... :er:
> ...



Now you're sending even more unwarranted PM's? Can you just stop harrassing me already?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 30, 2011)

usayit said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > With the service contract we had on our Dell servers and EMC arrays, they would send techs out to provide support since the devices were on a network that didn't have internet access. Did Apple ever provide support like that for their servers?
> ...



I believe I heard that ours was pushing $80K for a service contract? That's totally believable to me seeing as how it's the government and if they want to buy a computer that a consumer can buy for $1000, they're going to pay $2,200 for it.


----------



## johnh2005 (Jun 30, 2011)

AmazingGrace0385 said:


> I currently use a PC, but since I'm getting more serious about my photography as a career myself, I plan to Mac eventually. I've heard it doesn't get viruses, runs faster, and is great for editing. Just my 2cents. My PC doesn't do a bad job! But I'm getting sucked down the Mac road.



Mac's can do and will get viruses.  Just like EVERY other OS out there.  
Mac's do not run faster.  They draw their hardware from the same exact pool PC's do.
Editing on a Mac is basically no different than on a PC except you have a control key vs a apple key.  Just go watch video's that show how to do the same exact edits on a Mac and PC at the same time.

It is so funny I ran across the article today.  I read an article in Science Magazine (or something like that) that talks about Apple Fanatics.  If you know someone who owns an iPad you are 14% more likely to get one.  If you know two it is like 41% more likely and if you know 4 or more people with an iPad you are almost 100% more likely to get one.  I will have to find the article again (Left the magazine in the work truck) and put down the exact numbers.

To the OP.  There is NO REASON to jump ship from PC to Mac if you are already used to using PC's and are not as comfortable with the Mac OS.  Same coin different side, if you are used to running MAC there is no reason to jump ship to PC.


----------



## johnh2005 (Jun 30, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> I don't know if this has already been mentioned but the new Mac's can run both Windows AND MAC OS...  a PC can only run Windows.  Thats a plus in my book.  Plus Mac's are built better... much better.



lol PLENTY of people home build computers and install Mac OS.  In fact if you had read this thread at least one person has mentioned this.  But that is what Apple Fanboy's do.  They jump on the bandwagon both feet first blinders and just spew whatever Lord Steve Jobs tells them to.


----------



## Tomasko (Jun 30, 2011)

johnh2005, I completely agree with you. Obviously there are certain people, who are a little blinded and can only see their arguments. It is just the same as "battle" Nikon vs Canon. There can't be a winner. Whether you like it Derrel or not  Each brand/product has its pros and cons.

To the OP, 
you're saying, that you are a PC family. Stick with it! Really, there is no reason to change. As you said it yourself - MAC is much more expensive and in my humble opinion - it isn't really worth it.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 30, 2011)

johnh2005 said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if this has already been mentioned but the new Mac's can run both Windows AND MAC OS...  a PC can only run Windows.  Thats a plus in my book.  Plus Mac's are built better... much better.
> ...



OK, I apologize if I was unaware that off the shelf PC's and Notebooks were able to run Mac OS natively.  It has been a while since I've even wanted to run a dual boot windows machine, apparently things have changed. I'm not going to assume that the OP is comfortable building and configuring his/her own though. If you read this thread, then you would have seen that we've already been through this.  I'm not an Apple 'Fanboy'  as the one small comment I made might lead you, and apparently several others, to believe.  I have a Macbook, which I DO happen to like, but I also have a PC that I built that runs strictly Windows and is mainly for software development and CAD.

I will partly disagree with one point you made though.  Although Mac's _may_ get there hardware from the same 'pool' as PC manufacturers, the OS isn't the same. I'm not going to refer to the interface; whether or not you prefer one over the other is purely subjective, but in my experience, windows is much more bloated than other OS's.  If I'm running OS X on my notebook, the battery life is around 6 hrs.  If I run Win XP however, battery life is only around 2.5 hrs.  It's a resource hog.  It isn't just windows though, I've noticed this on recent versions of Suse Linux.  Older versions weren't so bloated, but they've since adopted some of the UI of Windows and now its all bloated.  I do prefer developing software for Win machines though, the .NET framework is nice to work with.


----------



## JClishe (Jun 30, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> If I'm running OS X on my notebook, the battery life is around 6 hrs. If I run Win XP however, battery life is only around 2.5 hrs. It's a resource hog.



I assume you're talking about your MacBook Pro, correct? If so, What version of OS X are you running? Windows XP is 10 years old. If you want to talk about battery life on a 10 year old version of Windows than you'd better be comparing it to an Apple OS of similar age. Let's make sure you're comparing apples to apples (no pun intended) and are comparing battery life on OS's that are at least of the same era. Using Windows XP as a talking point within the context of a CURRENT Mac Vs PC discussion adds no value to the discussion whatsoever. That's like saying "I have a 35 inch Sony CRT TV that I bought in 2001, and it isn't as clear as the Samsung HD LCD TV that I bought last year, therefore my opinion is that Sony doesn't make good TV's". It's simply a ridiculous path to go down. Windows XP has no business being in this discussion, just like a 10 year old CRT TV has no business being in a discussion about current TV choices.

I have a Windows 7 laptop that gets 10+ hours of battery life; I really don't think your "Windows is bloated" argument in relation to battery life holds water when you're talking about CURRENT technology that someone would actually purchase today.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 30, 2011)

The version I'm using is 10.5 which came out about the same time as Vista... not Win 7. The XP Version was the 2005 XP 64 version so only 2 years older than the OS X version I had installed. Win 7 wasn't out when I had set up my notebook with dual boot windows and there was no way I was going to install Vista.  I think the comparison against XP 64 would be more in favor of the Windows argument than comparing against Vista, Vista was a joke.  You _may_ be right about win 7 running more efficiently I've never had any reason to check, but historically newer versions of OS have generally had higher system requirements than its predecessor.  Regardless, windows is still bloated.

BTW, theres a reason why XP was around for a decade.  It was the most stable platform they had every created and it worked well.


----------

