# Macbook Pro Vs. Laptop



## Brookeroo (Jun 30, 2013)

Assuming this is where I post this...

I am in the process of building up my free lance photography business. I asked this question on Yahoo Answers photography board and got a resounding "no" on going towards Mac which is fine but it actually surprised me. I thought maybe redirecting my question somewhere a little more heavily pro photography influenced might give me a better gauge on what to consider. I went to school about 13 years ago for graphic design but that is the last that I've worked with Macintosh. Obviously Mac has improved significantly. 

I have always had a love for photography but am only now looking to go pro. I'm having more people ask me to work for them since I upgraded my camera this year. Took classes in high school. Worked in a portrait studio for a couple of years. 

I currently own an HP laptop that was top end when I bought it but it's about 5 years old now. I was looking at a Macbook Pro with Retina display. It does not have the DVD/CD Rom burner obviously but I found out that you can get them externally. I would obviously need that if I am going to sell my work. On yahoo answers they told me not to waste my money on the Mac that I can use to buy more camera equipment and just stick with Microsoft based equipment. 

The other peice to this is that I have just recently upgraded my Photoshop to CS6 and Lightroom 5 however they are microsoft based so I will have to contact Adobe to allow me to switch over. Something I am willing to do if it is recommended to switch but I wasn't sure how much of a hassle that will be with Adobe. I have heard Adobe can be a pain in the rear with stuff like this.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## runnah (Jun 30, 2013)

Get a PC laptop and invest in a really nice monitor. The price of both wouldn't come close to a Mac, plus editing on even the biggest laptop is a pain.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 30, 2013)

^^^ That would all depend on what you call a 'really nice monitor'. You can very easily spend more on a monitor than on a Macbook.

Google Eizo for starters.

That said, the Macbook monitors are decent, and probably just as good as, if not better than, your typical $300 monitor. If you're planning on a $2500 Eizo, then maybe an inexpensive laptop might make more sense.

Another thing to consider is that MacOS upgrades run about $30, while windows upgrades will cost $100+.

As for which is 'better' that's totally a personal choice. I prefer MacOS. But that doesn't make it superior, clearly, an awful lot of people use windows without any problem.


----------



## Light Guru (Jun 30, 2013)

It really comes down to what OS you prefer to use.


----------



## Designer (Jun 30, 2013)

Oddly enough, I asked a professional photographer and he said get a Mac.

I probably wouldn't plan on doing extensive editing on any laptop unless it had a good-sized second monitor.

I use my iMac for photo editing and an quite happy with it.  

Here again, you are starting from the wrong end of the telescope.

Start with what software you are going to use, including all software, and then look at the platform requirements for that (those) software(s).

That will tell you what computer.  Could be that your current laptop is all you need.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 30, 2013)

Mac has had an early foot in the door with desktop publishing, and as a result photography followed. Apple has created a sort of symbiotic relationship with this industry, with the industry responding to apple's decisions and apple responding to the industry. But I don't know if that is so much the case any longer now that Apple has enjoyed a larger market presence.

As a result, I think the tendency for creative professionals to prefer Mac has more to do with tradition than it does any rational reasoning. MacOS has it's advantages, I'm not saying it doesn't, but I don't think that the argument that it's better for creative work is necessarily valid.


----------



## Tiller (Jun 30, 2013)

You can build a hackintosh.


----------



## cptkid (Jun 30, 2013)

Why even ask the question?

Mac is always going to win. 

Never buy a PC, ever, ever again.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 30, 2013)

Hackintosh is more of a novelty, something to prove just because you can. It is not a realistic option for actual use.

Despite what people think, MacOS is optimized for the hardware Apple uses. Sure, if all the hardware involved has Mac native drivers, it should work well. But in practice, this just isn't the case. Anyone who has hacked together a mac will tell you this, or they are in such such PC fanboys that they just conclude that Mac sucks anyway.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 30, 2013)

I was going to switch to a Mac laptop and an iMac, but the sole reason I did not is because their laptops only go up to a 15" now. I have to have a 17" laptop. I won't budge on that.


----------



## Designer (Jun 30, 2013)

Tiller said:


> You can build a hackintosh.



Yup.  Just purchase Windows again, and split your Mac to run both platforms.  Solves the problem of converting your Adobe software.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 30, 2013)

For versatility but a PC.

If you are mainly going to deal with graphics buy a Mac.

I bought a laptop instead of a MacBook because I play video games and Windows is the preferred platform for that, even though I had to sacrifice the Nice IPS screen.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 30, 2013)

why on earth would you have to sacrifice your monitor??


----------



## e.rose (Jun 30, 2013)

I went Mac and never looked back.

I even went as far as to get a job with them.  

So.  I'm just... gonna leave now, because whatever opinions I have will be accused of being colored biased.  And they might be.  Cause I just really, really love Apple.  :lmao:

PLUS... I never did photo work when I had a Windows machine, so I don't know what it's like to edit on a Windows machine.  Probably not any different depending on your internal parts and your monitor... ::shrugs::

But yeah... YAY APPLE!


----------



## unpopular (Jun 30, 2013)

Designer said:


> Tiller said:
> 
> 
> > You can build a hackintosh.
> ...



While I think Windows runs better on Mac than MacOS runs on 3rd party hardware, this is not really a solution either. Windows tends to run hot on Mac hardware, especially on a laptop.

As far as buying photoshop, if you don't mind using Creative Cloud then that is one way to do it. Inevitably this will likely be your only option anyway.


----------



## Brookeroo (Jul 2, 2013)

I was told a macbook would have nearly double the lifespan. I don't really use my office much because it is tied up often. My desk is also currently not ideal. It is small and uncomfortable to sit at but I haven't found a new one that I like yet.


----------



## grandpa_chris (Jul 2, 2013)

Double the lifespan based on what? That's just another Mac myth. If a Mac laptop lasts twice as long as some other laptop it's probably because you spent twice as much for it and it takes you that much longer to get together the cash to upgrade. So you limp out the last few years with the old Mac trying to squeeze out some more of your investment. Say you and I both buy equally spec'ed laptops year one; you get the Macbook and I get an Asus laptop. Three years later I buy a new Asus laptop which, three years having passed, now smokes your Macbook. I've now spent the same as you but while you "enjoy" the extended lifespan of your Macbook I'm probably enjoying USB 4 that didn't exist when you bought your Macbook. I felt comfortable upgrading because I hadn't spent as much as you did in the first place and now my grade school-aged niece has a used but still serviceable laptop.

Apple manufactures nothing. The Macbook is made from the same Chinese sourced internal parts as are all the rest of them so there's no reason to expect the Macbook to be more physically durable. Software obsolescence is the more likely killer of your older hardware and Apple does not have an advantage there. Given that you have more restricted software options with the Mac the opposite is more likely.


----------



## jcskeeter (Jul 2, 2013)

First off, I'm a Mac guy, so we can get that out of the way. I dabble with some Windows machines every once in a while when helping people setup printers or what not.

One thing I like to address when looking at PC vs Mac is computer literacy of the person that's going to be using said computer. In my opinion it seems like using Windows efficiently requires some level of knowledge to keep everything in tune. Virus/spam software, drivers and different operating systems. It just seems like there's more to keep track of. IDK? 

Obviously I'm biased but in my opinion if someone isn't very computer literate, yes it will be different, but walking up to a Mac and just using it seems a lot easier. 

(Not saying the OP is computer illiterate, just saying that computer skill level is something to keep in mind.)


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 2, 2013)

jcskeeter said:


> First off, I'm a Mac guy, so we can get that out of the way. I dabble with some Windows machines every once in a while when helping people setup printers or what not.
> 
> One thing I like to address when looking at PC vs Mac is computer literacy of the person that's going to be using said computer. In my opinion it seems like using Windows efficiently requires some level of knowledge to keep everything in tune. Virus/spam software, drivers and different operating systems. It just seems like there's more to keep track of. IDK?
> 
> ...



I concur. Mac is the "don't worry be happy" computer. I use both heavily and the fact is there's not enough difference between them to justify the kind of almost religious fervor that sometimes shows up when they're compared. Macs cost a whole lot more and regardless of how the Mac camp tries to justify that, Macs cost a whole lot more. Grandpa_chris is correct that the actual hardware is now the same so if you're paying a whole lot more for the same physical stuff you need to have a good reason that justifies the extra cost. For some it's fashion, they're convinced they look cooler in front of a Macbook at Starbucks. Otherwise it has to be the "don't worry be happy" factor. In my book it's nearly double the money for not very tangible differences but then who's to say fashion isn't the most tangible reason of all.

Joe

P.S. Back to the OP's original question: Laptop displays are a poor choice for photo editing. If you must edit a photo on a laptop then you should be working hard to find a solution that will let you stop. In the meantime the new retina display on the Macbook is a substantial advance and, until you can find a way to stop editing photos on a laptop which you should do ASAP, the retina display is a best option.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2013)

grandpa_chris said:


> Double the lifespan based on what? That's just another Mac myth. If a Mac laptop lasts twice as long as some other laptop it's probably because you spent twice as much for it and it takes you that much longer to get together the cash to upgrade.



Apple products are built better, there is an Apple Tax, but everything I have read on this it is just not that significant. You do get what you pay for.

Simply because Foxcon builds crappy Acer laptops and Macbooks alike does NOT mean that they are built to the same specifications. Foxcon and the like build all sorts of things based on customer specifications, not "cheep Chinese" standards, in the last few years, China has certainly invested in that infrastructure and proven it's ability as a manufacturer. 

Country of origin has no impact on this provided that the country has the infrastructure to produce the product. Acer and Apple alike design and engineer the parts that go into their products, who assembles the part has little consequence provided that it's manufactured to specification. Any viewpoint otherwise clearly shows little understanding about how third party manufacturing works.

This is not to say that other laptops are inherently junk, will certainly last "half as long" and that Mac laptops are the best. But a $500 plastic fantastic Acer with all the thermal management of a baked potato wrapped in Tin foil just isn't going to last as long as a $1200 Sony, Lenovo or a $2000 Macbook. Yes. The macbook is the most expensive option, but the screen is better and software upgrades are MUCH, MUCH less. Certainly over the course of it's lifetime this should be worth something.


----------



## Ryan0751 (Jul 2, 2013)

Even  if you ignore the Mac vs Windows debate, look at the Macbook Pro hardware.  It's a much much nicer build than nearly all Windows based laptops out there.  The Apple trackpad has yet to be beat.  

The retina Macbook Pro's show photographs extraordinarily well.  They are thin, extremely solid, and fast.

You buy a Macbook Pro and suck up the pain of the additional cost now, but the thing is, in 3 years you buy another one.  And... sell your existing one for a decent amount.  Windows laptops are disposable.  I have never had an issue selling my Mac's for a decent return (as long as they aren't like 5+ years old, and even then, someone will buy it on ebay).

If you need Windows as well, just get VMWare Fusion, you can run both OS's at the same time (and any other OS you want).

Also, your Adobe licenses should work on either platform.  At least my lightroom and photoshop elements licenses do, no need to contact Adobe.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2013)

and those apple batteries! nothing but high quality and reliability there!

:er:


----------



## Ryan0751 (Jul 2, 2013)

unpopular said:


> and those apple batteries! nothing but high quality and reliability there!
> 
> :er:



Haven't replaced one in about 5 years.  What's the problem?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2013)

Certain Macbooks have been known to have battery problems. I've had a lot of problems with bulging on my 2009 MBP 15' uni. I'll probably replace the DC-in board, but if it's not that I'll just have to sum it up to a MB issue.


----------



## jcskeeter (Jul 2, 2013)

"Non-Mac" fans will tell you to get a "Non-Mac" and "Mac" fans will tell you to get a "Mac". Ultimately, you just have to decide for yourself... because this could go on for a while........


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jul 2, 2013)

I'm a Mac guy and facing the dilemma of which to get for school. We are required to have a laptop w/Photoshop installed by the first day of Photoshop class. I am a neophyte when it comes to digital and have to learn "developing" all over again. My current desktop is ancient in computer terms but it's a Mac. Even if I buy a Macbook it won't be compatible. So what to do???


----------



## cptkid (Jul 2, 2013)

I'd like to chip with one thing in regards to the lifespan of a Macbook. 

I'm still running a early 2006 white macbook. It's been on everyday that I have had it. Except for when i've been on holiday, which in the last 6 years is the grandtotal of 4 weeks. 

I run LR4 & CS5 on this macbook, and it is still going strong. It's my go to mac for daily use. & i have a mac mini and a imac as well


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 2, 2013)

MartinCrabtree said:


> I'm a Mac guy and facing the dilemma of which to get for school. We are required to have a laptop w/Photoshop installed by the first day of Photoshop class. I am a neophyte when it comes to digital and have to learn "developing" all over again. My current desktop is ancient in computer terms but it's a Mac. Even if I buy a Macbook it won't be compatible. So what to do???



The base 15 inch Macbook Pro with a 2.3 GHz i7 processor, 4 GB ram and a 500 GB hard drive is $1799.00 You can shave some of that off with student pricing. I don't know how much but let's assume you'll pay $1500.00.

Now the problem with selecting from the alternative market is there are so many choices. Let's look at one: ASUS U47VC-DS51 Notebook Intel Core i5 3210M(2.50GHz) 14.1" 8GB Memory 750GB HDD 5400rpm DVD±R/RW NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M - Newegg.com

That's $700.00 less than the Macbook. It has a 2.5 Ghz i5 processor, 8 GB ram, 750 GB hard drive and a 14 inch display. That extra 4 GB ram will really come in handy running Photoshop. (Of course you could spend more for the Macbook). The hard drive speed is the same just 50% bigger for the Asus and like the Macbook the Asus has NVIDIA graphics.

Now then the Asus has a smaller display, but you've got an extra $700.00 so go out and buy yourself a nice LG 24 inch desktop display. Then with the money left over buy a copy of Photoshop (student price). Then with the money left over buy yourself and display calibrator for that LG display. Now you're ready to edit photos! Then with the money left over buy yourself a nice lunch which you'll deserve for making such a smart purchase.

But you're in college so you should get the Macbook because it's a proven babe magnet.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2013)

But you have to wonder - is this too good toi be true? Perhaps fanboys will say it's the "Apple Tax" but I'm just not convinced by that argument, if it's not going into an Apple Tax, the only conclusion one can make is in it's internal components.

What kind of thermal management does it have? Did they opt for the more expensive heat pipe, or a less efficient but cheaper heat sink? How well will the keyboard survive a spill? Who built the hard drive, the fans, the optical drive? What kind of technical specifications were used in it's manufacturing, did they use high end electronic components, adhesives and connectors, or ones built to lower thermal tolerances? What is it's environmental impact, is it RHoC compliant? How much testing was put into it's development before manufacture?

When I'm buying Chinese studio gear, I don't go for the cheap one with all the bells and whistles, I go for the ones with fewer features but cost more. This is because I suspect that, while the less expensive monolight may have a digital display and greater wattage, they must have chimped out elsewhere, in places where it really matters.

There is a lot to consider - and a lot of it cannot really be answered, but on the flip side there is a price point that you can just justify the lower cost as it being a "disposable" machine.


----------



## BRN1 (Jul 2, 2013)

I like my Mac. But I like PC too. Get a Mac for photos. PC for games.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 2, 2013)

I LIKE BACON.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 2, 2013)

unpopular said:


> But you have to wonder - is this too good toi be true? Perhaps fanboys will say it's the "Apple Tax" but I'm just not convinced by that argument, if it's not going into an Apple Tax, the only conclusion one can make is in it's internal components.
> 
> What kind of thermal management does it have? Did they opt for the more expensive heat pipe, or a less efficient but cheaper heat sink? How well will the keyboard survive a spill? Who built the hard drive, the fans, the optical drive? What kind of technical specifications were used in it's manufacturing, did they use high end electronic components, adhesives and connectors, or ones built to lower thermal tolerances? What is it's environmental impact, is it RHoC compliant? How much testing was put into it's development before manufacture?
> 
> ...



I've never been a heavy laptop user however in my job I had to purchase and support classrooms full of Macbooks and Macbook Pros. Let's look at that Apple tax using me as an example. When I retired from full-time teaching 4 years ago the plan was that I would continue to teach part-time for the foreseeable future. I do that now on multiple campuses. Without the access that full-time faculty status provides I learned after the first year that I needed a laptop. So 3 years ago I bought one and I've used it heavily since. My choice at the time given my part-time teacher pay was the $1000.00 13.3 inch Macbook 2.4 GHz core duo with 2 GB ram, 250 GB (5400 rpm) hard drive, built-in wifi and NVIDIA graphics or a non-mac.

I spent $300.00 less than the Macbook and bought a Toshiba A665 satellite. Let's stand that up against the Macbook. But first let me say that the A665 is still working great and has never given me a stitch of trouble. It runs Win7 and runs all my photo software including Capture One 7, DPP, Adobe CS6, Photo Ninja, Raw Therapee, LightZone, Oloneo and some misc. stuff. With it's 8 GB of ram it runs Capture One 7 and CS6 simultaneously. That Macbook with 4 GB ram would have croaked at the attempt.

My A665 has a 2.4 GHz i3 core processor -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 came standard with 4GB ram -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 was expandable to 8GB ram -- beat the Macbook which was only expandable to 4.
My A665 came with a 16 inch display -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 came with a 500 GB hard drive -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 hard drive spins at 7200 rpm -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 came with Harman Kardon speakers -- swat the Macbook.
My A665 came with a standard external HDMI port (really handy to connect to external display at home and in classroom) -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 came with an Express/card slot so I could for example add USB 3 right now -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 came with an extended-life battery running the computer for over 5 hours -- beat the Macbook.
My A665 came with an eSATA/USB port which is really nice because it will charge my USB devices while the A665 is powered off -- beat the Macbook.
And the list continues.

In every possible way, for $300.00 less, my Toshiba satellite beat that Macbook. Last year while I was upgrading my desktop and dragging my feet I used the A665 as my only computer connecting to my desktop display via that HDMI port. It ran every day, all day for three months and went twice a week to class. I expect I'll get a couple more years out of it.

I paid 1/3 less and got a whole lot more. *It's an Apple tax.* There's no way you're going to convince me that Toshiba is knocking out cheaper stuff or cutting corners that Apple isn't. There's one thing my A665 lacks -- it's not cool and neither am I. But I can run Capture One 7 and CS6 simultaneously; that's kinda cool.

Joe


----------



## IByte (Jul 2, 2013)

runnah said:


> Get a PC laptop and invest in a really nice monitor. The price of both wouldn't come close to a Mac, plus editing on even the biggest laptop is a pain.



ummmm, your avatar just moved.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > But you have to wonder - is this too good toi be true? Perhaps fanboys will say it's the "Apple Tax" but I'm just not convinced by that argument, if it's not going into an Apple Tax, the only conclusion one can make is in it's internal components.
> ...




That's nice, but does it run MacOS? And how much was your last Windows upgrade??


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2013)

Oh, and BTW - I only have 2gb on my 2009 Macbook 5,1, and am only now starting to feel the crunch.

Then again, I don't use a lot of bloatware from Adobe and PhaseOne either. But I do run Reaper, Numerology and MainStage together routed together using CoreMIDI and Soundflower, I'm getting about 41ms latency but is otherwise not bad unless I use more than one Sculpture synth track.


----------



## Brookeroo (Jul 2, 2013)

They had told me that while it appears you are buying less memory and  ram on a laptop that you could double what the mac can accomplish on  what appears to be less than what a laptop can do. Judging from some of the discussion here it appears that may be somewhat accurate.

It has been a long time since I had to  buy a new setup so I have no idea what I need these days since I'm just  starting my search. I will basically be running it for Photoshop, Lightroom and probably Elements. I also run a small business out of my home and currently use the microsoft stuff, word, excel, and outlook primarily. Those are the major components at this point I need to run. 

I had considered buying a lesser Macbook Pro and get the Time  Capsule. Now ... I can't decide what direction to go in.  I guess I just have to figure out what I need along both spectrums for what I'm looking to do and go from there at this point.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2013)

There is NO reason to get a time capsule. Just go to wal mat and get an external HD and set it up as a time machine. Some products have a greater apple tax than others, airport base stations, apple TVs and time capsules are such products.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 3, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



It is nice and no it doesn't run the MacOS. It will run Linux if I want but Windows is fine. If you're buying a computer these days and allowing features of the OS to determine your hardware choice, you have a problem. Do you really buy a computer to use the OS?!! What the bleep do you do using the OS?!! File management?!! I spend 99% of my time using *application software* on my computer. The OS is supposed to stay in the background and not bother me. I don't use Windows or Linux or the MacOS I use Photoshop and C1 and DPP and Photo Ninja and Finale, etc.

The last time I paid for a Windows upgrade was when I upgraded my desktop from XP to Win 7. That cost me $39.00. My A665 came with Win 7 Pro installed and my new desktop came with Win 8 Pro installed. Otherwise I have some Linux (Ubuntu) systems here at home.

At the campuses where I teach I have a lot of Macs that run the MacOS. I'm comfortable with that as well but when I use those computers I also spend 99% of my time using Photoshop and LR and Capture NX etc. The OS is only an issue as a support platform for application software. Considered as such what's important is whether the OS supports all of the application software that you need to use to get your work done. And that by the way is one of the problems (albeit minor) with the MacOS. There's a huge amount of additional software available that runs under the OS that the vast majority of people use every day. Wonder why it is that the vast majority of people who use computers every day don't use the MacOS?

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 3, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Oh, and BTW - I only have 2gb on my 2009 Macbook 5,1, and am only now starting to feel the crunch.
> 
> Then again, I don't use a lot of bloatware from Adobe and PhaseOne either. But I do run Reaper, Numerology and MainStage together routed together using CoreMIDI and Soundflower, I'm getting about 41ms latency but is otherwise not bad unless I use more than one Sculpture synth track.



That's really nice for you but I make my living teaching people how to use Photoshop so I have to have Photoshop and LR available to demo in class. One of the campuses where I teach has a roll around cart with 20 of those white 13.3" Macbooks with 2 GB ram and 250 GB hard drives. They put CS4 on them and then abandoned them because they were basically unusable. The cart sits in a corner of the photo lab ignored now. They bought new iMacs and upgraded to CS5. Along with the rest of the installed software those iMacs are strained with 4 GB ram installed. Sorry Photoshop is the default standard; you didn't do it and I didn't do it but it's been done and I have to live with it -- getting a paycheck helps and so does 8 GB ram.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

> Wonder why it is that the vast majority of people who use computers every day don't use the MacOS?




A lot of people bought spice girls albums, too.

First of all, no, the OS is more than just a filing system, that's just silly. All MacOS's are 64bit, you have to pay extra for this on windows. Windows is still behind on OpenCL - this is a bit of a double-edged sword though, because it might end up slowing down older laptops due to heavy GPU usage.

Is the OS worth an initial investment of $300? For you, obviously not. But a lot of people use Mac with NO problems at all, and for most of us that $300 *is* worth it. Does that make us all a bunch of elitist snobs? A bunch of spoiled rich kids who think we're better than everyone else?

I can run Linux on my Mac also, so I'm not real sure what that's all about.

I'm not sure what your deal is here. I mean, what's with this emotional attachment? Why such fanboyism? What does it matter to you if I've spent too much money on my own computer? I've tried to stay pretty neutral on this subject, because seriously - it *doesn't really matter*

Is there an "apple tax", I always said that there was. But can you compare a $1500 macbook pro with a $500 souped up netbook from Acer? No. Not any more than you can a $1300 Lenovo or Vaio.

And sorry to say, folks. But a measly $300 isn't going to get you very far in getting a "good" monitor, especially considering that monitors in this price range won't include any calibration hardware.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 3, 2013)

If you have the money and just want a nice computer that will do everything pretty well (including photo editing) and looks snazzy, sure, get a mac.

If you actually intend to build a system that is optimized for photo editing performance per dollar, then a PC will be vastly more efficient, though.  It's not that PCs are magically better.  it's that you can build your own more flexibly, and avoid paying for the stuff that doesn't matter for photo editing, if that's what you want to do.

What matters for still photos is: CPU (multicores are not such a great help just yet in photo software for most actions), to a lesser extent GPU, and monitor.

Things that DON'T matter are: hard drive, keyboard and mouse, RAM (only if you're lazy and can't bother closing an image before moving onto the next one), audio speakers, battery life, your browser and office software, etc.



When you buy a mac, you're buying decent all of the above, including all the stuff you don't need if you want a specialized box.  Which is potentially wasteful. Unless this is your everyday computer, and you will actually USE everything that comes with it, in which case it's just like a PC but with somewhat nicer build quality and looks, pretty much, and a price tag to match.




^This is for still photos.  Totally different things apply for video.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 3, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> What matters for still photos is: CPU (multicores are not such a great help just yet in photo software for most actions), to a lesser extent GPU, and monitor.
> 
> Things that DON'T matter are: hard drive, keyboard and mouse, RAM (only if you're lazy and can't bother closing an image before moving onto the next one), audio speakers, battery life, your browser and office software, etc.



Yeah. You don't have any clue what you're talking about here, do you? You couldn't be more wrong on about every point. Hard drive speed and condition and available RAM in particular are probably the largest bottlenecks in most systems. In fact, most day to day editing is not particularly processor intensive.

You're half correct on the GPU, but this is becoming less and less true as more processes are being handled by the GPU, and already much of Adobe Photoshops GUI and several filters can optionally take advantage of the GPU. This framework is actually one area where MacOS is clearly ahead.


----------

