- This topic is empty.
Apple or PC
-
could do with some guidance folks
im gonna get me a new computer but i dont much about them. i want one for photography and my musici went to focus on imaging this year and was impressed by apple and aperture
im using a borrowed windows laptop for the time being but its old and the images on screen are ‘blotchy’ (i cant comment on any images on this site because of it)
ive played with my brothers mac in the past and im aware that its different way of working to microsoft based computers
but is apple all that its cracked up to be or is it the dogs b******s for imaging ??im still using film but im buying a nikon f80 soon so ill need a computer view my images and convert the raw images
i hope im making sense
any comments would be greatly appreciated
thomas
Both Apple and “PC” are equally capable in this arena. Any “blotchy” images cannot be blamed on Windows … you can blame the monitor for that.
Me, I use a Windows XP, Vista and Server 2003. But I am a geek and I work with Microsoft infrstructure on client sites for a living. Vista does promise a lot in particular but 3rd party software vendors and hardware manufacturers have been acting like Vista caught them by surprise … support has been slow but improved after the public release in January. Importantly, new versions of Adobe are on the way. The advantage I see for photo shooters with MS based gear is that you have a much greater range of options. Walk around town … how many vendors sell gear for Windows based machines and how many sell gear for Macs? There’s a big difference.
I’m not a Mac user. Personally, I don’t care for them. But … lots of pro shooters prefer them. They are more expensive. But, because Apple control h/w and s/w you will experience less issues with compatibility. We’ve got plenty of Mac users here who love them and can share their experiences.
Both platforms share commonalities: more RAM and better graphics card = better performance. Better monitor = better displays. Better printers = better prints.
If all you want to do is view images and convert RAW’s then even a budget PC can do that for you. If you do get a machine then it’s worth spending a little extra on the screen. My current laptop has a screen upgrade that makes a real difference. My previous work laptop didn’t have that eature and images always lacked contrast and looked flat.
thanks joe
wasnt blaming my blotchy monitor on windows, ive borrowed a sony vaio recently and it was a pleasure to use
im not a computer person at all and probably never wll be, i find the whole thing confusing !if you are not that computer literate, you will find a mac slightly easier.
Windows is very good in that the platform (the hardware) is open, ie lots of people make bits and you can basically do what you want
Apple is a closed system, ie apple make most of the bits, and therefore have control over it. This tends to make it more stable
Apple also supply all you need for image processing at a reasonable level in the box, ie without spending any money on photoshop or apereture etc.
and if you were to buy one of the imacs or a mac mini you will get a nice setup for not stupid ammounts of money.
BUT
If you want to save money and want to have the options of lots of upgrades and lots more software then go for a PC from one of the big brands.
I do a lot of instalations as part of my job and the mac in the long term has a much cheaper cost of ownership, ie the cost of the computer upgrades and maintenace. The cost of owning a compter is not just about how much the box costs to buy.
When you buy a new Mac you’re getting a PC as well. Since last year all Mac’s come with an Intel processor meaning you can run Windows as well (with software called ‘Boot Camp’ you can run them at the same time).
Graham has mentioned in a previous thread that his Macbook Pro can run Vista faster than his similarly specced work PC. He’s in a Windows IT Support environment so he has no axes to grind.
Dave
OK My 2 cents on this,
Apple or Pc,
I had a PC up to last year and was using was daily for many years, the PC was good but for me was lacking somethingI got a apple Imac 17″ with 2ghz 2Gb ram intel core 2 duo processor and my god does it fly.
Using aperture latest version. and have an external 250Gb HDD, I use Aperture with elements 4.0 and IPhoot all at the same time and the things does not skip a beat. All files stored on the External drive, to keep things nice and clean. any project i work on once finished are also move over from the apple to the External HDD just to prevent any dip in processing
Very easy to use Aperture does have a steep learning curve though.
For me Apple is the way to go. The difference between the PC and My imac and just huge. My PC was no slouch in the processor but became quickly boged down after only a few months of use where as the Apple was bought in August and is still like new, fires up from sleep instantly, boot in under 2 mins. The monitor unit looks brilliant, although you can purchase great monitors for the PC’s they dont seem to be supplies as standard
Good Luck with the choice
Interesting commentary, brookied.
It half answers a question I’ve had for some time, and I still have some doubt about it. Perhaps putting it out here is the way to go, so here goes!
Is an IMac up to the task of serious imaging workflow or is a Mac Pro the only way to go? There’s a significant difference in price and much as I find a Mac Pro very tempting, I can’t help thinking that an IMac might also do the same tasks?
As the subject of not being techie was brought up:
I was in my local puter shop this morning and cast a glance over the PCs in for repair/maintenance. About half of the dozen or so boxes there had a Post-It on top saying simply “update Norton” or “install AV”. Which suggests to me that there are a fair load of people out there who do not want to, or don’t know how to take responsibility for keeping their Windies boxes clean and running sweetly.
Thomas, if you are among those people, then you’ll save money with a Mac. Secure against viruses and worms by design (and secure by virtue of small market share for hackers if you really must, but it’s secure by design in the operating system first and foremost). OSX has a built-in firewall, which is on by default so you don’t even need to twiddle with settings, and it’s Unix based which basically means that nasty email attachments called e.g. “messupmysystem.exe” targeted at Windows users simply will not run on it.
I really can’t emphasise this enough. Non-techie people should be using Macs. But then so should techie people (I am slightly biassed!)
The iLife apps bundled with it will do most of what you want for free. iPhoto is fine for photo album management and basic retouching, and iTunes is, well everybody knows what it is!
Tip: if you want to create music rather than just listen to it, before buying any software, see what comes bundled with any outboard boxes you might want such as MIDI keyboards or audio in/out boxes. They usually come with some nice freebie software that’s a cut down or older version of current expensive software.
Thorsten wrote:
Is an IMac up to the task of serious imaging workflow or is a Mac Pro the only way to go? There’s a significant difference in price and much as I find a Mac Pro very tempting, I can’t help thinking that an IMac might also do the same tasks?
Thorsten, no problem as long as you’ve got the RAM and disk speed. I’ve got a refurb iMac 17″ 1.8GHz with 1Gb RAM and it runs CS2 fine, with Bridge, Photoshop and InDesign all going at once and a couple of other apps (Preview for checking PDF output from InDesign docs etc). It’d go way faster with more RAM, I’m sure. I’d spend the money on a fully tricked-out iMac with big fast drives rather than a barebones Mac Pro.
SteveFE wrote:
Secure against viruses and worms by design
Don’t want to start a flame war but this is not true. Macs don’t suffer the same level of attacks at Windows because they are not as popular. That’s it. Macs have had viruses and worms for donkey’s years. Windows is attacked more (a) because it’s what the malware authors own and (b) it offers the largest target base.
Before anyone says “don’t get Windows because it’s a target for viruses” -> the people who get hit are the ones who don’t maintain patch levels and who don’t keep their AV up to date.
No one is cheaper than me when it comes to spending money on s/w. I advise friends never to touch any of those Internet Seucurity Suites sold by PC World, etc. I’d rather get infected by a virus than run Norton/Symantec AV. I run a free AV (Avast Home and/or AVG Home). I run the native firewall in default config on Windows XP SP2. I update my patch levels. I don’t do any black magic … I although I could if I wanted … it is my job. I’m just careful about where I browse and don’t open attachments I’m not expecting.
I am a Windows person through and through. Anyone who knows me suspects I’m part of the MS marketing machine ;-) But I am equally happy to recommend a Mac to photo shooters because it seems this is one of the two markets that the Mac is a big player in.
For me, I went Mac and haven’t looked back.
I have a laptop PC also, but very rarely use it.
Tim
Aidan, I tend to agree with what you are saying, In fact, any system is vulnerable to attack. But put yourself in the place of the attacker. You want to do the maximum amount of damage to as many machines as possible. Best way to do that is target the MS Windows platform, because that’s what the vast majority of people in the world are using.
Personally, I’m a Windows PC person through and through. Yes, I’ve been hit by virus attacks, but never for more than a few minutes and I have yet to lose data as a result of an attack. It all comes down to how well you maintain your system.
At the end of the day one platform is just as capable as the other and when you hang a finished print on a wall people aren’t going to look at it and say “Oh, look, he must have used a Mac for that!” just as they aren’t going to say “Oh look, he shot that on a Nikon/Canon/Pentax” (take your pick).
That being said, I’m toying with the idea of running both platforms. A Mac for imaging and a PC for everything else. Why? Because I’m being totally irrational and think they (Mac’s) look cool, no other reason! :oops: Sad, I know!
joe_elway wrote:
SteveFE wrote:
Secure against viruses and worms by design
Don’t want to start a flame war but this is not true. Macs don’t suffer the same level of attacks at Windows because they are not as popular. That’s it. Macs have had viruses and worms for donkey’s years. Windows is attacked more (a) because it’s what the malware authors own and (b) it offers the largest target base.
Joe, no flames, promise, and I’m not techie enough to go deeply into it, but I have read in an awful lot of places that Unix’s admin root level security (whatever that is) is way better than Windows to date, and pretty much prevents unauthorised access to the guts of the OS by snooping code. While Windows has made a feature of the integration of Explorer into the OS, this has also left many well-publicised weaknesses and points of entry for agents of mischief propagated via the web.
OS9 and earlier had viruses apparently (although in several years of using them, even with a network of ten machines and a wide open broadband link I never managed to catch one). X is superior. Challenges have been thrown out to hack a wide open, unprotected Mac with cash prizes and nothing happened. Maybe nobody was looking, but I suspect otherwise. Imagine the kudos for a Windows hacker to be able to tell the world he was the one to break into the much-vaunted OSX.
Anecdotally, all I can say is, me, fifteen years of Mac use over several OS iterations, and no viruses, ever. Windows-using friends?two BAD attacks in the last year, both of which resulted in massive HD corruption, OS reinstalls, files lost forever, pains in the ass.
And as for the trivial, fashionista related stuff that we Maccies like so much. I got a real kick out of bringing my iMac to work for a presentation of some photos for a brochure editing session.
First comment: “Nice laptop”.
Steve?“Actually, it’s a desktop computer”.
“But where’s the computer, you’ve only got a screen?”
Steve?“The computer’s IN the screen”.
“Oh. Cool!”And it all fits in the front seat of the car and can be carried under one arm. Can’t beat carrying the entire CS suite under one arm!
I carry a HP dv9000 laptop running XP SP2. I was in Microsoft Reading last week to give a presentation and I had … “Nice laptop … care to swap” comments over and over. Not only do I run Adobe CS, but I also run virtualisation software which currently allows me to run a simulated network of a corporation. Performance isn’t just a Mac thing. I just checked out the Apple website. A laptop with equal spec would cost ?1000 more if I went Apple. For that, I could buy Adobe CS and an A3 photo printer.
It’s the same difference, honestly.
I have a Macbook Pro, but I purchased it for much geekier reasons than the average consumer: I could tri-boot Linux, Windows and OS X, giving me access to the complete range of available tools on one machine. As it stands, I dropped Linux due to configuration (not driver) woes and I keep a 20gb Windows partition for gaming, using OS X for all my photo work – I have Lightroom, Photoshop, the Imagemagick tools, the Gimp and an excellent scripting ability for my work.
But Windows equally has access to all of this, and security is a vaccuous argument. Claiming X or Y is less secure is arguing over potato and potatoe, considering the user is the most insecure part of Windows. How many people go to all manner of dodgy pron and warez sites, open all their email attachments and accept IM attachments from total stranger? Oh wait, yeah. Lots. Oh for sure OS X has several elements (like proper user access controls) that Windows could make use of, but honestly most of your security boils down to common sense.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
