Mac or PC?

I'm sure this is asked way to much. But I'm primarily a PC user but I always hear from other photographers that if I'm serious about photography I should convert to Mac. Is this true? Does it even matter?

Macs now run the same INTEL processors that run PC's so all my computer nerd contacts say it doesn't make a difference except in which software you are running

Rob pix4u2 wrote: it doesn't make a difference except in which software you are running

And thats a very important factor. theres no question that you can buy laptops with identical specs... but thats not why you buy a mac.

You buy a mac because it runs MacOS X

Besides... macbooks arent that expensive if you actually compare prices. yes you can get a cheap laptop... but they dont have the same specs. compare computers with specs similar to a macbook pro and theyll be around the same price point.

Honestly I think with Windows 7 it's pretty close. Personally I like the mac interface but all the Mac vs PC stuff is fluff.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Honestly I think with Windows 7 it's pretty close. Personally I like the mac interface but all the Mac vs PC stuff is fluff.

right now... id probably agree. 1-2 years ago... definately not

MacOS had real support for multi-core processors, 64 bit processors, and a journaling file system years before windows. cant say for sure that apple/linux will stay ahead of the curve... but if theyre already years ahead who knows what theyll be releasing in their next update. even now things like AirDrop, Gestures, Built in Disk-Encryption, Versions - all seem to be ahead of microsoft.

geoffellis wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Honestly I think with Windows 7 it's pretty close. Personally I like the mac interface but all the Mac vs PC stuff is fluff.

right now... id probably agree. 1-2 years ago... definately not

MacOS had real support for multi-core processors, 64 bit processors, and a journaling file system years before windows. cant say for sure that apple/linux will stay ahead of the curve... but if theyre already years ahead who knows what theyll be releasing in their next update. even now things like AirDrop, Gestures, Built in Disk-Encryption, Versions - all seem to be ahead of microsoft.

Well I like Mac, so I'm happy to agree with you mate.

I can't speak for video, but with still photography Adobe software, and all the other major contenders, run the same on either system. If you have the same amount of ram, processing speed, and other resources you aren't going to notice any difference except price tag. Shopping for my last Photoshop workstation the Mac with the same specs as the PC I bought was more than twice as expensive.

Henry Peach wrote: I can't speak for video, but with still photography Adobe software, and all the other major contenders, run the same on either system. If you have the same amount of ram, processing speed, and other resources you aren't going to notice any difference except price tag. Shopping for my last Photoshop workstation the Mac with the same specs as the PC I bought was more than twice as expensive.

Are you talking about a desktop? or laptop? cause ive never seen a macbook with the same specs as another laptop brand. atleast not identical. just saying it had 4gb ram and a 2.4ghz processor with a 500gb hdd doesnt mean they are "the same". ram comes in different bus speeds, processors come with different cores, and hdd come with different write speeds, You can pay 150$ for a lowend processor, or 600$ for a highend processor. same with ram and video cards

Sure they may "appear" to be the same in most situations... but that doesnt mean you arent getting what you pay for. So if a simple image edit is all your doing... I can sell you a 400-500$ generic laptop with the "same specs" as a macbook pro that will do the job in no time. start up a resource hungry game or start editing 10gb video files... and you will no doubt see a massive difference in the performance.

However from a photography standpoint, macos also uses the HFS+ file system, as opposed to NTFS on the newer Windows OS. This is key because (based on what ive read anyways), the write operations are generally faster/more efficient, especially when dealing with lots of smaller files. I wont get into technical details but the consensus seems to be that it has to do with the way the file system allocates space/naming/permissions/etc. Since HFS+ is also journaling file system (not sure if NTFS has caught up to that yet though) things like corrupted files are less likely...

bah i could go on... getting a little bored though. I guess it depends on whether you value price or performance. because quite frankly, mac or not... you get what you pay for. you might be paying a premium for a mac... but its not as crazy a premium as people think. if youre paying half of what apple charges for the same thing, i can practically guarantee that you have not walked away with the same components as apple is selling.

So Geoff (I'm assuming this is your name) basically Macs are more efficient at using hardware?

Yes I do agree that you get what you pay for with a mac. PCs can and do cut corners in bus speed etc. to appear to be better value for money.

Buying the windows OS will probably make up the difference in price. The last update for Mac OS (10.7 aka Lion) cost $30USD. Windows 7 is at least $119 (retail price for upgrade to Home Premium) and up to $319 (Ultimate).

yes Geoff is my name heh

I think the main issue when comparing PC hardware to mac hardware prices is the fact that PC manufacturers do cut corners.... and they dont /really/ tell you that when you buy the computer. This is what propogates the "myth" that macs are expensive.

Sure you can find a PC with 2.4ghz quad core and 4gb ram with a 500GB hard with a video card with 1gb dedicated ram for 600$ which is what i believe the lowend macbook pros currently advertise for like 1100$ or whatever.

the cheaper laptop/computer will likely have a smaller processor cache, lower bus speeds, the harddrive will be slower rpm, longer seek and access times, smaller transfer rates etc. and the ram and gpu on the graphics may also be significantly slower than a higher end graphics card. not noticeable to the average user but once you start peaking it will make a difference. if you went and bought a laptop that actually had hardware comparable to a mac, the price is no longer 600$ - its 1000+ depending on the exact specs

As for higher efficiency at using hardware... most of it is the same right now. Windows 7 has really improved its hardware performance. currently i believe the only sticking point is that Mac uses a better filesystem (HFS+) which does make working with files (such as photos), slightly faster. Most recently the main difference was the 64 bit quad core support. Before windows 7 you might have had a 64 bit os... but no 64 bit programs that could use it. same with quad cores... you had 4 cores... but applications would only use1 of them at time LOL - my understanding is that this has improved, but i dont have hard references in front of me to confirm/deny.

my final statement would be that Mac OS is Linux. Its just been modified slightly (mostly user interface stuff but a few other things like the HFS+ file system). Its still running a linux kernel however... and that to me says that it has all the stuff that makes linux so great as well... mainly efficiency and security.

Just to show an example... back in the day... maybe 8 years ago now. I had a Pentium 1 computer. I think it was only 166mhz or 266mhz, not sure exactly with 128mb ram. Could barely run Windows 98... definitely couldnt run ME/2000/XP - yet i was able to put a modern install of RedHat Linux 8.0 and it ran with very little issues for a couple years. Hell id probably still be using it if it wasnt stolen while i was moving. anyways my point is... Linux is efficient. its lightweight and resource easy. You boot windows nowadays and youre probably using close to 0.5-1GB of ram right away depending on how much shit youve installed. my linux partition doesnt come near that unless i start running applications.

bah im probably rambling on again. enough for now LOL

It's all preference. Personally I like Mac's because of the look and feel