Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Mac vs. pc for photo work

Reply
Thread Tools

Mac vs. pc for photo work

 
 
chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
C Wright wrote:
> On 1/21/05 12:21 PM, in article
> (E-Mail Removed) m, "Howard"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> One thing: could you say a
>
>>word about how OSX helps with organizing photos and the like. Also,
>>networking, if you know about that. I'm having all sorts of headaches
>>with Windows networking.
>>Howie
>>

>
> If you buy a new Mac now with OSX it will include the new iPhoto program
> which looks to be a pretty good organizer. The current version is good but
> not up to pro standards. The new version will display raw's from most
> cameras, which the current version won't.
> As far as networking - I have an Apple Airport Extreme wireless network and
> it is a breeze to set up and maintain. Not only is my Mac on it but XP and
> Linux PC's as well. Macs will definitely work on other brand networks as
> well but I have limited experience beyond the Airport network. As far as I
> am concerned networking is a black art!
> Chuck



I don't think iPhoto is that good. It's way over-rated for no obvious
reason. Has it been updated to categorize off-line photos? It's set up
to easily order prints from APPLE; making their wallet puffy by merely
sending your order to Ofoto (Kodak) to process. You can't share photos
without the $99 .Mac account. Now the new v.5 supports RAW. Once I have
it, I'll check out how slow it would handle 20D RAW files. ;P
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lisa Horton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005


Howard wrote:
>
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.


The differences are much smaller now than at any point in the past. Mac
has certain advantages, like being free of spyware/malware/viruses. PCs
have certain advantages, like cheaper, faster, more options, more
flexibility.

My suggestion would be to go to an Apple store and play with a Mac for a
while and see if you like it. That, more than anything, should be the
basis for your decision.

Lisa
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
huntzing@pica.army.mil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
HvdV wrote:
>
> You could say a modern Mac combines the robustness and security of

Linux with
> the traditional we-know-what-is-good-for-you attitude of Apple. For a

price.

Agreed: "there is no such thing as a free lunch".


> ...In fact the AMD Opteron is IMO superior to the G5 for image

processing.

I have no personal experience with the Opteron, but I did see that
since in MP configurations the Opteron's max bandwidth is comparable to
the G5 (up to 20GBps), I suspected as much. Good info to know.


> > The KISS take-away is that if the G4's bandwidth was a dirt road,

the
> > Pentium was at best a two-lane highway, whereas the G5 is a 4-lane
> > German Autobahn.

>
> To carry the analogy further: a 4-lane autobahn with two lanes under
> construction, OS X 10.3 still doesn't support 64bit addressing. So

much for
> 'the first 64bit PC'.


I'll accept the alteration to the analogy, for the fact that the lanes
are still present, even if they're currently "under contruction": the
upgrade to full blown 64 bit processing is merely a software/firmware
upgrade on a G5, with no hardware changes required at all.

The orange construction cones will come down with the release of
"Tiger", which IIRC is due sometime in 2005...its worth checking on the
supposed release date to see if it makes sense to delay buying a
machine to get it thrown in for free...BTW, Apple does frequently come
out at the proverbial last minute with an announcement that they're
going to include a free OS upgrade to hardware buyers after a certain
date: this isn't a bad strategy to get both OS's (the one that
everyone's currently compatible with, and the new one).


> > My suggestion for an Apple machine to consider would be the DP

1.8GHz
> > G5 PowerMac. It lists for $1999 but needs another ~$170 to bump up

the
> > RAM by +1GB...

>
> There is a catch: the 1.8 model has less memory slots, so is less

upgradable.

Ah, good catch...thanks.

I was aware of that little issue, but missed that it had snuck across
the line into the DP configurations.

Okay, for those who don't know, here's the simple bottom line: Apple
is basically using two different motherboards in their G5, which can be
thought of as a "Low End" and a "High End" board.

The easiest way to sort out which one is which is by how many RAM slots
it has: 4 or 8. The only other significant feature difference that I'm
personally aware of is that the "Low" has PCI slots, whereas the "High"
has PCI-X slots.

Where I got mixed up was that all of Apple's Dual Processor G5 products
had always used the High End board...until now. Currently, the
dividing line between the boards is between the DP 1.8 and the DP 2.0
and is a pretty nasty $500 price break.


> Does anyone know how efficient Photoshop makes use of a dual G5?


Supposedly, its very good, although I'm sure that the devil's always in
the details as to which particular filter, etc.

FWIW, here's a couple of webpages with benchmarks to read through:

http://www.barefeats.com/g5.html ("mac vs mac")

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html (mac vs. pentium, DP Xenon, DP
Athlon)


-hh

PS: On video cards, I don't dispute the 'suckiness' of the baseline
Mac G5 card, and I'd consider it to be relevant if I did any
game-playing. If it actually makes any significant difference in doing
Photoshop tasks, I'd like to see some quantitative benchmarks that
measure the effect.

 
Reply With Quote
 
huntzing@pica.army.mil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2005
The G5's fans are controlled by the Max OS. As such there should only
be three times that they'll run full blast (and thus be loud):

1) During a kernel panic. I've seen this happen once...and the loud
fans was the "hey, what's going on?" symptom.

2) If a different OS has been installed, such as Linix, which doesn't
have control over the fans

3) If the machine is sitting in a hot ambient environment.

There is a utility within OS X that will display the CPU's temperature.
Recommend that you have your friend check it out: if the fan noise is
offensive with a CPU temperature below 134F, recommend he do a reboot
and if that doesnt' immediately fix it, have him take the machine in
for service: something's broken.

FWIW, the "MDD" (Mirror Door Drive?) G4 was the one with the bad
reputation for being noisy, IIRC.

-hh

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom Monego
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
In article <3r1Id.1631$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
>I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
>Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
>the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>Best,
>Howie
>

Use both, my Mac at work is very slow and 6 years old. I prefer my Athlon 2.7
at home, even my Pentium 1gig with Win 98 BUT I'm a PC person. Remember with
Mac OSX you need 10.3+ everything else makes any Win look smooth. Photoshop CS
can only access 2 gigs of RAM, anything else is not worth it. If you can afford
a dual G5 and 2 big apple screens I'd go for it. Otherwise a PC is better than
any single processor Mac.

Tom

 
Reply With Quote
 
stewy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Howard wrote:
>> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
>> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
>> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>> Best,
>> Howie
>>
>>

> Either will work just fine. Use whichever one you are most comfortable
> with.



Both Mac and PC are just as klunky except they're clunky in different ways.
The Mac is not the wonder machine the 'Macophiles' say it is, but OSX was a
significant improvement over the Mac Classic OS which was heading for
redundancy.

If Microsoft were really serious about their OS, they'd dump DOS and all
this other patches and updates since Win95 and re-write their OS for Here
and Now - perhaps using UNIX too as this may make the 2 incompatible formats
more compatible. I do like the screen layout of OSX far more than the
non-heuristic WinXP. The flat screens on the iMac don't have the same colour
depth as a CRT, so perhaps the eMac may be a better bet. I don't know if
it's possible to use the monitor on my iMac with a Mac Mini, if it is then I
may go that way in a few years when this Mac becomes too old. I don't see
why I should have to buy a whole new monitor every time I upgrade the
computer.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Frank Vuotto <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:36:18 GMT, "Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> >The G5 I would only rate as nice but not quite there because the standard
> >video card is absolute rubbish.

>
> I went to see a friends G5 and was shocked that it was the loudest
> computer I've ever heard.
>
>
> Frank
> http://newmex.com/f10


I bet the inside is lit up red too. It means that the air flow panel is
missing. Hopefully he didn't throw it out with the packaging.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
In article <oV1Id.1456$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
"Howard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Culd you say a bit more about the G5's.How are they showing their age? Is
> there stuff in the PC world that improves on those age-deficiencies?
> Thanks again.
> Howie


It's over a year old and still very expensive. At least for Java/UNIX
software development tasks, the dual 2GHz G5 doesn't keep pace with
upper-middle range x86 boxes. It's not even twice as fast as a dual
1.25GHz G4, which is disappointing considering the age and price
differences.


>
> "Kevin McMurtrie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > In article <3r1Id.1631$(E-Mail Removed) et>,
> > "Howard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> >> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> >> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >> Best,
> >> Howie

> >
> > Go to an Apple store and play with a desktop Mac to see if it's right
> > for you. Recently MS has been catching up in their GUI while Apple has
> > been catching up in their bug count.
> >
> > The dual proc G5 desktops are elegant marvels of engineering but their
> > age is showing and their prices are still high. They're probably not a
> > good buy unless they have a specific feature that you need - low noise,
> > Unix OS, digital A/V, etc.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Crocker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
Howard wrote:
> I'm an old pc person but tempted by the new mac stuff. I just looked at
> Picasa and was impressed. On the other hand, I keep hearing how wonderful
> the Mac osX is on media stuff, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> Best,
> Howie
>
>


I'm 54 years old, and I've been a die hard PC/Windows user
since they came out. I was also a confessed Apple/MAC hater
for many years. I'm a senior computer engineer, and work in
IT, for a large communications company. To even speak of
MACs, among my peers is a death sentence. One co-worker,
who is a closet MAC user, talked me into trying one of the
new iMACs, when they introduced OS X. I became interested
because I heard OS X was based on BSD (aka Unix) roots, and
similar, but easier to use, than Linux. I was impressed
with the OS, but I thought the system was slow. I sold it
after about two months, and went back to PC's. With all the
recent problems, and very serious security concerns that
come with using Windows 2000 / XP, I started considering
alternatives. I've had a love-hate relationship with Linux
over the years, but finally ruled that out. I decided to
try another MAC, now that OS X has matured, and the more
advanced hardware became available.

I purchased a Power MAC G5 Tower, Dual 65-bit CPU, running
OS X Panther. I have to say, I'm hooked! This system runs
as great as it looks! It is very fast, very quiet, very
powerful! I also installed Microsoft's Virtual PC v 7, with
Windows XP Professional, for those times I get insecure, and
feel the need to go back. I'm also very impressed with it's
performance. It is truly a usable alternative to having two
machines. I've used similar virtual software in the past,
like VM Ware, on a PC, running XP, to emulate Win2k, Win98,
and Linux systems. They were all unusably slow, and no
comparison to the G5 / Virtual PC combination!

It is common to criticized MAC's, especially if you're not
familiar with them. It is also politically correct in many
tech-circles. But if you have an open mind, and can afford
the hardware (yes, it's not cheap), then I think you should
consider a system similar to the one I purchased. It will
free you from the preoccupation of maintaining your
hardware/OS, and give you more time to devote to
photography, or anything else you do on your computer!

Bill Crocker

 
Reply With Quote
 
rafe bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2005
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:34:39 -0500, Bill Crocker
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>It is common to criticized MAC's, especially if you're not
>familiar with them. It is also politically correct in many
>tech-circles. But if you have an open mind, and can afford
>the hardware (yes, it's not cheap), then I think you should
>consider a system similar to the one I purchased. It will
>free you from the preoccupation of maintaining your
>hardware/OS, and give you more time to devote to
>photography, or anything else you do on your computer!



What's to maintain? Just exercise
reasonable care with regard to email
attachments, virus checking, and
the sort of web sites you visit.
99.9% of unsolicited email should
go straight to the trash bin.

Don't use Microsoft internet clients.
Period.

I'm not about to Mac-bash. I think
Macs are great for those who really
would rather *not* know what's under
the hood. In the same vein, I admit
that without a strong technical
backround, there are times when my
PC would have gotten the best of me.

I don't really see where either system
can be said to have a big lead in terms
of technical merit, either in hardware
or the OS. I do believe you get a lot
more "bang for the buck" on PCs,
particularly if you're savvy enough to
configure and build your own.

Macs benefit, of course, from being a
closed system. It's not that they're
"immune" to viruses, it's just that there's
no point writing or launching a virus that
could, at best, affect a small population.

Another point: peripherals and drivers.
Since Macs have minimal market share, the
Mac driver for a given peripheral (eg.,
printer, scanner, digicam, etc.) may not be
as robust, well tested, or well supported as
its PC counterpart.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2811 snmp for what mac's are on which port ( simliar to thesh mac-add ) ab Cisco 0 02-12-2007 08:26 PM
Image quality on .mac (dot mac) eyalnevo@gmail.com Digital Photography 4 05-16-2006 03:07 PM
Vertical Gap between DIVs in Opera 8.5 Mac + IE 5.2 Mac mangm HTML 2 12-01-2005 12:48 PM
mac!! mac!!! * * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D e u s . ( d 2 0 0 5 x x , d 2 0 0 4 x x , d 2 0 0 Computer Support 7 06-03-2005 12:48 AM
Senseless rendering: Mac.Mozilla != Mac.Netscape6.01 ?!?! Roman =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Bl=F6th?= HTML 1 07-02-2003 10:23 AM



Advertisments