Mac vs. pc for photo work

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Howard, Jan 21, 2005.

  1. Howard

    Howard Guest

    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
     
    Howard, Jan 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Howard

    chris Guest

    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



    OSX is easier to use but for photo editing, there isn't any advantage as
    long as you use good software, such as photoshop. I have a powerbook but
    I hardly think of using it at home. I do everything on my WinXP PC. If I
    had the money, I'd upgrade my current Athlon XP desktop to Athlon64 and
    would cost less than a Mac mini. If you're thinking of the Mac mini, be
    forwarned that it's based on ibook, i.e. very slow with no memory cache,
    and need to increase the memory to at least 5120MB. It has no keyboard
    and mouse. If you want an exotic OS, go for it but it's going to be very
    slow. You get what you pay for. As for iMac, I don't see why I want to
    have an expensive LCD built into a CPU that I certainly want to upgrade
    the speed every two years.
     
    chris, Jan 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Howard

    Steven Hook Guest

    "Howard" <> wrote in message
    news:3r1Id.1631$...
    > 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
    >


    Hi,
    I prefer PC, cheaper, more versatile, personal preference tho, Mac OsX takes
    QUITE some getting used to!
    lots of the Bureau staff in our office have a Mac and PC each, and seem to
    prefer the PCs too (we do scans, printing, bureau and repro)
    The choice is yours, it seems to be more about personal preference than one
    system being better than another :)
    Steven
     
    Steven Hook, Jan 21, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <3r1Id.1631$>,
    "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


    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.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jan 21, 2005
    #4
  5. Howard

    Howard Guest

    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


    "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <3r1Id.1631$>,
    > "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

    >
    > 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.
     
    Howard, Jan 21, 2005
    #5
  6. Howard

    Dutch Flyer Guest

    "Howard" <> wrote in message
    news:3r1Id.1631$...
    > 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 work with XP and OSX machines every day and if it was my money I would
    fo with a PC. PCs are faster, cheaper and easy to upgrade.
     
    Dutch Flyer, Jan 21, 2005
    #6
  7. In article <3r1Id.1631$>,
    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.


    I'm a Mac person but use PCs at work (but they make me feel dirty) :)

    You can do well with either platform, but once you've seen an used OS X
    you'll see what a pathetic piece of shit that Windows eXtra Pitiful
    really is.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 21, 2005
    #7
  8. Howard

    C Wright Guest

    On 1/21/05 12:37 AM, in article
    3r1Id.1631$, "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
    >
    >

    If it is suggestions and opinions that you want, Mac vs. PC, you'll get
    plenty of them here! Here is mine:
    I use both a PC (that boots both Win XP and Linux) and a Mac dual G5. I
    prefer the Mac, not only for photography but for everyday use as well.
    Photoshop will use both processors on the G5 and it is noticeably faster at
    carrying out various filter actions. [as an fyi I owned the PC version of
    Photoshop prior to getting the Mac but Adobe sent me the full Mac version at
    no additional cost in return for a statement that I was switching platforms]
    Another opinion - the head of the photography department at our local
    college uses both PC's and Mac's as well and prefers the Macs.
    That said, if you are expecting a night and day difference, it isn't there,
    it is mostly which experience and interface you prefer. If you live near an
    Apple store, or any store the carries Macs, I would go play with one and see
    what you think.
    A couple of other comments: One person said the G5 was dated, or something
    similar. That is just plain wrong. The G5 is very fast and OS 10.3 is an
    extremely up to date OS - ahead of XP in my view. Another person said that
    if it is the Mini that is tempting you don't go that way. With that I would
    agree. As a computer for surfing the Internet and email and light duty
    document work the Mini would be great. But for heavy duty photo work you
    would be asking a lot of the Mini.
    Chuck
     
    C Wright, Jan 21, 2005
    #8
  9. Howard

    Pete Fenelon Guest

    C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
    > That said, if you are expecting a night and day difference, it isn't there,
    > it is mostly which experience and interface you prefer. If you live near an
    > Apple store, or any store the carries Macs, I would go play with one and see
    > what you think.



    ....particularly as Adobe are making their interface on the PC more and
    more Mac-like. Elements 3 is very un-Windowsy.

    > A couple of other comments: One person said the G5 was dated, or something
    > similar. That is just plain wrong. The G5 is very fast and OS 10.3 is an
    > extremely up to date OS - ahead of XP in my view. Another person said that
    > if it is the Mini that is tempting you don't go that way. With that I would
    > agree. As a computer for surfing the Internet and email and light duty
    > document work the Mini would be great. But for heavy duty photo work you
    > would be asking a lot of the Mini.


    I have a mini on order, I don't expect it to match my 2.1 GHz Athlon for
    photo editing work, but as you said that's not what it's there for -
    it's a computer designed for consuming not producing ;)

    pete
    --
    "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
     
    Pete Fenelon, Jan 21, 2005
    #9
  10. Howard

    Howard Guest

    Hi Chuck,
    Interesting that you mentioned philosophy, my field. Thanks for the
    good advice and information. I'm intrigued by the Mac, and annoyed by
    various glitches and complications in the PC world, which I have always
    been in. I'm thinking about a G5 with a big screen. Anyway, if you have
    further thoughts, please pass them along. 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
     
    Howard, Jan 21, 2005
    #10
  11. On 21 Jan 2005 10:21:36 -0800, "Howard" <>
    wrote:

    >Hi Chuck,
    >Interesting that you mentioned philosophy, my field. Thanks for the
    >good advice and information. I'm intrigued by the Mac, and annoyed by
    >various glitches and complications in the PC world, which I have always
    >been in. I'm thinking about a G5 with a big screen. Anyway, if you have
    >further thoughts, please pass them along. 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


    Take a look at some of the features in Tiger the Mac OS out later this
    year. It has some very interesting feature relative to searching
    images.

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight.html


    *****************************************************

    "He that we last as Thurn and Taxis knew
    Now recks no lord but the stiletto's Thorn,
    And Tacit lies the gold once-knotted horn.
    No hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow,
    Who's once been set his tryst with Trystero."

    "The Crying of Lot 49"
    Thomas Pynchon
     
    John A. Stovall, Jan 21, 2005
    #11
  12. Howard

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 21, 2005
    #12
  13. Howard

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Pete Fenelon wrote:
    > C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
    >
    >>That said, if you are expecting a night and day difference, it isn't there,
    >>it is mostly which experience and interface you prefer. If you live near an
    >>Apple store, or any store the carries Macs, I would go play with one and see
    >>what you think.

    >
    >
    >
    > ...particularly as Adobe are making their interface on the PC more and
    > more Mac-like. Elements 3 is very un-Windowsy.
    >
    >
    >>A couple of other comments: One person said the G5 was dated, or something
    >>similar. That is just plain wrong. The G5 is very fast and OS 10.3 is an
    >>extremely up to date OS - ahead of XP in my view. Another person said that
    >>if it is the Mini that is tempting you don't go that way. With that I would
    >>agree. As a computer for surfing the Internet and email and light duty
    >>document work the Mini would be great. But for heavy duty photo work you
    >>would be asking a lot of the Mini.

    >
    >
    > I have a mini on order, I don't expect it to match my 2.1 GHz Athlon for
    > photo editing work, but as you said that's not what it's there for -
    > it's a computer designed for consuming not producing ;)
    >
    > pete


    Yes, for consuming a lot of money for not that much computer. I like
    the size, and if one already has a monitor, keyboard, and printer, and
    pointing device, it is a practical alternative. Still, one can buy a
    faster PC with monitor, speaker, printer, and mouse for about the same
    money. Of course, it will take up more space... In the end, it is a
    matter of personal needs, and preferences.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Howard

    Guest

    Howard wrote:
    > Could 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?


    The G5 is hardly "showing its age", unless you're the geektype who buys
    the latest hardware every 4 months. If that's the case, then the
    answer to your question is that your current hardware's good enough for
    what you need, regardless of its CPU or OS or anything else :)

    Now I will grant you that Apple's G4 CPU did deserve its "long in
    tooth" criticism. Which is why an Apple laptop or mini isn't the best
    choice for doing Photoshop production on.

    The most important change in the G5 wasn't really its higher-than-G4
    clockspeeds, but instead was the system architectural changes that
    accompanied the chip. These changes did more than merely eliminated
    the huge bandwidth bottlenecks that the G4 suffered from: it blew the
    doors off of bandwidth availability, which allows for future growth.
    If the G5 is "showing its age", then this factor is the deathknell for
    *all* Intel CPU's.


    If you want a lightweight dose of geek stuff (with some topping from
    Apple's marketing department) see:
    http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html

    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.


    IMO, I think the real underlying comment here was a hit on its price.
    Apple has traditionally been criticized for being more expensive.
    Yeah, BMW's cost more too, and that's what a smaller production base
    will always do to a product.

    There's going to be difference in design ...both hardware and OS...that
    vary in their significance, depending on the person examining them, and
    there will inevitably be differences in the price tag too. The final
    cost:benefit decision is always up to you.

    Personally, I appreciate the G5's nearly silent operation, as well as
    the OS is effectively immune from all of the windows OS malware.

    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. Do check to see if you can qualify for one of the
    discount groups (EDU/etc), as this will cut around $150 off the price.
    This system (with 1GB of RAM) should slice thru most Photoshop tasks
    quite respectfully, and I'd not expect to have to touch the machine for
    any upgrades for at least 3 years. I've used the Single Processor
    version of this machine and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I
    did throw a 1GB photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did
    cause it to pause and chew, it did swallow.

    -hh
     
    , Jan 21, 2005
    #14
  15. Howard

    Pete D Guest

    The G5 I would only rate as nice but not quite there because the standard
    video card is absolute rubbish.

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Howard wrote:
    >> Could 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?

    >
    > The G5 is hardly "showing its age", unless you're the geektype who buys
    > the latest hardware every 4 months. If that's the case, then the
    > answer to your question is that your current hardware's good enough for
    > what you need, regardless of its CPU or OS or anything else :)
    >
    > Now I will grant you that Apple's G4 CPU did deserve its "long in
    > tooth" criticism. Which is why an Apple laptop or mini isn't the best
    > choice for doing Photoshop production on.
    >
    > The most important change in the G5 wasn't really its higher-than-G4
    > clockspeeds, but instead was the system architectural changes that
    > accompanied the chip. These changes did more than merely eliminated
    > the huge bandwidth bottlenecks that the G4 suffered from: it blew the
    > doors off of bandwidth availability, which allows for future growth.
    > If the G5 is "showing its age", then this factor is the deathknell for
    > *all* Intel CPU's.
    >
    >
    > If you want a lightweight dose of geek stuff (with some topping from
    > Apple's marketing department) see:
    > http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    > IMO, I think the real underlying comment here was a hit on its price.
    > Apple has traditionally been criticized for being more expensive.
    > Yeah, BMW's cost more too, and that's what a smaller production base
    > will always do to a product.
    >
    > There's going to be difference in design ...both hardware and OS...that
    > vary in their significance, depending on the person examining them, and
    > there will inevitably be differences in the price tag too. The final
    > cost:benefit decision is always up to you.
    >
    > Personally, I appreciate the G5's nearly silent operation, as well as
    > the OS is effectively immune from all of the windows OS malware.
    >
    > 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. Do check to see if you can qualify for one of the
    > discount groups (EDU/etc), as this will cut around $150 off the price.
    > This system (with 1GB of RAM) should slice thru most Photoshop tasks
    > quite respectfully, and I'd not expect to have to touch the machine for
    > any upgrades for at least 3 years. I've used the Single Processor
    > version of this machine and ~20MB Photoshop files aren't a problem. I
    > did throw a 1GB photoshop file to see what it would do and while it did
    > cause it to pause and chew, it did swallow.
    >
    > -hh
    >
     
    Pete D, Jan 21, 2005
    #15
  16. Howard

    Frank Vuotto Guest

    On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:36:18 GMT, "Pete D" <> 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
     
    Frank Vuotto, Jan 21, 2005
    #16
  17. Howard

    HvdV Guest

    wrote:
    > Howard wrote:
    >
    >>Could 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?

    >
    >
    > The G5 is hardly "showing its age", unless you're the geektype who buys
    > the latest hardware every 4 months. If that's the case, then the
    > answer to your question is that your current hardware's good enough for
    > what you need, regardless of its CPU or OS or anything else :)

    Agreed, the G5 is every bit as good as a Xeon with 1.5x the clock speed.
    For photo work I think a critical advantage of the Mac is OSX's far better
    security and memory management. Who in his right mind will store valuable
    images on a virus-infiltrated PC?
    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.
    >
    > Now I will grant you that Apple's G4 CPU did deserve its "long in
    > tooth" criticism. Which is why an Apple laptop or mini isn't the best
    > choice for doing Photoshop production on.

    For image processing work the G4's caches were often too small, yes.
    >
    > The most important change in the G5 wasn't really its higher-than-G4
    > clockspeeds, but instead was the system architectural changes that
    > accompanied the chip. These changes did more than merely eliminated
    > the huge bandwidth bottlenecks that the G4 suffered from: it blew the
    > doors off of bandwidth availability, which allows for future growth.
    > If the G5 is "showing its age", then this factor is the deathknell for
    > *all* Intel CPU's.

    The G5 was derived from the IBM Power4 processor, *definitely* not a backward
    chip! But Intel and especially AMD are not idiots either. In fact the AMD
    Opteron is IMO superior to the G5 for image processing.
    >
    >
    > 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'.
    >
    > 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. Do check to see if you can qualify for one of the

    There is a catch: the 1.8 model has less memory slots, so is less upgradable.
    Does anyone know how efficient Photoshop makes use of a dual G5?

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Jan 21, 2005
    #17
  18. Howard

    C Wright Guest

    On 1/21/05 12:21 PM, in article
    , "Howard"
    <> 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
     
    C Wright, Jan 21, 2005
    #18
  19. Howard

    nospam Guest

    In article <11dbf$41f17788$3e3aaa83$>, HvdV
    <> wrote:

    > > 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'.


    osx 10.3 supports 64 bit addressing. the g5 can accept 8 gigs of ram
    and osx can see all of it and use all of it.
     
    nospam, Jan 21, 2005
    #19
  20. Howard

    adm Guest

    "chris" <> wrote in message
    news:NB1Id.2777$...
    > 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

    >
    >
    > OSX is easier to use but for photo editing, there isn't any advantage as
    > long as you use good software, such as photoshop. I have a powerbook but I
    > hardly think of using it at home. I do everything on my WinXP PC. If I had
    > the money, I'd upgrade my current Athlon XP desktop to Athlon64 and would
    > cost less than a Mac mini. If you're thinking of the Mac mini, be
    > forwarned that it's based on ibook, i.e. very slow with no memory cache,
    > and need to increase the memory to at least 5120MB. It has no keyboard and
    > mouse. If you want an exotic OS, go for it but it's going to be very slow.
    > You get what you pay for. As for iMac, I don't see why I want to have an
    > expensive LCD built into a CPU that I certainly want to upgrade the speed
    > every two years.


    I have a 3GHz PC in my study (which I am using now), and an iMac G5
    downstairs in the kitchen. I am mainly a PC user, but the Mac is great. It
    is fast and has a fantastic screen (1.8GHz 20"). It is not quite as fast as
    the PC running Photoshop, but it actually feels nicer to use. Mac OS X is
    excellent - it is a joy to use and is rock solid as well. I've only been
    using it for a month or so, but I like it more than Windows.

    On the other hand, I need a Windows machine for other things.

    Both machines work well with each other across a wireless network.

    I bought the iMac with no intention of upgrading it in 2 years time. In 2
    years time it will be obsolete and will have been passed onto one of my
    children as will this PC.
     
    adm, Jan 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. * * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D

    mac!! mac!!!

    * * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D, Jun 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    736
    Aquila Deus
    Jun 3, 2005
  2. Image quality on .mac (dot mac)

    , May 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    396
    Steffen Kluge
    May 16, 2006
  3. ab
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
  4. Adam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    886
    George
    Nov 21, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    983
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page