Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: shothunter on August 12, 2007, 07:24:03 pm
-
Hi guys,
I've been using a laptop for editing pics so far (running XP on it) and since I'm definitely moving towards (at least part time) professional photography I figure I'll need a desktop to be able to deliver decent work.
I know that a lot of professionals use Mac to do the picture editing, so the big question is: Do I get a Mac or a PC? Right now I'm under the impression that the new Mac Pro is a great machine that will do just about anything you need in photography in terms of speed, memory and general performance.
I would appreciate any feedback on which platform you use (and why), your experiences with either OS and possible conclusions you've come to.
Budget is around 3000 EUR/2800 US (I will be purchasing this machine in Europe).
thanks a lot,
ed
-
Do I get a Mac or a PC?
Yes.
-
Yeah...I would stay away from Linux at this point...
-
Well, thanks for your time, gentlemen, but to be honest: Your replies require further explanation, it sounds like there is something I missed - I just plunged into this a couple days ago and didnt do a whole lot of researching yet - I guess this thread is part of my research...
cheers
ed
-
Having been a lifetime Windows man, I've recently seen the light and gone over (mainly) to Macs.
I now have a second-hand 12" Powerbook G4 and the latest 15.4" 2.4Ghz MacBook Pro - supported by my 'flying machine' PC.
The Powerbook is great for travelling around. The MBP is great for CS3 and Lightroom - admittedly I've doubled the RAM to 4 Gig.
As far as OS is concerned I really do prefer the Mac OS X over the Vista. Easy to upgrade, easy to install from clean, no hanging or crashes, no (or hardly any) virus problems. The only problem I've encountered is probably a driver issue with the Macs connecting to my Epson R2400. Other than that - the mac is highly recommended.
-
I'm Windows based (Win XP x64) running with 8Gb of RAM with no problems. I can't see me ever switching to a Mac - purely based on the amount of software which I have installed - it would probably cost me around 5x the cost of the machine to switch. Plus I would have to keep an up to date Wintel system as some of the software which I run is simply not available on a Mac.
Having said that, I do spec and build my own systems - if I had to rely on buying from Dell et al, I would probably switch tomorrow. Both platforms are capable of being pretty mean machines - but for a Wintel system you probably need more detailed knowledge of components etc.
-
I am on Windows XP, but if I were starting from almost a no-legacy position that the original poster describes, I would most likely buy a Mac. From what I've read, heard and seen, it is a more efficient processor of information, doesn't suffer from most of the security problems plaguing the PC world, and most equipment and important applications are cross-platform. There are some that won't run on Mac and others that won't run on PC, but except for some highly specialized uses, I don't see that as a decision factor either way, because there are usually good alternatives. The price advantage of PCs has been largely eroded by Apple's new pricing policies, and PC's potential speed advantage has been eroded by Apple's switch to the Intel processor. The one thing though I would be VERY careful about is service and support. I know serious, knowledgeable professionals who have been badly let down by Apple support; but on the PC side, dealing with Dell for example, you can only count on really top quality support by buying a Gold package and paying quite dearly for it.
-
Keep in mind that the new Macs are just as adept at running Windows as they are Mac OS X or Linux. These are Intel machines and as such can run Windows at any time.
If you want the utmost flexibility get a program called Parallels which allows you to run Windows inside a window within OS X. Legacy software simply isn't an issue any longer.
Michael
-
One thing is true - These days you definitely need a PC - be it runs Mac or Windows.
After all - Steve Jobs in his recent announcement, said - a Mac is a Personal Computer as well!
-
Haven't you seen those wonderful Mac/PC commercials? I can't speak for any other gals but I like my men to have STYLE. And Apple is ALL ABOUT STYLE, in case you haven't noticed.
SUBSTANCE and FUNCTION are equally important and I think it's safe to say both a Mac and a PC can currently deliver. But I'll take Apple OS over anything Microsoft has offered.
I started on a PC in the early 90's, taking the advice of a style-less DOS geek. Just before my 18-month Photoshop education at ICP.org in 2002, I switched to a Mac and have NEVER looked back. For a short time, I kicked myself for never starting on a Mac in the first place, that is, until my studio went cross platform with web design. Now, I own both and use both but, 90% of the time, I always wheel my chair in the direction of my Macs.
ps None of them are perfect and you just have to accept that fact in order to have fun while trying to make money.
-
Get a PC or get an Apple brand computer - there's no difference to the end product. It means nothing that lots of photo professionals use Mac - it varies depending on where you look, and one loose guide is that Photoshop users split 60:40 PC:Mac. About all you can really say is that among photographers the Mac is not the largely-irrelevant niche that it is in the world at large.
You do need to factor in costs of staying cross platform. Sure you can buy Parallels, as well as another copy of Windows for a Mac desktop, but you'd be better off spending that money on a better PC desktop. Unless Adobe follow the cross platform licence for Lightroom with one for Photoshop, you'll still be messing around with licences on different platforms, and extra upgrade costs for these and for any other programs you need on each computer, eg MS Office, Adobe Creative Suite. And don't forget to add in the cost of your time sorting out two different streams of problems.
I run PC desktops and a Mac laptop and think that's the better way round because the laptop is what people see. So if you continually face clients who are Mac fanboys, or want to present an artsy-fartsy image to normal PC users, a Mac laptop can be handy. Recently a very pretty 18 year old came up to chat to me after seeing the laptop. While it could well have been animal magnetism, she asked plenty of questions about the Mac (nothing came of it and she's probably still upset but you can't satisfy everyone). Seriously, the laptop is more outward-facing than the desktop so what's the point buying a Mac that sits at home and leads you to waste money and time on staying cross platform?
John
-
You mention that you are going into the pro side. Depending on the venue, that can mean some pretty specific software. If you are going to be working lots with a lab, ala portrait/studio, check with them and see what software they require or recommend. Fuji's studio management software, for example, won't run on a Mac OS. Some album assembly software won't either. Mac's new setup lets you run the PC software as Michael points out, but you should study the software environment of your new pro venture before making your ultimate OS decision.
-
It means nothing that lots of photo professionals use Mac
I wouldn't say "nothing." It certainly means something to those photo professionals. It also may mean something that most prestigious photo/art schools in NYC house Macs in their digital labs. The only place I've seen a PC at ICP and Parson's is at the receptionist's desk.
Recently a very pretty 18 year old came up to chat to me after seeing the (Apple) laptop.
That's my girl!
nothing came of it and she's probably still upset
Have you done a breath test?
-
I wouldn't say "nothing." It certainly means something to those photo professionals. It also may mean something that most prestigious photo/art schools in NYC house Macs in their digital labs. The only place I've seen a PC at ICP and Parson's is at the receptionist's desk.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, the herd instinct is going strong. If they'd been using PCs at art school, or a PC brand had targeted the creative markets as well as Apple, they'd now be poncing round saying their Sony or Dell makes them oh so much more creative....
-
I am on Windows XP, but if I were starting from almost a no-legacy position that the original poster describes, I would most likely buy a Mac.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And thats exactly where I am. I will be basically starting from scratch and I'd still have my notebook with XP running on it. I might think about installing Windows on the Mac as well, but I havent made up my mind about that yet.
-
You mention that you are going into the pro side. Depending on the venue, that can mean some pretty specific software. If you are going to be working lots with a lab, ala portrait/studio, check with them and see what software they require or recommend. Fuji's studio management software, for example, won't run on a Mac OS. Some album assembly software won't either. Mac's new setup lets you run the PC software as Michael points out, but you should study the software environment of your new pro venture before making your ultimate OS decision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I'm not quite sure yet which field I will be working in. I just started selling some macro work and I'll probably try to get some landscapes out there, too, but I wouldn't exclude studio work either, although if you'd have Windows running on the Mac, you should be fine (except for the extra expenses for additional software )
ed
-
The addl costs (exp+time) creep in if you try to stay dual platform.
-
Yes, the herd instinct is going strong. If they'd been using PCs at art school, or a PC brand had targeted the creative markets as well as Apple, they'd now be poncing round saying their Sony or Dell makes them oh so much more creative....
I think "herd instinct" is far too simple and dismissive. It's a term that also shows bias. I think we're WAY BEYOND Mac vs. PC wars. One could more easily apply the term to PC users, since they are the true herd.
Almost every single pro-photographer I know in NYC, who switched from film to digital, switched to Mac (if they were a PC user), mostly because every techie in the NYC region told them, "If you want to run Photoshop, you need a Mac." Since every smart NYC techie loves to mark his own territory, I doubt "herd instinct" had anything to do with the real-time facts.
In my PC days, Dell was the design/performer of choice for many artists but all they were doing was typing letterheads. They weren't producing art with it. But once Photoshop took over post-production and Apple offered BMW style with the best program function, all others lagged behind. You can't even include Sony in this discussion because they were too late in the computer game.
Style alone DOES NOT make someone "more creative." Carrying a MacBookPro may get you a date (if your breath is in check) but it won't make you an artist. Style does make someone "look" more creative. And in an industry where visuals matter...you do the math. For me. this is a no-brainer.
-
Even though I'm a long time Mac user, last month I looked into a cheap Dell laptop to use on a jewlery photo shoot (instead of my Mac desktop). By the time I matched feature for feature the $549.00 Dell laptop with a MacBook, the Dell cost about $200.00 more. So you are not saving money by using a Windows computer (well at least a Dell).
Virus wise, my girlfriends office was hit with a windows virus last month and rendered all computers useless and cost them a few thousand dollars to retirve files and fix computers. Mac doen't have that worry.
Color management seems much easier on a Mac.
OS X is pretty much bullet proof...haven't had a crash in years and that's with tons of apps running all day long.
-
OS X is pretty much bullet proof...haven't had a crash in years and that's with tons of apps running all day long.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use both, more Windows than Mac, but my experience of Macs is they are as flaky as PCs are claimed to be. I was using a brand new MacBookPro the other day with nothing on it bar Apple software and every time I tried to burn a DVD using iDVD it failed part way. A couple of other apps froze and had to be restarted. Not that impressive and nothing like what the Apple ads promise.
Several pro photoghraphers I know locally, use Macs and all seem to have had issues and the new desktop/laptop has had to go back to Apple store to be tweaked. Which is populated by people who don't even know how to use OSX properly and wear T-shirts saying 'Genius'. Without irony, sadly.
My next desktop will probably be a MacPro as I need both systems. But Apple rely an awful lot on goodwill and myths of their own making. Apple make hardware and software and should be a lot better than PCs, but in reality, there's nothing in it bar personal preference.
Personally I think Mac ergonomics are awful, mice, keyboards and interface leave a lot to be desired. Too much emphasis on looks above usability to my mind.
And hiding the right click options, to try + pretend they haven't given in on that front is a bit sad. For those who don't know [that's every Mac owner I've met recently], the laptops finally do an alt click, though you have to use two fingers on the trackpad and click. Being different for the sake of it or what. Though it's disabled by default, to pretend they haven't given in and admit they were wrong all these years regarding second mouse buttons.
-
I'd say that today, if you are looking for a high end solution, there is a lot going for the Mac Pro. Leopard (OS 10.5) to be released in October will add some more to that but what we have today is already excellent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah...I would stay away from Linux at this point...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You mean Photoshop is NOT being compiled for Linux. Bummer
-
I was using Macs when proprietary hardware and beige boxes were the order of the day, about 20 years ago. In those days they were mostly functional boxes and were in no way cool. The reason some people bought then was the graphical user interface. When choosing between a command line operating system and a GUI it was easy to see why many DTP, imaging and audio software developers chose the Mac platform.
The reason we chose Macs was not because we were guru's running ahead of the curve, it was simply the only platform that supported the apps we needed to use. A good example is that of Quark. It was only in the late 90's that the Windows version became operationally stable. Before a Windows version was released it had been available on the Mac for years. The two companies worked closely - Apple even developed advanced graphics cards to enhance app performance. It's one of the key reason Macs have taken a stronger hold in the 'imaging' markets than other markets like gaming or productivity.
Most of the opinions you will get here will have their foundations in people sticking to what they know and defend it. Very few people are going to say that the MacBook Pro they bought last week was a mistake?
Here are some things to consider.
- Art is art, it doesn't matter a jot that it was produced on Nikon, Canon, Windows, Mac OS or an etch a sketch. Both Windows and Mac OS can get the job done. You're buying a tool not a lifestyle.
- You don't know exactly what it is you need right now. Versatility and flexibility seem to be key. The reality is that a Windows machine will give you the greatest flexibility i.e. hardware and software options.
- A windows machine will likely be cheaper. These days it's not going to be enough that it should sway you one way or another.
- Running two platforms could become expensive depending on the software you choose to run.
- Parallels, VMWare and Boot Camp are NOT solutions, they are workarounds. From my experience and testing the former struggle with CPU and GPU intensive applications. 3rd party peripherals don't always play nicely. They are perfect for running an old legacy app, ones that doesn't need modern processing power (Boot Camp excluded). By putting Windows on a Mac you ARE exposing it to all the evils - viruses, malware, spyware, bots etc - the Apple marketing dept. tell us about Windows. Just because it's Windows on a Mac doesn't mean it's invincible.
It's an acceptable risk on a private or hobby computer but not on a professional setup.
- For most Windows apps there is a Mac version or equivalent. You have to figure out if you're likely to need something exotic. It often when you need to hook up proprietary equipment where the manufacturer hasn't developed a Mac version of the interface that you can come unstuck.
- According to most independent surveys Mac OS is more reliable and secure out of the box when compared to Windows. It's UNIX kernel was developed with multiuser networked computing in mind. Windows was designed to be open to applications and users.
- Mac's are not immune from virus and malware attacks, there is evidence that the risk is growing. Still, most independent surveys confirm Mac OS requires less maintenance than an equivalent Windows machine.
- What legacy equipment do you have, i.e. printers, scanners, network hardware etc. Make sure you can get reliable Mac drivers. When selecting new equipment keep an eye on it's Mac friendliness. Check the support pages of the manufacturers web page.
- Poor support. Eventually you'll get used to it. Apple are notorious. There have been quite a few occasions where it took class action law suits to galvanize Apple in to action.
- Be prepared to become self sufficient or have a very good Apple dealer (Not one of those shinny Apple stores) but an old fashioned dealer employing people who know what they are talking about.
You can buy extra hardware support, AppleCare, but think of it as an extended warranty. In most countries you can't get a 24 or 48 hour on-site repair service from Apple. You'll need to have a working hardware, software and data backup to meet deadlines if your system goes down.
Apple's server line is well respected and consistently benchmarks well for reliability and performance. One of the key reasons they have not been more successful is that Apple can not sell them the kind of service they are used to getting from HP and IBM.
- Macs are built in China with off the shelf components just like most Windows machines. Thus it's reasonable to expect the same level reliability.
- Mac hardware often has some quite clever design ideas e.g. light sensors for keyboard illumination, magsafe connectors to name two.
- If you are already a confident Windows user you will adjust to Mac OS quite quickly. It might do things differently but its basically doing the same stuff as a Windows or Linux machine.
- Macs are no longer 'cool'. They zenith of Mac cool was probably the aluminum G4 Powerbook range. By definition too many have been sold over the last couple of years for them and their purchasers to be considered cool. As I said earlier it's a tool not a lifestyle.
Many of my points are of particular relevance in a professional / working pro setup, so they don't apply to everyone.
What would I do in your situation. Well, I've spent lots of time and money on Macs over the last 20 years, if I follow my own logic from earlier I'd recommend a Mac wouldn't I? If you can find satisfactory answers to some of the points or questions I've made, maybe a Mac could also work for you.
p.s. If you are considering a Mac Pro and work in a quiet environment on your own, get ear plugs!
-
I'd say that today, if you are looking for a high end solution, there is a lot going for the Mac Pro. Leopard (OS 10.5) to be released in October will add some more to that but what we have today is already excellent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Correct. The reason some people will be disapointed with Leapoard's feature set is that Tiger is so good. It's going to be very hard to make substantial improvements to an already excellent system.
-
What would I do in your situation. Well, I've spent lots of time and money on Macs over the last 20 years, if I follow my own logic from earlier I'd recommend a Mac wouldn't I? If you can find satisfactory answers to some of the points or questions I've made, maybe a Mac could also work for you.
p.s. If you are considering a Mac Pro and work in a quiet environment on your own, get ear plugs!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks a lot! I find many of your points quite helpful and valid. Right now I dont own any particular equipment besides my notebook and some software. So I would be starting from the very beginning - is the MacPro really that noisy?
As far as support goes: I will be living in Germany and I have no experience with apple in europe whatsoever, so I don't know how well developed their service is.
thanks a lot
ed
-
Mac Pro and work in a quiet environment on your own, get ear plugs!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Greg,
I totally agree with everything you write except for this last point. My 8 core Mac Pro is a lot more silent that the (admitedely ery noisy) PC it replaced.
It is fully loaded with 4 HDs and is used to do heavy stuff on multi-GB images with PS, PTgui and Lightroom typically running at the same time in a room that is at least 28 degress C.
Noise is probably a lot about perception, but I would think that most people would find the noise level of my Mac Pro to be on the quiet side. Or it could be me turning deaf...
Regards,
Bernard
-
Thanks a lot! I find many of your points quite helpful and valid. Right now I dont own any particular equipment besides my notebook and some software. So I would be starting from the very beginning - is the MacPro really that noisy?
As far as support goes: I will be living in Germany and I have no experience with apple in europe whatsoever, so I don't know how well developed their service is.
thanks a lot
ed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know a professional photographer in Europe, who was formerly an I.T. professional, and he started his photography career a couple of years ago with a Mac. He dumped it and reverted to a PC because Apple's service was - in his words - horrible. I know another imaging specialist in the USA also with a very considerable I.T. background who is at this very moment beside himself with anger at Apple over very shoddy service related to a major hardware breakdown which they promised to get fixed overnight and in two weeks is still un-repaired. But horror stories abound about service from PC makers too. Just to say it would appear there is nothing exceptioonal about any of them including Apple when it comes to service.
-
I know a professional photographer in Europe, who was formerly an I.T. professional, and he started his photography career a couple of years ago with a Mac. He dumped it and reverted to a PC because Apple's service was - in his words - horrible.
Geez I've had great luck with Apple's service...just make sure you buy the 2 year warranty.
Had nightmares with my dad's Dell service and brother's Gateway service....just plain disgusting.
Pick your poison! I'll pick Apple!
Also if I'm location and an AD want's to catch up on work, happens a lot, they feel more comfortable working on my Mac...big time...enough said.
-
Greg,
I totally agree with everything you write except for this last point. My 8 core Mac Pro is a lot more silent that the (admitedely ery noisy) PC it replaced.
It is fully loaded with 4 HDs and is used to do heavy stuff on multi-GB images with PS, PTgui and Lightroom typically running at the same time in a room that is at least 28 degress C.
Noise is probably a lot about perception, but I would think that most people would find the noise level of my Mac Pro to be on the quiet side. Or it could be me turning deaf...
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree; my Mac-Pro is sitting on my work space at ear level and noise is not a problem. The 10,000RPM W-D Raptor drives can get noisy with very heavy disc access.
-
If I was in your situation, I'd get a mac. I use macs in my business and they work.
Good luck.
-
I would appreciate any feedback on which platform you use (and why), your experiences with either OS and possible conclusions you've come to.
Budget is around 3000 EUR/2800 US (I will be purchasing this machine in Europe).
thanks a lot,
ed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I bought a new system earlier this year and grappled with the same decision. I ultimately chose a PC though I would have been happy with the Mac. I chose PC because I figured at my price point of $2000 I was able to buy a PC with more RAM, hard drives, CPU strength than with a comparably Mac. This isn't always possible at all price points but it was at mine. With PCs one can buy individual components on sale from many competing vendors. With Mac you have to buy the whole package from Apple. You can't buy the RAM from Fry's and the hard drives on sale from Newegg. You have several hard drive or RAM module manufacturers competing for your money as well as many different sellers competing for your business. This competition drives prices down in the PC world. You can get great deals on individual components.
Of course, I had to put the thing together so this might not be for everyone (ok I paid my neighbor's son $30 to do it). Buyiong PC components allowed me to customize my rig. CS3 doesn't need a 3D gamer's vid card so I bought a cheaper 128 mb card on sale and plowed the savings in to more RAM (which is what CS3 craves). Macs weren't as customizable. I also chose PC because I can do a moderate overclock and get what is essentially free additional performance. once again this isn't for everyone.
With a PC I was able to get a more powerful rig than a Mac and it was easier to overclock it. That didn't come without a cost. Figuring which mobo to buy as well as which RAM modules to get is a process that requires a lot of research. But that said, I really like the Mac interface and sometimes wish I had a MAC - especially when I am reading CS3 tutorials using Mac interface. But I am more than happy with my PC - I know exactly what I put in it and I got the best possible price for each component. The amount of research and price searching I did was tiresome and exhaustive. It may not be for everyone.
Good luck with your choice.
-
...With Mac you have to buy the whole package from Apple. You can't buy the RAM from Fry's and the hard drives on sale from Newegg....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dead wrong.
While you might not be able to get components from those two vendors, they are widely available from a number of other vendors. I plan to upgrade my mac desktop this fall, and I intend to buy it with minimum RAM and upgrade it myself at hundreds of dollars less.
I've added hard drives to my current G4 tower several times.
Macs use by and large the same or similar components as are used to build PC's. If you're dumb enough to pay inflated Apple prices for extra RAM or drives, Steve Jobs'll be happy to sell it to you. That's why he gets to fly around in a Gulfstream.
-
Noise is probably a lot about perception,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Noise is also a lot to do with the airflow through the machine and cooling components. The stock fans provided with Intel CPUs tend to be very noisy (or the ones that were shipped with the CPUs that I installed were noisy). However, fitting more efficient and quieter fans is entirely possible to bring the noise from jet engine roar to more of a whisper jet. The cost of the fans is low - particularly bearing in mind the discomfort that often accompanies noisy computers.
-
Dead wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well not exactly - you both are right, you're just talking about slightly different things.
He's saying you can't source the machine in whole, which is true. Yes the best solution is to buy the minimum config (complete through Apple as he said, which is the only option) and then upgrade it with 3rd party RAM and hard drives. BUT you are still throwing away money at the minimum config ram and hard drive selection. The grossly inflated prices Apple charges for generic hardware such as RAM and hard drives is rediculous.
-
Noise is also a lot to do with the airflow through the machine and cooling components. The stock fans provided with Intel CPUs tend to be very noisy (or the ones that were shipped with the CPUs that I installed were noisy). However, fitting more efficient and quieter fans is entirely possible to bring the noise from jet engine roar to more of a whisper jet. The cost of the fans is low - particularly bearing in mind the discomfort that often accompanies noisy computers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My Dell (with Intel CPU) has three internal and five external hard drives, all with individual fans. The whole system is very quiet. I my experience, up until about three years ago (give or take a couple), many PCs were noisy, but that is surely a thing of the past.
Gregw gave a good balanced discussion of the issues. It's a little like Canon vs. Nikon: there's really no "wrong" choice, but if you get more emotional about one of them than the other, then go for it.
-
Keep in mind that the new Macs are just as adept at running Windows as they are Mac OS X or Linux. These are Intel machines and as such can run Windows at any time.
If you want the utmost flexibility get a program called Parallels which allows you to run Windows inside a window within OS X. Legacy software simply isn't an issue any longer.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's true. I bought the latest Mac Pro, thinking that OSX must be great. After 6 months of trying to get peripherals to work, and basic calibration, and not have it screw up my server, and all the devices attached to it, I now run WinXP on the Mac.
In UK at least, at the time of purchase, it was the cheapest way of buying a workstation class PC, so I didn't really lose out.
Would I buy another Mac? Absolutely not, never, no way - complete waste of money! If I wanted to run Mac OSX, I'd get a workstation from a PC manufacturer.
-
Stock Intel fans have been near silent for quite some time. AMD stock fans have been and are still much noisier. Older Intel fans were certainly up there.
Don't forget other options, which are really cheap now, such as water cooling. Plug and play kits with far better results than CPU fans exist for around $100 and are silent.
I happen to run a custom water cooled system with silent 120mm low speed fans, and am overclocked from 2.6 to 3.4GHz running cooler than the stock fan.
A lot has to do with the case you choose too. A tight case with little or no organization inside will present poor flow and may introduce noise, or need higher speed fans for adaquate cooling. A well designed case for flow really helps, especially with fan placement.
-
Greg,
I totally agree with everything you write except for this last point. My 8 core Mac Pro is a lot more silent that the (admitedely ery noisy) PC it replaced.
It is fully loaded with 4 HDs and is used to do heavy stuff on multi-GB images with PS, PTgui and Lightroom typically running at the same time in a room that is at least 28 degress C.
Noise is probably a lot about perception, but I would think that most people would find the noise level of my Mac Pro to be on the quiet side. Or it could be me turning deaf...
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a fair point.
Mine's sitting on a real wood floor which in turn is on a concrete base. The room is also quite large so it is definitely going to amplify any noise.
I should also point out that the G5 tower sat next to it it is quite a bit louder so there has definitely been an improvement.
-
It's a little like Canon vs. Nikon: there's really no "wrong" choice, but if you get more emotional about one of them than the other, then go for it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133293\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's exactly the impression I got reading your responses - they're all very helpful but in the end it really seems to boil down to what you "like" better. PCs seem to be more modifiable and flexible yet more prone to errors and crashes than Macs. Macs again are not as easily modifiable but "in general" more stable - although there seems to be cases that proof both of those statements wrong or at least indicate that system stability isnt always something you can count on with a Mac.
I have another question: I'm currently using an external hard drive (3,5" WD) for back up and picture storage (on my xp notebook), would it be possible to use that very same hard drive with a Mac without having to format it? Or even take the drive out of its case and install it in the mac? I would come in handy to transfer files etc.
Thanks a lot everybody for your great response!
ed
-
It depends on the file format of the drive and the OS version on the Mac, if it will read it natively. It depends on the drive type and interface available in the Mac if you can install it internally.
-
I'm Windows based (Win XP x64) running with 8Gb of RAM with no problems. I can't see me ever switching to a Mac - purely based on the amount of software which I have installed - it would probably cost me around 5x the cost of the machine to switch. Plus I would have to keep an up to date Wintel system as some of the software which I run is simply not available on a Mac.
Having said that, I do spec and build my own systems - if I had to rely on buying from Dell et al, I would probably switch tomorrow. Both platforms are capable of being pretty mean machines - but for a Wintel system you probably need more detailed knowledge of components etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132942\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well I'm qualified to comment on these items. I recently switched to Mac and so far am pretty happy. Parallels works wonderful for those items that you can't live without and there's no substitute. But you know what? That particular list of software was whittled down when I realized a lot of them were utilities that covered some weakness in the Windows UI or infrastructure - code bondo if you will. The list was further whittled down as I plan on keeping my MacBook Pro targeted for photography - no games, no fluff (I did say it was a plan - Garageband is tempting me to have some serious noisy fun! ;-). So the Windows software I run on Parallels will be such to maintain this focus.
I have also found the Mac world has a few bones in the closet covered by dirty laundry. It seems there are an awful lot of scripts - and utilities to schedule these scripts - to maintain the mac. Now some people say they're necessary, some people say they're not. I guess I'll wait and see on that one.
One of the most impressive things to me is the Mac sleep mode. It wakes up in a jiffy and apparently sips so little power that the case gets ice cold and has no measurable effect on battery life - which by the way I routinely get 3 or more hours out of it.
I finally gave up on x64 with my systems simply because I was unwilling to buy replacement hardware that had stable drivers. Speaking of which, motherboard and chipset drivers have ALWAYS been problematical for Windows systems. In all fairness to Microsoft most of the things folks bash it for are not their fault - rather the manufacturers of the various sound cards, video cards, printer drivers etc etc do a crappy job as they just want to get it on the shelves as quickly as possible. These are the things that make Windows unstable at times and it is difficult to impossible to track down where the issues are coming from.
Anyway - I still have both systems but I'm really digging the new Mac and marveling at it's smoothness. Will I move over completely? I doubt it. Will I prefer one over the other? I'm leaning over to the Mac for more and more but I'll defer judgments until the honeymoon is over and the Mac turns on me. '-)
Regards,
Jon