Photoshop on Win or OSX

[tived]

John - yes exactly - that's what I had in mind when I did the exercise - to get as comparable as the offerings allow.

Now the question this raises of course - triggered by Alan's comment and relevant to the OP's initial question - how much computer does one really need to get top-flight performance out of Lightroom or Photoshop? Is a 5000 dollar computer total overkill, in the sense that a 2200 dollar outfit would be just as fast and just as stable and just as robust? I ask - I honestly don't know - I think it's an important question. One can always take flight in safety by buying the absolute best because by definition it can't get any better, but how useful? You know what I mean - it conjures up the analogy of driving a Porsche in a 30 MPH speed zone.

It is interesting that Apple has the i7 chip in the iMac, which is a somewhat limited computer (i.e. very limited scalability and has experienced some technical glitches) but not in the MacPro. I'm wondering why. Do they think a Nehalem solution is better for the purposes of the MacPro, or it is just a matter of time before it too goes i7? Any thoughts on the merits of Nehalem versus i7?

Hi everyone,

The i7 vs Xeon (Nehalem) which are somewhat both of the same architecture, its Desktop vs Workstation. When comparing Macpro vs PC it has to be compared to a Workstation grade system, It can DIY, Dell, HP or IBM etc... The i7's are great little snappy computers, and can perform any task at hand quickly. However, its when we start to truly multitask that they start to struggle (how do we compare or measure this?) In true multitasking environment, you will see the workstations start to shine, they are slow out of the start blocks, but when they build momentum, they get the jobs done.

I don't currently have the latest computers, but I did some tests a few years ago with the then top of the range. I had a Dual Opteron workstation and I had a Intel Quadcore Extreeme (Desktop) both with 8gb of ram and sata hard drives. The Opteron had a Nvidia Quadro FX 3400 and the Desktop had a Geforce 7900GT. Cost the Workstation was between 2-3 times more expensive, but it only gave me 10% speed increase in my benchmark test, however, sitting and doing my work on either of these machines was a different story. The workstation was the most comfortable machine to work on, everything just seemed to be more smooth, running raw conversions, doing photoshop work, rendering a pano, being online, running backup etc...all the things that we do in a normal days work. The Desktop on the other hand, was great to start with, but as I added more and more applications on, as I progressed in my work, it started to sink into its knees. (i know this is not scientific but an opservation)

Some one in an Australian Photo magazine, made a comparison with the latest Macpro and the a new top of the line HP workstation. I think the HP was 4x the price of the Macpro, but it was twice as fast at converting raw files.

I think when you choose an OS, get what makes you feel the most comfortable. Sure there are many if not most photographer, who thinks that their images will look better if they are done on a Mac. A lot top photographers do use Mac's but are they good computer operators or are they great photographers?

I say, pick your sword of choice and prepare to have some fun making images. One computer may get you there sooner, but either of them does not make you more or less creative. Your choice of lens is a far more important topic.

all the best

Henrik

PS: If i have gotten it wrong please correct me

[JRSmit]

I do NOT want to re-ignite the no-win discussion of pc vs mac.

Now that CS5 is announced, yet again as I preprare to upgrade from CS4, I ask if I should convert fromWin7 64-bit on a PC to MAC Pro running OSX. I currently run a WIN 7 64-bit PC with 8 GB Ram. I would consider buying a MAC PRO with 8 GB RAM. The machine(s) are used strictly for image processing, no general office work or general internet surfing except as relates to supporting my software, etc.

I don't want to discuss PC vs MaC but I would like to understand the limits, advantages/disadvantages of one platform vs the other as specifically relates to CS4/CS5 and/or Lightroom 2/3.

any comments or help??

Mike

What is it you want to gain? What is your key issue today (which limitation hurts you most today)? Are you already working near the limits of your current platform?


If i take what i read on various forums or blogs serious, then Adobe (and some printer brands) seems to have problems in utilizing the Mac systems to the max. Also at the launch of CS5 there are some hints in that direction. But that may well be a wrong impression.
Did you check the site: http://macperformanceguide.com/ for some info on how to get the most out of mac's and how to circumvent performanc issues?

I use both: windows platform (desktop and notebook) as well as a macbook. At the end of the day, i personally do not care.

What i believe is true is what you yourself like best, which is a mix of personal preferences, ergonomical aspects and dominant choice of OS in your social network and how you are influenced by that.
For the end result: images published with whatever channel (print, web, email, etc), or the workflow "from klick to kick" to get there, it does not matter as this takes place mostly within Photoshop or Lightroom.

[Mark D Segal]

What is it you want to gain? What is your key issue today (which limitation hurts you most today)? Are you already working near the limits of your current platform?


If i take what i read on various forums or blogs serious, then Adobe (and some printer brands) seems to have problems in utilizing the Mac systems to the max. Also at the launch of CS5 there are some hints in that direction. But that may well be a wrong impression.
Did you check the site: http://macperformanceguide.com/ for some info on how to get the most out of mac's and how to circumvent performanc issues?

I use both: windows platform (desktop and notebook) as well as a macbook. At the end of the day, i personally do not care.

What i believe is true is what you yourself like best, which is a mix of personal preferences, ergonomical aspects and dominant choice of OS in your social network and how you are influenced by that.
For the end result: images published with whatever channel (print, web, email, etc), or the workflow "from klick to kick" to get there, it does not matter as this takes place mostly within Photoshop or Lightroom.

Thanks ever so much fror that link. The website looks incredibly comprehensive. I'll read with interest to see what he says.

The answers to your questions at the start of your post will of course vary greatly from person to person, but that indeed is where we should all start in looking at what we need NEXT. In my case for example (Windows XP, Dual Core Xeon 5160 processors and 4GB RAM) in a Dell 690 Precision Workstation (top-of-the-line computer in 2006), properly configured according to Adobe's advice for using Photoshop efficiently), the machine simply bogs down using Capture-1 Pro with MF image files, or large files from a Canon 1DsMk3. The system has been systematically cleaned-up and properly maintained. I think it has simply reached the limit of efficiency to be expected from a 32-bit platform with less then 3GB of accessible RAM. Using these upgraded applications with large image files simply requires a 64-bit system and lots of RAM.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the same photographs can be produced to look exactly the same whether one is processing them on a Mac or a PC. That's not an issue or even a question. It's all about workflow efficiency (speed at task accomplishment, including keeping out of the scratch disk, multi-tasking efficiently, O/S stability, quality of service and support for when trouble happens, quality of system and document back-up solutions, time spent having to maintain the O/S itself, etc. From where I now stand, I need a more powerful, higher capacity computer than what I have and the criteria I mention here are the ones which will decide what I buy. And so far they point to a MacPro.

[bjanes]

Bill, OK - I went to that link, and sure, this is well known, people who know what they are doing can build their own computer for MUCH less money than buying a Dell of a Mac, and of course as you read that piece you see that Mr. Ou indeed knows his stuff and monitors the component market in real-time. BUT: first you really need to know what you are doing: what pieces to select, how to put them together, or how to chose who to put them together and how to monitor whether they've done a good job or not;

I built my current computer (i7, 12 GB triple channel memory) about a year ago with the aid of a friend who had built many computers. I was amazed at how simple the process was. My teenage son did the actual assembly in less than two hours. The machine runs beautifully. At the time there were some very useful threads (? LuLa or Adobe forums) on the best components. The user reviews on Newegg.com are also quite helpful.

then there is the whole question of support and guarantees - you buy parts from all over the place with different warranty conditions, assemble them yourself or subcontract the assembly and you have a computer. If it doesn't work properly or stops working properly, who do you go to for a diagnosis, how much do you pay and who is responsible? Really, this is an option for computer techno-geeks, not for most of us who just want a robust and reliable computer for making our photographs.

You make some very good points and I considered putting some of them in my post but decided brevity was best. I did have a scare when two 1TB Seagate drives failed more or less simultaneously. These drives had faulty firmware and were repaired by Seagate under warranty. Before I figured out the problem, I felt a bit helpless.

I am an enthusiast and not a professional photographer. If I were running a business with the computer, I would buy a high end Mac Pro with on site service for the reasons you cite. As mentioned previously, most PCs are undistinguished commodities and the workstation PCs are as expensive as the Mac Pro. My last computer was an IBM dual Xeon Intellistation Pro. It was beautifully built, but IBM left the market.

Regards,

Bill

[PeterAit]

There are Dells and Dells. This is a top-of-the-line workstation with 4 internal hard drives. How much better it is than your 2200 construct I would have no idea. What line of system is yours? Here's the link to what I was building: DellT7500 basic All you need is a few departures from the base specs to conform it as closely as possible with a MacPro and the price shoots up there. If you want the full spec sheet send me an email address and I'll provide it. You can compare what I developed with what you have and you will find the factors causing the price spread. BTW, I'm NOT buying it!

My system is the Studio XPS line, which appears to be no longer available but was their top-end workstation last summer when I bought it.

In any case, I don't think the valid comparison is to create a PC that matches a Mac Pro detail for detail. Rather, it is to see how much it costs to get a very fast, high end system for photography work. Then, a PC beats a Mac for cost, hands-down.

[Mark D Segal]

Peter, at Dell "Precision" was always a more up-scale (i.e. pricier) workstation than "XPS" - not that I'm saying there's anything particularly slouchy about an XPS, but that's how they were positioned.

The question you raise about what's valid as a form of comparison is a good one. Whichever way we go about it, it's good to have objective metrics for evaluating the relative merits of a price differential and what you are proposing doesn't do that - it's subjective - i.e. if it feels good and seems good it is good - which may be fine for many peoples' taste and that's OK, but I prefer something more tangible. By comparing similar equipment specs, there is an underlying presumption that similar specs should deliver roughly similar performance. That may or may not be the case because the OS makes a difference to how the hardware operates, but it's a start and it does deal with the issue that was under discussion above about whether there remain important price differences these days between similarly specified Macs and PCs. If we want to do it by comparing outcomes rather than inputs, which is an excellent approach, then one should approach this objectively with benchmarks - there were some sites doing this - for example they had a set of Photoshop Actions which they asked users to run through their systems, they are clocked, and the time taken is posted. I haven't searched these resouces lately - things keep changing, but that would be a good thing to do.

[John.Murray]

Another couple of items that separate a workstation class machine are ECC memory and disk subsystem options.  

As memory capacities get ever larger, memory errors are becoming more commonplace.  Modern Operating systems are remarkably resilient, a hard memory error will often just result in a page fault.  ECC on the other hand will correct errors and prevent them from reaching the O/S - with large data sets this can be critical.

SAS and FC disks offer true bus mastered data access to the O/S.  I personally love and use SATA, but again, for large data sets, the driver and it's attendant O/S and CPU overhead become a limitation.

Understand that these observations, are based on machines I've worked with running Database services, and or Medical Imaging.  I see digital photography rapidly approaching and in some cases absolutely requiring this level of performance.

[nanjeca]

Whew...  such a great set of responses and interest in the topic, but from my initial question, perhaps a little off the topic that I was hoping to raise and discuss.

Indeed, much of the comments deal with the raw relative power vs price of PC vs MAC without the connection to my particular software purposes. My original query was directly focused (or so I hoped/thought) on the issue of running Photoshop and Lightroom on one platform or the other. What I was looking for was a comparison of feature sets, performance, any platform limitations such as the ongoing discussions of driver support for some of the older (Epson 7880 for me) printers in the current OS environments, especially OSX Snow Leopard, and such.  To me (no I am not rich), the discussion of money was not the concern. I really wanted to know if there were any benefits of switching from or staying put in the PC world vs MAC.

The impression I'm getting is feature sets of Adobe are identical, is the environment for supporting the rest of the supporting processes, printers, etc, other software, etc in the image editing/image management perspective?

In the meantime, thanks for the great preceding discussion and everyone's participation

mike

[Mark D Segal]

Whew...  such a great set of responses and interest in the topic, but from my initial question, perhaps a little off the topic that I was hoping to raise and discuss.

Indeed, much of the comments deal with the raw relative power vs price of PC vs MAC without the connection to my particular software purposes. My original query was directly focused (or so I hoped/thought) on the issue of running Photoshop and Lightroom on one platform or the other. What I was looking for was a comparison of feature sets, performance, any platform limitations such as the ongoing discussions of driver support for some of the older (Epson 7880 for me) printers in the current OS environments, especially OSX Snow Leopard, and such.  To me (no I am not rich), the discussion of money was not the concern. I really wanted to know if there were any benefits of switching from or staying put in the PC world vs MAC.

The impression I'm getting is feature sets of Adobe are identical, is the environment for supporting the rest of the supporting processes, printers, etc, other software, etc in the image editing/image management perspective?

In the meantime, thanks for the great preceding discussion and everyone's participation

mike

Well Mike, once again this web forum has achieved its objective. Ask what you think is a simple question and we get you totally befuddled with all kinds of details and side-issues which don't directly address your critical concerns.    But you'd have to agree, it has great entertainment value and the side knowledge may even be useful to some folks. I always learn great stuff participating in these discussions even if they do the "dreaded" and go "OT".

Now back to serious - I think we have established for you that either platform will be more than adequate to process your photos if you get the right hardware specs, so from that point on it becomes primary a matter of other issues, some of which were identified. If you have seen no compelling reason to switch platforms through all of this discussion, you probably want to stay with Windows.  on your concern about drivers for whatever you up-grade or switch to, there is only one way to be sure: go to the website of each peripheral vendor and look to see whether they provide a driver compatible with the computer of interest to you - unless of course other forum participants happen to have the same gear you are looking at and can tell you from first-hand experience whether it works.

[Chris_Brown]

The impression I'm getting is feature sets of Adobe are identical, is the environment for supporting the rest of the supporting processes, printers, etc, other software, etc in the image editing/image management perspective?

Yes, Photoshop has achieved full parity in all features for both platforms.

Printing is a different story, however, because you're dealing with hardware outside the realm of the platforms' OS. At this time, there's a bit of a problem getting good color from Epson printers hosted on an OS 10.6.3 system. No problem for Canon iPF printers though. I don't know about HP printers.

[Mark D Segal]

The problem being referred to here is one of printing profile targets with colour management turned off. Eric Chan has developed a workaround for it, as mentioned previously on this website.

[JRSmit]

Peter, at Dell "Precision" was always a more up-scale (i.e. pricier) workstation than "XPS" - not that I'm saying there's anything particularly slouchy about an XPS, but that's how they were positioned.

The question you raise about what's valid as a form of comparison is a good one. Whichever way we go about it, it's good to have objective metrics for evaluating the relative merits of a price differential and what you are proposing doesn't do that - it's subjective - i.e. if it feels good and seems good it is good - which may be fine for many peoples' taste and that's OK, but I prefer something more tangible. By comparing similar equipment specs, there is an underlying presumption that similar specs should deliver roughly similar performance. That may or may not be the case because the OS makes a difference to how the hardware operates, but it's a start and it does deal with the issue that was under discussion above about whether there remain important price differences these days between similarly specified Macs and PCs. If we want to do it by comparing outcomes rather than inputs, which is an excellent approach, then one should approach this objectively with benchmarks - there were some sites doing this - for example they had a set of Photoshop Actions which they asked users to run through their systems, they are clocked, and the time taken is posted. I haven't searched these resouces lately - things keep changing, but that would be a good thing to do.

Mark,
Your point wrt metrics is a good one. As that is the thing missing, yes there are sites that review system components like cpu's and system boards that include some photoshop action set. However none of these will take a system board, load it with maximum amount of memory and then do the testing. They limit themselves to the memory needed for games usually, which is much less than we as photog's are looking for.
What would be a good thing is something like the macperformanceguide but then for windows would be accomplished, as it is the combination of components that make up a system, and used in a workflow typical for image processing. Also then the performance difference if any can be made relative to the overall workflow to put it all into perspective.

[Farmer]

The problem being referred to here is one of printing profile targets with colour management turned off. Eric Chan has developed a workaround for it, as mentioned previously on this website.

There will also be a free app from Adobe Labs coming after the release of CS5 specifically for printing such targets.  The problem will then be resolved once and for all, with any luck :-)

To the OP: If you want real processing power and budget isn't an issue, consider a Windows 7 Cray workstation :-)

http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/h...ay-cx1-iws.aspx

[PeterAit]

Peter, at Dell "Precision" was always a more up-scale (i.e. pricier) workstation than "XPS" - not that I'm saying there's anything particularly slouchy about an XPS, but that's how they were positioned.

The question you raise about what's valid as a form of comparison is a good one. Whichever way we go about it, it's good to have objective metrics for evaluating the relative merits of a price differential and what you are proposing doesn't do that - it's subjective - i.e. if it feels good and seems good it is good - which may be fine for many peoples' taste and that's OK, but I prefer something more tangible. By comparing similar equipment specs, there is an underlying presumption that similar specs should deliver roughly similar performance. That may or may not be the case because the OS makes a difference to how the hardware operates, but it's a start and it does deal with the issue that was under discussion above about whether there remain important price differences these days between similarly specified Macs and PCs. If we want to do it by comparing outcomes rather than inputs, which is an excellent approach, then one should approach this objectively with benchmarks - there were some sites doing this - for example they had a set of Photoshop Actions which they asked users to run through their systems, they are clocked, and the time taken is posted. I haven't searched these resouces lately - things keep changing, but that would be a good thing to do.

I don't disagree with you, but I do take a more casual approach to these things. Perhaps that's because I do photography for fun, not to make a living. I'd rather devote thought and energy to my images and not my computer.

[Chris_Brown]

The problem being referred to here is one of printing profile targets with colour management turned off.

Thus it's an issue when making a purchasing decision.

[Mark D Segal]

I'm also doing photography for fun, but the fun is enhanced with a computer which behaves the way one wants it to. I guess I've spent too much of my professional life measuring things (non-photographic) so I'm probably suffeirng from a bit of professional disorientation. :-)

[Mark D Segal]

Thus it's an issue when making a purchasing decision.

Well no - it's not - because there are two solutions to it - Eric Chan's, and a new mini-app from Adobe dealing with it.

[Chris_Brown]

Well no - it's not - because there are two solutions to it - Eric Chan's, and a new mini-app from Adobe dealing with it.

psh. Work-arounds.  

[Mark D Segal]

So what - as long as they do the job properly that's what matters. Of course you know that - you're just pressing our buttons, no?  

[duane_bolland]

I think we've hashed out that Photoshop will run fine on either platform, but there are still many reasons for choosing one over another.  I bought a MBP laptop because I loved the hardware and it was more prestigious.  I could go on and on about the slick hardware and tight integration, but I won't.  I want to talk about the taboo subject of prestige.  

The Mac-PC decision is not just about hardware and software.  There's something socially significant about defecting from PCs.  It affects how people interact with you.  In some subtle way, they respect you better because you could afford a Mac and chose that route.  I noticed this also when I bought my first pro camera.  Clients put you in a different (hopefully better) class.  I don't want to turn this discussion into class warfare, but there is certainly a class factor to be considered.  Consider these product match ups:

Chevy versus BMW
Canon Rebel versus 1DsMIII
Spare bedroom versus swanky studio in a hip part of town
PC versus Mac

In each of these comparisons, both get the job done, but one does it with more prestige.  In general, looking great and having great equipment is good for business.  It is why real estate agents drive nice clean cars.  It is why retail businesses remodel so often.  Using a Mac laptop is one more way to differentiate yourself from the PC sheep.    Just saying...