Do Macs really handle PS better?

[Jake T.]

If you watch any type of tutorial on photoshop, a Mac of some sort is being used. My question is, do they really handle image processing programs such as Photoshop better?

Currently(due to my budget), i am looking at the iMac G4. Of course its ergonomics are more appealing than that of the average PC(and i dont really mind the slightly "low-tech" processors), but other than this, are there any benefits?
The price is also veryyyy agreeable with my wallet.

thankyou

[deadpass]

macs have been the industry standard for photography for years but I find that I can process my photos and do anything I need to them just fine with my PC. Nowadays Macs are nearly PCs anyway since they share the same processors. If you want a mac and like them more than PCs then by all means get one, you'll love it.

[gary88]

I just got my MacBook Pro yesterday with CS3. I used CS3 on Windows for about a year, and I can definitely say it's nicer to use on a Mac. It should run about the same on a comparably equipped Mac or PC, but I find the workflow better on my Mac.

[manutd101]

I would say yes, I love using macs, and in fact use a iMac G4 right now for my processing. I never trust my results from any of my other (PC) computers. The G4 is showing its age a tad, though.

[Anke]

One of my Macs is a G4 laptop and it runs CS3 fine, its only 512Mb of RAM too and chugs along nicely. Once you go Mac you never go back.

[ssim]

I've used both and currently am running on a PC due to some work that I do in another industry on a consulting basis. To be honest, it is really what you get used to.

I spent a week on a cruise with some of the instructors from NAPP and had a fairly lengthy discussion with one of them on the virtues of this whole MAC vs windows debate. According to him he sees just as many errors and lock ups on his MAC machines as he did when he was running windows. There is not argument that the MAC has long been the standard for graphic design but the systems have come a long way and I personally think that it is a matter of personal preference now.

[Moppie]

My question is, do they really handle image processing programs such as Photoshop better?

Quite simply, NO.

20 years ago there was some truth to it, but things have changed a lot since then.

Modern Mac's and PC's now share the same basic hardware technology, so there is no advantage to using one over the other.


Buy what you can afford, and what you are most familiar with, and feel the most comfortable using. Don't get hung up on brand names, marketing and mythical abilities.

[DerekRob]

If you watch any type of tutorial on photoshop, a Mac of some sort is being used. My question is, do they really handle image processing programs such as Photoshop better?

Currently(due to my budget), i am looking at the iMac G4. Of course its ergonomics are more appealing than that of the average PC(and i dont really mind the slightly "low-tech" processors), but other than this, are there any benefits?
The price is also veryyyy agreeable with my wallet.

thankyouI would suggest you get a mini mac if your going to get a mac just for photo editing :)

my 2 cents.

[Anke]

Quite simply, NO.

20 years ago there was some truth to it, but things have changed a lot since then.

Modern Mac's and PC's now share the same basic hardware technology, so there is no advantage to using one over the other.


Buy what you can afford, and what you are most familiar with, and feel the most comfortable using. Don't get hung up on brand names, marketing and mythical abilities.


Precisely. Although ours look better doing it ;) :D

[sadatk]

I'd say both platforms run it great. The largest differences though are in the workflow.

I loove the "no background" workflow for PS Mac. I can edit Photoshop while quickly switching between others apps such as Lightroom, Finder, Preview in a jiffy.

Expose is nice as well. (F10 especially, where it'll only expose in the active application)

[Woolburr]

There is nothing a Mac can do any better than a PC...much like the senseless debate over which camera can take a better picture, the bottom line really boils down to your personal preference. If you like the way Macs work...they are wonderful...if you like the way PCs work, then Macs are horrible. Take one for a test drive.

[DerekRob]

Remember ladies and gentleman windblows crash %90 percent of the time where Jaguar doesn't.

[mattograph]

If you own a mac, you don't feel like you have to watch the microsoft seinfeld commercials, waiting for someone to say something (ANYTHING) about a computer.

And thats kinda nice.

[DerekRob]

Warning a small rant in this post.

Hey get this Mattograph, We can re package windows vista and call it the Mojave.

And see how many dumb people will take the bait :P

[mattograph]

Warning a small rant in this post.

Hey get this Mattograph, We can re package windows vista and call it the Mojave.

And see how many dumb people will take the bait :P


I wonder how many people would feel like MS "desert-ed" them! :)

[/hijack]

[Damo77]

Once you go Mac you never go back.
LOL - once you go Mac, you never go anywhere - you can't afford to leave the house!

[DerekRob]

I wonder how many people would feel like MS "desert-ed" them! :)

[/hijack]Oh there will be a lot of people that will feel that way.

I've never liked ms to begin with and who knows Mojave is probably a prirated system like windows 3.1 was

Oh no my nerdiness is coming out LOL.

[Moppie]

Warning a small rant in this post.

Hey get this Mattograph, We can re package windows vista and call it the Mojave.

And see how many dumb people will take the bait :P

Remember ladies and gentleman windblows crash %90 percent of the time where Jaguar doesn't.

Oh there will be a lot of people that will feel that way.

I've never liked ms to begin with and who knows Mojave is probably a prirated system like windows 3.1 was

Oh no my nerdiness is coming out LOL.


Nerdiness no, naivety yes. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


This is a topic that has been discussed to death many times on this forum.

It only ever ends in 2 ways:

Everyone realizes that the difference between the systems is insignificant, and some great advice is given along with a rational discussion about the differences.

or,

A small number of naive brand bigots fill the thread with irrational, emotional fanboy comments and the thread gets closed, and members get warned.


Lets not go down the later path.

[DerekRob]

Moppie, Will do I'll try to keep the bad opinion's to my self.

[Beaufort 12]

Disclaimer: it is always bad for you health to post in a "Mac versus PC" thread.

Container: contains three sips of diplomacy.

Retainer: If you love a PC, you love a PC, and you don't have to be PC to love a PC.

Entertainer: yes, in the entertainment business, and you can add many photographers to it, the Mac is heavily represented. More video and photo professionals work on a mac than on a PC. (hope not to get 134 angry replies to this below:D).

I am on a Mac, and I love it. And I don't have to be PC to love working with a Mac.

Regarding Photoshop: if Photoshop has a problem, it's always the PC version that has it. Go to Amazon.com, and read the reviews to Photoshop CS3.

[Zepher]

Photoshop CS3 runs faster on Vista 64bit than on a Mac. Up to 40% faster.
This came straight from the Adobe instructor at the WEVA event I was at last month.

[HankScorpio]

PC's have been consistently beating Macs on speed and stability with Photoshop for years. I work in the printing industry and we disparately want to switch to PCs for the performance and stability boost as well as more attractive pricing but as mentioned, the industry is handcuffed to Macs due to lots of Mac only software and hardware.

I use PCs at home, the Mac that work bought for me to do out of hours emergency work, sits gathering dust.

That's not to say Macs are bad, for most people, the speed difference is not worth worrying about, it's only when time costs lots of money as it does in the printing industry that it's worth considering. Stability for the average person is also not a huge issue either as you only tend to see frequent crashes when working with 800MB+ files.

So what it comes down to is money and PCs will always give better value for the initial purchase as well as upgrades and add-ons.

It's also worth noting that even though Macs are the industry standard, Photoshop for Windows outsells the Mac version purely because PCs dominate the market by a huge amount so it will make more sense and money for Adobe to concentrate their efforts more on the PC version. I seem to remember when I was running the original Lightroom Beta that the PC version was ahead of the Mac version.

[Khaled]

The debate between Mac and Windows fanbois should be about the OS not the hardware.

I watched one of the retouching DVDs and the guy on the tutorial was using Windows. He kept asking the viewers to save their work every time they remember it just in case CS3 crashes.

If using CS3 with Windows puts you through lots of pressure for losing a document, then switch to Mac. I've been using PS on a Mac for 5 years and it never crashed nor stopped responding.

[Faolan]

As of CS 4/CS Next PCs will have the short to medium term over Macs, this is confirmed for several reasons:

OpenGL performance will constantly be 'better' than Macs due to the fact you can keep up to date with reasonably cheap gfx cards compared to the 2+ old generation cards Mac offers for their systems.

More importantly the CS suite will be 64bit aware for PC only. Whilst this doesn't seem like a big thing it will be for those who work with multi-layer/16bit PSDs with 15Mp+ cameras which eat memory. Of course you will need a 64Bit OS to take advantage of this...

These are two advantages and they have been confirmed in Adobe's keynote speech that they are in the next version. The OpenGL performance is speculation but we can assume it's performance will related to the gfx cards themselves.

The main advantage of Macs over PCs was it's better font handling (and still has a edge here for most cases) and gfx ability. PC graphics have not only caught up but in some aspects of design is actually better than a Mac, however Mac has still a better colour profile system though Vista has closed this gap considerably.

[Moppie]

More video and photo professionals work on a mac than on a PC.

Regarding Photoshop: if Photoshop has a problem, it's always the PC version that has it. Go to Amazon.com, and read the reviews to Photoshop CS3.

I see lots of people making the first claim, but never anything to back it up. Market share would strongly indicate otherwise.

Your second claim makes no sense what so ever. Are you some how claiming that the windows version of CS3 is filled with bugs? I've never had a problem with mine.

Photoshop CS3 runs faster on Vista 64bit than on a Mac. Up to 40% faster.
This came straight from the Adobe instructor at the WEVA event I was at last month.

It will not run faster by just being installed on a 64bit OS, but it many of its functions can run faster if allowed access to the extra RAM that having a 64bit OS allows.
Currently OS-X is 32bit only, with a little trick to sort of work around the 4GB RAM limit. It sort of works, but not nearly as well as having a truely native 64bit OS.

PC's have been consistently beating Macs on speed and stability with Photoshop for years. I work in the printing industry and we disparately want to switch to PCs for the performance and stability boost as well as more attractive pricing but as mentioned, the industry is handcuffed to Macs due to lots of Mac only software and hardware.

I use PCs at home, the Mac that work bought for me to do out of hours emergency work, sits gathering dust.

That's not to say Macs are bad, for most people, the speed difference is not worth worrying about, it's only when time costs lots of money as it does in the printing industry that it's worth considering. Stability for the average person is also not a huge issue either as you only tend to see frequent crashes when working with 800MB+ files.

So what it comes down to is money and PCs will always give better value for the initial purchase as well as upgrades and add-ons.

It's also worth noting that even though Macs are the industry standard, Photoshop for Windows outsells the Mac version purely because PCs dominate the market by a huge amount so it will make more sense and money for Adobe to concentrate their efforts more on the PC version. I seem to remember when I was running the original Lightroom Beta that the PC version was ahead of the Mac version.

Since they now both use the same hardware the performance difference is non-existent.
A fully speced Mac Pro running 64bit Vista would have to be one of the fastest desk top computing systems available for any kind of work.

If your working with 800mb files, then you need modern hardware. That will crash any low spec computer, Mac or PC.

The whole value for money argument doesn't really work anymore either.
Apple offer a very limited range of quite high quality hardware, and while you can buy a similar spec PC for less money, the quality will not be the same.
Where Apple are let down is the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
If you want a high end quad core desk top, with room to expand, but don't want to build a server grade machine, there is nothing to choose from in the Apple range.


As of CS 4/CS Next PCs will have the short to medium term over Macs, this is confirmed for several reasons:

OpenGL performance will constantly be 'better' than Macs due to the fact you can keep up to date with reasonably cheap gfx cards compared to the 2+ old generation cards Mac offers for their systems.

More importantly the CS suite will be 64bit aware for PC only. Whilst this doesn't seem like a big thing it will be for those who work with multi-layer/16bit PSDs with 15Mp+ cameras which eat memory. Of course you will need a 64Bit OS to take advantage of this...



Yes, the lack of a 64bit OS from Apple will give 64 bit based windows machines, with enough RAM, a noticeable performance edge of Mac's.
The ablity to use graphics card ram and processor will also be an advantage.
While the current Mac Pro use's some very high end cards, surport for new cards will never be as good as it is in Windows based systems, and the iMac is limited to what ever it comes packaged with. No chance of an upgrade.

Effectivly the ultimate Photoshop machine will look a lot like the ultimate gaming machine, and that is a part of the market Apple have never figured out.

Of course that doesn't mean Mac's will suddenly be no good for photo processing, and they will, and are, perfectly adequate for the vast majority of users.

Apple survived by going after a niche market in the printing and graphics industries. With the help of some Mac only software they almost excluded windows based machines.
But working in a niche market will never allow you to grow as business, so Apple have found away to go after the consumer market, and have done so by producing a nice fluffy all in one package computer in the iMac and OS-X.
It's a really great system, and works really well if you also have an iPod and an iPhone and iTV and you can be a nice little iConsumer.
Try to calibrate its nice iGlossy screen, or install a multiple hard drives and you start to run into problems.

Infact try to do anything different, and you are severly limited. Even the ULA for OS-X only allows it to be installed on Apple branded Mac's.

[sadatk]

Er, Leopard isn't 32-bit per se. It can run 64-bit processes and applications and take advantage of the extra registers.

Lightroom would be an example.

[Faolan]

Here's a run down of Mac OS X capabilities and history of 64Bit:

64 Bit (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/26/road_to_mac_os_x_10_6_snow_leopard_64_bits.html&page=2)

Might prove interesting to some.

[HankScorpio]

Since they now both use the same hardware the performance difference is non-existent.
But they don't use the same OS and Vista is better at memory management, even XP was and certainly more stable than the latest OS X build.

A fully speced Mac Pro running 64bit Vista would have to be one of the fastest desk top computing systems available for any kind of work.
That would be a PC in a Mac dress then but still you can build a PC with a higher spec than Apple offer.

If your working with 800mb files, then you need modern hardware. That will crash any low spec computer, Mac or PC.We replace our hardware every 2 months, all our machines are the highest spec available and the few Windows machines we have are much more stable than the OS X machines when working with very large files. Our RIP/CTP machines that handle >2GB 1 bit tiffs are PCs because the RIP manufacturers know that a PC running Windows Server is a more stable platform.

The whole value for money argument doesn't really work anymore either.
Apple offer a very limited range of quite high quality hardware, and while you can buy a similar spec PC for less money, the quality will not be the same.I see the Mac fanboyism is strong within you. Apple motherboards are made in the same factories in China as most PC motherboards. The CPUs are the same, the RAM is actually the cheapest most low performing junk I've ever had the misfortune to have to ebay so I could replace it with a decent manufacturer and the hard drives are IBM/Hitachi/Seagate etc. In fact most PC motherboard manufacturers build their boards to the sort of spec that gamers require so they tend to be more robust because the chances are they are going to get overclocked and then slated on gaming forums if they fail. With Apple, you pay for the name and then when it fails you pay for the name again, simple as that. They are the Mercedes of computers, overpriced for the percieved quality you get.

Wow, I'm not anti-Mac or in anyway a PC mentalist but this does easily turn into a pointless argument over which is best, a big expensive car or a cheap fast car, they both get you to the beach.

[sadatk]

But they don't use the same OS and Vista is better at memory management, even XP was and certainly more stable than the latest OS X build.
Lol. Come on man. Your experiences dictate your views but generalizing for the OS as a whole isn't right because many people don't feel that way at all.

[HankScorpio]

It's not just my view it's the way it is. XP, Vista and Windows Server do handle memory for applications much better than OS X. That's pretty much the one thing that MS got right with XP which made it such a success with gamers. They carried that forward and improved it with Vista too but poor driver support early on, unfairly put many people off.

[sadatk]

It's not just my view it's the way it is. XP, Vista and Windows Server do handle memory for applications much better than OS X. That's pretty much the one thing that MS got right with XP which made it such a success with gamers. They carried that forward and improved it with Vista too but poor driver support early on, unfairly put many people off.
Heh, that certainly wasn't my experience coming from 3.11 to Vista through the years. So saying "that's just the way it is" would be a bit biased. ;)

One person's experience is never the same as others and that's something everyone has to take into account when judging the reliability of an OS.

[HankScorpio]

Like I said, it's not just my view.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9075000

[sadatk]

Like I said, it's not just my view.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9075000
I can't see how that article really proves anything. (it's just showing different operating systems and their strengths).

This isn't about some "experts" opinions--this is just about user experience. It's very subjective and pretty much impossible to prove a point since they are so varied.

[S7000]

I use both Mac & PC...I find the mac to be much smoother when cutting through the different CS3 programs...However, when I'm using just one of the programs they're pretty much the same.

[greyswan]

Hmmm I used both Mac and PC - and gawd those annoying swirly tricks of the Macs irritate me no end - I prefer the clean closings of PC's. And by the way, pcs have never crashed on me, but I keep a very clean machine. I'm a graphic designer by trade, so have experience with both.
So it's all a matter of preference.

Anybody else hate those Mac tricks? Lol

[randomlinh]

Hmmm I used both Mac and PC - and gawd those annoying swirly tricks of the Macs irritate me no end - I prefer the clean closings of PC's. And by the way, pcs have never crashed on me, but I keep a very clean machine. I'm a graphic designer by trade, so have experience with both.
So it's all a matter of preference.

Anybody else hate those Mac tricks? Lol
swirly tricks? huh?

[Bobster]

Anybody else hate those Mac tricks? Lol
god yes, bring back the interface of OS9!

[TheReal7]

http://dvice.com/pics/MacPC.jpg

[breal101]

[quote=Moppie;6303707]I see lots of people making the first claim, but never anything to back it up. Market share would strongly indicate otherwise.

Maybe in Kiwi land you haven't seen it but I can honestly say that I have seen very few creative types in the industry using PC. This over the many years I have worked with agencies and in house creative departments. Some printers I work with do use PC work stations but usually they have Mac as well. I'm not saying that PS works better on a Mac, just expressing my personal experience. ;)

[greyswan]

In Canada it seems to be fairly common, many pcs in creative departments as well as Macs. Most of the GD's I've worked with, in some fairly big companies by the way, seem comfortable with both.

And radomlinh, yeah, those irritating (to me anyway) swirls down to the toolbar on closing a window...so what do you call them, anyway??

Cheers, Chris.

[sadatk]

In Canada it seems to be fairly common, many pcs in creative departments as well as Macs. Most of the GD's I've worked with, in some fairly big companies by the way, seem comfortable with both.

And radomlinh, yeah, those irritating (to me anyway) swirls down to the toolbar on closing a window...so what do you call them, anyway??

Cheers, Chris.
?? Do you mean the genie effect when minimizing to the Dock? You can turn that effect off.

[René Damkot]

I've been using PS on a Mac for 5 years and it never crashed nor stopped responding.
I've had PS4, PS6, PSCS, PSCS2 and PSCS3 crash on me on a few Macs. (From 8600 through intel)

So it's all a matter of preference.
Yep.

I prefer OSX over Windows, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with it.

[Beaufort 12]

Photoshop CS3 runs faster on Vista 64bit than on a Mac. Up to 40% faster.
This came straight from the Adobe instructor at the WEVA event I was at last month.

Photoshop is not 64-bit yet. Windows will get 64-bit with CS-4, then you might have this difference until Mac gets it, too. I'm sure that's what that instructor was saying.

[Beaufort 12]

Disclaimer: it is always bad for you health to post in a "Mac versus PC" thread.

Container: contains three sips of diplomacy.

Retainer: If you love a PC, you love a PC, and you don't have to be PC to love a PC.

Entertainer: yes, in the entertainment business, and you can add many photographers to it, the Mac is heavily represented. More video and photo professionals work on a mac than on a PC. (hope not to get 134 angry replies to this below:D).

I am on a Mac, and I love it. And I don't have to be PC to love working with a Mac.

Regarding Photoshop: if Photoshop has a problem, it's always the PC version that has it. Go to Amazon.com, and read the reviews to Photoshop CS3.

I see lots of people making the first claim, but never anything to back it up. Market share would strongly indicate otherwise.

Your second claim makes no sense what so ever. Are you some how claiming that the windows version of CS3 is filled with bugs? I've never had a problem with mine.


Moppie, you bash me for making a statement, and then you make the same statement, only turned by 180 degrees. And now it makes sense? You are using your moderator bonus! :)

Yes, whenever I come across photographers with crashing CS3, it's always a Windows machine. Consider yourself lucky. The fact you had not trouble with yours is statistically insignificant.

[Beaufort 12]

You directed the following at Moppie, whose only fault in your eyes was to probably say that the speed of a Mac is equal to a PC's, and that you might get better quality control.



I see the Mac fanboyism is strong within you. Apple motherboards are made in the same factories in China as most PC motherboards. The CPUs are the same, the RAM is actually the cheapest most low performing junk I've ever had the misfortune to have to ebay so I could replace it with a decent manufacturer and the hard drives are IBM/Hitachi/Seagate etc. In fact most PC motherboard manufacturers build their boards to the sort of spec that gamers require so they tend to be more robust because the chances are they are going to get overclocked and then slated on gaming forums if they fail. With Apple, you pay for the name and then when it fails you pay for the name again, simple as that. They are the Mercedes of computers, overpriced for the percieved quality you get.

Wow, I'm not anti-Mac or in anyway a PC mentalist but this does easily turn into a pointless argument over which is best, a big expensive car or a cheap fast car, they both get you to the beach.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it. You felt it yourself, or you wouldn't have written that rather lame disclaimer into your last line.

[Permagrin]

I'm not a tekkie so I'm just making a user observation.

I have PSCS3 on my Intel mac. It's not bad for speed (2gb ram). We have it on our G5 as well and it drags for speed.

I also recently purchased a windows vista 64bit laptop 4gb ram and cs3 for it.

The performance on my laptop vs my intel mac is about equal. I don't notice any discernible difference in the time processing. The only slowdown on the windows is because I'm not very good at processing with a touchpad. But I would have thought that the windows being brand new technology, more ram and faster processor would have been much faster than my intel mac (it's 18mo old) with half the ram. It's not.

[Moppie]

I see the Mac fanboyism is strong within you. Apple motherboards are made in the same factories in China as most PC motherboards. . They are the Mercedes of computers, overpriced for the percieved quality you get.



I am far from being a Mac Fanboy, you would have to give me a lot of money to ditch my self built Vista machine at home, and I hate every second I have to use the mac book at work. I much prefer my Dell Laptop running Linux.
If I won the lottery i might be tempted by a Mac Pro, but it would be running Vista, not OS-X.


With regard to the quality, they are very well built.
I used to have a rather unique job where I got to destroy computers.
While the orginal iMac was a pile of crap with the build quality of an 1970s Alfa, the new ones are very well built, a wonderful bit of engineering.
You can of course get the same level of build quality from a PC, but it will cost you a similar amount (and the resulting tower case will be more expandable and open to future upgrades, unlike the iMac).
Of course you could also spend a lot let money, and get much cheaper lower quality components in a PC, but it will be less reliable.


Moppie, you bash me for making a statement, and then you make the same statement, only turned by 180 degrees. And now it makes sense? You are using your moderator bonus! :)

Yes, whenever I come across photographers with crashing CS3, it's always a Windows machine. Consider yourself lucky. The fact you had not trouble with yours is statistically insignificant.


Not sure what your getting at here?
But how about this, remember that windows based machines make up over 90% of the worlds desk top computers, so it would also follow that 90% of the problems with adobe software would also happen on windows based machines?

Sorry if that is a little too rational for you.




The performance on my laptop vs my intel mac is about equal. I don't notice any discernible difference in the time processing. The only slowdown on the windows is because I'm not very good at processing with a touchpad. But I would have thought that the windows being brand new technology, more ram and faster processor would have been much faster than my intel mac (it's 18mo old) with half the ram. It's not.



Which ultimatly shows why these debates are so often futile.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of us don't work our systems hard enough to ever notice, or care which system runs photoshop best.

What we instead need is the system we are most comfortable and most familar with as that will ultimatly lead to the best performance from the user.

[Colorblinded]

No and it's been a long time since there was even any tiny difference.

[Beaufort 12]

We have here the typical warring of factions instead of a discussion.

A bit like those endless Nikon vs. Canon threads on dpreview, where I did not sign up for the exact reason.

There are a few facts to consider.

1. A Mac is built by one company, and all parts are well matched. It is running on a Unix based operating system, which is more stable than XP, and much more stable than Vista (which has caused quite some chagrin among computer users).

2. The parts in a Mac are chosen to go well together. A Pc can be built out of many more components, a much, much larger choice of parts. And sometimes that doesn't work out, if some parts don't play too well. Suddenly there's a green line going through the edited footage, and who the hell what's going on here.

3. PCs are cheaper, as the competition for parts is greater. Also, as there is not one central company, change can happen quicker.

4. Somebody brought up the slow pace of video card replacement in the Mac. This isn't important for Photoshop, the processor is more important.

5. Quality control with the Mac is excellent. Customer satisfaction is tops, not only in surveys of Consumer Reports. Failure rate of Desktop Macs is the lowest.

6. Macs are quality computers. There are also quality PCs, but they are not cheaper than a Mac, often even more expensive. Someone here posted that the Mac is using the same cheap parts as Windows computers, just because they all come from the far east. Taiwan produces high quality parts, from motherboards to screens, and not only cheap... ah, why bother...

7. User interface of a Mac is, in my opinion, much more elegant than the one of a Windows computer, which is ugly in my eyes. There are even programs that emulate a PC being a Mac, to get the same looks. A hardcore PC friend of mine is using it.

8. Photoshop will be 64-bit for Windows, for the Mac it'll take a bit longer. You will not have speed problems with 15 megapixel files.

9. Do your own research what you want to buy. Really. I just put together these points to give you some ideas, so it's not all quarrel and finger wagging. I'm already sorry I posted in this thread.

10. Macs are better to operate. Rarely crash. I've had this Mac for over a year, and (knock, knock, knock) no crash.

11. Mac has excellent warranty repair, if you need it. I never had to haggle or wiggle fingers.

12. Macs are not slower than PCs. Whoever created that, is using outdated information from the time before the switch to Intel. Yes, Photoshop will take a while longer to go 64-bit. That's a given. But, you know, I don't care to wait a year longer. Photoshop works very well on my machine.

13. If you get a Mac, don't get a glossy screen iMac. The screens cannot be calibrated. They are not intended for serious editing. You can get a white 24" iMAC, refurbished, at low cost, which is such a good machine, that it started eating into the pro market, so Apple changed this.

14. Apple is super successful, IBM sold to Lenovo, HP struggling, Dell is planning to outsource production.

Now I really have to get some work done.

[Glenn NK]

Doesn't really matter which you use - they both work.

T here are three PCs in our home office. My wife uses hers for personal stuff, my two are used for (1) music recording and editing and photo editing (2) for engineering (drafting, spreadsheets, wordprocessing).

What's does crash mean?:p

[Colorblinded]

We have here the typical warring of factions instead of a discussion.

A bit like those endless Nikon vs. Canon threads on dpreview, where I did not sign up for the exact reason.

There are a few facts to consider.

1. A Mac is built by one company, and all parts are well matched. It is running on a Unix based operating system, which is more stable than XP, and much more stable than Vista (which has caused quite some chagrin among computer users).

2. The parts in a Mac are chosen to go well together. A Pc can be built out of many more components, a much, much larger choice of parts. And sometimes that doesn't work out, if some parts don't play too well. Suddenly there's a green line going through the edited footage, and who the hell what's going on here.

3. PCs are cheaper, as the competition for parts is greater. Also, as there is not one central company, change can happen quicker.

4. Somebody brought up the slow pace of video card replacement in the Mac. This isn't important for Photoshop, the processor is more important.

5. Quality control with the Mac is excellent. Customer satisfaction is tops, not only in surveys of Consumer Reports. Failure rate of Desktop Macs is the lowest.

6. Macs are quality computers. There are also quality PCs, but they are not cheaper than a Mac, often even more expensive. Someone here posted that the Mac is using the same cheap parts as Windows computers, just because they all come from the far east. Taiwan produces high quality parts, from motherboards to screens, and not only cheap... ah, why bother...

7. User interface of a Mac is, in my opinion, much more elegant than the one of a Windows computer, which is ugly in my eyes. There are even programs that emulate a PC being a Mac, to get the same looks. A hardcore PC friend of mine is using it.

8. Photoshop will be 64-bit for Windows, for the Mac it'll take a bit longer. You will not have speed problems with 15 megapixel files.

9. Do your own research what you want to buy. Really. I just put together these points to give you some ideas, so it's not all quarrel and finger wagging. I'm already sorry I posted in this thread.

10. Macs are better to operate. Rarely crash. I've had this Mac for over a year, and (knock, knock, knock) no crash.

11. Mac has excellent warranty repair, if you need it. I never had to haggle or wiggle fingers.

12. Macs are not slower than PCs. Whoever created that, is using outdated information from the time before the switch to Intel. Yes, Photoshop will take a while longer to go 64-bit. That's a given. But, you know, I don't care to wait a year longer. Photoshop works very well on my machine.

13. If you get a Mac, don't get a glossy screen iMac. The screens cannot be calibrated. They are not intended for serious editing. You can get a white 24" iMAC, refurbished, at low cost, which is such a good machine, that it started eating into the pro market, so Apple changed this.

14. Apple is super successful, IBM sold to Lenovo, HP struggling, Dell is planning to outsource production.

Now I really have to get some work done.Yes, there are a few facts in there, also quite a bit of opinion you seem to be trying to mask as fact :lol:

If you have crashing problems with Windows (I can't recall the last time I've had my Windows or OSX systems crash unless I was tinkering with hardware) then you have bad hardware, bad drivers, or you've done something you shouldn't have.

Largely it comes down to a matter of preference as others have pointed out. Both systems are fast and stable, and the interfaces will appeal to different people. Vista has received an excessively bad reputation that it doesn't really deserve and OSX has received an excessively good reputation that it doesn't really deserve. Based on my experience it's all pretty much the same ****, different horse.

You'll hear service nightmares from every company, and I've heard quite a lot about Apple and consider myself fortunate to not have needed them for anything yet (I own one Mac personally but don't use it a lot). Generally the quality of service from a lot of companies has been slipping however. I remember great service from Dell from 2001-2003 or so when I used them for a system, but I've heard they've slipped too

[Jim M]

I can't believe I'm actually making an entry in a Mac vs. PC thread, although I can't keep from reading them, but...

When you tell a PC user that the Mac interface is more elegant, they just look at you like you have three eyes. I think it is an ethereal thing, maybe right brain vs. left brain. Who knows. I just know that I love my Macs and when I have to use a PC at work, it is cruel and unusual punishment for me.

[Colorblinded]

When you tell a PC user that the Mac interface is more elegant, they just look at you like you have three eyes. I think it is an ethereal thing, maybe right brain vs. left brain. Who knows. I just know that I love my Macs and when I have to use a PC at work, it is cruel and unusual punishment for me.
I personally don't find any of them to be particularly elegant, and I don't much care either. I want a good, efficient layout. Each one has its advantages and will appeal to different people, and I suppose they can mistakenly refer to that as "elegance."

[Kafn8td]

I have had both and like to build my own, so I stay with a PC. My son wanted a Mac and my daughter a PC. They have both crashed and both have been repaired (I fixed the PC, the Mac had to go in to the Apple store). It's a Ford versus chevy thing, who cares.

[Hermes]

For most people the difference between similarly-specced Macs and PCs running CS3 will be insignificant.

On a professional level where shaving off every possible second of time spent processing an image is important, I will always go for a PC for their expandability (RAM boosts, cooling improvements, 3rd party hardware RAID, multiple hard drives, e.t.c.)

[bohdank]

Maybe that's the real difference.... elegant.... who cares..... I don't use a computer because one is more elegant. The faster I can navigate around my computer the better. The less buttons and clicks, the better. The faster, the better. The less the OS gets in my way, the better.

If my PC crashes, it's because I did something I shouldn't have. The fact that I can is a big plus (not the crashing but the flexibility of changing things).

My new PC has been running for 3 months. Hasn't crashed, yet. Considering the constant changes I've been making, that's as robust as I can expect any OS to be. By the way Win XP.... I've been a software developer for decades and managed data centers. You learn that being the first on the block with new OS's or "updates" is not a good thing...... ;-)

To the original question. All my photo editing software flies on my PC. I'm sure PS runs fine on a Mac, also.

[dontblink]

I haven't had a problem with windows crashing since Windows 2000 came out. XP, especially after SP2 was a great OS. Vista is a good OS with some annoying features. OS 9 and OS X for macs are good OS's too. I think the whole crashing thing is a red herring.

Personally, I like windows (and Linux) because I like to build my own computers. In terms of functionality I do not see ANY difference anymore. At this point is only about what you are used to.