Apple Mac Pro.... Good For Photography ??

[themtkid]

Is the mac pro (desktop) good for photography ? im looking to buy a new computer and drop alot on it. should i go with this or a windows ? i hear good things about macs, just dont know about getting one for photography. plz help, thanx

[darosk]

I reckon the Mac Pro is overkill for photo editing - but hey, if you've got the cash, why not? :) I owned a 2008 Mac Pro, was a beast, but had to sell it because I needed the cash. The Mac Pro can pretty much take anything you throw at it as far as editing photos goes - you'll have a lot of power.

From your post I'm guessing you haven't used a mac before?

[themtkid]

ok thanx for the help. yeah i know its a little overkill but ive had a windows laptop for somewhat time now and im going for the mac pro! haha. but yeah this will be my first mac if i decide i get it. i really want to tho. seems like i hear nothing but good things about macs haha.

[Moppie]

Is the mac pro (desktop) good for photography ? im looking to buy a new computer and drop alot on it. should i go with this or a windows ? i hear good things about macs, just dont know about getting one for photography. plz help, thanx



In the simplest possible way:

YES!



But, it is also over kill for photography.

The whole thing is built around server grade parts which makes it both very powerful, and very expensive.
The new 64bit OS-X will also be able to make far better use of its power than the current version.


The only downside, and its a small one, is the extent to which you can personalise it is limited compared to self, or custom build computer.

[René Damkot]

Only problem (not a big one for most people) might be that PSCS4 is not 64 bit under OSX.

If you're buying a new computer, PC vs. Mac is pretty much "Windows vs. OSX". Both platforms offer plenty fast machines for the average photographer.

[Natural Imagez]

i would bet that Apple is putting heavy pressure on Adobe to get CS4 in 64 bit for the release of then new OS. the amount of design people etc that use Mac it is a must as an update.

to the OP i was in the same boat you are in now and went to the mac pro. i absolutely love the machine, and had never used a mac before. it takes alittle bit to get used to the OS and how it operates and i am still learning things, but is very user friendly. if you have the $$ it is a great machine

[In2Photos]

Is the mac pro (desktop) good for photography ? im looking to buy a new computer and drop alot on it. should i go with this or a windows ? i hear good things about macs, just dont know about getting one for photography. plz help, thanx
At 15 you are able to drop that much on a computer? :shock:

[René Damkot]

i would bet that Apple is putting heavy pressure on Adobe to get CS4 in 64 bit for the release of then new OS.

I'll take that bet. They won't:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

it's a drag that the Mac x64 revision will take longer to deliver. We will get there, but not in CS4. (Our goal is to ship a 64-bit Mac version with Photoshop CS5, but we’ll be better able to assess that goal as we get farther along in the development process.)

[nphsbuckeye]

At 15 you are able to drop that much on a computer? :shock:
I wish I had that money, at 22.

[themtkid]

thanx for all your help guys. im gonna go ahead and get the mac pro!
well im 17 now and yes i can drop that much on a computer.

[WRCfan]

Why not, whatever makes you happy. You will love the Mac.

[basroil]

thanx for all your help guys. im gonna go ahead and get the mac pro!
well im 17 now and yes i can drop that much on a computer.

Don't bother, get a cheap i7 machine with 6 or 12gb ram, almost all support raid 1 or 0 (i have 0 for boot/program drive, photos stored and backed up on other drives), and all the 64bit programs you want. Cost? Between 1200 and 1800 including a 24" monitor. For 2500 (cheapest mac pro), you can get the extreme i7 965, 12gb ram, geforce 285, dual raptor drives and raid 1 of dual 1tb drives, or get a normal graphics card and hdd combo and get dual 24" monitors (trust me, worth it). You could also just get the cheaper version (assuming you would only get the 2500 buck mac pro) and get some lenses and legitimate copies of photoshop and lightroom (i hope you put that into your budget). Hell, you lose maybe 10% in program speed (assuming you don't overclock, the 2.66gh processor can go to 3.6gh with stock parts, very stable at 3.2, both setups give you more power than mac pro), but you gain 2-3x speed in terms of memory speed (faster file opening, program opening, etc) since mac pro does not use fb-dimm or trichannel memory (not mentioned in their tech specs or other easy to view papers)

I'll take that bet. They won't:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

Yup, not adobe's fault, and the only one that ends up getting hurt is the user

EDIT: Also make sure to budget a UPS large enough for your computer and and external disks. Mac pro would do best with 1250VA (dual core ones you may want more), i7 920 type comps at least 750VA. You can get away with less, but it's always good to know you have a few minutes of moderate use, and several hours of standby in case. A good UPS will be between 80 and 200 (1300VA brick i have gives me 17 min due to my 250W IDLE consumption, costs about 160 and has an lcd display that tells me consumption, input voltage/frequency and outputs)

[Tony-S]

since mac pro does not use fb-dimm or trichannel memory (not mentioned in their tech specs or other easy to view papers)

The Mac Pro uses Nehalem (i7) processors and trichannel memory.

[mattyb240]

Anyone who says do I need a mac pro, does not need a mac pro.... general rule of thumb :P

But if you were to go apple which I did last year you will have no regrets, each to their own and as always buy the best you can afford!

[ChasP505]

...and legitimate copies of photoshop and lightroom...

I'm a little disturbed by this... So, are you suggesting that there may be "less than legitimate" copies of Photoshop and Lightroom circulating? Sounds like another "urban myth" to me! :rolleyes:

BTW... My supervisor at work just got her new Mac Pro and started it up for the first time today. That's one HAPPY lady! (And when the Boss is happy, everybody's happy!):D

[basroil]

The Mac Pro uses Nehalem (i7) processors and trichannel memory.

No, mac pro uses xeon 5500, but yes, it actually is ECC trichannel capable, but only if it's set up that way. Guess what? Apple uses four DIMM per core (and locks the other 4 if you only have one core), and cannot possibly use trichannel because of this. That means at best, it's dual channel, at worst, just single channel. Either way, it's slower than tri channel, and slower than FB DIMM. You get better memory performance out of a 1000 buck i7 920 rig than the three times more expensive mac pro with xeon 5550.

Luckily, Apple now gives you the option of 3 and 6gb three dimm setups (which they didn't before), but that means you are limited to 3 or 6gb if you want performance, no 8gb for OP. Even a cheap dell (or asus board if you make your own comp, dell actually uses an asus board on the xps420 and pretty sure on my 435MT too) lets you have 12gb in 6 dimm, or a much cheaper 6gb made from 1gb dimms.

[Tony-S]

No, mac pro uses xeon 5500,

The current Mac Pro top line uses the 5570, the middle is the 5500 and the low end is the 3500 Xeon "Nehalem" processors. My understanding is that this series is based on i7 technology.

but yes, it actually is ECC trichannel capable, but only if it's set up that way. Guess what? Apple uses four DIMM per core (and locks the other 4 if you only have one core), and cannot possibly use trichannel because of this.

If you seat three chips you get triple-channel performance. If you seat four you get dual-channel performance.

[smcclelland]

No, mac pro uses xeon 5500, but yes, it actually is ECC trichannel capable, but only if it's set up that way. Guess what? Apple uses four DIMM per core (and locks the other 4 if you only have one core), and cannot possibly use trichannel because of this. That means at best, it's dual channel, at worst, just single channel. Either way, it's slower than tri channel, and slower than FB DIMM. You get better memory performance out of a 1000 buck i7 920 rig than the three times more expensive mac pro with xeon 5550.

New Mac Pro's are built on the Nehalem-EP series which is the 5500 series chips actually. You are right that the memory is dual channel, however because of the Nehalem-EP architecture and having two QPI's (one on each CPU) and memory interfaces for each processor slot there's quite a significant performance advantage and it's actually not much different than a tri-channel setup. There's a few good tech reviews out there comparing dual channel vs triple channel memory and frankly there's not really a whole lot of performance difference in some cases.


Luckily, Apple now gives you the option of 3 and 6gb three dimm setups (which they didn't before), but that means you are limited to 3 or 6gb if you want performance, no 8gb for OP. Even a cheap dell (or asus board if you make your own comp, dell actually uses an asus board on the xps420 and pretty sure on my 435MT too) lets you have 12gb in 6 dimm, or a much cheaper 6gb made from 1gb dimms.

Dell is still overpriced in the memory department for what you get. Asus makes a good dual proc Nehalem motherboard that has 6 dimm slots per CPU and can hold a maximum of 24gb of memory per CPU (if you can afford 4gb DDR3 that is). It's also modestly priced at around $500-600 depending on the options you want.

[themtkid]

ok well im up and down with this. i kinda dont wanna blow all my money on this now.
now im looking at this
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9277846&type=product&id=1218073195366
with this for a display
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9251329&type=product&id=1218068508257
what do u guys think?
btw thanx again for all your help everyone!

[Bobster]

id go HP LP2475 rather than that 23"

[smcclelland]

That's not a bad setup and much cheaper than what you were looking at doing with the Mac Pro.

I recently pulled the trigger on a 15.4" Macbook Pro 2.8ghz with an Apple 24" Cinema LED Display and I must say it's one of the best combos and workstations I have ever had the pleasure of using. I managed to get both through a friend at Apple that were refurbed and his discount on top so it cost a lot less than buying brand new at retail prices. I'd recommend the setup anyday for a photographer over a Mac Pro unless you are working with extremely high res images and many many layers but even then the MBP's hold their own.

I hit the Dell US site and threw something quick together that I think you'll find will stomp the Best Buy computer and come in at about $100 more. Total cost for this is $1299 and it gets you an i7 920 + 6gb of RAM, I put two 500gb drives in incase you wanted to mirror your data or have additional storage and also put a Radeon 4850 in rather than the stock 4350. If you're computer savvy, I would suggest lowering the RAM to the cheapest option and ordering from NCIXUS or the egg as you could get 12gb of G.Skill memory for the same price you pay for 6gb through Dell.

Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-Bit
Intel® Core™ i7-920 processor(8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
1Yr Ltd Hardware Warranty, InHome Service after Remote Diagnosis
No Productivity software pre-installed
6GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
No Monitor
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)
Dell Studio Consumer Multimedia Keyboard
Dell Studio Optical Mouse
No Modem Option
My Accessories
Norton Internet Security™ 2009 Edition 15-months
Dell Online Backup 2GB for 1 year
Also Includes
Studio XPS 435
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 9.0 Multi-Language
Windows Vista™ Premium
Dell Remote Access, free basic service

[Meaty0]

If you have the cash, why not look at a "proper" photo-editing monitor like those offered by EIZO (http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg242w/index.asp) or NEC.

[basroil]

If you have the cash, why not look at a "proper" photo-editing monitor like those offered by EIZO (http://www.eizo.com/products/graphics/cg242w/index.asp) or NEC.

Key phrase here is "if you have the cash", a 1920x1200 eizo monitor costs more than my i7 rig, both my monitors, and my 1tb external. Then again, if you have enough money to blow on a mac pro, you probably have enough for the eizo

[agphotography]

I have the first gen mac pro and it's been a very capable and powerful machine. I agree that for editing photos it's a bit much. But now that I'm working more in Final Cut Studio (thanks 5DmkII) It's extra grunt is showing it's true usefulness.

[kellieprinzel]

I use a mac pro. Love it.

[themtkid]

thanx for the help guys and keep it coming :)
i went with this desktop....
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9387745&type=product&id=1218097998079
not sure what monitor im gonna get yet tho.
the reason i didnt want to go with the mac pro is because im looking into taking some trips around montana this summer so im gonna save my money for that :)

[basroil]

thanx for the help guys and keep it coming :)
i went with this desktop....
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9387745&type=product&id=1218097998079
not sure what monitor im gonna get yet tho.
the reason i didnt want to go with the mac pro is because im looking into taking some trips around montana this summer so im gonna save my money for that :)

No i7 rig, but that thing will be a killer machine in photo editing (and mild gaming). Saving money and using it elsewhere sounds damn good.

[MaxxuM]

No i7 rig, but that thing will be a killer machine in photo editing (and mild gaming). Saving money and using it elsewhere sounds damn good.


Mild gaming? No, probably not,but for photography it's
more than enough. My Mac Pro pretty much stomps everything we have at work - way too much machine to waist on just photograghy.

[themtkid]

No i7 rig, but that thing will be a killer machine in photo editing (and mild gaming). Saving money and using it elsewhere sounds damn good.


haha i think so too :) thanx man. i hope it works out good for me.
what do u think about that 23inch ?

[basroil]

haha i think so too :) thanx man. i hope it works out good for me.
what do u think about that 23inch ?

I personally have a 24" dell 1080p display (and have seen the HP side by side with that monitor, but in store not in use), and I must say they really suck compared to a standard 1920x1200 monitor. Colors, contrast, etc are usually calibrated for video, not photo, so they tend to be poor examples of how something will print. If you have a bit to spare, eizo is good, as is the 24" high end HP monitor (costs>1k though). If you are looking for less, 24" dell 2408WFP is an amazing monitor, high contrast, high or low brightness (depending on workplace, though at times too bright for photos), and pretty easy to calibrate with the right tools (still about 550 though).

I'm sure if you wait a bit others will chime in on their suggestions (and anyone that says dual monitors is right, but may be out of your budget);)

[themtkid]

ok well im not used to calibrating at all. can u use blueray with that dell screen too ? if so i think i might go with that. u man it sound very good.

[basroil]

ok well im not used to calibrating at all. can u use blueray with that dell screen too ? if so i think i might go with that. u man it sound very good.

Handles all that copyright protection crap really well, and for normal video it'll just leave a black bar above and below, each 60px in width (just enough for subtitles)

[Tareq]

Yesterday was at one of Apple dealers here in UAE.
Saw the Mac Pro, really or truly incredible machine without even testing it.
The old model with 3.2GHz was selling at about $5000
The new model with 2.26GHz and 6GB RAM was selling at about $3800
Same new Model but with 2.66GHz and 3GB RAM was selling at about $2990

[basroil]

Yesterday was at one of Apple dealers here in UAE.
Saw the Mac Pro, really or truly incredible machine without even testing it.
The old model with 3.2GHz was selling at about $5000
The new model with 2.26GHz and 6GB RAM was selling at about $3800
Same new Model but with 2.66GHz and 3GB RAM was selling at about $2990

Wrong. 2.26 means 2x 2.26gh processors. 2.66 at that price means a single 2.66 processor. 2x2.6 is interesting, and mac pro is the only non-workstation configuration that offers this (unless you consider it a workstation, in which case they have nothing). 2.66gh is more or less an i7 920 with ECC, but is otherwise limited to the same MT. In otherwords, you're still spending twice as much as even an expensive i7 rig for very little extra power, if any. In the USA, those prices are $3300 and $2500. For dual core 2.93gh (equivalent level to the old model you saw), it starts at $5900, so from that it should be about $6400-6500 for you if you want the beginner model of the top of the line mac pro.

For something more or less equivalent to my i7 rig (cost $1610 after tax, shipping, 3 years support, second 24" monitor), you are looking at $4000 (without monitors). Not sure why people would chose that unless they absolutely had to (i.e. your workflow includes final cut or another mac program and you are unwilling or unable to change the workflow)

[wlescall]

Wrong. 2.26 means 2x 2.26gh processors. 2.66 at that price means a single 2.66 processor. 2x2.6 is interesting, and mac pro is the only non-workstation configuration that offers this (unless you consider it a workstation, in which case they have nothing). 2.66gh is more or less an i7 920 with ECC, but is otherwise limited to the same MT. In otherwords, you're still spending twice as much as even an expensive i7 rig for very little extra power, if any. In the USA, those prices are $3300 and $2500. For dual core 2.93gh (equivalent level to the old model you saw), it starts at $5900, so from that it should be about $6400-6500 for you if you want the beginner model of the top of the line mac pro.

For something more or less equivalent to my i7 rig (cost $1610 after tax, shipping, 3 years support, second 24" monitor), you are looking at $4000 (without monitors). Not sure why people would chose that unless they absolutely had to (i.e. your workflow includes final cut or another mac program and you are unwilling or unable to change the workflow)

Wrong
1 - Quad core Nehalem 2.66 GHz Mac Pro w/3 GB RAM starts at $2499 (1 processor, 4 cores)

The 8 core Nehalem Mac Pros:
2.26 GHz (2 processors 8 cores) w/6 GB RAM $3299
2.66 GHz (2 processors/8 cores) $4699
2.93 GHZ (2 processors/8 cores) $5899

Mac Pros use quad core Xeon Nehalem processors and with the new Xeons with hyperthreading have an equivalent 16 core that the software can take advantage of.

Ars Technica review of Nehalem Mac Pro's (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/04/266ghz-8-core-mac-pro-review.ars)

[basroil]

Wrong
1 - Quad core Nehalem 2.66 GHz Mac Pro w/3 GB RAM starts at $2499 (1 processor, 4 cores)

The 8 core Nehalem Mac Pros:
2.26 GHz (2 processors 8 cores) w/6 GB RAM $3299
2.66 GHz (2 processors/8 cores) $4699
2.93 GHZ (2 processors/8 cores) $5899

Mac Pros use quad core Xeon Nehalem processors and with the new Xeons with hyperthreading have an equivalent 16 core that the software can take advantage of.

Ars Technica review of Nehalem Mac Pro's (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/04/266ghz-8-core-mac-pro-review.ars)

Check my post again... all I did was round $99 to 100. And you have no clue about i7 do you? the 5500 and 3500 series xeons (ones used in mac pro) are just i7 chips with ECC, less restrictions, and that's about it (in fact, 3500 series are much slower). Other than ECC, the specs are the same if you look them up (which you haven't, and you'll only find two things other than ECC (QPI, advanced virtualization) that are different between the xeon and it's i7 counterpart, and QPI been "unlocked" in various hacking attempts while virtualization isn't used in the mac pro anyway, meaning there really is no difference). Mac pro could have easily been half the price with only a 1-2% drop in performance in certain applications, no drop in others, and that is one of the main arguments against it.

[Stealthy Ninja]

With computers there is no such thing as too much power/overkill.

Just what you can/can't afford.

[wlescall]

Check my post again... all I did was round $99 to 100. And you have no clue about i7 do you? the 5500 and 3500 series xeons (ones used in mac pro) are just i7 chips with ECC, less restrictions, and that's about it (in fact, 3500 series are much slower). Other than ECC, the specs are the same if you look them up (which you haven't, and you'll only find two things other than ECC (QPI, advanced virtualization) that are different between the xeon and it's i7 counterpart, and QPI been "unlocked" in various hacking attempts while virtualization isn't used in the mac pro anyway, meaning there really is no difference). Mac pro could have easily been half the price with only a 1-2% drop in performance in certain applications, no drop in others, and that is one of the main arguments against it.

I apologize, I did misread the pricing, lack of coffee. However, you have NO clue what I have or have not researched or what experience I have. I built an i7 920 2.66 GHz w/Gigabyte GA-EX58 motherboard and 8 GB RAM for my brother. He wanted Vista, but I installed XP Pro (he wouldn't go for linux) because of his older peripherals. I do not have the experience that MaxxuM or Moppie have; but have worked on computers from old punch card IBM's to DEC PDP & VAX machines and have seen hard disk sizes shrink from 24 inches to todays sizes. A couple of years ago, I saw machines that I interned on in the Smithsonian and I'm only chasing 50.

My biggest issue with Apple is no midrange tower between the iMac and Mac Pro. I think the current sweet spot for Mac Pro's is to pick up a refurbished 2.8 GHz model for $2399. But I am interested to see what will happen when software developers (are you listening Adobe?) write their applications for hyperthreading, and Open CL.

[basroil]

I apologize, I did misread the pricing, lack of coffee. However, you have NO clue what I have or have not researched or what experience I have. I built an i7 920 2.66 GHz w/Gigabyte GA-EX58 motherboard and 8 GB RAM for my brother. He wanted Vista, but I installed XP Pro (he wouldn't go for linux) because of his older peripherals. I do not have the experience that MaxxuM or Moppie have; but have worked on computers from old punch card IBM's to DEC PDP & VAX machines and have seen hard disk sizes shrink from 24 inches to todays sizes. A couple of years ago, I saw machines that I interned on in the Smithsonian and I'm only chasing 50.

My biggest issue with Apple is no midrange tower between the iMac and Mac Pro. I think the current sweet spot for Mac Pro's is to pick up a refurbished 2.8 GHz model for $2399. But I am interested to see what will happen when software developers (are you listening Adobe?) write their applications for hyperthreading, and Open CL.

Sorry I assumed it, just an old habit when talking about how bad macs are in terms of price ;) Everything else gets thrown out the window.

And their apps already support hyperthreading (multiple cores, true hyperthread support is better, but multi-core is far more than enough), and open gl too. Yea, no GPGPU support, but not like apple is making it easier on programmers by dropping their most widely used 64bit coding. Older mac pro is fine if you must have a mac, but still way too expensive for a used product.

[Tareq]

What about the mini Mac? I know people are talking about powerful machine, but i am working with 21mp files and also Hassy 39mp files on my MacBook Pro and never had a problem, so should i really need so powerful machine? i don't work in designing or graphics, so i am not sure if i should go with Mac Pro.

[wlescall]

What about the mini Mac? I know people are talking about powerful machine, but i am working with 21mp files and also Hassy 39mp files on my MacBook Pro and never had a problem, so should i really need so powerful machine? i don't work in designing or graphics, so i am not sure if i should go with Mac Pro.

The iMac may be an option for you. It offers increased performance over the mini.

The Mini uses integrated graphics which uses a part of system RAM for video. The 24" iMac (20" uses inferior monitor for photography) 2.93 GHz & faster has a dedicated video card. Features common to both include 1066 MHx front side bus, Firewire 800 port. The Mini's maximum RAM is 4 GB, iMac is 8 GB. The Mini uses a notebook hard disk, while the iMac uses a 3.5" hard disk. Processor speeds for the Mini are 2.0 & 2.26 GHz, for the iMac; the iMac has speeds up to 3.06 GHz.

[wlescall]

Sorry I assumed it, just an old habit when talking about how bad macs are in terms of price ;) Everything else gets thrown out the window.

And their apps already support hyperthreading (multiple cores, true hyperthread support is better, but multi-core is far more than enough), and open gl too. Yea, no GPGPU support, but not like apple is making it easier on programmers by dropping their most widely used 64bit coding. Older mac pro is fine if you must have a mac, but still way too expensive for a used product.

The Mac Pro is server grade stuck into a desktop. It's been shown here before that if you spec the same parts the Mac Pro isn't that much more expensive. You can always find something cheaper, but cheaper isn't always better, same as more expensive isn't always better.

My advice to anyone when it comes to computers (mac vs pc) or cameras (canon vs nikon) has always been: Try what is out there to see what fits you best. If it is difficult for you to use then you won't use it or you won't use it to the best of your ability. And specifically for computers: There is no such thing as too much RAM or too much hard drive space.

[basroil]

The Mac Pro is server grade stuck into a desktop. It's been shown here before that if you spec the same parts the Mac Pro isn't that much more expensive. You can always find something cheaper, but cheaper isn't always better, same as more expensive isn't always better.

My advice to anyone when it comes to computers (mac vs pc) or cameras (canon vs nikon) has always been: Try what is out there to see what fits you best. If it is difficult for you to use then you won't use it or you won't use it to the best of your ability. And specifically for computers: There is no such thing as too much RAM or too much hard drive space.

Very true there, got 6gb ram and 3TB hdd, and still wish I had more of both :D

I've actually spec'ed the mac pro part for part when it came out, and always started at about 400 bucks too much (lets assume the case added 50 of those (on top of the 150 already set aside for it), os 200, 150 for build costs if you want, bit high on all ends, but whatever) and ended about 2k too much (though 10k to 12k is minor when you add the 10-50k in program licensing fees for some of the heavy guns, and a 65k/year salary for your tech guy, though if you plan on getting 100 it will still show big time)

[nphsbuckeye]

The Mac Pro is server grade stuck into a desktop. It's been shown here before that if you spec the same parts the Mac Pro isn't that much more expensive. You can always find something cheaper, but cheaper isn't always better, same as more expensive isn't always better.

My advice to anyone when it comes to computers (mac vs pc) or cameras (canon vs nikon) has always been: Try what is out there to see what fits you best. If it is difficult for you to use then you won't use it or you won't use it to the best of your ability. And specifically for computers: There is no such thing as too much RAM or too much hard drive space.
I don't feel so bad now having 12GB of RAM; although I have more than enough HD space - if I need more, that means I'm making some money off this thing known as photography. :cool:

[MaxxuM]

Very true there, got 6gb ram and 3TB hdd, and still wish I had more of both :D

I've actually spec'ed the mac pro part for part when it came out, and always started at about 400 bucks too much (lets assume the case added 50 of those (on top of the 150 already set aside for it), os 200, 150 for build costs if you want, bit high on all ends, but whatever) and ended about 2k too much (though 10k to 12k is minor when you add the 10-50k in program licensing fees for some of the heavy guns, and a 65k/year salary for your tech guy, though if you plan on getting 100 it will still show big time)

I have to submit budget requests for computers and do open bids as well as general price hunting for work and as far as I've seen most server/workstation setups come out almost dollar to dollar with the Mac Pro. An example would be either the Dell Precision T5400 or T7400 dual CPU work stations which do come out about $400 less, but they also had something that was slightly smaller than the Mac Pro like a little less RAM or a smaller HDD. Apple also has slightly better education discounts than Dell since Dell sells so close to the margin - which puts the Mac Pro a better deal in the final price. Apple also ships for free and comes with little perks if you purchase with an Apple credit card (like $100 in free iTunes music and discounts on your next Apple purchase) - which sweetens the deal.

(Note: Video card and memory have no true equivalent in this comparison so best guess had to be used.)

[WRCfan]

The FIM MX1 motocross photographer uses a Mac and said windows has nothing more that he needs which the Mac cant already give him.

All depends on your needs, and whether it is going to work for you.

[MaxxuM]

The FIM MX1 motocross photographer uses a Mac and said windows has nothing more that he needs which the Mac cant already give him.

All depends on your needs, and whether it is going to work for you.

Well said WRCfan. However, there are all types of people in the world and one of those places much more emphasis on money than needs or pleasure.

[WRCfan]

True true! While in university, we were only allowed Mac PCs thus I changed to an iBook and after graduating carried on with Mac as it did what I needed it to do. Now of course I am branded as an iPerson by many although they dont have any clue I studied on a Mac and just decided to carry on. Was not choice that made me switch, I had no choice and then found no reason to need to return to a Windows platform. Run what you are comfortable with.