My computer getting old...(potential future mac user)...

[GoRk]

...and I'm very bad at computer hardwear...thank God i see lots of u here that know alot...

So my current configuration goes like this

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.0 GHz
2 GB RAM
ATI Radeon X800 XL
22" samsung syncmaster 226BW

sooo

I study graphic design so i use alot of Adobe softwear(actualy almost all of it :D ) and corel...and my current configuration can run it but i would sure love to be alot faster...like Lightroom is veery slow...


sooo

I realy like the new iMac(and always wanted to have a mac because of the OS and no viruses)

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTAyNTQzNjA

probably take the base cheapest model...


so I'm actualy asking will I feel a big diference in speed using Adobe softwear...and am I an idiot for buying a Mac when i can get a brutaly fast PC for that price...

[Yossarian22]

You'll have to rebuy all of your expensive adobe software in a mac version plus drop at least 1200 for that low model mac. Alternatively, you could spend about 500 for a decent quad core cpu, some more ram and a new motherboard and you'd be set for another couple of years

[basroil]

I've never had viruses on any of my six main windows based computers, even with windows 98 (not even SE, now that OS drew viruses in like nothing else, yet mine never got attacked).

If you go iMac though, you MUST get the i5/i7 version ($1999), or else you're buying three year old technology, which is worth less than $500. The i7 should be about 10-40x more powerful depending on what pentium 4 3gh chip you have (you didn't state, but either way, much, much faster). The core 2 duo base version ($1199) is also about 2.5x slower than the i5, and about 6x slower than the i7

If your budget is only 1200 though, you can get a decent core 2 quad core or perhaps even an i5/i7 rig and a 22" IPS monitor if you don't go with apple hardware. You'll get about 2-6x the speed of the base iMac there, for the same price. And if you REALLY want OSX, there's ways to do that too.

Adobe software runs about the same on either OS when the hardware is the same. Therefore, get the fastest hardware, don't really bother choosing for the OS unless you need software available for one but not the other

[LethalFrog]

My wife, who was not the most computer literate woman. Had a 2.4 Ghz 2gb 17" Windows machine and I had a 1.25 Ghz 768mb 12" PowerBook.

After only a few hours of using Photoshop on my mac, compared to the same app on windows she asked for a Mac.

We have now have between us 2 x 12" PB a white Macbook and a Alu Macbook.

I have never regretted changing and yes not all is rosy in the world of Steve Jobs, but I am more productive and spend more time processing images than when I had a PC.

The price is not that bad when compared, remember a Mac screen is normally quite good, I have never had a problem with colour reproduction.

If you can afford the Mac premium then go for it, you will need to budget for Adobe again and at the moment there is no 64 bit Photoshop. Lightroom is 64 bit, but I use Aperture, I find it's RAW processor better.

[Tony-S]

sooo

I realy like the new iMac(and always wanted to have a mac because of the OS and no viruses)

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTAyNTQzNjA

probably take the base cheapest model...

All the iMacs now ship with H-IPS displays, so you'll see a dramatic improvement over the Samsung that you have now (TN display). I am rather surprised at how well the current Macs handle my 5Dii files. I just bought a 1.8 ghz MacBook Air a couple of weeks ago and I can process 5Dii raw files with it without too much of a delay. It is just as fast as my 2.5 gHz MacBook Pro for some some reason. With your academic pricing, the base 21.5" iMac should be $1,100. You can get PSCS4 with a cross grade, otherwise you'll have to spend $200 on it for CS4 (same as if you went with Windows). As an alternative to LR, there's Aperture, but right now I think LR 2 has the edge. Once Aperture 3 is released (within a couple of months), it'll likely be not much different than LR3. Aperture uses the GPU for image processing, which makes it a bit faster than LR2.

[dr1ft]

Processor speed and RAM have a bigger impact on Photoshop than OSX or Windows. There are OSX viruses popping up too, but if you're careful and don't click on random links on shady websites, you should not fear viruses. Plus, there are plenty of top quality free anti virus programs out there for Windows available (Avira, for one).

Also, there is no 64 bit OSX Photoshop yet. It's supposedly coming with CS5 (is that out yet?). A quad, or even a dual core, CPU with 8 GB RAM (it's cheap!) and a decent video card will blow away what you have right now.

Of course, this all works if you can build the machine yourself. I'm leery of Dell desktops.

Windows 7 rocks, btw. Rock solid and fast.

[Tony-S]

There are OSX viruses popping up too

There are no OS X viruses. One worm and one trojan, but no viruses. To get either requires permission ("click" and password) from the user.

Also, there is no 64 bit OSX Photoshop yet.

The utility of 64 bit Photoshop is overrated unless you're working with gigabyte-sized files. Plus, under OS X, high RAM is used as your scratch disk, not the hard drive. Better to put in 8 gb RAM than have 64-bit for the vast majority of images, IMO.

[basroil]

All the iMacs now ship with H-IPS displays, so you'll see a dramatic improvement over the Samsung that you have now (TN display). I am rather surprised at how well the current Macs handle my 5Dii files. I just bought a 1.8 ghz MacBook Air a couple of weeks ago and I can process 5Dii raw files with it without too much of a delay. It is just as fast as my 2.5 gHz MacBook Pro for some some reason. With your academic pricing, the base 21.5" iMac should be $1,100. You can get PSCS4 with a cross grade, otherwise you'll have to spend $200 on it for CS4 (same as if you went with Windows). As an alternative to LR, there's Aperture, but right now I think LR 2 has the edge. Once Aperture 3 is released (within a couple of months), it'll likely be not much different than LR3. Aperture uses the GPU for image processing, which makes it a bit faster than LR2.


Pretty sure you first have to upgrade THEN crossgrade now. So it would be upgrade price +$20. Could have read the posts wrong somehow though.

[Tony-S]

If one has the academic versions (as most students do), then the upgrade price is the current academic pricing. If one has the non-academic version (exactly the same as the academic version), then the price is whatever the upgrade is. Personally, I'm probably done with Photoshop since I rarely use it any more. Aperture and Nik suite for me. Pixelmator for any layer work.

[basroil]

If one has the academic versions (as most students do), then the upgrade price is the current academic pricing. If one has the non-academic version (exactly the same as the academic version), then the price is whatever the upgrade is. Personally, I'm probably done with Photoshop since I rarely use it any more. Aperture and Nik suite for me. Pixelmator for any layer work.

OP said graphic design though, so we should assume PS+vector graphics apps (like fireworks) is a requirement. Bit higher than $200 for the purchase, and there is no upgrade price for academic, only full install price.

[dr1ft]

There are no OS X viruses. One worm and one trojan, but no viruses. To get either requires permission ("click" and password) from the user.

I mean to use 'virus' as a synonym for 'malware'. But, okay, fair enough.
Windows 7 also require the user's permission to execute any binary on the system unless it exploits a security hole. Most viruses come on to the system with the user's permission.


The utility of 64 bit Photoshop is overrated unless you're working with gigabyte-sized files. Plus, under OS X, high RAM is used as your scratch disk, not the hard drive. Better to put in 8 gb RAM than have 64-bit for the vast majority of images, IMO.

I disagree that you won't see utility from >4GB RAM in Photoshop. You can easily open up several files that are megabytes in size and each layer needs additional RAM. And, you can create RAM disks on Windows too. But who cares? OSX will get 64 bit PS soon enough.

[MaxxuM]

...and I'm very bad at computer hardwear...thank God i see lots of u here that know alot...

So my current configuration goes like this

Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.0 GHz
2 GB RAM
ATI Radeon X800 XL
22" samsung syncmaster 226BW

sooo

I study graphic design so i use alot of Adobe softwear(actualy almost all of it :D ) and corel...and my current configuration can run it but i would sure love to be alot faster...like Lightroom is veery slow...


sooo

I realy like the new iMac(and always wanted to have a mac because of the OS and no viruses)

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTAyNTQzNjA

probably take the base cheapest model...


so I'm actualy asking will I feel a big diference in speed using Adobe softwear...and am I an idiot for buying a Mac when i can get a brutaly fast PC for that price...

My mom is totally computer illiterate and had been using a PC for 5-6 years when I finally convinced her to try an iMac. She punched me after a few days of using it and asked why I didn't tell her about Mac's in the first place.

I recommend going to an Apple Store or Best Buy and trying a Mac out for twenty minutes and see what you think. If you like the feel, get a Mac. It's really that simple. There's a reason Apple's #1 though, but it isn't for having the latest and greatest in hardware. If you don't have an Apple Store near you then you can search on YouTube for it and see thousands of videos with people being funny, store concerts and so on.

[basroil]

I recommend going to an Apple Store or Best Buy and trying a Mac out for twenty minutes and see what you think. If you like the feel, get a Mac. It's really that simple. There's a reason Apple's #1 though, but it isn't for having the latest and greatest in hardware. If you don't have an Apple Store near you then you can search on YouTube for it and see thousands of videos with people being funny, store concerts and so on.

Actually, it's #15, but I guess you just forgot to type in the 5 after the 1 ;)

[GoRk]

thnx for all ur comments...i have tried the apple on college and liked it...and stop worying about adobe softwear purchase...it's non relevant for this discussion...I'm geting it new anyway...

[Damian75]

Actually, it's #15, but I guess you just forgot to type in the 5 after the 1 ;)

I think he is referring to customer satisfaction in which apple is rated #1 in every survey I could find including the ACSI put together by the Michigan school of business which apple has held top honors for the last 5 years with dell running a close second.

[Tom H. Photography]

thnx for all ur comments...i have tried the apple on college and liked it...and stop worying about adobe softwear purchase...it's non relevant for this discussion...I'm geting it new anyway...

I think the base iMac should suit you fine. Don't look too much at benchmarks and stuff, the pc guys will be shouting that a pc can be built a lot faster for the same or less money than a Mac and that sure is true. What they fail to say is that those benchmarks are based on stripped down, clean installed Windows systems and thus are unrealistic. Where a Windows pc tends to get (a lot) slower over time, this is far less the case with a Mac.

Get a Windows pc now and in two years you'll be yearning for another upgrade. Whereas a Mac should last you longer. My two year old Macbook Pro still suits my needs fine today and more. I've never been able to say that about any Windows pc/laptop I've owned over the years.

[basroil]

I think the base iMac should suit you fine. Don't look too much at benchmarks and stuff, the pc guys will be shouting that a pc can be built a lot faster for the same or less money than a Mac and that sure is true. What they fail to say is that those benchmarks are based on stripped down, clean installed Windows systems and thus are unrealistic. Where a Windows pc tends to get (a lot) slower over time, this is far less the case with a Mac.

Get a Windows pc now and in two years you'll be yearning for another upgrade. Whereas a Mac should last you longer. My two year old Macbook Pro still suits my needs fine today and more. I've never been able to say that about any Windows pc/laptop I've owned over the years.

Not true actually. My "benchmarks" are based off of personal use, and trust me, my machines are anything but stripped down. Most of the misconceptions, like slowing down over time, have absolutely nothing to do with Vista/7. One of the things that bogged down xp and earlier was a high fragmentation rate would lead to slow speeds, which was mainly fixed in the last two OSes. The other thing that can slow a machine is malware, but if you don't visit strange sites, 95% chance you'll never see a single piece of it on your machine in the five years a computer should work for you.

Now, lets assume that OP wanted to run XP (which nobody should suggest) and OP decides malware is the new must have. Even if the machine was a full 50% slower (ridiculous number, even with a highschool girl as a user, downloading every piece of malware she can, it only drops to about 60% speed before the antivirus/antimalware tools get installed) at the end of it's life, an i7 system would STILL be about twice as fast as the core 2 duo based iMac OP was talking about.

And as for the "unrealistic" benchmarks, they always strip down BOTH systems, so it is a fair assessment of both OSes. Still, you should never look at variations smaller than 5%, but in this case, the differences are over 100%, so it's safe to assume that no matter how "unrealistic" it is, the real performance gain is there and quite significant.

[MaxxuM]

Not true actually. My "benchmarks" are based off of personal use, and trust me, my machines are anything but stripped down. Most of the misconceptions, like slowing down over time, have absolutely nothing to do with Vista/7. One of the things that bogged down xp and earlier was a high fragmentation rate would lead to slow speeds, which was mainly fixed in the last two OSes. The other thing that can slow a machine is malware, but if you don't visit strange sites, 95% chance you'll never see a single piece of it on your machine in the five years a computer should work for you.

Now, lets assume that OP wanted to run XP (which nobody should suggest) and OP decides malware is the new must have. Even if the machine was a full 50% slower (ridiculous number, even with a highschool girl as a user, downloading every piece of malware she can, it only drops to about 60% speed before the antivirus/antimalware tools get installed) at the end of it's life, an i7 system would STILL be about twice as fast as the core 2 duo based iMac OP was talking about.

And as for the "unrealistic" benchmarks, they always strip down BOTH systems, so it is a fair assessment of both OSes. Still, you should never look at variations smaller than 5%, but in this case, the differences are over 100%, so it's safe to assume that no matter how "unrealistic" it is, the real performance gain is there and quite significant.

Just to keep things honest, all OSes clutter up, even OS X. The thing is, with the amount of Microsoft updates and the use of a Registry that 'bloat' is often more exaggerated on Windows's machines. If you don't install all the optional updates or install/uninstall a lot of software then this bloat will not be an issue. If you're like me and like to test new software, install all the optional updates and try out games then Windows will start to choke on its own files eventually. I typically have about 5-15 Registry errors every month, but I've cleaned up some machines with over 1,000 Registry errors; mostly invalid pointers to programs that didn't completely clean themselves off the computer.

PC advocates are beginning to sound like the Mac advocates they are scolding these days saying Windows 7 is a totally maintenance free OS that can take care of itself. Any OS will work fine for those that only use five or six (non-integrated) programs for the life of their computer. The rest of us that put their computers through more rigors will probably benefit from reinstalling every couple of years - OS X or Windows. Windows user should just use CCleaner every month or so to keep things copacetic. OS X should run the auto scripts to accomplish the same thing.

[BeritOlam]

Not true actually. My "benchmarks" are based off of personal use, and trust me, my machines are anything but stripped down. Most of the misconceptions, like slowing down over time, have absolutely nothing to do with Vista/7. One of the things that bogged down xp and earlier was a high fragmentation rate would lead to slow speeds, which was mainly fixed in the last two OSes. The other thing that can slow a machine is malware, but if you don't visit strange sites, 95% chance you'll never see a single piece of it on your machine in the five years a computer should work for you.

Now, lets assume that OP wanted to run XP (which nobody should suggest) and OP decides malware is the new must have. Even if the machine was a full 50% slower (ridiculous number, even with a highschool girl as a user, downloading every piece of malware she can, it only drops to about 60% speed before the antivirus/antimalware tools get installed) at the end of it's life, an i7 system would STILL be about twice as fast as the core 2 duo based iMac OP was talking about.

And as for the "unrealistic" benchmarks, they always strip down BOTH systems, so it is a fair assessment of both OSes. Still, you should never look at variations smaller than 5%, but in this case, the differences are over 100%, so it's safe to assume that no matter how "unrealistic" it is, the real performance gain is there and quite significant.

And what % of PC users actually 'care' about all of these statistics?? ;) ;) ;) ;)

[kini]

The C2D in the base iMac is a lot faster than your P4. I went from a 3.6P4 to a 2.66 C2D. Sure I would like it to be faster sometimes, but it's fast enough. And OSX is well worth the ''apple tax''. No matter how much the MS add revenue supported media touts Win7, it's still windows, still saddled with the registry and legacy support. Plus with a Mac if you really felt the need to run windows you can. So nothing to lose but the agravation and inevitable frustration that comes with using windows.

[Moppie]

Just to keep things honest, all OSes clutter up, even OS X.


Absolutly, the difference between OS-X and Vista or Windows 7 is purly aesthetic opinion.

My Vista machine benchmarks faster now than it did 2 years ago, with no hardware changes.
All the rhetoric about windows bloating and slowing down comes from people stuck in the past who's last experiance was using Windows 98, or trying to run XP on out dated hardware. This isn't the 90s anymore, both Apple and Microsoft have moved on and developed some very reliable software that provides a very stable and enjoyable user experiance when combined with good quality hardware.


The new i5 and i7 iMacs are nice machines, and they will perform very well. They offer ok value in the US, but outside of the US are overpriced for some reason (here in NZ they cost about $1000 more than the C2D versions :mad:).
But, they are not a complete, self sufficiant work station.
They have only 1 internall HDD (which can't be changed later on), they have limited connectivity, they have limited RAM capicity, they don't have an internal CF card reader and you have to throw it away if you ever want to upgrade your monitor.

If your serious about a proper photography work station then you need to think about having:
2-4 internal hard drives to provide data redundancy and a seperate scratch disk.
An internal card reader for fast and easy transfers, and less desk clutter.
Ablity to upgrade basic things like RAM and Hard drives as you need more space and power (new cameras are just going to have more and more pixels to store and work on).
Ablity to connect fast external drives for back up through e-SATA so you don't spend all day backing up your photos.
Ablity to easily change monitors, especially if the work you do is colour critical.

[basroil]

The new i5 and i7 iMacs are nice machines, and they will perform very well. They offer ok value in the US, but outside of the US are overpriced for some reason (here in NZ they cost about $1000 more than the C2D versions :mad:).
But, they are not a complete, self sufficiant work station.
They have only 1 internall HDD (which can't be changed later on), they have limited connectivity, they have limited RAM capicity, they don't have an internal CF card reader and you have to throw it away if you ever want to upgrade your monitor.

If your serious about a proper photography work station then you need to think about having:
2-4 internal hard drives to provide data redundancy and a seperate scratch disk.
An internal card reader for fast and easy transfers, and less desk clutter.
Ablity to upgrade basic things like RAM and Hard drives as you need more space and power (new cameras are just going to have more and more pixels to store and work on).
Ablity to connect fast external drives for back up through e-SATA so you don't spend all day backing up your photos.
Ablity to easily change monitors, especially if the work you do is colour critical.

You don't actually need to throw out the mac, you can get an external for it. Sure the default graphics won't cut it (when accelerating both monitors), but the 4850 should be fine.

As for everything else, yes, they help a lot. My system has 3 internal drives, and an e-Sata external (and two USB for the archived files). Having a lot of disk space is critical for photo, and having fast disk space really helps with larger batches. FW800 is fine for one drive, but that's all it can do before slowing down, e-Sata can run 4-5 at max continuous speed.

[René Damkot]

.. But unless I missed it, you cannot daisy-chain e-Sata. You can FW. An that is an advantage to FW IMO.

I think I'll stick with "triple interface" external HDDs: USB2, FW800 and e-Sata. That should do for the "future proofing" ;)

[Tony-S]

.. But unless I missed it, you cannot daisy-chain e-Sata. You can FW. An that is an advantage to FW IMO.

Nor can you get power from eSATA. I have two eSATA ports on my hackintosh and don't use them. FW400 and FW800 are perfectly fine.

[basroil]

.. But unless I missed it, you cannot daisy-chain e-Sata. You can FW. An that is an advantage to FW IMO.

I think I'll stick with "triple interface" external HDDs: USB2, FW800 and e-Sata. That should do for the "future proofing" ;)

You can use switches with eSata. 15 drives/port. If you daisy chain FW800 though, the link will slow down a lot if you access too many of them at the same time (at least much moreso than esata). Fine for storage, I just wouldn't use it for a primary data drive.

[MaxxuM]

The new i5 and i7 iMacs are nice machines, and they will perform very well. They offer ok value in the US, but outside of the US are overpriced for some reason (here in NZ they cost about $1000 more than the C2D versions :mad:).

Two words, taxes & quanties. Not sure what the duties/levies are in New Zealand, but most of Europe charges a lot (ex. VAT). Also, the US buys more 'stuff' than just about all other countries therefore trade is better established. There's also likely deals being done in the background by the corporations; trading favors basically. The more industrialized the nation is the lower technology prices usually are (US, Japan, Taiwan, India and so on). The more socialized the government is the higher taxes will be for imports (France, England, China and so on).

[Damian75]

But, they are not a complete, self sufficiant work station.
They have only 1 internall HDD (which can't be changed later on), they have limited connectivity, they have limited RAM capicity, they don't have an internal CF card reader and you have to throw it away if you ever want to upgrade your monitor.

If your serious about a proper photography work station then you need to think about having:
2-4 internal hard drives to provide data redundancy and a seperate scratch disk.
An internal card reader for fast and easy transfers, and less desk clutter.
Ablity to upgrade basic things like RAM and Hard drives as you need more space and power (new cameras are just going to have more and more pixels to store and work on).
Ablity to connect fast external drives for back up through e-SATA so you don't spend all day backing up your photos.
Ablity to easily change monitors, especially if the work you do is colour critical.

First off you can upgrade the HD at a later time if you want it is not like the drive is glued in second these system have 4 ram slots buy the time you out grow 16GB of ram you will be ready for a new system, built in card readers are not a needed as they run on the USB buss you are better with a FW 800 external, multi internal drive bays can be nice if you add a hardware RAID controller otherwise you are better off with an external RAID array I do wish they had added eSata but that is the only legit gripe though most pros I know use NAS systems for backup. Also if you are doing very color critical work that is beyond the ability of the built in IPS panel you can connect a second monitor to the system.

[basroil]

First off you can upgrade the HD at a later time if you want it is not like the drive is glued in second these system have 4 ram slots buy the time you out grow 16GB of ram you will be ready for a new system, built in card readers are not a needed as they run on the USB buss you are better with a FW 800 external, multi internal drive bays can be nice if you add a hardware RAID controller otherwise you are better off with an external RAID array I do wish they had added eSata but that is the only legit gripe though most pros I know use NAS systems for backup. Also if you are doing very color critical work that is beyond the ability of the built in IPS panel you can connect a second monitor to the system.

Many (good) laptop card readers actually run off the expresscard bus, and I'm sure that if apple wanted to they could have added one (full expresscard functionality would make it a very nice setup for photographers, since then you could get a raid esata expresscard).

As for the drive not being glued in, it might as well be, very few people will be willing to take out the screen to replace the HDD (it will void the warranty, and upgrades are not covered in the warranty). For NAS, the only real way to do that is to get a gigabit ethernet setup, and for that it helps to have dual gigabit ethernet ports (I believe the mac pro is the only apple product to support this) in case you want to have the NAS directly attached to the computer.

It's a lot easier to do all of this on any old desktop system though, no need to take apart everything in your computer to access the hdds, if you need expansion cards for something, you have them, etc.

EDIT: Very odd thing you have there. Probably a bad experience because you went though their enterprise side, all my knowledge of them has been that they just don't warranty the new hdd, not void the entire thing. And even for tech savvy people, iMac (late 2009) hdd replacement is usually not at their comfort level.

[Damian75]

As for the drive not being glued in, it might as well be, very few people will be willing to take out the screen to replace the HDD (it will void the warranty, and upgrades are not covered in the warranty).

As for voiding the warranty this is true of most companies I was told by Dell Tech Support that replacing the HD in one of our work towers would void the warranty as I was not a certified Dell Tech. So the same rules apply for apple if you have the drive upgraded buy a Certified tech it does not void the warranty. As for saying the drive might as well be glued in is silly it takes me less than 5min to replace the HD in an iMac and as for willingness most people are not willing to open up a PC tower either I am constantly getting flooded by requests from friends or family to fix/upgrade there computers as they don't feel comfortable trying to do it themselves. The simplicity of these things is something that us tech savvy people sometimes take for granted.

[Moppie]

I've done more DIY stuff than they average person, but there is no way I would want to take the screen of an iMac to change the HDD.
Which of course still doesn't get around the problem of there being only one HDD to start with.

I have a smallish disk for my OS and applications and 2 large discs for my photos (one is a copy of the other for redundancy). When they get full I will simply undo two thumb screws, slide out a plastic tray and pop in new disks, then restore from a back up.
I don't have to reinstall anything, or even touch the OS drive, as you would with an iMac.
It also means I can get more than 2TB in my machine and I have internal redundancy for my photos. If a drive dies I don't lose anything, I simply work off of the other drive, or put it in another computer (try doing that with a drive from an iMac).

You don't have to buy a Dell, or an HP. The world is filled with great independent shops who can build you anything you need, to the exact spec you need. The good ones will even do basic things like upgrade a drive for free, or minimal cost, or they can show you how to do it yourself.
Even if you do buy a Dell or an HP I think you will find that adding an extra drive won't effect the warranty, unless your a large business or enterprise.

An iMac on a network with lots of storage would work well. But then how many homes or single person business's operate a network, or even a NAS?
The whole point of an iMac is it is low impact with a small footprint and no complexity.
Guess what a NAS does, it is high impact (they don't exactly look as pretty as an iMac), they take up space, they need cables and power, and they need some knowledge to operate.
Adding an external card reader, and daisy chaining FW drives has the same effect.

Sitting on my desk in front of me is a keyboard, mouse and two monitors.
If I had an iMac I would have to add a card reader and 2 external drives, along with their associated cables for power and data. There goes the nice aesthetic.
Even a basic dual core now days has more than enough free resources to run several devices in the USB Bus. A proper quad core won't even notice a card reader being used.


The iMac is a really nice, well built, beautifully designed consumer computer.
It is not a proper work station, it was never designed to be.

[Damian75]

I've done more DIY stuff than they average person, but there is no way I would want to take the screen of an iMac to change the HDD.

Really it's a suction cup and 4 screws ;)

An iMac on a network with lots of storage would work well. But then how many homes or single person business's operate a network, or even a NAS?

Technically if you have wifi in your house you have a network and there are allot of pretty much plug and play NAS out these days


The whole point of an iMac is it is low impact with a small footprint and no complexity.
Guess what a NAS does, it is high impact (they don't exactly look as pretty as an iMac), they take up space, they need cables and power, and they need some knowledge to operate.
Adding an external card reader, and daisy chaining FW drives has the same effect.

While it is true they are built to have a minimal footprint my Drobo looks quite nice next to my imac :lol: and I would rather have my card reader on my nice clean desk then have to crawl around under my desk every time I need to download.


The iMac is a really nice, well built, beautifully designed consumer computer.
It is not a proper work station, it was never designed to be.

Very few systems are proper work stations just being a tower does not a workstation make unless you build your system with redundant power supplies, hardware RAID controllers and ECC RAM but hay tomato tomoto

[tnguyen600]

Im in the market for a new laptop as well...based on reading this thread...i shouldn't pick up the mac book pro and instead wait? I was looking to the the base model as well since I'm not really into hardcore photo editing.

[tnguyen600]

Also, could I easily upgrade the memory myself or do I have to go thru Apple

[basroil]

Also, could I easily upgrade the memory myself or do I have to go thru Apple
you can go through newegg and be easier/cheaper
Im in the market for a new laptop as well...based on reading this thread...i shouldn't pick up the mac book pro and instead wait? I was looking to the the base model as well since I'm not really into hardcore photo editing.

only laptops currently worth it are i7 based laptops like the dell studio xps16. everything else is currently old tech, and you shouldn't be paying the same for old tech as you would for new tech (core 2 duo MBP at 1499 and i7 studio xps 16 at around the same)

[tnguyen600]

I can only get the laptop at bestbuy and the only laptops there with i7 are HPs...I really don't want another HP. they overheat and i'm tired of them.

[basroil]

I can only get the laptop at bestbuy and the only laptops there with i7 are HPs...I really don't want another HP. they overheat and i'm tired of them.

Why? their laptops are generally overpriced even for people with discount :confused:

[cory1848]

I think all the people saying old tech this, old tech that, really should take a look at what the person is using the computer for. Currently I am running a Mac Mini 2.53, using LR, Full CS4 suite and many other apps. External storage server and TM back up. Works perfect and its quick.

I am not trying to run NASA, play graphic intensive games over the net, extensive video editing or anything else like that. I do graphic and photo work for my business and I know this machine will last 2-3 years easily. All for $799. My next upgrade will be monitors as my current ones are TN models. Even with that, I will be under $1200 for a good production worthy machine.

Is that overpriced? Not when I would consider ease of use, peace of mind and the OS worth $799 to me... Its like getting all the hardware for free... Can't beat that!

[MaxxuM]

I think all the people saying old tech this, old tech that, really should take a look at what the person is using the computer for. Currently I am running a Mac Mini 2.53, using LR, Full CS4 suite and many other apps. External storage server and TM back up. Works perfect and its quick.

I am not trying to run NASA, play graphic intensive games over the net, extensive video editing or anything else like that. I do graphic and photo work for my business and I know this machine will last 2-3 years easily. All for $799. My next upgrade will be monitors as my current ones are TN models. Even with that, I will be under $1200 for a good production worthy machine.

Is that overpriced? Not when I would consider ease of use, peace of mind and the OS worth $799 to me... Its like getting all the hardware for free... Can't beat that!

Yep, some of the most talented people in the world of photography are using 3-4 year old Mac's - doesn't seem to be slowing them down any.

However, if you're more like the McDonald's of photography - ie, churning out hundreds or thousands of photo's a week then I guess you should get an i7. You should get the fastest you can afford of course, but I don't know anyone on the computer forum that pushes their computers more than I do and I get a long fine with my 2.5GHz MBP for photography and 2x 2.8GHz quads Mac Pro for serious video.

Now, ask me if I wouldn't love to have a new Mac though ... :D

[Moppie]

If you think a mobile dual core is ok for photography then you either shoot with a similar age camera (i.e a 10D or 20D) or you shoot only a small number of images, or you've used anything better so really have no idea what your talking about.


tnguyen600 based on what you've told us, a MPB with 4GB of RAM would be ok for what you want to do. Not ideal, but ok.
If you can buy from another retailer, then look at something like a Toshiba i5 or i7 system as well. They come with nice extras like more e-SATA, more than 3 USB ports etc.
It's just an option, have a look and see what you think.

[basroil]

Yep, some of the most talented people in the world of photography are using 3-4 year old Mac's - doesn't seem to be slowing them down any.

However, if you're more like the McDonald's of photography - ie, churning out hundreds or thousands of photo's a week then I guess you should get an i7. You should get the fastest you can afford of course, but I don't know anyone on the computer forum that pushes their computers more than I do and I get a long fine with my 2.5GHz MBP for photography and 2x 2.8GHz quads Mac Pro for serious video.

Now, ask me if I wouldn't love to have a new Mac though ... :D


In my case, it's more like the Toyota of photos than mcdonalds, each piece is carefully inspected, but thanks to fast production speeds when needed, everything gets done faster and more efficiently. Not everyone has 30min to spend on a single photo, and if they can get it 99.99% the same in 30s, why bother spending time to wait for the computer to load, and change settings, and record outputs ? ;)

[MaxxuM]

If you think a mobile dual core is ok for photography then you either shoot with a similar age camera (i.e a 10D or 20D) or you shoot only a small number of images, or you've used anything better so really have no idea what your talking about.

In my case, it's more like the Toyota of photos than mcdonalds, each piece is carefully inspected, but thanks to fast production speeds when needed, everything gets done faster and more efficiently. Not everyone has 30min to spend on a single photo, and if they can get it 99.99% the same in 30s, why bother spending time to wait for the computer to load, and change settings, and record outputs ? ;)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. For field work, a dual core is more than adequate - save for perhaps the largest of digital cameras (say, over 20MP).

Not sure you were speaking to me Moppie; I don't know if 600-1000 photo's a week from 40D, 30D, D200, D90 and G9's qualifies, but I just scrubbed through about 400 taken today and exported them to a 16GB flash drive to give back to the students tomorrow for critiquing - all while Compressor was encoding a 30m show that I'll be dropping off tomorrow for airing on city wide TV. The only thing an i7 would have sped up is export and rendering. For field work, dual core's are still dominant, but hopefully the i7's will be coming down in price by next February.

Basroil, don't know what computer takes 30 minutes to process a single photo. I can do 200-300 in that time from my 40D or D200. Maybe you're thinking about a Pentium III? Or perhaps a Hasselblad H3DII-50MS photo - though I doubt it would even take that long even then. If anyone has a sample photo I'd love to give it a try :)

Edit: I found the four sample photo's at Hasselglad from their H3D line - First Image: 31MP, 39.01MB, Hasselblad FFF RAW format - 1 second to import (copy into Aperture Library), 3 seconds to cache a thumbnail, edits were in real time (no waiting for updating) and export to full size 16-bit PSD was 11.2 seconds. Second Image: 38MP, 80MB, Hasselblad FFF RAW format - 1 second to import, 4 seconds to cache a thumbnail, edits were still in real time (no waiting - though 100% zoom caused a 3 second re-cache) and export to full size 16-bit PSD was slower at 23.8 seconds.

That's about how I expected it to go. So, field editing would be more than adequate as well as editing photos. The problem comes when trying to export as full 16 bit PSD's - in which case, you'd better have a powerful station at home. Then again, if you can afford a $20K+ camera I'm sure you'll have a nice computer at home to work with these files.

[tnguyen600]

wow thanks for the input gentlemen. I'm not hardcore like many of you folks on here. I take pics of fraternity/sorority events and occasionally assignments for my school newspaper. Nothing serious.

the reason why I can only get it through best buy is because I have a store card from them and I'm allowed 18 months 0% apr. Too broke to buy elsewhere up.

I guess my main concern with regards to technology is that after I buy the base model mac book pro, the newer technology will come out a year later that costs just about the same. I really don't want to spend more then $1100 for the laptop. Assuming i can upgrade the ram myself, I'll max it out at 8 gigs.

[MaxxuM]

wow thanks for the input gentlemen. I'm not hardcore like many of you folks on here. I take pics of fraternity/sorority events and occasionally assignments for my school newspaper. Nothing serious.

the reason why I can only get it through best buy is because I have a store card from them and I'm allowed 18 months 0% apr. Too broke to buy elsewhere up.

I guess my main concern with regards to technology is that after I buy the base model mac book pro, the newer technology will come out a year later that costs just about the same. I really don't want to spend more then $1100 for the laptop. Assuming i can upgrade the ram myself, I'll max it out at 8 gigs.

Albeit for me to spend someone elses money; buy the fastest CPU you can afford. And as for changes, they always happen. It was hell in the 90's when speed's were doubling almost yearly. Save for games, pro video and the largest camera's I think you'll be very happy :)

[Moppie]

Not sure you were speaking to me Moppie;

No, I know you know the difference between working on a laptop and a proper computer :cool:

I often preview a lot of my work on a core 2 duo computer, but it comes home to my quad for any editing work :cool:

[MaxxuM]

No, I know you know the difference between working on a laptop and a proper computer :cool:

I often preview a lot of my work on a core 2 duo computer, but it comes home to my quad for any editing work :cool:


lol... ahh OK. Thought it was odd thing to say. :D

[cory1848]

If you think a mobile dual core is ok for photography then you either shoot with a similar age camera (i.e a 10D or 20D) or you shoot only a small number of images, or you've used anything better so really have no idea what your talking about.

And to think I actually respected some of your responses. Sorry but that just as ass of a thing to say. Ignorant to say the least. Not knowing what I am talking about? Please...get off your high horse and get into the real world. At my 9-5 I use a Mac Pro 2.8 with 16 gigs of ram and for photo work, there is no reason what so ever to need that machine. According to most of you PC advocates, that machine should only be used to surf the web too cause it can't handle anything else... It is used for heavy production publishing and even that isnt pushing its limits. So I think I can say I have used better. I can also say with certainty that machine is overkill. I shoot weddings, average anywhere from 400-1000 images. Lightroom breezes through them without a hipcup on the mini. Photoshop on the mini also handles 1.5 - 2 gig panos quit well too as I have been experimenting with as well. Fastest thing out there? Not at all. Quite suitable for the job, most definitely. Cost effective? Absolutely.

You are right about similar age equipment though. 30d's to be exact. But let me guess, I dont know about wedding photography too since I dont use the Mark 4 right? Have you even used a mini? Gave it a chance? My guess is probably not.

[basroil]

And to think I actually respected some of your responses. Sorry but that just as ass of a thing to say. Ignorant to say the least. Not knowing what I am talking about? Please...get off your high horse and get into the real world. At my 9-5 I use a Mac Pro 2.8 with 16 gigs of ram and for photo work, there is no reason what so ever to need that machine. According to most of you PC advocates, that machine should only be used to surf the web too cause it can't handle anything else... It is used for heavy production publishing and even that isnt pushing its limits. So I think I can say I have used better. I can also say with certainty that machine is overkill. I shoot weddings, average anywhere from 400-1000 images. Lightroom breezes through them without a hipcup on the mini. Photoshop on the mini also handles 1.5 - 2 gig panos quit well too as I have been experimenting with as well. Fastest thing out there? Not at all. Quite suitable for the job, most definitely. Cost effective? Absolutely.

You are right about similar age equipment though. 30d's to be exact. But let me guess, I dont know about wedding photography too since I dont use the Mark 4 right? Have you even used a mini? Gave it a chance? My guess is probably not.

Up to about 16MP, a dual core core 2 will be acceptable for most things, but only when doing single images. Once you get into large batches, it will end up taking hours rather than minutes, and if you use 10MP+ cameras, you should really consider quad core machines. That said, if your workflow involves shooting something new while the computer chugs out exports, then you'll see little improvement because of the workflow. For others (myself included), processing comes after shooting in workflow, and every minute spent waiting is another minute wasted.

[Moppie]

And to think I actually respected some of your responses. Sorry but that just as ass of a thing to say. Ignorant to say the least. Not knowing what I am talking about? Please...get off your high horse and get into the real world..........................................But let me guess, I dont know about wedding photography too since I dont use the Mark 4 right? Have you even used a mini? Gave it a chance? My guess is probably not.

If your feeling insecure about your choice of computer and camera your welcome to send me a PM so we can talk about it, I also use a 30D, along with Sigma lenses so I understand.

But there is no need to call me ignorant.

While I have a quad core myself, I have used a variety of computers for editing photos from my 30D, including several core 2 duo PC's an old P3 and I even spent an afternoon with a professional Apple trainer working on his Macbook Pro (similar spec to your Mini).

While the Core 2 Duo computers (including the Macbook) performed ok, and could be used, they were noticably slower than my Quad Core.

You will notice that Gork, who started the thread, and tnguyen600 who had similar questions both shoot with a 40D. The 40D is 10MP and the first Canon to produce 14bit RAW files. If you didn't know, these are considerably larger files than the ones produced by the 30D which is only 12bit.
The difference is large enough that any kind of volume based production work would tax a dual core computer to the limit. Hence why everyone I know who shoots seriously with a 40D has upgraded to a quad core.

Can't help with weddings though, they are a subject matter I try and avoid.

[wlescall]

I used a dual core iMac with my 40D & 50D (24" 2.4 GHz C2D 4 GB RAM) and was able to process several hundred shots (300-400) at a time without any difficulty. I upgraded to the Mac Pro because I started doing video work which DID slow down the iMac.

Can't help with weddings though, they are a subject matter I try and avoid
Me too. :lol: :cool:

[Moppie]

I used a dual core iMac with my 40D & 50D (24" 2.4 GHz C2D 4 GB RAM) and was able to process several hundred shots (300-400) at a time without any difficulty. I upgraded to the Mac Pro because I started doing video work which DID slow down the iMac.


Me too. :lol: :cool:


Not saying you can't process high res RAW's with a core 2 duo, but if you time it and compare it with a Core 2 Quad, or even better a Mac Pro, it's easy to see the difference is between going away and doing something while it process's, or having the files ready right away. :cool:

Doesn't stop people asking me to do weddings though.

[BeritOlam]

Not saying you can't process high res RAW's with a core 2 duo, but if you time it and compare it with a Core 2 Quad, or even better a Mac Pro, it's easy to see the difference is between going away and doing something while it process's, or having the files ready right away. :cool:


You should see it compared to my "old" AMD Athlon (one of the first of their Dual Cores....and the *last* time that I think they were ever *ahead* of Intel in anything! ;) ;))....hence the reason I turned that slow boy into an Ubuntu box! :D

[Moppie]

You should see it compared to my "old" AMD Athlon (one of the first of their Dual Cores....and the *last* time that I think they were ever *ahead* of Intel in anything! ;) ;))....hence the reason I turned that slow boy into an Ubuntu box! :D

I have a P3 sitting in the cupboard behind me.
+1 to me for the longest time ever taken to convert a RAW file. :lol::lol:

[René Damkot]

You should try a Leaf Aptus .mos file, using Leaf Capture on a 2x2GHz G5 :lol:

There is a difference between amateurs and pro's however: For a pro it's a business decision to make. Is the machine worth the cost (in money and time spent changing systems) compared to time saved?

Lots of professionals still work with older machines. Be it PC or Mac.

For me, a Mac Pro (while being loads faster and less frustrating then my G5) is not worth it yet.
I am thinking about replacing my PowerBook though :lol:

Now if I were continuously processing lots of 5DMk2 files, it would probably be different...

[cory1848]

If your feeling insecure about your choice of computer and camera your welcome to send me a PM so we can talk about it, I also use a 30D, along with Sigma lenses so I understand.

But there is no need to call me ignorant.

While I have a quad core myself, I have used a variety of computers for editing photos from my 30D, including several core 2 duo PC's an old P3 and I even spent an afternoon with a professional Apple trainer working on his Macbook Pro (similar spec to your Mini).

While the Core 2 Duo computers (including the Macbook) performed ok, and could be used, they were noticably slower than my Quad Core.

You will notice that Gork, who started the thread, and tnguyen600 who had similar questions both shoot with a 40D. The 40D is 10MP and the first Canon to produce 14bit RAW files. If you didn't know, these are considerably larger files than the ones produced by the 30D which is only 12bit.
The difference is large enough that any kind of volume based production work would tax a dual core computer to the limit. Hence why everyone I know who shoots seriously with a 40D has upgraded to a quad core.

Can't help with weddings though, they are a subject matter I try and avoid.

Insecure? Come on dude, I wouldn't have put up that response if it were insecurity. I am very confident and secure with the equipment I use for my business. I just have an issue with you basically calling out that everyone that uses the Duo Core 2 stuff and has a successful workflow doesnt know what they are talking about.

My point is, you dont need the greatest and latest spec machine in order to be a professional in the business or to be taken seriously in the business. Many top end shops use iMacs and such as I am sure you are aware. Yes I do weddings, I can guarantee my workload is a lot heavier than what the OP is looking to do and the mini serves me just fine. Of course the quad and i7 are faster, but like I said in my first post, its not running NASA, I dont need that power, that price tag or the bragging rights that comes with it.

So whats your business that you need such high end equipment for? What is it you do that you have such a large volume of images?

[René Damkot]

I just have an issue with you basically calling out that everyone that uses the Duo Core 2 stuff and has a successful workflow doesnt know what they are talking about.

He didn't.

If you think a mobile dual core is ok for photography then you either shoot with a similar age camera (i.e a 10D or 20D) or you shoot only a small number of images, or you've used anything better so really have no idea what your talking about.

You yourself said you used a 30D. So that's category 1.
You also seem to agree that a MacPro or i7 is faster. So that takes care of the last bit: You do know what you are talking about.

Only disagreement I see is the definition of "small number of images" and (mainly) what is "ok" speed-wise. (for the money spent)

(I see that last bit a lot. A great many people on POTN have machines that are way faster then anything I've ever used, or needed. ;))

[tnguyen600]

you can go through newegg and be easier/cheaper




So you're saying I can't upgrade the memory myself?

(referring to upgrading the memory in the base model MBP 13.3")

[BeritOlam]

So you're saying I can't upgrade the memory myself? (referring to upgrading the memory in the base model MBP 13.3")

No, memory upgrades on any MB/MBP (unless something changed in the last 6 months that I don't know about!) are very simple now. All you need is a tiny screwdriver to unscrew a small panel in the battery bay area. I did a memory upgrade in a buddy's "black book" a month ago in about all of 60 seconds.

I suspect the reason Newegg came up was probably because it's significantly cheaper (at least in recent memory) to buy the memory upgrade from Newegg vs. getting it through Apple. As an example, when I bought my Macbook, it only came with 2x512mb of RAM...not enough for what I do! If memory serves me, Apple wanted $100 (through the website) to upgrade to 2x1gb of RAM. That's when I bump over to Newegg and see they have 2x2gb of Corsair RAM selling for $85!

Easy decision....

[basroil]

So you're saying I can't upgrade the memory myself?

(referring to upgrading the memory in the base model MBP 13.3")

no, i'm saying you can buy the memory from newegg and do it yourself

[Moppie]

What I'm saying is, if your going to offer advice, try and make that advice relevant, objective and knowledgeable.

The "but lots of people do also use them" argument is not objective. Lots of photographers do believe that their out of date computers are great. They use the same reasoning used by people who used to think the world was flat.
"It looks flat from where I'm standing" and "Someone with more authority told me so".
Is the same as "It works fast from where I'm sitting" and "Someone at the computer shop told me so".


I don't have a problem with people using out dated technology to accomplish things, in fact I think its great. I'm a big fan of going old school and I love all things retro (except VW).

What I take issue with is people who use out date technology, understand its limits and have found ways of making it work, declaring that everyone else should also use out date technology.
It tends to be done with no consideration for its limits or the ability of potential user to over come them.

Just because something works for you, or you think it works for you, does not mean it will work the same for someone else.
We should always aim to offer the best advice based on another persons needs, not try and convert them into our way of thinking.

[cory1848]

What I'm saying is, if your going to offer advice, try and make that advice relevant, objective and knowledgeable.

The "but lots of people do also use them" argument is not objective. Lots of photographers do believe that their out of date computers are great. They use the same reasoning used by people who used to think the world was flat.
"It looks flat from where I'm standing" and "Someone with more authority told me so".
Is the same as "It works fast from where I'm sitting" and "Someone at the computer shop told me so".


I don't have a problem with people using out dated technology to accomplish things, in fact I think its great. I'm a big fan of going old school and I love all things retro (except VW).

What I take issue with is people who use out date technology, understand its limits and have found ways of making it work, declaring that everyone else should also use out date technology.
It tends to be done with no consideration for its limits or the ability of potential user to over come them.

Just because something works for you, or you think it works for you, does not mean it will work the same for someone else.
We should always aim to offer the best advice based on another persons needs, not try and convert them into our way of thinking.

And what I have issues with are people advocating they need the mother ship of all computer to do simple editing and surfing the net. Why in the hell does someone need a $4k computer to do that? If someone is truly in business to make a living, following your advice will quickly put them in debt and out of business. IMO, advice like yours to get the top end computer out there totally goes against this persons needs. If buy all means you can afford it, go for it, however that wouldn't make much business sense.

[tnguyen600]

I'll probably get the macbook pro but I'm going to wait for the free ipod promotion haha should be coming up soon

[Moppie]

And what I have issues with are people advocating they need the mother ship of all computer to do simple editing and surfing the net. Why in the hell does someone need a $4k computer to do that? If someone is truly in business to make a living, following your advice will quickly put them in debt and out of business. IMO, advice like yours to get the top end computer out there totally goes against this persons needs. If buy all means you can afford it, go for it, however that wouldn't make much business sense.


I don't think I've ever suggested getting the mother ship, or spending anything close to 4 grand.

A Toshiba i7m laptop can be had for about US$1500 here in NZ, I imagine they are cheaper in the US.
A Core 2 Quad can be bought for half that, and an i5 or i7 rig complete with several terrabytes of disc space and more RAM than the average persons needs can be had for about US$1500 as well.
That's less than I payed for my 30D.



I'll probably get the macbook pro but I'm going to wait for the free ipod promotion haha should be coming up soon

Cool! Even better if it comes with free stuff :cool::cool:

[jb4647]

I'm in the same boat as this fellow in needed to replace my five year-old Dell with new computer. The issue that I've had with PC's is that after about a year, the OS get's sluggish and one needs to reformat the damn thing to clean out all the bugs.

Does the Mac suffer from this same issue? I've had some folks tell me that their Macs run for years without any sluggishness.

I'm also lucky in that Im just getting started in the digital SLR biz and have not invested in any Photoshop tools so now is the time to choose...Mac or PC?

[MaxxuM]

I'm in the same boat as this fellow in needed to replace my five year-old Dell with new computer. The issue that I've had with PC's is that after about a year, the OS get's sluggish and one needs to reformat the damn thing to clean out all the bugs.

Does the Mac suffer from this same issue? I've had some folks tell me that their Macs run for years without any sluggishness.

I'm also lucky in that Im just getting started in the digital SLR biz and have not invested in any Photoshop tools so now is the time to choose...Mac or PC?

Yes, they do, it just takes much longer. Windows relies on the Registry while OS X does not and it's the Registry which slows Windows down. As long as you do not install/uninstall a lot of programs, don't get a virus and use something like CCleaner every month or so you'd be fine.

However, as an IT professional that uses both Windows (every flavor including servers) and OS X, OS X is inherently more stable and better optimized. The reason for this is OS X is proprietary so they know exactly what software/hardware they will be working with. Windows has perks too, like game & hardware availability. Anyway, OSX or Windows - you need to choose which you like more. If you don't care, then just get a PC. They're cheaper and easier to get a hold of.

[EmmaRose]

I'm in the same boat as this fellow in needed to replace my five year-old Dell with new computer. The issue that I've had with PC's is that after about a year, the OS get's sluggish and one needs to reformat the damn thing to clean out all the bugs.

Does the Mac suffer from this same issue? I've had some folks tell me that their Macs run for years without any sluggishness.

I'm also lucky in that Im just getting started in the digital SLR biz and have not invested in any Photoshop tools so now is the time to choose...Mac or PC?

They do but not nearly as fast. The last year I had my pc I had to format the damn thing every couple months (no kidding, every 2 or 3 months) installing programs onto it take sso long, restarting after everything.

Ive had my 27" imac since january and I have noticed since I have all my stuff on it (programs and data) its a little slower, but everything still works fine. I am a bit surprised about the start up time, I thought it'd be quicker, but not too bad.

I especially like that now that I'm different, nobody else knows how to mess around with my computer, the rest of the family used to dare to mess up a bunch of stuff on my pc, but on mac they can't even find the 'on' button :D

[In2Photos]

I especially like that now that I'm different, nobody else knows how to mess around with my computer, the rest of the family used to dare to mess up a bunch of stuff on my pc, but on mac they can't even find the 'on' button :D
Interesting! Every time someone says to buy a MAC they always say "it just works" and "it's so easy to use". Yet it seems, in your case, that the opposite is true.

[EmmaRose]

Interesting! Every time someone says to buy a MAC they always say "it just works" and "it's so easy to use". Yet it seems, in your case, that the opposite is true.

They're pretty, but if oyu've never touched on before, i doubt you'd find the on button by yourself :p Once they're on they do just work ^ you've

[MaxxuM]

Interesting! Every time someone says to buy a MAC they always say "it just works" and "it's so easy to use". Yet it seems, in your case, that the opposite is true.

It so simple it becomes too complex :) Coming from the education field, I see kids pick up either platform with ease. They do not have the preconceived notion of how things should work or the years of Windows saturation to get past.

[c_boogie]

I'm in the same boat as this fellow in needed to replace my five year-old Dell with new computer. The issue that I've had with PC's is that after about a year, the OS get's sluggish and one needs to reformat the damn thing to clean out all the bugs.

Does the Mac suffer from this same issue? I've had some folks tell me that their Macs run for years without any sluggishness.

I'm also lucky in that Im just getting started in the digital SLR biz and have not invested in any Photoshop tools so now is the time to choose...Mac or PC?

As stated above, you'll face a bit of a learning curve going from PC to Mac. I've been a Mac user my entire professional career (starting around '91-'92) and have only used PCs a handful of times - they have always confused me, but that's because I'm familiar with the "flow" of the Mac platform (They did an outstanding job going from OS9 to OSX, btw). I know all of the key commands that I need to know on a Mac. Most people that I know who've switched from PCs have the same frustration. Another frustration they have is they tend to buy the cheapest, bottom of the barrel model with no RAM in it and expect it to run very intense software on it the way a high-end tower would. It doesn't work that way.

If you're just starting with photoshop and have no experience with it, then you get to start fresh. That's a bonus. I will say that most of the people I know, whom I ask PS questions of are all Mac users. I can tap into the ad agency/printing/photographer community easily, and that's what they use 98% of the time (in my experience). So there's a wealth of knowledge out there that I can get, and it's Mac-centric. Find out what you can tap into - what your resources are.

As for reliability - Mac laptops tend to be a little less reliable than the desktops. I don't know about iMacs - I've never really owned one. My work computer is a MBP laptop. I have Apple Care on it, thankfully, because about 3-4 months ago it died a horrible death - as did another MBP in our office. On the flipside of that, I have a G4 tower in my home office. Dual 1ghz G4s, built in 2001 and bought by me in '03. It was top of the line when built, and it's still going strong with absolutely no issues. I've jammed 2 additional hard drives into it, it runs dual monitors and tons of other stuff. It's only got 1GB of RAM in it, so CS4 runs a little slower than I'd like (Illustrator more than Photoshop. It runs photoshop pretty well). --so, I can only say good things about it. It's nearly 10 years old and it's still earning money for me. I like that ROI.

I've spent my time as a Mac evangalist, but have grown out of it. I'll probably always be a Mac user, and I don't really care what others use. Point is, it's a tool in a tool box. It's a means, not an end. Some people get really invested in brand or image, they also get hung up on the idea that everyone is just like they are (think the same way/have the same computing needs, etc) - which is goofy if you ask me. For me it's about what I produce, not what I produce the work on.

Good luck in making your choice.