Which do you use for photo editing?

So for all these years, Mac's have used the exact same hardware, motherboards, processors and hard drives as a PC? It's just the case and software that's different? If that's the case, then these PC - Mac discussions have just become even more specious. ROFLMAO

canonloader wrote in post #10575712
So for all these years, Mac's have used the exact same hardware, motherboards, processors and hard drives as a PC? It's just the case and software that's different? If that's the case, then these PC - Mac discussions have just become even more specious. ROFLMAO

There used to be a time when Macs where based on Power PC CPUs and most PCs used Intels - but that's a long time ago.

Definitely since the core duo architecture - but most likely from even earlier on Macs have been using the exact same internals as any "normal" PC.
Its only the OS that's different - and I suppose if you wanted something other than Windows the best choice is still to spend time with Linux.

Unbelievable. So your paying for the name, or not?

Mac people would make great politicians, as they can shovel it faster and deeper than anyone else I know.

canonloader wrote in post #10575762
Unbelievable. So your paying for the name, or not?

Mac people would make great politicians, as they can shovel it faster and deeper than anyone else I know.

Nowadays - yes - and the design (on the outside) - and marketing.

DetlevCM wrote in post #10575538
heheh - yes, the SZ is expensive... true.

On the trackpad - I'd actually turn it around - I don't see people complaining about normal trackpads (e.g. on Notebookreview)

The other thing is - if people buy an expensive product their are more likely to defend it - Apple being an even worse offender than other expensive products - so any review will be biased.

That may be because 90% of people haven't used one

True, but people that buy premium products also tend believe in those products too. Just to do a for-instance, I attached an Alienware laptop which is almost exactly like my MBP and with my discounts came it $10 higher. The only difference was the graphics card, putting it ahead slightly. I believe the MBP has a better screen (color gamut) and has optical audio as well - which even's things out. The Alienware is also twice as thick and almost wights twice as much. Battery life is also much better on the MBP.

When comparing similar products, the myth of cost just goes right out the window. Now, as time goes by Apple will not lower price because it devalues their products (thus very good resale value) so at the end of a products line (or just before refresh) PC's will gain the edge. A good example is the Mac Pro which has lost it's value IMO due to age. However, once the new MP comes out it will be on par with current workstation pricing.

And like canonloader has stated... I'm still waiting on that $1000 i7 iMac killer

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

MaxxuM wrote in post #10575874
That may be because 90% of people haven't used one

True, but people that buy premium products also tend believe in those products too. Just to do a for-instance, I attached an Alienware laptop which is almost exactly like my MBP and with my discounts came it $10 higher. The only difference was the graphics card, putting it ahead slightly. I believe the MBP has a better screen (color gamut) and has optical audio as well - which even's things out. The Alienware is also twice as thick and almost wights twice as much. Battery life is also much better on the MBP.

When comparing similar products, the myth of cost just goes right out the window. Now, as time goes by Apple will not lower price because it devalues their products (thus very good resale value) so at the end of a products line (or just before refresh) PC's will gain the edge. A good example is the Mac Pro which has lost it's value IMO due to age. However, once the new MP comes out it will be on par with current workstation pricing.

And like canonloader has stated... I'm still waiting on that $1000 i7 iMac killer

Have a look at the HP envy - that should give you better value for money.
And Alienware is again a brand name and designer product.

DetlevCM wrote in post #10575678
You can build a PC using the same internals (say i5 processor etc.) for less than a mac costs - you won't get the same "look" - but buying anything just for the design isn't a good way of going through life anyway (get something because its good at doing what its supposed to do - not because it looks good).

Macs and Win PCs with the same features cost just about the same. Here's a PC with the same features of the 27" i7 iMac:

Sony Optiarc CD/DVD Burner Black SATA Model AD-7260S-0B - OEM
Item #: N82E16827118039
$21.99

LIAN LI PC-7BYCF Black Aluminum ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Item #: N82E16811112184
$89.99

HITACHI Deskstar HD31000 IDK/7K (0S00163) 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
Item #: N82E16822145287
$69.99

ENCORE ENUWI-N4 USB 2.0 Wireless Mini Adapter
$12.99

GIGABYTE GV-R485ZL-512H Radeon HD 4850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card
Item #: N82E16814125238
$89.99

OCZ StealthXStream OCZ600SXS 600W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready Active PFC Power Supply
Item #: N82E16817341010
$74.99

LITE-ON SK-1688U/B Black USB Wired Standard Keyboard
Item #: N82E16823107128
$6.99

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL
Item #: N82E16820231277
$99.99

ASRock H55M Pro LGA 1156 Intel H55 HDMI Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
Item #: N82E16813157181
$89.99

TRENDnet TBW-106UB USB 2.0 Micro-Bluetooth Adapter
Item #: N82E16833156257
$19.99

Intel Core i7-860 Lynnfield 2.8GHz LGA 1156 95W Quad-Core Processor BX80605I7860
Item #: N82E16819115214
$289.99

Logitech C500 1.3 M Effective Pixels USB 2.0 WebCam
Item #: N82E16826104316
$41.99

Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 1-Pack for System Builders - OEM
Item #: N82E16832116762
$174.99

Apple Magic Mouse
$69.00

Dell 27" H-IPS display
$1099.00

Total cost: US$2251.87

The iMac with these features costs US$2200 and includes lots of productivity software.

canonloader wrote in post #10575691
I'm asking though, if you could build a Mac Pro from bought parts, if you wanted to? I don't know much about Mac, but have never seen anyplace that sells parts for them. Not that I've looked either.

Dell's Nehalem-based servers cost a bit more than Mac Pros.

canonloader wrote in post #10575762
Unbelievable. So your paying for the name, or not? Mac people would make great politicians, as they can shovel it faster and deeper than anyone else I know.

DetlevCM wrote in post #10575806
Nowadays - yes - and the design (on the outside) - and marketing.

No, Macs and Win PCs with the same features cost about the same. Anyone who says otherwise is either uninformed or not truthful.

As I have said before, I have never even touched a Mac, although, that's not exactly true. I have rolled piles of old one around on a big table at the St. Francis Mission, while looking for PC parts, [I didn't find any], so somehow, I got the idea that Mac's used their own hardware too.

Oh well, I know now, and it's prolly good I didn't know before, cause I would have hurt myself laughing myself sick over these discussions.

Wow, these threads are endless, same crap all the time. Bottom line is you can "build" a nice desktop PC for a fraction of the cost of a Mac. You can buy cheaper Windows systems than you can Apple systems. Most people on a budget will go for a Windows computer, the cheapest Mac is the Mac Mini and it's crippled compared to a similar priced Windows desktop. You can find very expensive Windows systems too, it's not just Apple, some manufacturers such as Alienware will also charge a premium for their hardware. The difference is that with Windows PCs you have a choice and with Apple you don't unless you go the Hackintosh route but most businesses will not go for that option.

You can go to Dell and order a nice decent system for under $1K anytime, you really couldn't do that with Apple. The closes thing Apple has to a decent system is the iMac for $1199 which is great but what you see is what you get, non-upgradeable computer, you can't just pop a new video card in it or CPU, it's a pain getting to a hard drive if you want to change it, the DVD drive is just that, not Blu-ray, not even sure if it's Lightscribe. I still have a 4 year old iMac Dual Core from 2006, which I've kept around for a while and a 2006 white MacBook that my wife uses happily everyday. For video or photo processing my new PC systems does circles around my Macs of course and quite honestly I do not miss using a Mac in any way, so for photo editing either way works, both platforms offer great software in most cases the same software such as CS5 or LR3, at the end..... who really cares what computer you used to process their images?

enrigonz wrote in post #10576422
Wow, these threads are endless, same crap all the time.

And usually from the uninformed or disingenuous.

But not with the same features.

But not with the same features.

That's because they're feature-rich, and not feature-poor like the bare bones builds.

Well, that is Apple's business model and it's not going to change anytime soon. Profits are up, Mac penetration is at an all-time high, and Apple will soon have a greater market cap than Microsoft if things continue as they are. If you don't like it, then don't buy a Mac.

That's because Apple has decided not to "play" in the low-end market. Those machines make virtually no profit, and it's why Dell is in such financial trouble now. I'll be surprised if Dell's still around in 5 years.

The great majority of consumers don't upgrade their computers. While Apple's limited hardware modifications for their computers are troublesome for some (including me), it's not for most consumers. But from that comes highly compact, small footprint designs that sell extremely well and are highly profitable. Like everything (including camera gear), tradeoffs abound. Apple's game is the mid- to high-markets, not low end, low profit market.

Most people don't care what computer others use, but what is remarkable is how many people come here and make statements suggesting that Macs are overpriced when, in fact, they are competitively priced when one considers the entire package of features. I just provided evidence of that acouple of posts up. If you want a computer dedicated to solely doing photographic work, then just buy an i7 based mid-tower, an Open GL 2 and Shader 3-compatible video card with at least 256 MB of vRAM, 4 GB of RAM, an ethernet port and hard drive and put Win 7 on it.

DetlevCM wrote in post #10575738
but most likely from even earlier on Macs have been using the exact same internals as any "normal" PC.
Its only the OS that's different -

Bzzzsttt!!!! Sorry, that's incorrect.

Tony-S wrote in post #10576521
And usually from the uninformed or disingenuous.

But not with the same features.

But not with the same features.

That's because they're feature-rich, and not feature-poor like the bare bones builds.

Well, that is Apple's business model and it's not going to change anytime soon. Profits are up, Mac penetration is at an all-time high, and Apple will soon have a greater market cap than Microsoft if things continue as they are. If you don't like it, then don't buy a Mac.

That's because Apple has decided not to "play" in the low-end market. Those machines make virtually no profit, and it's why Dell is in such financial trouble now. I'll be surprised if Dell's still around in 5 years.

The great majority of consumers don't upgrade their computers. While Apple's limited hardware modifications for their computers are troublesome for some (including me), it's not for most consumers. But from that comes highly compact, small footprint designs that sell extremely well and are highly profitable. Like everything (including camera gear), tradeoffs abound. Apple's game is the mid- to high-markets, not low end, low profit market.

Most people don't care what computer others use, but what is remarkable is how many people come here and make statements suggesting that Macs are overpriced when, in fact, they are competitively priced when one considers the entire package of features. I just provided evidence of that acouple of posts up. If you want a computer dedicated to solely doing photographic work, then just buy an i7 based mid-tower, an Open GL 2 and Shader 3-compatible video card with at least 256 MB of vRAM, 4 GB of RAM, an ethernet port and hard drive and put Win 7 on it.

1. I'm really not referring to features, just what you can buy for the money as far as a photo editing machine.

2. The cheaper Dells are not barebone systems, they're actually loaded, I'm not defending any particular manufacturer, just using Dell as an example. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple isn't around in 5 years either... that's just the way this market is.

3. Because of what I said earlier, Apple will not catch-up to Windows system anytime soon, the majority of the population is middle-poor class, most people are on a budget, if they can buy a computer that does all they want for much less than an Apple that's what they'll buy.

4. No one has to buy this or that system, I'm both a Mac and a PC user, I'm just not a fan to hardware of any kind including my Canon gear ( I decided not to use the term "fanboy" not to offend anyone). I buy what I like and gets the job done, period. If my pockets get full again in 3-4 years I might buy another Mac... who knows? I might end up with a Nikon D300 or a Mamiya .....Is just not that important to me as long as what I use gets the job done quickly and I have room to grow.

I'm a power user, I don't care for anything less than what I can get from a quad core or more desktop system so iMacs and similar PC and notebooks are out of the question for me. I build my own systems, except for my Macs, I've always built my own desktops with quality components capable to handle anything I throw at it without choking. I do save money by doing this and I end up getting better components than what I would get with Dell for the same money.

Hen3Ry wrote in post #10576569
Bzzzsttt!!!! Sorry, that's incorrect.

In some ways but not completely.....

enrigonz wrote in post #10576686
In some ways but not completely.....

No, you're correct - they do both use resistors, caps, coils, wire, silicon, etc, but the design characteristics have been different from the beginning.

A a former Mac software guy, let me point out a couple of distinct differences between the two platforms.

1. Design philosophy. Apple computers are, and always have been complete. They are part of a closed proprietry system, in which Apple completely controls the hardware devices that attach to them. As a result, if you buy a piece of Apple hardware, whether from Apple of a third party vendor, so long as that hardware meets the hardware requirements for your machine, the hardware, whatever it is, just attaches and runs. You won't need to visit a web site and download drivers, because in most cases, they are built into the OS, or the OS triggers a download from Apple of the required drivers. "It just works." There's no going to some web site and getting drivers and hoping the installation goes well as with MSoft derived hardware. You pay extra for this ease of use. When I worked for a company called Opcode Systems in the 90s, our software design philosophy (and Apple's in general) was that if you needed a manual, there was something wrong with the software. Opcode System's founder was the guy who invented the Standard MIDI file, and wrote the first MIDI sequencer . Our software was used by, among others, U2, Madonna, NIN,and Clint Black, just to give you an artist's cross-section. I can't recall a comparable piece of software on the PC at the time.

2. Logic Philosophy (for lack of a better term). Prior to Windows 7, if you wanted to find a file on your PC, Windows would start searching at the beginning of its directories and keep searching until it found (or couldn't find) the file you were looking for. An Apple, on the other hand, maintains a database of your files, so that when you begin the search by typing in the first few characters of the file name, it is already giving you results. This sort of User "usefulness" is found throughout the Mac OS.

3. Use: If you go look at the Poll at the top of this thread, I think you'll find the most telling characteristic, which is that of about 150 people, (at the time I write this) about one third of the respondents use Apple computers. This is a pretty strong statement of support for a machine that has only about four or five percent of the market.

Hen3Ry wrote in post #10576809
No, you're correct - they do both use resistors, caps, coils, wire, silicon, etc, but the design characteristics have been different from the beginning.

A a former Mac software guy, let me point out a couple of distinct differences between the two platforms.

1. Design philosophy. Apple computers are, and always have been complete. They are part of a closed proprietry system, in which Apple completely controls the hardware devices that attach to them. As a result, if you buy a piece of Apple hardware, whether from Apple of a third party vendor, so long as that hardware meets the hardware requirements for your machine, the hardware, whatever it is, just attaches and runs. You won't need to visit a web site and download drivers, because in most cases, they are built into the OS, or the OS triggers a download from Apple of the required drivers. "It just works." There's no going to some web site and getting drivers and hoping the installation goes well as with MSoft derived hardware. You pay extra for this ease of use. When I worked for a company called Opcode Systems in the 90s, our software design philosophy (and Apple's in general) was that if you needed a manual, there was something wrong with the software. Opcode System's founder was the guy who invented the Standard MIDI file, and wrote the first MIDI sequencer . Our software was used by, among others, U2, Madonna, NIN,and Clint Black, just to give you an artist's cross-section.

2. Logic Philosophy (for lack of a better term). Prior to Windows 7, if you wanted to find a file on your PC, Windows would start searching at the beginning of its directories and keep searching until it found (or couldn't find) the file you were looking for. An Apple, on the other hand, maintains a database of your files, so that when you begin the search by typing in the first few characters of the file name, it is already giving you results. This sort of User "usefulness" is found throughout the Mac OS.

3. Use: If you go look at the Poll at the top of this thread, I think you'll find the most telling characteristic, which is that of about 150 people, (at the time I write this) about one third of the respondents use Apple computers. This is a pretty strong statement of support for a machine that has only about four or five percent of the market.

Regarding 2:
Wrong - Vista already had an improved search


And 1 - with a PC - unless you build it from scratch it also has all the drivers to work.