Mac or PC?

I use a 3.0 GHz Core2 Duo, 8 GB RAM, 4-disk RAID5 with a 7800GTX + a 6200. An early Dell 24", an S-IPS HP LP2065 and a piece of junk 19" Sceptre. The only use of the latter is to look at edits with a "what a junky monitor would show". All color corrected with a Huey Pantone.

Linux + GIMP.

I have some Windows software running in wine and vmware. The Canon raw processor (most hated software). And Photoshop mainly for editing in LAB (LAB editing in GIMP doesn't allow you to view real time in real colors, although the G'IMC plugin is 90% there, at least you have sliders and real-time view or curves and click-to-view now).

I have some Wacom tablet or other but I have built a lot of muscle memory with the mouse and it isn't easy to switch.

synapxe wrote in post #11163755
Why do most of you run Mac? Do you find it's more efficient to edit? Screen quality?

They don't. Pekka did once show server stats, OS-X usage wasn't that different to global market share, somewhere between 5-10% of users.

However, there is a lot of Mac users active in these particular sub forums, so any polling becomes skewed by the polled population.

Nightstalker wrote in post #11162352
I am debating going down the MAC route but dislike all-in-one systems and find the MAC Pro excessively expensive.

I went through the same thought process a couple of years ago. Looked really hard an OS-X based machine simply for the reliability factor, but settled on something similar to the following:

Nightstalker wrote in post #11162352
2.5 yrs old PC - Quad Core Q6600 with 4GB, Vista and a crappy graphics card - soon to be replaced.

Although mine is now running 8GB of ram and Win 7 64bit with several terabytes of storage.
Since I built it from high end parts it's also been extremely reliable and usually runs for weeks at a time, only being shut down if I'm going to be away for any period of time.

The Q6600 has no problems with 30D files, but while it can chew through the 5D2 raws, multi tasking is clearly effected and I am experiencing enough delays that it will likely be upgraded next year to an i7 based rig

Mac at work
Mac at home.

PC across the board.

Photo machine is:

i7 920
6GB RAM
ATI 3450 video card
Win 7 64 bit Ultimate

I've thought about going MAC but the price turns me off. I have a laptop, HTPC, photo machine, and a server that I have spent less on than a single iMAC 27.

- 3 year-old MacBook (white poly body) 13" for on the road use

- Recently retired 5 year-old desktop PC

- Recently purchased Mac Pro hexacore, upgraded the main drive to an SSD, internal RAID 0 with dual backup in the box and external remote backup, added ludicrous amounts of RAM (24GB) and I figure I should be set for a fairly long time.

Yes, expensive, but I enjoy the user experience more (WIn7 is much better than previous versions, but I far prefer OS-X), and I find myself doing more video editing and multitrack audio. I also find mac stuff seems to have a longer useable lifespan than the average windows box - this 3 year old laptop is much snappier and more usable than the just-been-replaced 3 year old machines my parents, sister and several friends of mine own. I'll probably pop in an SSD in another year or so and keep on using it for non-crazy processor intensive tasks...

Quad Core 2.0 Ghz Mac Pro, 5 GB RAM, Radeon 5770 512MB, 22" NEC MultiSync, 22" BenQ for more screen real estate. My other computer is a 15" MBPro, I run Aperture and CS5 on both.

I've run both Windows and Mac-I built a windows machine from the ground up years ago, and it was pretty good to me, and certainly cheaper than a comparable Mac. At this point I'm more interested in using my computer than maintaining it, so the Macs have been very good to me.

This is like a "How big is your knob" thing right ?

More like "can it go to eleven?"

PC the only logical choice.

Quad Core i7 or Six Core AMD, 6-12GB of Ram, nice board either X58 or 890GX with speedy SSD. Blu-ray burner, Geforce 460-480 (or new 580 comming soon)

and of course Dell iPS screen.

don't waste time with mac, being limited with hardware choice and potential upgrades is no fun. Thats unless you go hackintosh route, I build a cheap dual core intel hackintosh but i rarelly use it.

synapxe wrote in post #11163755
Why do most of you run Mac? Do you find it's more efficient to edit? Screen quality?

Mac are not more efficient, that all depends on hardware, and screen quality also depends what monitor you buy. so also doesn't apply.

Mac is a niche market that only holds about 5% market share.

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #11240754
Mac are not more efficient, that all depends on hardware, and screen quality also depends what monitor you buy. so also doesn't apply.

Mac is a niche market that only holds about 5% market share.

globally, yes, but about 10% of the US home PC market depending on which source you look up.

The hardware guts are the same; I'm comfortable paying a premium for the design and (more importantly) operating system. A workstation from Dell with the same specs as a Mac Pro costs the as much as a Mac Pro, and I know which I'd rather have. But you can put together a machine yourself or buy an off-the-shelf unit that has essentially the same performance as either for half the price or so, possibly slightly less. I've assembled my own machines before, but I don't enjoy it any more, so I'd rather pay someone to do it for me. My time's worth more to me.

Mac (Pros) are a bit of an exception in the computer world in that they actually hold a decent amount of value - you can sell a 2-3 year old Mac Pro in today's market and still get about 40-60% of what you paid for it. Not so easy with a PC. Makes upgrading the machines (once you've made the initial investment) a little less painful.

I've just this week switched from an elderly PC running Lightroom 2 and an ancient limited edition Photoshop ... all well within my comfort zone ...

to a 27" i7 iMac with Lightroom 3 and a trial version of CS5.

I'm still finding excuses not to use it and trying to avoid the room it's in because I have no idea how any of it works and it's a bit intimidating...

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote in post #11240920
I've just this week switched from an elderly PC running Lightroom 2 and an ancient limited edition Photoshop ... all well within my comfort zone ...

to a 27" i7 iMac with Lightroom 3 and a trial version of CS5.

I'm still finding excuses not to use it and trying to avoid the room it's in because I have no idea how any of it works and it's a bit intimidating...

Jump in, it's a great machine, it's like not driving on a new road because you don't know it. Anything you don't know just google an you tube.

Good luck

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #11240744
PC the only logical choice.

Since when has logic come into this ?......

Traditionally, Macs have had the advantage in anything art related. Within the past five years, however, the PC software market has been catching up (Thank you Adobe!) to the point where software-wise, the two are essentially the same.

With regards to the hardware, either PC or Macs can be as powerful as you're willing to pay for. That said, I much prefer PCs simply because the hardware can be had for cheaper, esp if you build your own computer. I've built Core i7 860 PCs overclocked to 4.2 GHz for various clients, all equipped with gaming cards like the ATI HD5770 and above and with 4GBs of RAM, and all of them have been at or below the $1,000 mark. If you know what you're doing, you can easily build a PC that's much cheaper than a Mac. From there, if you so desire, you can easily install Mac OS X onto the PC in question and you essentially have what's called a Hackintosh for a fraction of the price.