I have used a mac before. Not that I hate them, but I am VERY comfortable with my PC.

However, now that the new iMac 27" is out, I am tempted to make the switch.

Of course this means also spending $199 for the CS4 upgrade, $99 for the Lightroom upgrade (so that I can get them migrated to Mac), and Microsoft Office, plus all the other bits and pieces I have collected.

So all told it would be about $2300+

So the question is this-- other than people SAYING that mac is a better performer to PC-- where is the documentation? For $2300 I could get a quad core computer with 12GB of RAM and a 1.5TB HD and state-of-the-art everything from Dell. (the iMac is still dual core).

Lets here it-- why should I go mac or stay PC (BASED ON THE CURRENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS OUT THERE TODAY).

Windows 7 looked pretty sweet as I played with it in Best Buy. And of course the LED 27" screen looked awesome on the iMac.

Come on man. This is going to turn into another sh!tfest. What do you expect? Just read any other Mac vs PC thread.

Me, I'd take the iMac. Why? Because it doesn't look like sh!t.

and you dont need to arse around with them either.

OK.... a bit vulgar, but an opinion.

I am really looking for something definitive comparing cost-to-benefit.

Is there are PC out there for under $2k that would stand up to the iMac for overall performance (especially large file photoshop work)?

The 24" Samsung LED monitors will be out by Christmas for $350...

If you start thinking how you can get the same performance for less and the words "value", "cost", "benefit" and "ratio" turn up, you don't want the iMac. Nobody buys an iMac for the cost-to-performance benefit. You buy it because it looks nice and runs OS X (which is a personal taste). The fact that it is a pretty good machine too is a bonus. But Dell can most definately sell you something faster for less.

Buddy, if you know what you're doing (which I think you do) a new PC will suit you just fine. I run Macs and PC side-by-side... literally. I have a MacPro on my left, then a MacBook pro, and a Dell PC all next to each other. (company computers) The PC is not killing me to say the least.

You have to believe me that I have no axe to grind. If anything, I *want* to like Macs more because everybody tells me they're better. But there is no definitive clear advantage to Macs. If you're starting out fresh, then fine a Mac may give you an overall easier experience. However since you already have money invested in PC software... pffft just stick with a PC.

See if you can get a deal to get Windows 7. It's solid -- no joke.

See..that is what i was thinking Panos.

Actually, I have done pretty well on PC. But after 3-4 years on my HP, I am seeing that it is slowly sucking resources from the "clutter." Also, as I move up to larger file JPGs, the work I do forces me to close PS alot to clear cache and prevent software crash.

Finally, I do find that the computer is starting to "bog."

But if I can get MAC performance on a Windows PC-- and cheaper-- then I can't see why to switch.

The question is-- can I? Unfortunatley...Mac people just make owning one so sexy, and CNET always rates it better-- but that is marketing, not measuring.

Poisonpill....I wrote my reply before reading your...thanks..

I was looking at the same thing about 8 months ago - ended up building a i7 core (2.93 Ghz) 12GB ram, super fast hard drive etc for less than 2K. Any mac that would have been even close to as fast would have been 4-6K in price.

And I can run 64 bit CS 4 too.

I'm with posionpill - I want to like them, I really do, but the PCs are sooooo much more bang for the buck. Plus, Win7 runs really, really well so even the OS is pretty good.

Yep. 64-bit CS4 is only on PC. And the stated performance gains over 32-bit all over the web are true.

+1 to Poisonpill and Steve Perry,

Remember that Mac are built on the same hardware as PCs. Basically the difference between a Mac and PC is the OS. In fact, you could load Mac OS onto a PC and it will run fine, but that violates the licencing agreement. The other difference is that Mac has approved vendors with known drives that work with its OS, thus the appearance of less issues. If you build a PC with good parts from a reputable vendor, and do a clean install of the PC operating system, you will have no issues and will spend 1/2 the money or less.

Don't believe the hype; There's really nothing a Mac can do that a PC can't. It's more of a preference if anything. Some people prefer Final Cut Pro, and others swear by Avid. It really just depends on your taste.

The reason you're getting sluggish performance from your PC is because you're running CS4 on a machine that's 3-4 years old, not because it's a PC. The same would happen on a Mac. Apple barely supports 4 year old machines (PPC-based), so things could definitely be worst.

I've used both (right now have two PCs running W7 x64 and it's a breeze with CS4, LR, etc), but I've found the the cost/benefit of owning a Mac is not favorable. As Steve says, you can build an i7 rig for less than a base Mac Pro, and I'm sure his completely smokes Apple's current offering.

Were I in your shoes, I'd definitely build my own, as Steve did. Grab a good mobo that has everything you're looking for, couple it with an i7 core, some DDR3 RAM, and don't skimp on a gfx card and everything else will fall into place. If you're like me, storage will eventually become an issue, to where RAID will become a likely option. You'll be thankful that you went PC when you're not getting price gouged by CalDigit for a controller card.

OK..so then let us shift the conversation to "which PC should I be looking at?"

Dell. HP. Asus. Sony. ?

my only worry about building my own is compatibility. If anyone with experience building one wants to help me go shopping...lets go!

I just recently researched this as I needed to upgrade to a new system to run CS4 perfectly... the cost/benefit really favours the PC. My wife runs a mac system and in the end I ended up going with PC because all of my software is for PC and it literally was abut $2000 less to get a PC that ran the same and functioned the same as it's Mac equivalent.

Been really happy with my intel quad core 64 bit with Windows 7. Runs like a charm and CS4 flies.

My 2 cents!

It's mostly personal taste. I feel happier and more creative using OSX. Can't explain it.

Cost-performance ratio wise, the PC will almost always win out. With the mac you're paying the premium for the better design between software and hardware.

While I think I might believe most of this, my experience is different. I run an 8-core Mac Pro next to a dual-core iMac next to a 15" MacBook Pro next to a PC.

I think the OS is half of the deal -- I don't have to mess with OS X; Windows CONSTANTLY requires something - and then wants me to reboot. Crap - I don't WANT to be a computer guy, I want to be WORKING. The whole idea of "it just works" on a Mac is - in my experience - true. That time saved with worth some money to me.

Secondly, I've had to deal with customer service for "issues" on both kinds of machines. For Apple, it's one phone call, followed by a quick visit (if required); for the laptops, they send me box, I pack it before the delivery guy leaves, and he takes it away. Costs me $0 in time, money, and effort. Repairs have always been back sooner than they say, and the "little stuff" is always fixed/cleaned.

Dell, on the other hand, fights me at every step. They always assume that I have no idea what I'm doing (Yes, it's plugged in. Yes, it's on. Yes, I tried the obvious. Yes, I read the freaking manual.). It's a fight, and frankly, I think they do it that way to keep the number of repairs low (who wants to deal with that?). Their repair time is ALWAYS long, and something else is ALWAYS wrong when I get it back. That costs me time, money, and more than a couple of aspirin.

So, yes. If you want to build your own PC and if you think it'll always work, never break, and things will mesh together perfectly, then go for a PC. I get the same power (if not more) with less headaches and "issues" from my Macs.

YMMV.


Just one man's opinion.

If you don't "get" what a Mac is about ... don't get one. Just like folks think Canon is better - and they are when you look at the specs. I mean you can get a 21 megapixel camera for the price of a 12 megapixel Nikon. What kind of idiot would buy the Nikon? I mean ... get real. Canon has so much more bang for the buck.

Of course there are those who care about little subtleties. Weirdos! ... And windows 7 is very much like Canon flash. When you are used to suffering any improvement seems like mana from heaven. Canon flash btw is fabulous. (As long as you ever get used to Nikon flash) Just ask the Canon folks. It is cheaper as well. But never-mind!

Pavel..that is hilarious!!

I have owned both and used both. I have also worked for HP in their Technical Workstation division. Bang for the buck hardware wise I would always choose a Technical workstation from either Dell or HP or something home built. I prefer the HP's, not because I worked there but because of their quality. There is a reason 80% of the oil exploration and CADD industries are using them. A lot more R&D money is put into their performance. As an example Dreamworks has been using them for years.

From an operating system stand point OS X was a clear winner... Until Window 7. I even built a hackintosh because I couldn't stand Vista. Windows 7 is a far more stable OS with actual advancements vs the hyped features of Vista. I still prefer the BSD file system & shell that OSX uses but only a Linux / Unix geek can truly appreciate that.

Using both of the systems side by side for the past 3 months, I think outside of PS's 64bit working only on PC's it really comes down to what you are more comfortable with anymore. When I get my next machine I will likely replace my Mac with a home-built or HP workstation.

Side note: I also found that printing in windows with paper profiles is much easier than printing in OSX with paper profiles.

I have had both mac and PC and I have to say I am loving win 7. fast and solid for sure. I don't think I will ever go back to a mac. but thats just me.

First off understand that I am pretty much neutral on this topic. Both platforms have strengths and weaknesses. I use both platforms.

At this point the hardware debate won't get you anywhere because things are pretty identical. You can buy power macs with nehalem-core cpus and you can buy windows workstations wtih nehalem-core cpus. You can even run windows on your mac.

The differences are in software.

Lightroom runs both 32 and 64 bit on both platforms.

Photoshop runs in 64-bit on windows x64, but not on mac. Adobe was not able to have 64-bit photoshop ready because at the last minute Apple dropped 64-bit Carbon, so the Adobe team is now busy re-writing things for 64-bit Cocoa. This came as a complete surprise to Adobe (and everyone else), and to confuse things further many of Apple's own flagship apps like final cut and even the mighty apple 'finder' run on 32-bit Carbon libraries. So much for 64 bit...

So, for now, the windows space is the winner for photoshop users. The 64-bit abilities allow for much more memory to be used by the apps. Of course, you can install x64 windows on your mac and run the windows version of photoshop in 64-bit... but for a novice user that would be more complicated. (intermediate users and beyond should have no trouble doing that).

That said, in the hands of an expert, both platforms have enough flaws that I don't really care for either ;-)

Of course, if you know what you are doing, and aren't concerned with software licensing agreements, you can run mac's OSX on your non-apple hardware... (but why would you want to)

I though religious debates weren't allowed on FM ;-)

DragonflyDM wrote:


Of course this means also spending $199 for the CS4 upgrade, $99 for the Lightroom upgrade (so that I can get them migrated to Mac), and Microsoft Office, plus all the other bits and pieces I have collected.

.
I'm not following this, LR has both Windows and Mac on the same disk.

DragonflyDM wrote:

I am really looking for something definitive comparing cost-to-benefit.



Good luck with that. It's kinda like asking for definitive data that says Radiohead makes better music than Nickelback.

I'll refrain from choosing a side explicitly in the computer debate. But let's just say Nickelback makes me want to stab ice-picks in my ears.

I'm just bookmarking this thread, I'm in a similar position (time to upgrade) and most mac vs PC threads seem to be flamefests between fanboys - this seems to have some substance.
I currently use windows xp, I want a mac, I really want to like mac but I'd need to start from scratch - new software all round and relearning the OS and keyboard shortcuts.
Macs are shiny but PCs are cheap, as much as I want a Mac (I know, like a sheep following the cool crowd) PC prices are winning...

My needs don't appear to be as sophisticated as the OP's, but a year ago I went through the same process. I searched high and low for a REASON to spend the extra money on a Mac, but in the end I couldn't get the cost-benefit equation to balance out, let alone work in the Mac's favour.

So I picked up a cheepo refurbished HP quad core with 4 GB memory and twin 360 GB drives for $500 (remember, last year). I matched it with a nice 24" HP H-IPX monitor that I'll keep for years. My HP runs Vista just fine, thank you. But the point to my story is in another year I'll toss the box in the garbage and by a updated box for $500.

So for $250 a year I can always keep current. It may not be a powerhouse, mind you, but staying current every two years is good enough for me. Computers are now just commodities, and I have better places to put my money....like on Nikon gear!