The main difference in Windows and Mac is that Windows uses a registry. If this gets corrupt or gets altered by a drive by program then you have issues. If it is bad then the normal operation is to wipe out and start again. The registry can get clogged up over time and again it is normal to format and start over. I have used Windows for years and am MCSE but in my years I did the switch and do not regret it at all. I am behind a router which offers some good protection but I am also careful in what I say yes to and do not go to questionable sites.
Mac has just been a smoother experience for me. Yes, they are a piece of electronics as well and can go wrong but the support is there.
If you're ok with paying nearly twice as much to get a slicker software interface, then yes, Mac is indeed better. If you'd rather get the same performance for half the price, then PC is better. Its a personal choice, but as we well know many people are willing to shell out crazy premiums for whatever looks the coolest. But to answer your question more simply, no, your photography won't know the difference, only your wallet will be able to tell which system you're on.
ChrisDM wrote:
If you're ok with paying nearly twice as much to get a slicker software interface, then yes, Mac is indeed better. If you'd rather get the same performance for half the price, then PC is better. Its a personal choice, but as we well know many people are willing to shell out crazy premiums for whatever looks the coolest. But to answer your question more simply, no, your photography won't know the difference, only your wallet will be able to tell which system you're on.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
I'd say your exaggerating a little bit when you say twice the price. More expensive, yes, twice...no.
ChrisDM wrote:
but as we well know many people are willing to shell out crazy premiums for whatever looks the coolest.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
While Apple's offerings do "look cool" .... I wouldn't say that is the premier reason I have purchased Apple hardware .... it is a plus though IMHO.
Is the price for Apple hardware higher than a comparable Windows based machine? ... Yes ... is it a "crazy premium" .... I don't think so ... I have purchased several refurb machines from the Apple Store, and using the NAPP discount along with adding RAM or drives purchased elsewhere ... you can keep the price more in line.
Do we not try to purchase the best cameras, lenses and flash for the work we do ... or do we make those purchase decisions based on low bid? While I wish I could buy Apple hardware for less, I am not that concerned when I look at the ROI I have received using Macs. They have always performed well and there have been few headaches along the way ... probably no more or less than with a good PC.
I started out with PS (v2) on Apple .... simply because PS wasn't available for Windows at the time ... and have seen no reason to switch ..... price point notwithstanding. Sometimes it is the intangibles that win out in a purchase decision .... not just the price tag.
This might not be a good question, but I am somewhat curious. The screen on the monitor of a iMac 27 inch with its glossy, glass design is cool and looks sharp. My question is does this help or hurt during editing and then the final print output? I send my prints out and most customers like the matte finish. Or is this just something you learn to overcome. I do realize I can set a color profile and use the spyder3.
I've had my 24" iMac now for about three years and do not foresee ever going back to a PC. Sure, the software availability could be an issue for some, but I'm trying to go a bit more minimalist in that area. The only software applications that I really miss are Visio and Access...Microsoft does not not bundle them in their Mac Office offerings for some reason or other. MS Project is the other. I know that I can run dual operating systems on the iMac, but I have no desire to do that.
After more Windows crashes than I could count, with the final fix being a hard drive wipe and total re-install, I finally made the switch after figuring that upgrading my PC tower would not have been cost effective. Could not be happier with the iMac...software installs are a piece of cake, even uninstalls. No more registry errors, no dicking around with drivers, and seamless integration with my iPhone and iPod. What's funny is hearing my wife cuss and moan about her Windows 7 laptop from the other side of the room.
Seriously thinking about upgrading to a Mac Pro sometime down the line...
I just plunked a couple more hard drives in my pc, slap 'em in, good to go. I don't think you can do that with the imac. I've got to hand it to apple though when it comes to style, those imacs with the big screen look really cool. I would like one.
jrf37 wrote:
This might not be a good question, but I am somewhat curious. The screen on the monitor of a iMac 27 inch with its glossy, glass design is cool and looks sharp. My question is does this help or hurt during editing and then the final print output? I send my prints out and most customers like the matte finish. Or is this just something you learn to overcome. I do realize I can set a color profile and use the spyder3.
I think the matte screens give you a closer idea of what a print is going to look like as the glossy screen seems to have a little too much punchy contrast, saturation and sharpness. I don;t know if you can dial that back by calibrating the monitor or not, Apple monitors didn't usually have a lot of adjustments. Maybe the new ones do.
halie wrote:
I just plunked a couple more hard drives in my pc, slap 'em in, good to go. I don't think you can do that with the imac. I've got to hand it to apple though when it comes to style, those imacs with the big screen look really cool. I would like one.
Sure can...just not internal with the iMac. I have a dedicated external drive for my Time Machine backups, and an external firewire 1TB raid for backing up my image files.
chez wrote:
I'd say your exaggerating a little bit when you say twice the price. More expensive, yes, twice...no.
It depends. My most recent Mac shopping experience was just a couple weeks ago, where I needed a new laptop for tethered location shooting. I settled on a Sony VIAO with a dual core intel processor, 4 gigs of RAM and a 15" screen. My price was $629, and the Macbook with the matching specs and features was over $1200.. Now I am the king of rationalization when it comes to buying tools, gadgets and toys but this was too far a stretch, even for the king.
Mike Ganz wrote:
Sure can...just not internal with the iMac. I have a dedicated external drive for my Time Machine backups, and an external firewire 1TB raid for backing up my image files.
Yeah, I know you can use external drives, but in my experience external drives are much slower when accessing large volumes of data than are internal drives. Perhaps just me.
halie wrote:
Yeah, I know you can use external drives, but in my experience external drives are much slower when accessing large volumes of data than are internal drives. Perhaps just me.
It just depends on the interface to the external HDD.
chez wrote:
I'd say your exaggerating a little bit when you say twice the price. More expensive, yes, twice...no.
I dont know for a similarly equipped $1999 imac (2.66 i5, 4gb, 1Tb, 27" monitor), I can get a slightly better pre-built PC for $750. And I have the option to get an ATI series 58xx video card among other things. I can then have a lot of money to find a nice monitor.
Not quite twice the price... but a significant difference. I do like the MacOS but I refuse to pay a premium for their hardware.
But for most it is a business decision to you buy what works best for you and will enable you to get the most done.
ChrisDM wrote:
If you're ok with paying nearly twice as much to get a slicker software interface, then yes, Mac is indeed better. If you'd rather get the same performance for half the price, then PC is better. Its a personal choice, but as we well know many people are willing to shell out crazy premiums for whatever looks the coolest. But to answer your question more simply, no, your photography won't know the difference, only your wallet will be able to tell which system you're on.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
While the comment lays your biases bare, it doesn't provide the OP with accurate information. Your "wallet" won't be the only thing that knows you're on a Mac... you certainly will, and your productivity in terms of photography and other areas could benefit as a result. Macs have, for many years, enjoyed interface benefits that lead to tangible improvements in productivity. It is also true, however, that the release of Windows 7 may render the Mac "premium" less justifiable than before.
You exaggerate the "crazy" premium while understating the productivity benefits that may accrue from the "slicker software interface." While an Intel CPU may "perform" at the same speed under either WinXP or MacOS, overall "productivity" for the user may benefit if one OS allows a more efficient workflow at a given CPU clock speed. In my own experience, the productivity balance strongly favors OSX, though Win7 may change that.
From an application view, there is little difference; PS runs the same, and one could argue that PS enjoys certain advantages in Windows (64-bit, for example). However, I prefer my Macs for personal imaging work because of how the tools in the OS subtly but noticeably enhance my workflow outside of the application.
That said, many Macs are, in my view, unjustifiably expensive. Since MS has finally delivered a polished OS product with the interface niceties of MacOS, we may see downward pressure on Mac prices. That being said, there are certain end-user benefits in having a system with coordinated hardware-software interfaces, and integrated support through both live (Apple Store) and telephonic resources.
