10-16-2011, 12:32 PM

OK so I will be needing a beefier PC for my upcoming photo editing jobs. I have a PC and an iMac already, but they're relatively old. Both operating systems are awesome and each have their strengths and weaknesses. I need something updated and speedy that's quick for photo editing. My questions is, why do many people say Mac is better for photos? Spec-wise, I can get a whole lot more for my money with PC. Nothing I can see actually makes Macs better for photos. I really need to know if there is so that I can make the best decision. And don't say Mac is better because it doesn't get viruses. It does. And I've had PC forever and I don't get viruses because I'm not stupid and I don't click on porn-banners and illegally download music and such. If you have any LEGIT reasons, please let me know. I need to buy this computer in about a week or so. Thanks in advance for any good advice or insight.

10-16-2011, 12:38 PM

Neither OS makes itself superior for post processing of photos. The software generally used is identical in function.

10-16-2011, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dysfunction

Neither OS makes itself superior for post processing of photos. The software generally used is identical in function.

That's what I was thinking. I'm going to use CS5 no matter what system I get. I guess in this case it's the more for my money option. Still kind of a toughie because I like the consistent quality of Apple products, and they look aesthetically pleasing too (not a big factor, just saying). Perhaps this is a coin flip situation....

10-16-2011, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by djmaxx007

OK so I will be needing a beefier PC for my upcoming photo editing jobs. I have a PC and an iMac already, but they're relatively old. Both operating systems are awesome and each have their strengths and weaknesses. I need something updated and speedy that's quick for photo editing. My questions is, why do many people say Mac is better for photos? Spec-wise, I can get a whole lot more for my money with PC. Nothing I can see actually makes Macs better for photos. I really need to know if there is so that I can make the best decision. And don't say Mac is better because it doesn't get viruses. It does. And I've had PC forever and I don't get viruses because I'm not stupid and I don't click on porn-banners and illegally download music and such. If you have any LEGIT reasons, please let me know. I need to buy this computer in about a week or so. Thanks in advance for any good advice or insight.

Link please to the virus I need the money for new toys.
Use the tool that best fits your needs the majority of forum members here have obviously decided on Mac and yes i use Win 7 and Ubuntu 11.10 just to stay informed for my line of work but my go to is Mac.
I find that in most cases the Mac will render faster and easier without some of what I call micro managing.

10-16-2011, 01:01 PM

So it really does render faster on comparable hardware? That's the kind of stuff I'd like to know. I've heard of Windows having many unnecessary/redundant layers of sloppy driver code and inefficient OS code that makes it overall inefficient. If I have to use beefier components in a PC compared to a Mac to get the same result, I think I'd rather go with Mac, unless the total cost of those better components + the PC itself is still a good deal less then the cost of a Mac. Any pages with benchmarks that I can compare? I just want the best tool for the job. Also, it seems only the Mac Pro is decently upgradable compared to other offerings, and I want this computer to last. I'm wondering what I will need to upgrade in the future. If I need to keep my options open I may have to go with a Mac Pro, but they start at $2,400. Yikes! If I go the Apple route I will probably tough it out on my old PCs/iMac until I have enough for the Mac Pro. What do y'all think?

10-18-2011, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by djmaxx007

My questions is, why do many people say Mac is better for photos?

Because it is. There's better software available for it, it's the industry standard, PCs don't have ColorSync, and Macs are better calibrated that PCs. And that's before we get into things like typography, the OS, etc. all of which are a lot better. Having a machine that reliably and elegantly works and doesn't waste your time is worth a LOT of money beyond just the fact that Photoshop works more or less the same on both platforms!

And don't say Mac is better because it doesn't get viruses. It does.

No, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There are NO -- repeat, NO -- Mac viruses. You're welcome to send me some if you believe otherwise, but they just don't exist so I don't think you'll get very far with that.

10-18-2011, 05:52 PM

It always amazes me when people insist that Macs "get viruses" but can never cite one instance, or come up with a real virus that exists for the Mac.

10-18-2011, 07:13 PM

I consider ColorSync a non-issue in the first place, since I don't trust it to properly color-manage. But, everyone has their own requirements for color management in the first place. In general, out of the box, every machine's displays are profiled more to look 'pretty' on the showroom floor than being accurate.

Sitting here, currently, I have a Mac and a PC running windows 7. Both color calibrated using the same hardware and software. Guess what, they look (and output) identically.

Oh, and I gave up arguing which platform is fundamentally better years ago. Of the two systems sitting on my desk right now.. I personally paid for one of them. It ain't the one running 'Version 6.1.7601' That, alone, should speak volumes of how I really feel about usability and industrial design.

10-19-2011, 07:28 AM

I just want to be clear that I don't consider ColorSync the be-all and end-all of color management -- but the fact that it is there and integrated system wide IS, in my honest opinion, an advantage over Windows PCs, in the same sense that Apple's happier relationship with Postscript fonts was once a serious advantage.

To the OP, I would just repeat two things I once heard from a great man who recently passed away: "Value is different than price" and "Design is not just how something looks -- it is how something works."

10-19-2011, 08:25 AM

Yea, I agree with that. The nvidia color correction tool leaves much to be desired in comparison, and I do have to say that windows 7 (so far) is indeed better in the color management regard than previous versions.

I guess, at this point, I'm just thinking that we spend an awful lot of money (quite readily, and rightly so) on software that really only does two things... modify the color and brightness of a pixel (and a whole lot more on devices that only capture light)... and all too often, not even 10 cents on the dollar is devoted to controlling what the actual output of our work will actually look like.

10-22-2011, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dysfunction

Yea, I agree with that. The nvidia color correction tool leaves much to be desired in comparison, and I do have to say that windows 7 (so far) is indeed better in the color management regard than previous versions.

Though I don't plan to test that personally, I am actually quite pleased to hear it.

10-23-2011, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by chas_m

Because it is. There's better software available for it, it's the industry standard, PCs don't have ColorSync, and Macs are better calibrated that PCs. And that's before we get into things like typography, the OS, etc. all of which are a lot better. Having a machine that reliably and elegantly works and doesn't waste your time is worth a LOT of money beyond just the fact that Photoshop works more or less the same on both platforms!

Bull. I challenge you to show me how a Mac calibrates better than a w7 pc. And please be advised that I've been a professional digital Adverting photographer for decades and I'm typing on a system that includes a MPB and a W7 box into the same NEC monitor and calibrated via spectraviewII.

To the original poster, For photo processing, all the software is near identical for both platforms and for sheer horsepower ( which is a HUGE assest) A W7 pc can't be beat cost wise.

OS's are different and quite frankly after 8 months of using both systems daily, I'm not finding one that much superior in photographic workflow to the other.

All things considered and from a cost/performance standpoint, the PC is the best solution IMHO.

Now don't get me wrong, the MBP is a fine machine, and I use it every day. However Imacs and MBP's don't make great high performance editing workstations, and MacPros are too pricey. Again, IMO.

Your mileage may vary.

02-14-2012, 04:26 AM

Forget about the "Mac Defender" trojan???

02-14-2012, 04:28 AM

And these...

Mac Virus Database | iAntivirus

02-14-2012, 04:34 AM

Great....

Did you buy a Mac in the end?