Mac versus PC - your thoughts please!

Which platform's best for photography? How much RAM do you really need? Discuss computer hardware here!

Moderators: Bob Andersson, Thomas, Bjorn van Sinttruije

Postby Shanghaid » Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:12 pm

grahamnp wrote:Everything else is subjective and personal but I've found that on indentical hardware, OSX runs faster.


So basically by this you mean Mac proprietary hardware? I would certainly hope this is the case.
Shanghaid
 

Postby XuXing » Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:28 pm

...There are THREE major operating systems you know. However If you want professional graphics software, linux probably wont cut it.

- OSX runs faster and is (apparently) a little more stable that windows. This is due to the fact that it contains a lot less code that windows equivilents so it can render graphics significantly faster. , it is much less cusomisable than windows and has less software.

as I see it the three systems cater to different needs.

Mac:

-People who care about the design of their hardware.
-People who want a simple and attractive way to perform simple somputing tasks.
-People who work with graphics.

Microsoft

-Gamers.
-Computer geeks/programers type A.
-Those who want '-a computer-' perferable one with layout they are already familiar with- I guess this is 70 percent of users.
-Those who need a specific program or range of programs that are only availible on the microsoft platform.

Linux.

-digital hippies.
-Cost concious people who want a simple and attractive way to perform simple somputing tasks.
-Computer geeks/programers type B.
Last edited by XuXing on Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
XuXing
 

Postby Shanghaid » Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:19 pm

XuXing wrote:...This is due to the fact that it contains a lot less code that windows equivilents


As it should. It is coded to support ONLY the proprietory hardware designed my Mac. I can't help but give MS a small bit of support in that they design their OS to support 100's if not 1000's of different hardware configurations.
Shanghaid
 

Postby XuXing » Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:47 pm

As an asside of uncertain truth I hear that Windows 7 is going to be very good.
XuXing
 

Postby Alex_Venom » Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:01 pm

XuXing wrote:As an asside of uncertain truth I hear that Windows 7 is going to be very good.


Yeah, right!! I heard that from Vista and would NEVER change my XP for the former :P

I think Microsoft found the right equilibrium with XP. Best Windows to the date. :wink:
Alex_Venom
 

Postby Mark Owen » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:37 pm

To be fair, I'm going to defend Windows 7 here. I've been using the release that was downloadable from MS a few months ago. It is MUCH better than Vista. Everything feels much more fluid and everything has worked.
Mark Owen
 

Postby Bob Andersson » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:00 pm

.
Hmmm. Geeks start of by deciding which machine is best and savvy real world users start of by choosing the software they want to use and then selecting the hardware they need to run it on.

Oh, and in case you think I'm being insulting I hope I'm not as I'm a geek in this field. I enjoy building my own hardware so that rules out the Mac. And as I occasionally do a spot of programming that has tended to rule out Linux as it would require too much of an investment in time to learn the APIs associated with a different OS.

Bob.
Sony RX1R II. Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/2.8 + 1.4x T/C, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8
M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8, Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.
User avatar
Bob Andersson
Moderator
 
Posts: 9888
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Location: UK

Postby Photoj » Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:44 pm

I feel this is more appropriately placed in the Computer hardware and operating systems section rather than the Off-topic. Therefore I've relocated this.
Photoj
 

Postby Shanghaid » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:09 am

XuXing wrote:As an asside of uncertain truth I hear that Windows 7 is going to be very good.


From my experience with it, Win 7 is Microsoft's best OS yet.
Shanghaid
 

Postby Defiance » Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:21 am

Well I have been as the "Windows" advert on the telly says I am a PC, have been ever since I ditched my old "Atari" for one and that was back in the old days of Windows 3xx and have been through win 95, win 98, win 98SE, win XP and now win Vista, and spread over 4 desktops and 2 laptops.
In all this time I have never had a system crash or fall over, so for me it has to be PC untill they carry me, screaming from my 'pooter to put me in my wooden overcoat.
One final note from me which will probably have the Mac'ites pulling their hair out and wringing their hands is... I did look at a Mac a couple of years ago and found that to me it looked Tacky and was very overpriced.
Defiance
 

Postby swame_sp » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:11 am

Thanks Photoj, for moving it appropriately.

Yes very interesting points on table for both PC and MAC.

Last time my friend bought a DELL laptop and vista wont hibernate properly. 40% of time it would just restart. Also the customer support could not fix it even after re-installing the Vista OS twice. After sometime we got fed up and left it just like that. Still the % remains the same.

I also have this Xp OS laptop (given for office work ) and have been affected by virus (when I tried to download some mp3, dont say this to my company :D ) for about 6 times and it was re-imaged and I have lost many data because of it. I believe MAC should be really winning PC here by huge margin, at least for some more time until hackers try to break the OS X code. :?

I have few other stories (real) about Desktop PCs being affected by virus and could not recovered. :(

I found in some other forum about resale value of the system. They were pointing that ebay has higher value for MACs than the PCs.

Are the MAC users here are not affected by any virus or spywares even though they download from torrents?
swame_sp
 

Postby grahamnp » Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:51 am

Yes it is based on my own perception but there are benchmarks done by other people, if you want me to provide my own evidence then I'm sorry but I don't have any.

Shanghaid, I was not referring specifically to Apple's proprietary hardware. What difference is there between a 2.0ghz Macbook and a 2.0ghz Dell of equivalent specifications apart from the OS? Until you get to 64-bit apps, more often than not OSX performs better. Once you get to 64 bit however, there is a definite performance deficit.[/i]
grahamnp
 

Postby DD_nVidia » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:27 pm

I can't be bothered even reading the first post.

I'll say this.


OS X has some pretty nifty stuff in terms of hardware acceleration, especially when it comes to off-loading tasks to the GPU, even when its just photo editing. Now, as far as I can tell, apart from Adobe Photoshop CS4 (and perhaps a few other CS4 products excluding LR2) no other photo editing applications for the PC are hardware accelerated.

Something I find quite annoying on the PC is that re-drawing times for images be them RAW, TIFF or even JPG take a split second - now I know it doesn't seem like much but for a seemless viewing experience, it makes it really annoying.

iPhoto seems to do a pretty darn good job at this, e.g. going through lists of thousands of photos, scaling up and down with no sense of having to re-render or re-draw bigger previews, its just seemless. Lightroom 2 just can't do this - maybe something to do with the fact that it is 20MP RAW files, maybe not. I'll have to try it on a equally spec'd Mac (e.g. a Mac Pro)


That is the one reason I don't like Macs. They still lack the High End Tower that isnt powered by bloody server/workstation processors. A generic i7 920 system at a decent price point would be great - it would certainly cut sales from the Mac Pros and iMacs which im sure they are quite happy with.

Now the GUI in OS X, I'm not a huge fan. I know how to work it and get a lot from it, but its to chunky. Just like aero. My XP Classic theme takes up hardly any space, tiny fonts, no AA on the text, thin bars. If I had a 1920x1200 screen in my laptop instead of the 1440x900 then I wouldnt mind.

I could rant more, but not got time.
Canon EOS 5DmkII + BG-E6 + Canon EOS 40D + BG-E2N + Canon EOS 33
Canon 17-40 F/4L USM + Canon 24-70 F/2.8L USM + Canon 28mm F/1.8 USM + Canon 70-200 F/2.8L USM IS + Canon 85mm F/1.8 USM
Canon Speedlite 580EX II + Canon Speedlite 540EZ + 2 x Nikon SB-80DX
Cactus V2s Wireless Trigger - 5 x Cactus V2s Wireless Reciever

MY FLICKR!
User avatar
DD_nVidia
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:23 pm

Postby Mark. » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:56 pm

DD_nVidia wrote:
Now the GUI in OS X, I'm not a huge fan. I know how to work it and get a lot from it, but its to chunky. Just like aero. My XP Classic theme takes up hardly any space, tiny fonts, no AA on the text, thin bars. If I had a 1920x1200 screen in my laptop instead of the 1440x900 then I wouldnt mind.
i must disagree with you there DD, you can customize you fonts, bars, etc etc with osx :wink:
User avatar
Mark.
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby grahamnp » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:44 am

I have no issues with the out of the box support for customisation with OSX but I wish it had the same kind of community that Windows has for desktop customisation. I kinda miss WindowBlinds. It's not a crucial feature but it was nice to have the option.
grahamnp
 

PreviousNext

Return to Computer hardware and operating systems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests