New computer system..(pc or mac)??

quadricolour · Nov 12, 2004

Go for the mac. Apple makes excellent laptops, it is by far their strongest point in hardware (that and displays). I've abused my iBook for 2 years and it's still going strong.

Photoshop is developed natively for the mac (not ported), and will run great under OS X as long as you have plenty of RAM.

What's your budget?

EDIT

As for your second question, yes.

stinky|Dan · Nov 12, 2004

Hey Derek!

I just switched to mac after being a long time PC user and can happily say i'll never go back. I bought a 12 inch powerbook and though there are some differences between the platforms that take some time to get used to, the advances in useability with the Mac make life a bit simpler. though i'm not a photo pro like you, the playing around i've done with photoshop , scanning photos and importing photos from digi cams has been a totally easy and positive experience.

Oh yeah, and you can plug your other monitor into the Mac and have it reflect what you're working on OR have it as an extra screen.

Hope my input helps.

Dan

BigMike · Nov 12, 2004

Macs are good for photo and video editing. That is what they are designed for. I am a die hard PC user, but was raised on both Macs and PCs.

If you are familiar with a PC, I would say go with what you are familiar with, unless you are willing to learn a totally new system. If you mean what you say, and you will be ONLY using it for photo stuff, it wont be too hard to learn the Mac OS. If you are only using it for Photo editing, i'd say go with the Mac. If you need other compatability stuff with other programs you already own, you may want to stick with a PC.

It all boils down to what YOU want to do. Anyone can sit here and tell you one is better than the other, but none of us know what you are going to be comfortable with. If you have never touched a Mac, its gonna take awhile to get used to. Another thing to take into consideration is price. A Mac is usually way more expensive. If price is not too important to you, and you just want a really powerful photo editing machine, I'd say go with a high end Mac with a few gigs of ram. If you need to save some cash go with a PC with a few gigs of ram.

OK, I don't know if this has been helpful at all, but I hope it has. No matter which you go with, RAM is the key. Get as much as you can afford.

Motionboy2 · Nov 12, 2004

You know my vote: MAC

If you are getting a desktop and a laptop then you should get a 12 inch powerbook and a really nice g5. The laptop can plug in as a firewire drive to the desktop. NICE!

Ridemonkey · Nov 12, 2004

I use em all and I prefer my Mac by a large margin.

manhattanprjkt83 · Nov 12, 2004

derek, i would say go with the PC if that is what you are used to, Macs def rock but i dont really see alot of advantage with them besides being immune to alot of virus and spyware BS, given your photography work, i would venture to say that Photoshop is the most important program you use. I use it everyday on my PC and am perfectly happy. MAC def has the apeal in the art world, but i never really get a solid answer from owners why it is that they are so great. My vote is for the PC, Bill Gates...get an ipod though :thumb:

SoCalsurfer · Nov 12, 2004

Mac owner for 13 years. Number of viruses in 13 years......0 :thumb:

Ridemonkey · Nov 12, 2004

derekpearson said:
thanks for the input so far folkes. I have budgeted 7 grand for a desktop and laptop. I have been looking at monitors and they look pretty sweet so maybe ill say 8 grand for a total budget..

Yeah that 23 inch Apple LCD is sweet. I was looking at Dell 19 inch LCDs yesterday for 900. I don't know what it is about the PC LCDs but they are so dull and colorless compared to the brilliant Mac displays. I think I'll end up buying a cheap CRT monitor for my PC and save the $$ to get a Mac LCD later.

Ciaran · Nov 12, 2004

I would go with what you know. Tthey are both computers, they basically do the same thing. And most modern computers can handle photoshop with ease be they Mac or PC. Macs are definitely sexier though.

I would ask yourself these questions: Do you have a bunch of PC based software already? Do you want to learn a new system? Is the video work you do too much for a basic PC to handle? (Probably not if it's just photoshop)

Just my $0.02, your milage may vary.

HTFR · Nov 12, 2004

SoCalsurfer said:
Mac owner for 13 years. Number of viruses in 13 years......0

thanks for the ip...SENT :evil:

you had better knock wood!

Wingnut · Nov 12, 2004

GET A MAC!!!

Sorry.....I'm typing this on my iMAC, meanwhile, my Dell is being re-formatted for the fourth time in two months. Stupid Windows service pack was corupt again....

'll never go back. And for pic or video editing, MAC's rule. :thumb:

-dustin · Nov 12, 2004

being a PC user, i was forced to use macs all summer, and find them to be quite intuitive. at the end of my trip, i was decided between a Dell desktop, or a 12" Powerbook with 20" monitor. i went for the Dell (and am using the 19" LCD, which i loooooooove).

anywho, what is the laptop going to be used for? editing and such, or just something to have with you on trips? if it's more for the latter, i'd say go with a 12" Powerbook. they're good for portability, but in my opinion, the 12" display is just too small to do any significant work on. i'd say shoot for something like a low level 12" Powerbook, then splurge on the desktop and monitor (lots of ram). you should pretty handily meet the $7K budget with room for an iPod.

i agree with Ciaron's words, but i just don't really trust any PC laptops, despite using my Toshiba laptop for 5yrs with no problems.

Toshi · Nov 12, 2004

get a pair of macs, and a spyder color calibrator for your cinema display and powerbook screen :thumb:

Zack · Nov 12, 2004

my Dell is being re-formatted for the fourth time in two months

Key word there is Dell...Worst computers out there in my opinion...

I'm almost a 10 year PC user and these days I only get Sony VAIOs. I am starting to get into video editing a lot, and sometimes I wish I had a Mac for Final Cut, but everything besides Final Cut on Macs drives me crazy. So, if you're a long-time PC user, I would stick with a PC unless you're willing to put the time in to get used to a Mac.

DHanamal · Nov 13, 2004

Depends on your software choices. I am a PC user, and always a PC user cause I'm a heavy gamer. If you're life is mainly web surfing, photo/video editing, and office type programs, Word, Excel, then you can go either way. Microsoft makes Office for Macs if you use that. But games are hard to find in the Mac variety. PCs have improved a ton in reliability believe it or not, since Windows XP.

As for your monitor question, you need an adapter unless your monitor has a DVI input.

Crash_Tested · Nov 13, 2004

If your going for a high end machine, I would go for 64 bit processor. Sure OS isn't quite ready unless you want to run lunix, but it will be soon and you will have a ton of power at your hands. I'm not up on Macs other than when I get on one I'm lost. That one button mouse drives me crazy. Anyway If you go for a PC, I say get a Athlon 64. Many of the Animation companies use dual or quad Athlon 64s. And you can get them for box or portable. Software for 64 bit should be out by mid next year and it would suck to though down that kind of cash now and not be able to take advantage of it.

-dustin · Nov 13, 2004

Zack said:
Key word there is Dell...Worst computers out there in my opinion...

I'm almost a 10 year PC user and these days I only get Sony VAIOs. I am starting to get into video editing a lot, and sometimes I wish I had a Mac for Final Cut, but everything besides Final Cut on Macs drives me crazy. So, if you're a long-time PC user, I would stick with a PC unless you're willing to put the time in to get used to a Mac.

no. the key referance was SP 2. if you don't do stupid crap, like download porn, movies, SP 2 ( :rolleyes:

)etc, you won't run into problems.

binary visions · Nov 13, 2004

Derek, IMO, you already said which one you need.

You're used to a PC. You own PC software. You will be using it for Photoshop and the internet. Why learn an entirely new system, especially when a Mac will cost you more?

I've worked extensively with both, and done support for both, and I don't like Macs personally, but that's not really an issue here since both systems will work equally well for Photoshop and internet stuff. Stick with what you know, and you get the added benefit of it being a tad cheaper too.

Austin Bike · Nov 13, 2004

OK, I'll bite.

Macs are intuitive and pretty decent, but they suffer from 3 problems:

1. Less SW to choose from
2. More expensive
3. Less compatible with the rest of the world.

Based on the fact that 95% of the world is on a PC platform, if you have to exchange data/files with others, PC is a better choice. In a vacuum, Apple may be better.

PCs are more prone to viruses because of 2 reasons:

1. It's a bigger target (see 95% statistic above) - virus writers looks for targets.
2. Because more PCs are out there, there is a greater likelihood of some bonewipe not keeping up to date with service packs, etc., which increases EVERYONE'S odds of viruses propogating.

Dell are the most trouble-free PC's, but everyone forgets the same general rule, it's not the hardware, it's the software that causes problems. I had a notebook running windows 95 that ran 3 years straight, 24X7 and never crashed or needed a reboot - because all it was running was the operating system (and file sharing for my home network). 90% of the problems that you'll encounter are caused by poor coding (see bullet above about there being millions of programs for PC - it's a double-edged sword.)

All things being equal, I'd buy a Dell, spring for a good copy of Norton SystemWorks and you'll save money and have few problems. You can spend the extra cash on your bike

Crash_Tested · Nov 13, 2004

Austin Bike said:
All things being equal, I'd buy a Dell, spring for a good copy of Norton SystemWorks and you'll save money and have few problems. You can spend the extra cash on your bike

Do you get bonuses for pimping dell.

Intel's answer to the 64 bit PC is a joke (the AMD clone). Dell doesn't sell AMD cause pappa intel wont let him.

caboverpete · Nov 13, 2004

Austin Bike said:
Based on the fact that 95% of the world is on a PC platform, if you have to exchange data/files with others, PC is a better choice. In a vacuum, Apple may be better.

yeh you know how platform specific all those tiffs jpegs gifs docs txts psds etc etc...... are. :rolleyes:

spincrazy · Nov 13, 2004

caboverpete said:
yeh you know how platform specific all those tiffs jpegs gifs docs txts psds etc etc...... are.

Many PCs are much akin to disposable lighters. Mac is solid out of the box time and again.

Motionboy2 · Nov 13, 2004

Austin Bike said:
OK, I'll bite.

Macs are intuitive and pretty decent, but they suffer from 3 problems:

1. Less SW to choose from
2. More expensive
3. Less compatible with the rest of the world.
)

Less software to choose from, this is true. Especially if you are into gaming

More expensive. Well that is sorta true. You do get quite a bit of bang for your buck with some of the Mac's if you really look at it, the price is not usually that much more than it's PC equivilant if you consider the quality of the display, construction and the items it comes with.
Less compatible with the rest of the world... Nope, I don't agree. In fact I think it was easier for me to work with my mac to get files for PC than it is the other way around. A mac will recognise a PC on a network and vice versa. If you have a PC formatted firewire drive then can plug into the mac so you can exchange files back and forth. So far I have not found a problem.

What I like about mac is that it's processing is set up for more graphics, it works better than PC for Video editing and photo editing. Why is this? I have no idea, but if I were to venture to guess I would say it has something to do with the fact that there is only one company that makes and approves all things to do with mac. This makes EVERYTHING compatable. Therefore you don't need this motherboard two work with this hardware to work with whatever else. If it is made for a mac.. then it will work with a mac.

Crash_Tested · Nov 14, 2004

Motionboy2 said:
What I like about mac is that it's processing is set up for more graphics, it works better than PC for Video editing and photo editing. Why is this? I have no idea, but if I were to venture to guess I would say it has something to do with the fact that there is only one company that makes and approves all things to do with mac.

The power of mac has been far surpased by x86 machines. That might have been true like 3 years ago. Motorola makes the proceccors for apple by the way and it is not an Apple design.

here is a little snap of Apple getting smacked down. The winning chips are Opteron (AMD Server chips) and if you feel like geeking out for a moment, read the whole article.

Acadian · Nov 14, 2004

binary visions said:
Derek, IMO, you already said which one you need.

You're used to a PC. You own PC software. You will be using it for Photoshop and the internet. Why learn an entirely new system, especially when a Mac will cost you more?

I've worked extensively with both, and done support for both, and I don't like Macs personally, but that's not really an issue here since both systems will work equally well for Photoshop and internet stuff. Stick with what you know, and you get the added benefit of it being a tad cheaper too.

WERD!!!

Mike B. · Nov 14, 2004

binary visions said:
Derek, IMO, you already said which one you need.

You're used to a PC. You own PC software. You will be using it for Photoshop and the internet. Why learn an entirely new system, especially when a Mac will cost you more?

I've worked extensively with both, and done support for both, and I don't like Macs personally, but that's not really an issue here since both systems will work equally well for Photoshop and internet stuff. Stick with what you know, and you get the added benefit of it being a tad cheaper too.

I'm with BV. Go PC and if you're not comfortable building your own desktop, find a friend that is. I'd go for an Athlon 64 chip, 2 GB of RAM, and at least a pair of Western Digital Raptor 74gb drives. If you'll be travelling with the laptop, I'd stay away from the 17", my 15.4 is a pile to lug around. I'm assuming here, but if you're taking the laptop to say a weekend photo shoot and you want to use it for storage and some photoshop in your down time, look for a model that will handle 1gb of ram minimum and has a 7200 rpm hard drive (Toshiba if you can get it). The more ram, the less you will access your scratch disk for photoshop. You also might want to consider getting an external harddrive case and throw a high speed drive in it.

If you go for the Athlon 64, get the 3200+ (newest on 90nm technology) and look to see if the new MSI motherboard with Nvidia Nforce4 SLI is available.

Oh, like Toshi said if you don't already have one, figure in a spyder as well. I borrowed a friends and the difference was amazing.

syadasti · Nov 14, 2004

Ridemonkey said:
Yeah that 23 inch Apple LCD is sweet. I was looking at Dell 19 inch LCDs yesterday for 900. I don't know what it is about the PC LCDs but they are so dull and colorless compared to the brilliant Mac displays. I think I'll end up buying a cheap CRT monitor for my PC and save the $$ to get a Mac LCD later.

I don't think you understand LCDs or the LCD market. For example the Dell FP2001 (bought one for $750 BTW - gotta love Dell's specials they run all the time) which was one of the first fast response high color LCD panels released vs. the new Apple Cinema 20". Apple or Dell doesn't make their own screens of course (LG, Samsung, and others are panel OEMs). The OEM panel for the Dell and Apple 20" is the same panel except the Apple one is the widescreen version (with a slightly lower resolution - ha!)- all the other specs are the same. Also you have to think of color settings- 6500K, 5000K and gamma at 2.2(PC) or 1.8(Mac) - thats probably your difference even though technically you could make the screens look the same pretty easily using options in the panel or even in your videocard drivers.

Of course since he's a graphic professional though, he'd stick with CRTs since they are still better for that application...

Austin Bike · Nov 14, 2004

Crash_Tested said:
Do you get bonuses for pimping dell.

it's called profit sharing

Crash_Tested said:
Intel's answer to the 64 bit PC is a joke (the AMD clone).

Actually if you look at the AMD64 and the EM64T technologies you'll see that they're more alike than different. I mean really similar. But I look at it from a server perspective, I know nothing about desktops.

Crash_Tested said:
Dell doesn't sell AMD cause pappa intel wont let him.

Yeah, there's a close relationship between the two companies, but if you look at the growth trajectories of both and the direction each is heading, you'll see which is the tail and which is the dog. I think you have it reversed.

binary visions · Nov 14, 2004

caboverpete said:
yeh you know how platform specific all those tiffs jpegs gifs docs txts psds etc etc...... are.

Yeah, that's what he was talking about. Image files.

Frankly, I have trouble all the time at work exchanging files between Mac and PCs, even the most basic cross-platform files like .xls and .doc files. I have taken to creating company forms in both Excel and .pdf, because the Macs won't display the Excel file the same way the PC will. Same with Word.

Gimme a break. Acadian said that he'd have trouble exchanging files, not trouble exchanging image files.

TN · Nov 14, 2004

I am a recent convert & I say go for it. it wil probably take you less than a day to get used to the operating system & you will love it.

syadasti · Nov 14, 2004

Austin Bike said:
Actually if you look at the AMD64 and the EM64T technologies you'll see that they're more alike than different. I mean really similar. But I look at it from a server perspective, I know nothing about desktops.

In servers the AMD64 platform owns the EM64T based servers in everything except certain loaded I/O setups. Overall, Intel EM64T offering is subpar and half-assed in comparison...

Austin Bike · Nov 14, 2004

Actually, AMD64 has better processor-memory throughput but EM64T has better drive I/O and network I/O throughput.

Basically if your task is very processor or memory intensive (i.e. HPCC, technical, floating point, compute intensive, etc.) then AMD will give you better performance, but in the vast majority of what servers are running (i.e. file/print sharing, email/messaging, virutalization, database, SAN compute node, ERP/CRM, etc.) you'll see better performance on EM64T because of the better I/O to disk.

If you look at the processor utilization for the majority of the servers out there, you'll see that they are running between 15-30% utilization - you'd be insane for running beyond 50% because of the potential from crashing from spikes. I/O utilization, on the other hand, is typically up above 50%, sometimes topping out on some systems. When processors peg the needle, the system crashes, when I/O tops out the applications continue to run. Administrators need more I/O bandwidth in most cases.

Processor analogies are all about being able to say you can go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds instead of 6 seconds when the reality is that it's rush hour on I-35 most of the day.

The vast majority of the CIOs and IT directors that I talk to are more concerned about virtualization (using something like VMware to consolidate multiple servers and gain better efficiency on the processing power that they have) then buying faster clock speeds. The mix for processor bin speeds skews to the low end with only a small portion choosing the highest bin speeds (because they look more for price/performance than raw performance.) If customers wanted higher performing processors, 80% of the time they could get them by just stepping up to the higher bins.

Not to geek out on this, but from a server perspective, it's far more likely that 4Gb fibre channel, PCI Express and 10Gb Ethernet will have a much more pronounced impact on the performance of networked applications than faster processors. Unless you are in an HPCC, then all bets are off and you're having a discussion about maximizing performance. But you can count the number of HPCCs pretty easily. Outside of commercial CGI rendering, oil exploration, pharmaceuticals, education and some governement applications, you don't come across them that often.

I can't speak for desktops.

syadasti · Nov 14, 2004

In servers the AMD64 platform owns the EM64T based servers in everything except certain loaded I/O setups. Overall, Intel EM64T offering is subpar and half-assed in comparison...

Austin Bike said:
Actually, AMD64 has better processor-memory throughput but EM64T has better drive I/O and network I/O throughput...blah blah blah

Thanks for all the filler, thats what I said above in simple terms cause most of the people reading this thread, Derek in particular, don't give a crap about the details considering it has nothing do with his graphics work...

I've heard more and more people considering and buying Opterons in the real world (not the Dell marketing world). Intel's response wasn't great and its funny that the Gorilla is in the defensive mode with all the more money they have to spend on R&D...

You also didn't mention how much more optimized code and benchmarks are for Intel. Throw some optimized code to a Opteron and it really leaves Intel in the dust...

Austin Bike · Nov 14, 2004

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about workstations....

syadasti said:
In servers the AMD64 platform...

syadasti · Nov 14, 2004

I was talking about servers, its only certain I/O situations where you'd be wiser to go for the EMT64 setup, observe:

Apache 2.0 Benchmark - 100K Users - Requests Per Second
(Higher scores mean better performance)

AMD Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz) 937.5
AMD Opteron 248 (2.2 GHz) 864.1
AMD Opteron 246 (2.0 GHz) 777.4
Intel Nocona Xeon 3.4 GHz (w/ HT) 577.1
Intel Nocona Xeon 3.4 GHz (w/o HT) 595.1

Apache 2.0 Benchmark - 100K Users - Peak Transfer Rate
(Higher scores mean better performance)
AMD Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz) 1772.6
AMD Opteron 248 (2.2 GHz) 1628.0
AMD Opteron 246 (2.0 GHz) 1469.8
Intel Nocona Xeon 3.4 GHz (w/ HT) 1091.1
Intel Nocona Xeon 3.4 GHz (w/o HT) 1125.2

You get the picture - ONLY certain I/O apps...

Conclusion: Linux Servers Smile, And Workstations Worry

In the extensive benchmark tests under Linux Enterprise Server 8 (32-bit as well as 64-bit), the AMD Opteron made a good impression. Especially in the server disciplines, the benchmarks (MySQL, Whetstone, ARC 2D, NPB, etc.) show quite clearly that the Dual Opteron puts the Dual Xeon in its place.

It looks a bit different in the workstation tests, where the Dual Xeon manages to overtake the Opteron team. However, these results are only included because the Dual Opteron will also be available as a workstation option. They give us an interesting picture of the performance of the Opterons compared to desktop CPUs like Athlon XP and Intel P4.

Opteron made a good start out of the blocks - even though AMD left it very late to get its systems into reviewers' hands. With a good showing in the 64-bit arena, albeit with limited benchmarks, AMD has come some way towards regaining the confidence of its supporters. Now, the company can hammer home the key selling point of this strategic move. Compatibility for existing x86 software is going to be the main mantra for AMD. This will save developers and companies money, especially in the business sector. Migrating to 64-bit can therefore take place gradually and only as required. Whether there is enough demand for migration is another matter entirely.

Oh and who does Sun, Cray, IBM, etc... (ie companies who make the REAL high end servers - the market that Dell can never really break into...) use in their newer budget servers, whats that...OPTERONS, not EMT64 Xeons - its cause they are faster at the same price point...

Barbaton · Nov 14, 2004

derekpearson said:
yeah, thats pretty much the conclusion I have come to.
I appreciate all the good advice and info everyone gave. Now to decide which laptop to buy Im thinking either hp or toshibas 17 inch offerings..

Say it ain't so!

I'm not going to weigh in on the PC/Mac debate - I work frequently with both and everything has it's +s and -ss.

However, I've found the 17" Toshiba and HP "laptops" to be just god-awful. If you're looking for a widesreen laptop that doesn't weigh 11+ pounds, you're kinda stuck with the Powerbook. The designs are ugly and counterintuitive and hard to type on. The PC manufacturers haven't been able to get the weight or thickness on those down to something worth hauling around. If it's going to be sitting on your desk you might as well get a desktop. You'll have better luck finding a nice PC notebook that's smaller. I like the IBM T42 myself.

Don't know about Toshiba but HP's support is a disaster still since the merger. Even for minor things it takes us several hours of calls between the HP and Compaq help centers in Bangalore and Costa Rica, all of whom are equally useless. Our experience has led me to decide to not consider HP for any purchase from laptops to servers until they get it sorted out.

my 2c.

syadasti · Nov 14, 2004

Barbaton said:
You'll have better luck finding a nice PC notebook that's smaller. I like the IBM T42 myself.

I second the Thinkpads - can't beat'em :thumb:

New computer system..(pc or mac)??

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

BrokenbikeMike

Monkey

Calendar Dominator

This is not an active account

Rusty Trombone

Barney

This is not an active account

Fear my banana

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

boring

Harbinger of Doom

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

boring

The voice of reason

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

I love to climb

Calendar Dominator

Monkey

Born Again Newbie

Turbo Monkey

i heart mac

Turbo Monkey

The voice of reason

Hey baby, want a hot dog?

i heart mac

Turbo Monkey

i heart mac

Turbo Monkey

i heart mac

Turbo Monkey

i heart mac