TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam - at least once per month over the last year. It's right up there with raw vs JPEG, Canon vs Nikon, filters vs no filter... Rather than rehash yet another 10 pages or so, just use the search function for Mac vs PC (or vice versa) and read the dozens of pages of discussion. One thing no one typically disagrees with: you can buy more performance/$ with a PC than a Mac, and this has been demonstrated/compared many times on previous posts.

whitewolfowner

A 2010-2012 mac mac pro will hold 128GB of memory; I believe the earlier ones do too.

whitewolfowner

Until you run into a security issue or the drive with your operating system crashes. Add up the yearly cost of your security software you pay for to keep that PC safe (still susceptible to problems, much more than a mac) over the years, plus what it costs you for all the software that comes with a mac and all of a sudden, a mac is a bargain. Now add in all the crashes you get with a PC and what it cost most people to have it up and running again.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I agree with this totally. I bought a powerful ASUS gaming computer and it works great and very fast with large files. Of course my CAD files make the biggest photos look small.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I am a newbie and this is my first contribution. There are many expert opinions above and I do not mean to contradict anyone. What relatively little photo work I've done on the computer (3 different computers - 2 Macs and a Win10) convinces me that first and foremost you need a fairly large monitor and it has to be able to correctly display your gamut, gamma, etc. I have worked for hours on a photo on my Mac-Mini which drives a (I think) pretty good HPZR2440w monitor. I've put some time and effort into getting its calibration right. I've even measured the color temperature of the images with an app on my iPhone and tweaked it a bit for that. When I look at the same pictures on either the other computer (good Dell monitor) or, worse, my MacBookAir 13", the real quality I created just doesn't show up. And, of course, a TV is not going to be satisfactory as a monitor (not familiar with =>4k, though).

So point 1 is the monitor. Your work is wasted if you are not seeing it on a large enough, good monitor that is correctly calibrated. For me, 24" is minimum and larger would be better, but I don't have one yet.

Point 2 is the application(s). I am still using a few of them and some work better for me in some cases, others in other cases. Of course, that is dependent to a large degree on my camera's RAW format (Sony ICLE 6000) and the way that some programs read the RAW files. On the Mac, "Preview" and "Photos" work well. Sony provides a RAW to ?? converter that sometimes is terrific because it can emulate the camera's scene choices. Then there is RawPhotoProcessor64 which is only for Mac. I'm sure the Sony program has a Windows version. Of course, Preview and Photos on the Mac are only for the Mac. And lastly there is Lightroom for which there are both Mac and Windows versions. So point 2 is to have the tools to work with the RAW files to your comfort and satisfaction. I've found that the Mac-Mini (with an I7 processor and 16GB of RAM) has sufficient power but the MacBookAir (2011) does not. My Windows computer is a recent build of my own parts selection (gaming level stuff) and has a lot of power but I have not used it for editing.

Your camera will not be the same, in many cases. So your findings will likely be different. I hope that I've put the computer question in perspective. My personal preference is Mac and I am quite familiar with both Mac and Windows. But they are both good operating systems for a huge variety of applications and it's the applications that matter (along with what you do with them).

Any brand and any OS can provide the processor power and the necessary RAM. They have to be powerful enough, but power alone is far from sufficient. I've ignored Linux even though I often suggest it in other situations. That's merely because I suspect that the applications are not as complete a set of choices and abilities. The hardware is the same as for Windows so that's not an issue.

Get the best you can afford, too. You spent a lot of money, probably on camera and lenses. Many of us spend a lot of money going places to find photo opportunities. By comparison, the computer is cheap. I hope some of you will find this helpful.

cochese

HP DV7 laptop Intel i7 16gigs Ram, Has a dedicated NVidia graphics card, don't remember the specifics two 2TB Hard drives. DV7 has a second bay already in the machine, just need the connector and a drive. Plenty of Storage. Make sure you pay the extra for the best screen available. Unless you are processing thousands of pictures professionally you need not drop eight or more thousand on a high end system (unless you feel you need the absolute best). And as far as Mac goes, you can get a whole lot more PC with many extras for what you would pay for a fairly common Mac, they have priced themselves out of the common mans means. I would rather spend my money on camera gear.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

With respect, old and invalid arguments. First, no extra SW necessary for virus protection on Windows 10 - built in. Second, zero evidence that Macs are any more robust with with respect to OS or drives than Win 10 - if you have it, post it. Third, Macs are suceppitable to attacks also, and with regard that there are more on Windows machines, note that there are ~8x the number of Windows machine in use compared to OSX. It's undeniable that the vast majority of commercial machines are Linux or windows-based, not Macs. Ever see a data center where the servers are Macs? Ever wonder why?

There is no argument from me that Apple makes nice, well-engineered machines, that their OS and aps are typically user friendly, and their mechanisms for sharing information/data/photos with other MAC users is very seamless - that's why I routinely use an IPad and I have an IMac. BUT, you pay a price for that. The cost/performance is high compared to a PC, their machines typically have limited upgrade capacity compared to a PC, and their machines are often a generation behind on HW or use mid-level HW compared to the latest PC. Each platform has their place and their advantages and disadvantages - let's be a little balanced and factual here please.

whitewolfowner

You have made some good points but you have an error too. Preview is terrible for viewing your photos; it's colors and everything else floats all over the place; observe and you will see it. Preview is good only for taking a quick look at a photo to make sure it's the one you think you are looking for. I don't use photos, so can't comment but would suspect it's better than preview. To look at a photo properly, you must put it in a good application software like photoshop or lightroom.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

If you believe the built-in protection in Win10 makes supplemental protection superfluous you are saying the opposite of the vast majority of professional reviewers, many of whom use the standard Win10 protection as the bottom of their acceptable set of results when testing. If that argument fails, then the contention that there is zero evidence that Macs are better in that regard must also fail. Use Windows if you like it, but please don't lead the unwary into the weeds.

whitewolfowner

I am and you just proved my point, thanks. Haven't met a windows machine yet that doesn't get in trouble without buying a good security software. Most PC users have their machines down as much as or more than they are up. Yeah, all the outer stuff out there in the Internet is PC based; that the main reason why everyone keeps getting hacked. Again, thanks for proving my point.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

??? PC down more than up? What planet are you on?
I have a 10 year old PC that is still running just fine and not one day has it gone down. Slow as heck compared to my new PC but still chugs along just fine.
If your comment were true I believe there would not be a business in the world using a PC as we cannot afford the down time to be as you describe.

whitewolfowner

Only speaking the facts. Our town has one mac store, but several PC stores and they stay busy fixing the mess ups on peoples computer for them constantly. The guy at the mac store is like the Maytag repair man. The school system here has both PC's and mac's. Talk to the tech guys and ask the which computers they wish the school would switch too.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

They are not facts just stories.
Again if it were so terrible why would the PC be the worldwide industry standard. I work with Architects all around the world and they are all PC based.

BebuLamar

Buy a monitor and calibrator then go from there.

Selene03

I still believe the choice of computer is a personal preference just like the choice of a camera is. If you really have never used a computer before, which I doubt, then chose the best you can get within the budget you have. If it is a Mac, fine. If it is a PC, that is ok too. I doubt you will find much difference these days in editing photos if you have the right software. Adobe, which I use, seems to run well on both. The display is important. If you are just editing photos, you might want a dedicated desktop machine. As with almost every purchase and decision there are tradeoffs. No one but you can decide which combination of tradeoffs will work best for you.

But, I must say, I have been using PCs since the 1980s when the first IBM windows machine came out and have only rarely had one fail. I also had an Apple II and my share of MACs over the years. I am a heavy computer user, and use computers for statistical processing, database development, spreadsheets, and in the last few years photo editing, web design, and publications. I prefer PCs because I am used to the software and how the machines interface with me and other devices. But this is me. I know others, who I greatly respect, who prefer MACs for the same reasons, just as I know really super photographers who use a different camera than I do.

In short, in spite of what a lot of people would have you believe, PCs are not going to routinely crash on you, and I can say this because I have had a lot of PCs made by a variety of companies that I have used a lot every day. In over 30 years, I had one pc get corrupted by a virus because of a stupid mistake I made. I had one fan die because of too much cat hair in it. That's it. Nothing to get excited about and decide I need to switch machines over. In short, using multiple computers every day for over 30 years, I have had almost no major computer issues that could not be fixed easily and cheaply and almost immediately. Yes I buy virus protection, but it is not all that expensive, especially when you are buying it for multiple computers. Mac people like to talk about how unreliable PCs are, and I am sure some are, but they are no more unreliable than some cameras or lenses that have problems. Are Macs more reliable, maybe--I haven't used them so much, so it is hard to say. I did have a hard drive crash on a MAC (but they can crash on any kind of computer), I would never say don't buy a MAC because their hard drives crash. One other factory, which could be important is support. If you are not comfortable with computers and don't already have a preference for PCs, MACs might be the way to go if there is an Apple store near where you live. There is no question that Apple stores provide handholding and troubleshooting that you will not get buying a PC from Costco or Best Buy or even an online company like
Dell. If you don't have someone around who can help you with computers, it is worth the extra money just for that kind of support alone.