PC vs MAC (Page 2): At equal specifications Apple is always more expensive.

sergio

At equal specifications Apple is always more expensive.

BebuLamar

Gene51 wrote:

Ah, completely forgot about the Surface Book. The Surface is not a computer, it's a tablet.

Funny, my wife has a Surface Book but I never regarded it as a computer - my bad. I'd rather have that than a MBP and use the extra $1000 to buy a lens.

The Surface Pro (not the RT) is a full fledge computer when you have the key board cover. It works as a tablet, a decent desktop but it doesn't work as a lap top because you can't use that combo on your lap. I don't know who really built them but the 3:2 and rather high resolution screen is great plus the fact that you can turn the thing to view as portrait or landscape. I think it's a great computer for on the road. At home why bother with laptop for image editing??

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Which ever you purchase make sure to have at least 16 gigs of RAM and 1 TB SSD drive Mac guy here

ka5ysy

BJW wrote:

I personally switched to Mac about 10 years ago fr... (show quote)

I agree fully. I've been using Macs since the first one was sold, with exception of a few years that John Scully was trying to run the company with all kinds of crazy pricing of different hardware setups. That said, after Scully was fired and his nonsense was eliminated, the Mac platform with the unix based Mac OS beats the pants off anything PC Based. No issues with driver incompatibility, vendor finger-pointing and all the other virus nonsense to deal with using a PC platform.

I use the Macs in my law practice, and have converted a lot of other attorneys to the platform. Last year I upgraded my Macbook Pro 17 to the new Macbook Pro 15" with SSD storage and all the bells and whistles. It is an expensive machine, but as the ads say, it just works. I have external storage and cloud storage for my critical files and all the photos in case of a disk failure which will occur. The new machine is blazingly fast with the SSD storage, and the external 5K monitor is amazing for photo editing. Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) ports allow very fast IO for video and photo editing and backups .

For Photo editing I use mostly Lightroom since Apple abandoned we Aperture users several years ago. The conversion of the photo library was handled efficiently by Lightroom and other than the new learning curve, I love the product.

In this instance, you get what you pay for, and the whole Apple ecology just works.

tomcat

BJW wrote:

I personally switched to Mac about 10 years ago from PC. I then proceeded to switch my whole law practice to Mac. Started with IBM, tried Gateway, Dell, HP, Toshiba and others. But I moved on and I have been happiest with each of the Macs I've had over the past decade. Now that I'm doing more and more with photography, I see the ever greater value to the Mac. The smooth interplay between hardware and software is a delight. Not so on a PC, which I found constantly crashing. The Apple Care customer service is tops in the few instances I have needed them. Not so with PC machines, where you need to speak with different customer care companies for each of the brands, and if they can't figure it out, they tell you to talk to the other vendor. Royal PITA. If Apple is the wealthiest company in the world, it may be because of pricing, but it is also due to customer satisfaction. You get what you pay for.

For my work, I now use a MacBook Air. For my photography, I use a MacBook Pro, attached to a large Apple monitor. I download and store my images from camera to a portable external HD and back that up to a second external. Add to that a cloud back up for $5. per month.(BackBlaze). And Time Machine, which is indigenous to the Mac, backs up the computer every hour to a third external. From the external, I import to LR. I use Lightroom Classic CC and that gives flawless sharing of my photo Collections with LR Mobile on my iPhone or iPad. All this syncs beautifully without worrying about the quirks of piecing together various brands of PC/Windows based machines and devices.

While PC gurus say you can do comparable things that you can do with a Mac using PC based devices, I find great virtue in simplicity and reliability. Apple gives me that.

As the sages say, "Once you've tried a Mac, you won't go back..." IMHO, I'm glad I switched and stayed with Mac.

I agree with BJW 100%. I couldn't have stated my opinion any better. I started with Apple Lisa in 1984 and loved it. Had to switch to PC's in my workplace and the IT support was a nightmare. I hated every moment on a PC. Then I switched my own personal photography business to Apple in 2000 and also have never looked back. I will NEVER switch from Apple because of their reliability and the AppleCare support team. If for no other reason, then the support team nails it for me. They are wealthy and number 1 among photographers for a reason. As the old adage states: "you get the quality and service that you pay for" and as for me and my house, we will Apple......

Either way, good luck.

BJW

I personally switched to Mac about 10 years ago fr... (show quote)

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

I am old and may be a little forgetful, but didn't we just have this conversation last week?

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

skibum422 wrote:

Hi all, new to the group. Have a quick questions for you all. I am shopping for a new laptop and have heard pros and cons of both pc's and mac's for photo editing. I have been using lightroom for my photo editing and wondering if anyone has any strong thoughts either way..... which is easier/better for using lightroom. Thanks in advance.

Windows machines are less expensive, easier (and cheaper) to repair, have more available add on accessories and better support (by better support, I mean that they are supported by more people and places, than Apple. Apple machines were considered more capable of supporting commercial printing, photography, and other high end desktop jobs that once required powerful Sun and other commercial workstations. However PC's have increased in power and speed while keeping the price down and are as well or better supported than Apple. NOTE: this is not to say that all PC supporters are good or qualified but the same can be said about many Apple shops. I have seen many Apple shops that have given erroneous advice about repairs and problems (as I have also seen on PC shops). It really is the people doing the repairs and advice and not the computer that makes it worth owning. I was an Apple person (though I got my start on punch cards and graduated to Apple OS (Apple iI, Apple 3 and then Lisa) and I remember when we had a 10 MB external Corvus Hard drive that you could purchase for $10,000.00 (Well, okay, it was really $9,998). At that time, you had Apple, IBM PC, Timex Sinclair, Comadore, HP, Radio Shack, and some others (all extremely expensive), except the Timex of course. You had Apple Dos, IBM Dos and CPM as primary Operating systems. My point to this trip down memory lane is that as main stream operating systems, Apple (under their "new" operating system that was originally developed for Lisa) developed into their Macintosh OS. Lisa and Mac were and are extremely graphic oriented and became the primary source for artists and photographers. As time rocked along, and because of heavy competition between non-Apple companies, (HP, IBM, Compaq, Dell, Radio Shack etc.) personal computers (non-Apple) prices came down but because Apple was Apple, their prices remained high. Microsoft originally developed exclusively for non-Apple computers but then realized that they were missing a part of the market and by moving into the Apple market they could tout compatibility of data moving from PC to Apple and back across computer networks. This cross compatibility caused Non-Apple computer manufacturers (and Microsoft) to work heavily on increasing the photo/video capabilities of Windows based machines... Another thing that caused this increase was the near collapse of Apple in the 1990's (I had a lot of Apple stock when it collapsed from $80 per share to about .15 a share... fortunately I held onto my stock. It was about the time that Apple was looking like they were going to die and Microsoft was having a huge legal battle with them over the Apple Lisa operating system (which was the basis of the Mac OS) and highly graphic (similar to current Windows OS). Apple was claiming that Microsoft Windows was stolen from them when in reality (and the courts upheld Microsoft's claim) both Apple and Microsoft worked with Sun and others on Xerox's PARC system (which was an exclusively graphic OS similar to Lisa/Mac OS and similar to what Microsoft Windows has become.
One of the big things that makes Windows based machines competitive was the move by Adobe and other high end software developers to migrate their software (in an attempt to give their software data the ability to be used on both operating systems) to Microsoft machines (Adobe and others haven't come close to making the jump from Apple/Microsoft to Unix yet).

Generally, all of this is to say that currently it doesn't make much difference whether you use Apple or PC because most of the software is available for both. Sure there are things that are NOT available for PC just as their are things that are NOT available for Apple but most of those are in the minority for general pc / mac users and photographers. In the days of heavy duty printshops that did most of the printing (everything from order forms and applications to annual reports and high end advertising and magazines) most shops would have at least one and usually several Macs in their art departments. Now, those that still exist will probably have a PC or two. Most of the printshops have gone away as 90% of the stuff is done on the web and the days of the big Letter presses and offset presses have generally gone away. They've been replaced by big Xerox (Canon, and other) machines that copy thousands of pages, collate, hole punch, staple, envelope stuff and stack in one large process putting almost all of the printing plants out of business. I can do more on my desktop computer connected to the internet and with a good high end combination laser printer, fax machine, copier and a secondary color printer than my dad (who was a cameraman lithographer) could do in his 10,000 square foot printing plant with his hundreds of thousand dollars worth of printing equipment.
The point is in all of this that the industry has changed from Mac or PC to it really doesn't make a lot of difference any more.

tomcat

dcampbell52 wrote:

Windows machines are less expensive, easier (and cheaper) to repair, have more available add on accessories and better support (by better support, I mean that they are supported by more people and places, than Apple. Apple machines were considered more capable of supporting commercial printing, photography, and other high end desktop jobs that once required powerful Sun and other commercial workstations. However PC's have increased in power and speed while keeping the price down and are as well or better supported than Apple. NOTE: this is not to say that all PC supporters are good or qualified but the same can be said about many Apple shops. I have seen many Apple shops that have given erroneous advice about repairs and problems (as I have also seen on PC shops). It really is the people doing the repairs and advice and not the computer that makes it worth owning. I was an Apple person (though I got my start on punch cards and graduated to Apple OS (Apple iI, Apple 3 and then Lisa) and I remember when we had a 10 MB external Corvus Hard drive that you could purchase for $10,000.00 (Well, okay, it was really $9,998). At that time, you had Apple, IBM PC, Timex Sinclair, Comadore, HP, Radio Shack, and some others (all extremely expensive), except the Timex of course. You had Apple Dos, IBM Dos and CPM as primary Operating systems. My point to this trip down memory lane is that as main stream operating systems, Apple (under their "new" operating system that was originally developed for Lisa) developed into their Macintosh OS. Lisa and Mac were and are extremely graphic oriented and became the primary source for artists and photographers. As time rocked along, and because of heavy competition between non-Apple companies, (HP, IBM, Compaq, Dell, Radio Shack etc.) personal computers (non-Apple) prices came down but because Apple was Apple, their prices remained high. Microsoft originally developed exclusively for non-Apple computers but then realized that they were missing a part of the market and by moving into the Apple market they could tout compatibility of data moving from PC to Apple and back across computer networks. This cross compatibility caused Non-Apple computer manufacturers (and Microsoft) to work heavily on increasing the photo/video capabilities of Windows based machines... Another thing that caused this increase was the near collapse of Apple in the 1990's (I had a lot of Apple stock when it collapsed from $80 per share to about .15 a share... fortunately I held onto my stock. It was about the time that Apple was looking like they were going to die and Microsoft was having a huge legal battle with them over the Apple Lisa operating system (which was the basis of the Mac OS) and highly graphic (similar to current Windows OS). Apple was claiming that Microsoft Windows was stolen from them when in reality (and the courts upheld Microsoft's claim) both Apple and Microsoft worked with Sun and others on Xerox's PARC system (which was an exclusively graphic OS similar to Lisa/Mac OS and similar to what Microsoft Windows has become.
One of the big things that makes Windows based machines competitive was the move by Adobe and other high end software developers to migrate their software (in an attempt to give their software data the ability to be used on both operating systems) to Microsoft machines (Adobe and others haven't come close to making the jump from Apple/Microsoft to Unix yet).

Generally, all of this is to say that currently it doesn't make much difference whether you use Apple or PC because most of the software is available for both. Sure there are things that are NOT available for PC just as their are things that are NOT available for Apple but most of those are in the minority for general pc / mac users and photographers. In the days of heavy duty printshops that did most of the printing (everything from order forms and applications to annual reports and high end advertising and magazines) most shops would have at least one and usually several Macs in their art departments. Now, those that still exist will probably have a PC or two. Most of the printshops have gone away as 90% of the stuff is done on the web and the days of the big Letter presses and offset presses have generally gone away. They've been replaced by big Xerox (Canon, and other) machines that copy thousands of pages, collate, hole punch, staple, envelope stuff and stack in one large process putting almost all of the printing plants out of business. I can do more on my desktop computer connected to the internet and with a good high end combination laser printer, fax machine, copier and a secondary color printer than my dad (who was a cameraman lithographer) could do in his 10,000 square foot printing plant with his hundreds of thousand dollars worth of printing equipment.
The point is in all of this that the industry has changed from Mac or PC to it really doesn't make a lot of difference any more.

Windows machines are less expensive, easier (and c... (show quote)

I can agree with much of what you say, except for the support issue. When you have an issue, Apple takes care of it. Try calling MS for support and see where it gets you. No one in the MS world will admit to their piece of the pie causing the problem--it's always the other guy's software or hardware compatibility. I stay with Apple products because of the AppleCare support team and I cannot put a price tag on the freedom from worry. To me, it is not about the cost difference, but about the support.

Regarding the point that others have said about upgrading their machines, I have not had the need to do so with any of my Macs. Our family owned business is still using a 2006 MacBook Pro, among other newer machines, and that 2006 model is still fast and slick as ever. So I don't understand this paranoia about not being able to upgrade---what's to upgrade when you are already the best?

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

tomcat wrote:

I can agree with much of what you say, except for ... (show quote)

I hear ya the problem is some people when they purchase Mac’s buy fastest processor but lower ram the buy OWN ram and perhaps HD or SSD today you can’t swap out the ram on the MBP

Personally I’m happy with my MBP but my son has a newer iMac and it’s amazing if you don’t need portability I recommend the best iMac you can afford the monitor is amazing

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

This is my photo processing iMac https://www.amazon.com/Apple-iMac-Desktop-Retina-display/dp/B01AAW9RMY/ref=pd_day0_147_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=XPDX42CFST7FSYNNMWA9 and is far superior to most non Apple desktop. Shooting with the D850 at 46MB yields files with download sizes nearly double in RAW and processing them in Photoshop CC is just as fast as my D500 files at 20MB. For Photographic processing their are more choices for editing programs on the Mac than are in Windows. My social computer is a Microsoft Windows 10 HP Pavilion.

Gene51 wrote:

no difference. The Mac just costs about 50% more, and generally only comes in a laptop. If you want a desktop, then it costs about $4000 by the time you purchase external storage and a display. It's a great machine not not any better than a comparably equipped PC, which would cost around $3000. With Lr, the editing experience will be identical.

Look at Jerry41's links, there is a lot to read there.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Gene51 wrote:

When did they start making computers?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Brucej67 wrote:

This is my photo processing iMac https://www.amazo... (show quote)

I'm not going to argue with your personal opinion on the Mac vs PS question, but I do question the accuracy of your statement, 'For Photographic processing their are more choices for editing programs on the Mac than are in Windows. ' In my experience there are many more editing programs available for the PC platform.

Largobob

"As the sages say, "Once you've tried a Mac, you won't go back..." IMHO, I'm glad I switched and stayed with Mac. "

I totally agree.....

Largobob

DNW wrote:

Macs are easy to hack into. Their software for virus scans are not good. They use "old-hat" in the tech world. δ¿δ

Wow. Complete garbage!

Macs are easy to hack into? Run FileVault (comes standard with every Mac) and see what federal agency can hack into your information!

Software for Virus Scans are not good? Macs are not prone to viruses.....you don't need security software.

Old Hat? They use modern, sleek, fast, dependable, reliable archetecture and software.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Even the new Luminar which has a Windows version is a cut down version of what is offered on the Mac, same with Topaz and Affinity. There are many more that are just offered for the Mac. During my working career it was commonly known that graphics were handled better by Mac software than by Microsoft and most businesses employed people with Mac experience to do graphics.

mwsilvers wrote:

I'm not going to argue with your personal opinion on the Mac vs PS question, but I do question the accuracy of your statement, 'For Photographic processing their are more choices for editing programs on the Mac than are in Windows. ' In my experience there are many more editing programs available for the PC platform.