Posts: Quantus5 | Ugly Hedgehog

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 next>>

Feb 9, 2018 12:16:53 #

Which is better for PhotoShop / Lightroom? PC or iMac?

burkphoto wrote:

Well, some pretty big companies like, oh, IBM and General Electric are saving money on computer support with Macs. The savings range from $200 to over $500 per Mac! This MORE than offsets the purchase price differential.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cio.com/article/3133945/hardware/ibm-says-macs-save-up-to-543-per-user.amp.html

Burke -- Have you read this article? It's all fluff. Not a single piece of hard data in this article.

It's all the usual subjective opinions.

Go to

Feb 8, 2018 11:45:44 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Which is better for PhotoShop / Lightroom? PC or iMac?

GalaxyCat wrote:

I'm debating getting the 27 Inch Apple computer: iMac, or a possible (too expensive ?) high-pixel display PC.

Which one is best, and what do people do for a mouse: the track pad, mouse, or a drawing tablet?

Thanks.

Do some research and get what you feel is comfortable for you and you like. There is no best.

I think the only piece of factual data (i.e. non subjective arguments) is that from a hardware perspective Macs are more expensive. Yes, the Mac fan will quote subjective things like "quality" and "intuitiveness", but in the end -- after you stop looking at the world through rose tinted glasses -- Macs are more expensive.

As far as input device goes, if you're willing to put the investment into it nothing beats a drawing tablet for graphics work.

Go to

Jan 26, 2018 15:50:57 #

(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))

M-Discs. Worth the Money?

Merlin1300 wrote:

Can't argue - - M-Disks may still have niche value... (show quote)

Yes -- if you have large backup requirements M-disc is not the best solution for you. It's mainly a usability issue, as per your example, you would need to use 5ea. M Discs. to backup a 512 GB hard drive, which is just a pain.

Note: no special software drivers required for M Discs. It just the composition of the layers that is superior, for example the substance used is extremely resistant to oxidation.

On the issue of just using regular BlueRay disks to transfer/give data to someone else. Yes -- very feasible -- the only advantage of M Discs is they last almost forever, if that extreme longevity is not needed then regular optical discs are fine for this niche use.

The pro and cons of using a USB stick versus optical discs is purely around cost. In today's prices: A 25GB M-Disc is around $1.50, a 25GB BlueRay disc is less than $1, and a 32GB USB stick is around $8. The pro of the USB stick is speed. So it's just a cost versus speed decision. In many cases the speed doesn't matter -- so burning to an optical disc is a great use for them. The person on the other end has to have an optical reader, which works in most of my cases because in my case the they have one, but if they don't you have to use the more expensive USB stick solution to transfer data. Also if people have a high-speed Internet connection to transfer data you can go that route, but I don't, so this method is extremely painful for me -- once you get into GBs of data.

Go to

Jan 25, 2018 13:50:11 #

(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))

M-Discs. Worth the Money?

Merlin1300 wrote:

See my 8/7/16 note above: br With 3 TB on my 9TB d... (show quote)

I use hard drives in much the same way as you do. Ease of use is the big advantage of hard drives, and hard drive storage is very inexpensive these days. I like using "synchronization" software, and like you I highly prefer using hard drives as my primary backup method.

Still M-Disks have their uses. Like I said, they are great for backing up critical data that you can then store somewhere else (and where you do not want to have your data in the cloud). They are also still great for giving or transferring a large amount of data to someone, especially if that person has a slow internet connection (transferring data in the GB sizes over the Internet is extremely painful for someone with a slow Internet connection). So there are still uses for M-Disks. For me it's my "tertiary" backup method -- and I don't backup all my data with M-Disks, just what I consider my critical data -- which easily fits on one 25GB M Disk, and the cost of one 25GB M-Disk (about $2) is cheaper than a 32GB USB stick ($8), although in some cases the price differential is getting low enough, and the convenience is high, that I am starting to use USB sticks and just give them to people when transferring data. So this reason is starting to go away.

Go to

Jan 23, 2018 16:21:44 #

(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))

M-Discs. Worth the Money?

DirtFarmer wrote:

I think one important point is that if you're doing backup (or archive, there is a difference) you should duplicate your efforts and store them in different places. Using different media would also be a good strategy to resist obsolescence. So don't rely on hard drives alone or M-disks alone or the cloud alone. Go for a combination.

Great points! 100% agree.

Go to

Jan 23, 2018 15:16:25 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Anyone have experience with M Discs for archiving photos/videos?

aflundi wrote:

Did you use M-Disc compatible writers? I think LG is the only maker of compatible writers. If it is compatible, it'll have an M-Disc logo on on the front.

ASUS also makes M-Disc compatible writers.

Go to

Jan 23, 2018 15:11:46 #

(General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk))

M-Discs. Worth the Money?

Where M Discs shine is as another alternative backup method to supplement hard drive backups. I use M Discs to do an extra backup of my "critical" data, i.e. I have the data backed up on at least two hard drives, and then another copy on an M Disc (so at least 3 copies)!!

So the big con is not about finding optical drives (in the future). No one knows exactly how long they'll be available but they'll still very likely be available for purchase at least 30 years from now (much longer than the shelf life of a hard drive), and I would actually guess 50+ years since the higher capacity optical drives can read the less dense formats. And when you start to get worried -- maybe in 30 years -- you just transfer them to whatever is being used in 30 years. Cost is roughly about even, the big con is just "ease of use". Hard drive backups are just so much easier to do. The big pro of using M Discs is the longevity of the data itself.

M Discs have their place -- you just have to know how to use them. As a secondary backup method (in addition) to hard drives they shine!

Go to

Jan 12, 2018 16:59:41 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

PC vs MAC

IMHO Mr Plevin is, but yes they are not all idiots.

btw: Most of your quotes are for iOS -- which means phones and tablets not laptops. And not sure if you are aware you can easily dig up just as many claims about people using Android phones and tablets.

And I've made the remark on the JAMF stuff before -- that's basically just an advertisement.

Also some people have standardized on Linux, and have made legitimate claims (based on their needs), and Chrome books have made huge inroads in the education market, where they make a lot of sense.

Go to

Jan 12, 2018 15:08:45 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Desktop vs. Laptop

btw: Here's the UHH link to the recent MAC versus PC thread that the OP was talking about.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-497864-1.html

Lots more info on desktop vs. laptops (except with more Mac versus PC comments).

Go to

Jan 12, 2018 14:54:48 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

PC vs MAC

burkphoto wrote:

I would be surprised if Fletcher Previn, CIO and a VP of IT at IBM would agree with you. By October of 2016, he had put over 90,000 Macs in the hands of employees there, with plans to land twice that many.

Mr. Plevin is one of those idiots I was referring to. IBM no longer producing laptops (selling to Lenovo) and now buying Macs. ;-)

Go to

Jan 12, 2018 14:25:23 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

PC vs MAC

burkphoto wrote:

Accountants foolishly looked only at the cost difference in hardware between PCs and Macs, ignored the costs of training, of help desk support, and of maintenance, and told the IT guys (who usually reported to them) to buy PCs. Fortunately, there are well-reasoned cases to open things up a bit these days.

This is a MYTH. Apple is just as expensive to use in a business environment as PCs. There is no inherent reason in user training and support that makes Macs less expensive. I've worked in a company that was a Mac shop, lots of issues just like PCs. The only difference is the Mac fans drink a lot more koolaid and have very selective memories.

In some ways Macs are much more expensive. The hardware itself is extremely non user-serviceable. Meaning you need loaners, while the Apple is out getting fixed through Apple care (which is expensive).

Go to

Jan 12, 2018 14:17:47 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

PC vs MAC

dsmeltz wrote:

One of the reasons for Apple's marginal gains in the business community goes back to the 90's when Apple, (cleverly) basically gave schools nearly free computers. Suddenly a large cohort of children were using Apple computers on a daily basis. 20 years later those kids are making purchasing decisions for companies. It is a testament to the qualities that make PC's useful to business that the gain has been so small.

Actually, the primary reason for Apple's small uptick (over the last few years) has more to do with what's called the "Halo" effect, i.e. their success with the iPhone. If it wasn't for the iPhone they be in bad shape with their laptops.

Although -- some recent mis-steps haven't helped them recently, despite the "Halo" effect, like the Trashintosh and the touch bar silliness.

Another reason Apple's never made much gain in the business market is they still don't work well with lots of business systems and networks. Apple has never emphasized this kind of stuff, they've always focused on the end user. You do see mac shops in small startups and small companies, but in large companies they are not that common. Although every once in a while you see some CIO who's a huge Apple fan try to push Apple into a big company, then usually the guy leaves the company, and then they get rid of the Apples again. :-)

I don't necessarily have a beef with Apple -- my main reason why I've never gone the Apple route is you get a lot less for your dollars, a lot less...

Also I'm a believer in competition. Apple is actually a good thing. If Apple wasn't around Microsoft would be a total Monopoly. Competition is always a good thing.

Go to

Jan 11, 2018 13:07:36 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

PC vs MAC

Just look up the term "Trashintosh" on the Internet and you'll see what I mean. Surprised you're not familiar with the term.

Essentially, the Trashcan Mac Pro was a disaster, hence the name Trashintosh.

Go to

Jan 11, 2018 13:04:07 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

PC vs MAC

blackest wrote:

When you compare a pc desktop system with a laptop or an imac you are not comparing like with like. it's like saying a van is better than a car because it has a bigger load space. really the desktop system as far as macs go that apple provides is the mac pro which is upgradable although I don't think many people were that impressed with the trashcan mac pro. Someone at apple missed the point of having a system like the mac pro "as fast as you can make it please". The new mac pro due next year is intended to address the issue.

One of the things you might not have noticed is the eGPU the usb c connections the latest Macs have are pretty amazing when it comes down to it.
with thunderbolt 3 support this allows the use of eGPU's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N85lwLlzPdk

Now they estimate a 10% loss on max power on thunderbolt 3 but you are getting around 3x the GPU power of the internal card. The problem for a laptop is they are designed to be portable and with a card like that running the internal display you would have a battery life of around 5 minutes.

now lets pick up your desktop and take that on the road ... yes its not happening is it.

The biggest processing tasks these days are gpu based and in the old days you needed a desktop machine to run those tasks and a laptop too. Now you have best of both worlds. Thats pretty awesome isn't it.

I have to admit that one of apples choices the integration of the ssd and the ram on to the mainboard isn't something that appeals to me. But look at it logically with time machine your constantly backed up anyway. So getting up and running again isn't quite the major disaster it might be otherwise. Even the ram you usually have 2 slots for ram and probably a hard limit of 16GB although some of the latest CPU and board designs can handle 32GB.

those ram slots are a weak point, its usually not the ram that dies but the modules need reseating, not anymore. Another fairly common problem has been with hard drive cables. So yes your losing on flexibility but to be fair reliability is improved. Your more likely to fry your mainboard with a drink rather than the ram or ssd failing. Maybe this is a better way , just i'm too much of a dinosaur to recognise it yet.

The new macbook pro's are pretty decent when it comes down to it if you want portability and a powerful work station.

Actually just posting this made me realise something I have 2 options when i go to work later I can use my iMac at work as an external display for my macbook pro or I can set my my macbook pro in target disk mode and boot the imac from that. hmm so rather than working on photos at home on one version of lightroom and having a duplicate catalog at work I can go home working with the same photos :) This could be fun.
And save on duplicated work and not having the files i want on the right machine :)

When you compare a pc desktop system with a laptop... (show quote)

Thanks for this post. I actually learned something new about eGPU enclosures. I did a ton of reading on them after seeing your post. The problem right now is what you say is the 10% performance hit, which if you go out and do more reading is more like a 10% to 30% performance hit on Thunderbolt depending on how fast your graphics card(s) are. The faster your cards the more of a performance hit you will take over a Desktop solution. i.e. Thunderbolt is fast, but is still much slower than the motherboard bus speeds.

So unfortunately, this eGPU enclosure solution is not the best of both worlds. :-( I think it's a great solution if you have a laptop, but the Desktop is still the King if you're interested in performance.

I'll stick to my Desktop. 10% to 30% won't kill me -- but it's still a huge performance difference.

Go to

Jan 11, 2018 12:54:38 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

New PC for Post Processing

Looks like some great specs!! :-)

I think your best decision is to go with a Desktop itself, i.e. not a laptop.. You'll be able to upgrade in a modular fashion down the road, and support the fastest graphics cards.

Like Jerry said -- the case is a very important consideration. I especially like having room to work around. I did a motherboard/cpu upgrade on my system and it was a breeze working inside of a full tower case.

Go to

Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 next>>

Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum