Is Apple worth the extra cost?
Jan 15, 2015 08:40:50 #
Has anyone ever noticed that Apple fan(atic)s ALWAYS trash everything else, but PC guys tend to have a more overarching viewpoint, and the Apple complaints all sound like this, "switched to Apple 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 yrs ago because of reliability/stability/durability issues. Haven't had a single problem since. Been using the same computer for 5,6,7,8,9 years AND IT STILL WORKS. Besides, the graphic people use them. Oh, and no viruses."
Now for a more balanced view.
Reliability/Stability. Yes, laptops running Win2K or XP did have their share of OS stability issues. Thanks to the standard set by Apple, this is a thing of the past. Machines break, and Apple is no stranger to this. This is why they have an extended care program that for a top Macbook Pro costs $350/yr. A comparable plan from Clevo/Sager costs from $79/2 yrs to $350 for 3 years which includes accidental damage. The most expensive plan is 1/3 the cost of Apple's plan. If you do not go for an extended warranty, the machine is covered by a lifetime labor, 1 yr parts, with free shipping both ways in the event they need to see the machine to repair it. And they provide 24/7/365 hotline with real people in the US who answer the phones. There are other small companies that also have good product and support. Clevo is a favorite of mine because they have been around since 1985, and still going strong.
Durability. Does anyone here REALLY want to work on a 5 yr old machine? The industry forges ahead, and the development cycle is usually set for a new product every 18 months to 2 years. Regardless whether you use a PC or an Apple, for the most part, old machines will always work with the software that was designed to run on them. but 5 yrs ago we were using 12mp cameras, jpeg files were 6mb, we used USB2.0, and 4 gb was more than enough to do what you needed/wanted to do on a display system that displayed, in the fuzzy language that Apple resorts to in order to avoid direct comparison to other companies that publish specs that are meaningful "millions of colors." This was their way of obfuscating the fact that their display pipeline was only 6 bit, and their monitors were incapable of accurately displaying 8 bit sRGB color gamut without dithering. This is something PCs have been able to do for quite a while, certainly longer than 5 yrs ago. It was the source of several lawsuits and resulted in Apple's "coming clean" on this spec.
But now cameras are 24mp or denser, 16gb ram is the minimum for serious photo editing, 8 bit displays is a general standard with 72% or higher NTSC coverage and 100% sRGB considered entry-level minimum - high end graphics workstations for critical work in Photoshop use a 30 bit display pipeline, using the 30 bit option in Photoshop, an ATI Fire Pro or NVidia Quadro graphics card, and a 10 bit display for 100% AdobeRGB gamut. The bit depth and color space size are important for editing because in a smaller color space it is easier to clip a color channel, or fail to see detail (even a dust spec) on a lower bit depth panel that you can see on a 10 bit. Also, there are colors that your camera can capture and printers can print that cannot be seen in the tiny sRGB color space.
While the notion that graphics professionals "prefer" Apple products, the real power users are working with PC products or Silicon Graphics or better workstations. The numbers make sense. Apple's market share is 11%, the Windows market share is 89%, Even if every single Apple computer user was a power graphics user (Photo editing), it is still a small fraction of the entire photo editing community. The reason why there are more power users on Windows has to do with ROI and machine power. In the simplest terms, Apple's best offering, maxed out with all the options, is still no better (faster) than a middle of the road graphics workstation, and the Apple machine will cost as much as a more powerful Windows workstation. Other than the bit depth issue, which is hard coded into Mac OS, there is nothing "wrong" with an Apple machine - it as good (but not necessarily better) than a Windows computer, and it will cost more.
I don't have to trash Apple computers to make the Windows machine look good. I just rely on facts to point out the differences. The OP's question was a simple one - is Apple worth the extra $$. Only the OP can answer that, since everyone's idea of value and priorities is uniquely different. For me, it is not. But that's me. I'd rather save the extra $$ and buy another lens or camera body and end up with the same or better functionality. I routinely do panos, hdr, restoration, fashion retouch, and focus stacks that often result in in images that are several gb in size. The most cost effective solution for me was a desktop, with dual 10 bit displays, 32 gb ram, 2 gb Quadro K620 display adapter, 1 tb system drive cached with SSD drive, and a 4 Tb "enterprise-class" storage volume with RAID 5. The total cost, including the dual displays, was under $2300. Enterprise class drives are the best drives with the most robust construction and materials, intended to survive 5 yrs of 24/7/365 duty in a RAID array, with very low failure percentages. They are often the only drives provided with a 5 yr express replacement warranty. My system serves me quite well, and frees up a lot of time to take pictures.
Now for a more balanced view.
Reliability/Stability. Yes, laptops running Win2K or XP did have their share of OS stability issues. Thanks to the standard set by Apple, this is a thing of the past. Machines break, and Apple is no stranger to this. This is why they have an extended care program that for a top Macbook Pro costs $350/yr. A comparable plan from Clevo/Sager costs from $79/2 yrs to $350 for 3 years which includes accidental damage. The most expensive plan is 1/3 the cost of Apple's plan. If you do not go for an extended warranty, the machine is covered by a lifetime labor, 1 yr parts, with free shipping both ways in the event they need to see the machine to repair it. And they provide 24/7/365 hotline with real people in the US who answer the phones. There are other small companies that also have good product and support. Clevo is a favorite of mine because they have been around since 1985, and still going strong.
Durability. Does anyone here REALLY want to work on a 5 yr old machine? The industry forges ahead, and the development cycle is usually set for a new product every 18 months to 2 years. Regardless whether you use a PC or an Apple, for the most part, old machines will always work with the software that was designed to run on them. but 5 yrs ago we were using 12mp cameras, jpeg files were 6mb, we used USB2.0, and 4 gb was more than enough to do what you needed/wanted to do on a display system that displayed, in the fuzzy language that Apple resorts to in order to avoid direct comparison to other companies that publish specs that are meaningful "millions of colors." This was their way of obfuscating the fact that their display pipeline was only 6 bit, and their monitors were incapable of accurately displaying 8 bit sRGB color gamut without dithering. This is something PCs have been able to do for quite a while, certainly longer than 5 yrs ago. It was the source of several lawsuits and resulted in Apple's "coming clean" on this spec.
But now cameras are 24mp or denser, 16gb ram is the minimum for serious photo editing, 8 bit displays is a general standard with 72% or higher NTSC coverage and 100% sRGB considered entry-level minimum - high end graphics workstations for critical work in Photoshop use a 30 bit display pipeline, using the 30 bit option in Photoshop, an ATI Fire Pro or NVidia Quadro graphics card, and a 10 bit display for 100% AdobeRGB gamut. The bit depth and color space size are important for editing because in a smaller color space it is easier to clip a color channel, or fail to see detail (even a dust spec) on a lower bit depth panel that you can see on a 10 bit. Also, there are colors that your camera can capture and printers can print that cannot be seen in the tiny sRGB color space.
While the notion that graphics professionals "prefer" Apple products, the real power users are working with PC products or Silicon Graphics or better workstations. The numbers make sense. Apple's market share is 11%, the Windows market share is 89%, Even if every single Apple computer user was a power graphics user (Photo editing), it is still a small fraction of the entire photo editing community. The reason why there are more power users on Windows has to do with ROI and machine power. In the simplest terms, Apple's best offering, maxed out with all the options, is still no better (faster) than a middle of the road graphics workstation, and the Apple machine will cost as much as a more powerful Windows workstation. Other than the bit depth issue, which is hard coded into Mac OS, there is nothing "wrong" with an Apple machine - it as good (but not necessarily better) than a Windows computer, and it will cost more.
I don't have to trash Apple computers to make the Windows machine look good. I just rely on facts to point out the differences. The OP's question was a simple one - is Apple worth the extra $$. Only the OP can answer that, since everyone's idea of value and priorities is uniquely different. For me, it is not. But that's me. I'd rather save the extra $$ and buy another lens or camera body and end up with the same or better functionality. I routinely do panos, hdr, restoration, fashion retouch, and focus stacks that often result in in images that are several gb in size. The most cost effective solution for me was a desktop, with dual 10 bit displays, 32 gb ram, 2 gb Quadro K620 display adapter, 1 tb system drive cached with SSD drive, and a 4 Tb "enterprise-class" storage volume with RAID 5. The total cost, including the dual displays, was under $2300. Enterprise class drives are the best drives with the most robust construction and materials, intended to survive 5 yrs of 24/7/365 duty in a RAID array, with very low failure percentages. They are often the only drives provided with a 5 yr express replacement warranty. My system serves me quite well, and frees up a lot of time to take pictures.
Jan 15, 2015 08:51:18 #
I had to switch from Mac to PC in self-defense because of work, and always detested those machines because of nearly all the above-stated reasons. When I retired I dumped the confounded thing and went back to Mac; I've been happy ever since.
Jan 15, 2015 08:59:49 #
I went to Apple about a year ago and I am going across the board with a i Mac and laptop. It is different than a Windows machine. Some parts better and others not , may be because I have to get use to it. I like the idea I don't have to relearn every time they changed the system as I did with Windows. Mac changed some time back and I got a notice do I want to up grage click here and at NO CHARGE I was on the new set up and no learning curve.
Jan 15, 2015 09:03:01 #
I'm a big Apple fan and won't repeat what has already been said.
One plus not discussed is Applecare(get it) and the ease of getting help with the genius bar and the free in store tutorials that come with buying a new machine. Also, for $99, you can purchase One on One where you can get one hour training one on one (private lesson) about anything you want to learn for an entire year!! What a deal!
One plus not discussed is Applecare(get it) and the ease of getting help with the genius bar and the free in store tutorials that come with buying a new machine. Also, for $99, you can purchase One on One where you can get one hour training one on one (private lesson) about anything you want to learn for an entire year!! What a deal!
Jan 15, 2015 09:05:08 #
h2odog wrote:
I have found that Apple laptops don't last as long as PC's. They run very hot and are best used with a cooling pad. On the other hand, Apple iMacs are terrific, especially for photo purposes. They are vey quiet and reliable. Just my $.02.
I for one would love to see some form of documentation that this is true. Good luck with that.
Jan 15, 2015 09:09:22 #
I lile PC's. You can tailor them to your needs if you want. The sheer market share points to their success.
Jan 15, 2015 09:10:55 #
I bought an iMac in 2006 and a MacBook early 2007 and have used them for PP ever since, the iMac at home and the MacBook on the road. They both do batch processing and editing as I require but the laptop is slow. I have replaced the iMac with a new one and am considering a MacBook pro. Why, because the 32 bit architecture is so outdated that for newer software or upgrades I need 64 bit. Otherwise I have 7 to 8 years of good use. Would I have to upgrade more often with pc, I don't know but I suspect so.
Jan 15, 2015 09:24:21 #
f8shoot wrote:
Also, for $99, you can purchase One on One where you can get one hour training one on one (private lesson) about anything you want to learn for an entire year!! What a deal!
That can be bought only at the time you buy the computer.
Jan 15, 2015 09:25:32 #
I would like to see proof from people who say you get more from a pc than an Apple for the same cost.
I have done side-by-side price comparisons and found to get more bang for my buck with an Apple.
My experience has been than my windows-based pc's were great out of the box, but performance went down hill within 2 months, while my iMac has been steady for 7 years.
I have done side-by-side price comparisons and found to get more bang for my buck with an Apple.
My experience has been than my windows-based pc's were great out of the box, but performance went down hill within 2 months, while my iMac has been steady for 7 years.
Jan 15, 2015 09:30:17 #
I"ve been an Apple guy for 21 years. I've used PCs and wonder why anyone would. Converted my sister to MAC and she now not only has an iMac but and iPad And an new iPhone 6. she loves em. PLUS if you live in Chicago there HAS to be at least one Apple store there. you get all the help you need there FOR FREE!!!!!!!
Jan 15, 2015 09:32:18 #
jackpi
Loc: Southwest Ohio
wingnut1956 wrote:
Hi Fellow 'Hoggers..This is probably going to be a... (show quote)
A good computer or camera system is expensive for the same reason divorce is expensive---it's worth it!
Jan 15, 2015 09:36:56 #
jackpi wrote:
A good computer or camera system is expensive for the same reason divorce is expensive---it's worth it!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 15, 2015 09:37:25 #
jackpi wrote:
A good computer or camera system is expensive for the same reason divorce is expensive---it's worth it!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jan 15, 2015 09:38:24 #
A friend of mine is a computer expert, for some years he sold systems to corporations. He got rid of all his PCs and switched to Macs. He says all Apple products are made to work together.
Jan 15, 2015 09:40:06 #
For decades, I have been producing advertising for publication. This means photography, very heavy graphics work, design, and working with publishers. It is enough to say that one very large publisher does not even accept files from a PC. At the high end, it is all Mac in graphic design.
I was once at a HUGE ad agency (huge as in: a full size railroad boxcar was hung from the ceiling) to demonstrate a brand-able video player (in the early days of the Net) we had made, and it actually took an HOUR for them to find a PC for us to demonstrate cross platform. The place was a sea of Macs.
Big companies may have a zillion PCs for its cogs, but go to the graphics department, and it's all Mac. In my experience, only ONE publisher, of a newsprint fishing rag, used a PC, but had no problem with my Mac made graphics.
My current setup has a bunch of Macs, most of which run 24/7 without a hitch. We use the overnight for converting video.
I was once at a HUGE ad agency (huge as in: a full size railroad boxcar was hung from the ceiling) to demonstrate a brand-able video player (in the early days of the Net) we had made, and it actually took an HOUR for them to find a PC for us to demonstrate cross platform. The place was a sea of Macs.
Big companies may have a zillion PCs for its cogs, but go to the graphics department, and it's all Mac. In my experience, only ONE publisher, of a newsprint fishing rag, used a PC, but had no problem with my Mac made graphics.
My current setup has a bunch of Macs, most of which run 24/7 without a hitch. We use the overnight for converting video.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.