fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

I switched to MAC about three years ago and am frustrated by the lack of flexibility AND the difficulty in bouncing files between MAC and PC... It could just be me... tending to learn what I need to know as I need to know it... but, next year I'll probably move back to PC....

TomV Loc: Annapolis, Maryland

I use Win 7 and Win 10. Very reliable performance. I have several laptops (HP and Asus) and build my own desktops (Try that with a Mac OS). 90% of personal computers are Windows-based.

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

Mac, Mac, Mac! I gave up on Microsoft's awful operating system three years ago and don't regret it one bit. Yes, it is more expensive than a PC but it works all of the time and has some brilliant cross platform (Mac, Iphone, Ipad) communications that work in the background seamlessly. Never, ever going back to PC. And Luminar is pretty sweet, too.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Hi,
This topic is posted very frequently - almost everyday. Here are links to past posts and suggestions. It will take you days to read them. I doubt any reply to your inquiry will have anything new to say.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search-topic-list?q=computer+for+photography&sectnum=0&username=

Good luck in your research and purchase.
Mark

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

My inexpensive HP PC ($500) is now 5 years old and still performing as it did when new. I had no problems moving to Windows 10, and after a short break-in period, it suits all my needs. I had a power failure while rebooting and the open registeries (sic) were really messed up. It cost me $65 to have it repaired. I run Elements 15 just fine, and as noted above, my cheap PC spends most it's time waiting for my input.

I believe the purpose of this forum is to help people with their questions and problems, not to sell them our personal preferences. I have never been able to afford a MAC, so I cannot comment on the value of that system. It may well be worth the added cost, but I believe it is important to let people know that there is a viable alternative should their budget to allow for a MAC

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I dunno - it works just fine for me? Why is it that Mac fans can only talk trash about PCs, and clog the internet with misinformation over and over again. I have been a PC user since 1983, and have used Macs on and off since 1999 starting with Pagemaker for desktop publishing and most recently for video production using Final Cut Pro. I don't feel the need to trash Macs to make PC's seem more appropriate. My only comment is that they are clearly more expensive and limited with respect to custom configuration. If you fanboys and fangirls can't handle the truth, then that does blow your credibility by exposing your clear and unapologetic bias - try and be more informative and accurate. I don't care if you switched to mac after using pcs 5 yrs ago "and never looked back" - that just shows that you are not up to speed with current technology. Pretty hard to find useful advice from such a slanted perspective. Just sayin'

AGO

One commentator wrote "Once you've tried a Mac, you won't go back..." I'd like to offer an alternative opinion. I was once responsible for purchasing computers for a school. We had a lab with 40 PCs. When it was time to upgrade we switched to Macs and had numerous problems with them. Also the support we received was poor. When it came time to replace the Macs, we went back to PCs and we stuck with PCs from that point on and never regretted it.
My point here is not to dump on Macs, but to basically say that it doesn't matter. You'll find Mac devotees who swear by their machines and PC devotees who swear by their machines. Go with the system you are most comfortable with. It will work.

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

My entire family uses Macs. The high schools here all recommend Macs. I just got tired of dealing with windows.

My daughters that are still in school use Macbook Pros and so do I. My wife uses a Mac with a 27 inch screen.

Rick

mrussell

As far as a computer for photography is concerned, both Mac and PC are a giid choice if you plan to use Adobe Lightroom and or PhotoShop. I'm not sure about Affinity, but I have used their predecessor apps (PagePlus) on a PC for many years. It all boils down to your personal preference. My personal preference is to not pay three or more times more than necessary. I use an HP 17.1 inch laptop with an i7 Intel processor for post-processing (screen touch disabled), and an Android 10.1 inch tablet with Android 7 (rooted and side-loaded) for tethered shooting. The laptop weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a ton, but I transport it in a Pelikan hard case that is wheeled.

julieaitken

I have both. I use the mac for most things, but I can't seem to get lightroom and mac on the same page. It is difficult for me to get the photos into lightroom. So I continue to use the pc for photo processing. I am looking forward to getting a newer pc soon so I can upgrade to lightroom and photoshop cc.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Gene, I’m beginning to think some of it may be an example of Festinger’s theory of Cognitive Dissonance. If you pay twice as much for the same or inferior performance with limited ability to upgrade over time (built-in obsolescence), Then there must be a reason - right? To admit this to yourself causes dissonance, hence the vocal and unremitting insistence by ~10% of computer users that there is some extra value worth the 1.5-2x cost.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Not so sure I would run with that analogy Gene - after all, phones today are more amazing little computers than some computers used to be when all phones had wires connecting them and the only cell phones came in bags!

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Difficult? How so? What are your doing to make it difficult? I have run an iMac for many years now, using Aperture prior to switching to Lightroom about 5 years ago.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I agree totally. Anecdotes and brand loyalty do little to answer the question. I have worked with computers for decades and for what I do, Macs would never work simply because Apple didn't address that type of market. My brother was a videographer and television producer and for him, the IBM PC platform was inadequate in the early digital days. Today he would have a choice, but would probably stick with Mac due to de facto standards for what his employees already know. Macs also have a proprietary architecture and therefore cost more, offer a more streamlined (constrained) approach to hardware and operating system support, and tend to be more reliable in overall experience because of these fences. PCs offer much more variety at a lower cost. It is tempting to say you get what you pay for, but this does not exactly apply between Mac and PC platforms because they are different types of products. It is true, however, in the PC world among different suppliers. In the Mac world, there are almost no options and you have to pay more, and naturally Apple delivers. It's not unlike choosing between Honda and Audi. Both serve different markets and purposes even though both make automobiles. You can't say that one among a group of proven options is inherently better than the others without understanding the buyer's needs and preferences. What anyone happens to like based on their own needs has nothing to do with it unless you take time to break it down and exercise some objectivity.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I use a 27" iMac for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that the out of the box color gamut of the iMacs matches the sRGB standard. That means that what you see on the screen is very close to what you will see when you have your picture printed by a lab; even if you do not periodically use an external calibrator such as the Spyder 5 as I do. A monitor for a PC that has the image quality to match the iMac costs over $1,000. Also, 27" is an optimal size for editing. It allows you to see the whole image at a size where details are clear and also allows you to focus on a few pixels for fine work.

As far as software, I subscribe to Adobe's Photographer package, which includes both Lightroom and Photoshop for $10 a month. As a free alternative you should consider Affinity. Some of its tools are superior to Photoshop, however Affinity does not have a Lightroom equivalent. The rumor mill says they will have one next year. You can use Photoshop, Lightroom or Affinity as standalone products, however I use Lightroom and Photoshop together. Raw files are imported into Lightroom for sorting and preliminary editing. If they require more advanced editing, they are then exported to Photoshop, edited and returned to Lightroom for final processing. It all depends on how much you want to get into editing.