 Margaret m. Buenneke |
What computer to buy? I am in the market for a new computer sometime in the next month or so. I currently have a Sony VAIO PCG-K35, which has been "vera vera good to me," but it is in the last stages of its life (I've had to replace the CD drive twice, the monitor only works at certain angles [it's completely black otherwise], and now the USB ports are getting tempermental as well). My teenage "tech support" is pushing hard for me to make the switch to Mac. So.... what is a better computer for a serious photographer - the Sony, which I know pretty well, or the Apple (which will have the new Leopard OS coming out in October)? Thanks in advance, Margaret
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
I'd also suggest switching to Mac (either get an iMac or a MacBook), but only because it is a better computer. I myself recently switched to Mac from Windows, and Mac OS X is MUCH better (and Leopard will have some nice improvements). It wouldn't be too hard to get used to Mac, it wasn't hard for me. So count me next to your tech support. ;) But there is an issue of software. What software do you currently use? You could use Photoshop (and many other photo programs) on a Mac, but some (like Picasa and Helicon Filter) are only for Windows. iPhoto is an organization/editing program which comes with Macs, but I've found it to be too slow to organize my photos, and I don't like how it puts them in different folders. There is a solution, though. You could get an emulation program (such as the free VirtualBox, or the more developed VMware or Parallels) to actually run Windows within the Mac (though that Windows, but not your Mac, would need anti-virus software). What you would do is get a CD for Windows XP (stay away from Vista, if possible, because that OS has plenty of problems) and install Windows inside a virtual computer running inside of Mac OS X. Then you can use any software for Windows within the Mac. It works side-by-side and even lets Windows and Mac integrate to an extent (Mac is not harmed). What I do is use Picasa to organize my photos, and Helicon Filter to edit them, all without any compatibility issues. The only thing is certain Windows programs that need 3D, such as games, might not work. Good luck! And hey, if you do go for another Windows computer, try to get one that has XP installed, not Vista. Otherwise, you will have compatibility issues with Vista (ironic, you know?), plus you will be bogged down with Vista's built-in "security". See http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/ if you want. As a former Windows and now Windows/Mac user, I get some laughs out of it. ;)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Margaret, I just posted a blog about a very similar thing just about a week ago, so it is pretty fresh in my mind. I have a Mac desktop as my main workstation, use a PC desktop at work, and have a PC laptop. I run Virtual PC on Mac (which I do NOT recommend)...but I wonder if that is even necessary these days on newer machines as Intel chips should have the capability to run Windows programs natively. I personally prefer Mac, but I don't believe that is a good enough reason to recommend one, as to me the Mac and PC wars are just about over: but for a very few things you can do the same thing on both computers. Where you run into immediate limitations is in choosing a laptop over a desktop tower because there is only so much room you have for hardware--Mac or PC doesn't matter. I can only get one hard drive in my laptop, have no choice of display (I kind-a like that 30" Apple Cinema Display), and to hook up the peripherals I use...I end up with a limited use desktop. Laptops do not substitute for a desktop to me, they are another add-on. All that said about laptops, here is my take on the real differences between mac and PC *desktops*, which may only make a difference to real power users: 1. Mac seems to have an advantage over PC in RAM use. Macs plug and play with more RAM slots and easy extension up to 16GB, and PCs are said to have undefined limitations based on chip sets, etc. You may have to fight a bit to get more than 4GB to be recognized depending on what you buy. 2. Macs come with capability of 3 terabytes of hard drive storage (750MB x 4), on-board RAID array capabilites, and 4 drive slots. PCs need additional software for RAID arrays and usually support just 2 drives in a box. 3. PCs are friendlier than they have ever been in the past, but you will still need to search for drivers to download and fuss to get hardware additions to be recognized and work. Mac is 'plug and play'. 4. Price is usually said to be an advantage on the PC side, and it makes sense because popularity of PCs and PC parts should make them cheaper. But I think that difference really only holds for common PCs -- not extremes. For example, have a look at Dell's XPS 720, going for about $5400; it seems more-or-less comparable to a Mac Pro with similar configuration ($5300). 5. The base gamma of PC systems is 2.2. On Mac it is 1.8. Calibrated or not I have always gotten slightly better and more reliable color on Mac systems (more reliable meaning to me that what you see on screen can be reliably duplicated in print), and I will swear it is because of the difference in gamma. Using a PC with Photoshop set to Mac preview helps...but that is PC emulating Mac. The difference here is a little like the difference between needing Adobe Photoshop, or Photoshop Elements...most people need Elements for image editing, but want Photoshop because it is more 'powerful' -- whatever that means in the end really makes no difference, they just think they are getting more for their money with Photoshop. Often that money can be put to better use in other equipment. Think about what *you* really need -- outline a list of what you want and why -- and then shop. This is better than going by anyone's recommendation.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Actually, Mac still doesn't support Windows programs natively, even with intel chips. The chips do help, however, when using Darwine to run Windows programs, and it also helps for using programs like VirtualBox or VMware. I too have found that the colors on the mac are very accurate, though I did play around with the gamma a little for better shadow display. One more plus for Mac: less chance of an error. Even on Windows XP I've seen errors every now and then, but not on Mac.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Well, you'd better let Apple know they can't run Windows natively, as they claim to be able to on their site :-) http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ I don't know that errors are more frequent on a well-configured PC. It may be more difficult to maintain good configuration...I don't think I can agree with the claim that PCs simply error more.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margaret m. Buenneke |
Thank you both, Ariel and Richard. You have both given me lots to think about. Thus far, I haven't done a whole lot of photoshopping, mostly because I'm a purist on photos.... but have noticed that my "tech support" (who spent July in China) was able to correct some of her (1300+) pictures quite easily on her mac - and it seems much less complicated than doing that on PCs. I'm trying to baby the Sony along till October, when Leopard is supposed to come out, but unfortunately, Apple hasn't released the release date for that yet.... Margaret
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Apple can run Windows natively, not windows programs. Bootcamp allows the user to install Windows on the Mac (if you buy windows), but OS X isn't able to open Windows programs. If you want to work with Windows and Mac OS X side-by-side, you would need an emulation program. VirtualBox is free, so it doesn't cost anything more than using BootCamp. (But if you want to do 3D gaming, you could also install Windows on BootCamp for that purpose.) I maintain my Windows very well, so I do have very few problems with it. Maintaining my Mac isn't really needed, and I don't have problems with it. Windows, I need to have a program to keep the registry clean, I always remove spyware, I always scan for viruses (and maintain these programs). I also make sure that no un-needed programs open at startup. While doing all this, I can use Windows fine. It's your choice if you want to do that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
If you are running Windows on a Mac, you will then just open a program that is running on native windows...that is running the program natively. You can't run any program without an operating system. I was assuming you would have the proper OS open. It isn't just a matter of configuring software on you PC or doing maintenance, it is building and maintaining the system that is the issue. On a well-configured system running Photoshop only, I don't think there would be a lot more crashing/error issues than you have on Mac.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
No, you should be able to use Windows just fine. It is just more stuff you need to do to take care of it. And part of that is re-installing Windows every couple years (like I just did, actually). Margaret, what exactly is wrong with your computer? There might be more things you can do to help it along better. (I'm the tech-support in my family. ;-) You could email me the problems the computer is having and what you are doing to deal with them. Richard, I meant that simply having an intel chip wouldn't allow Mac OS X to run programs designed for Windows. The intel chip does help getting Windows to install, though. You don't need to buy an emulation program, just Windows, and you can install Windows on BootCamp and then run the programs natively. But you're not running those programs on Mac; you're running them on Windows. Again, I would prefer not using BootCamp, since you have to choose only one OS to use when you turn it on, where as you could work with both operating systems side-by-side using a different program. I think the "running natively" issue was just about wording.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
"But you're not running those programs on Mac; you're running them on Windows." Mac computers will run Windows natively. If you are running the programs on windows running on the Mac computer, you are running the programs on the Mac computer...and the programs are running natively--just like they would on a PC. From the apple website: "Boot Camp that lets you install and run Windows on your Mac."
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Again, this is an issue of wording. Windows will install on the Mac, be it an iMac or a MacBook, using BootCamp (on computers with intel chips). Windows will not install on Mac OS X, the Mac operating system. BootCamp allows you to install Windows on the actual machine without using Mac OS X at all. They are two totally separate operating systems. An emulation program, on the other hand, such as Parallels Desktop for Mac, VMware Fusion, or VirtualBox, does let you install the Windows operating system within the Mac operating system, not a completely separate OS like BootCamp would allow. These emulation programs work by providing virtual hardware in the form of software, and in doing so, lets you run both Windows and Mac OS X together.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
"These emulation programs work by providing virtual hardware in the form of software, and in doing so, lets you run both Windows and Mac OS X together." I do this all the time, and have for a while using Virtual PC. I don't have an intel chip. The big deal about the intel chip is that it will run Windows natively (and therefore, windows programs). Mac has had emulation for a long time...it has not had native PC capabilities, which are relatively new. My original point was that if I had an Intel chip and could run PC programs natively (via Windows), I wouldn't likely bother to run both Windows and Mac OS at the same time as that is a real drain on system resources (consider Windows will likely require half a gig of RAM, and that is on top of what the emulation software will require). I would rather run natively...only a benefit in the case of the initial question where Margaret might not want to re-purchase software she already has. Or to put it more succinctly: Mac can act like a PC or a Mac This is quite a difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
I don't think you completely understand. The intel chip is a great help to virtual hardware programs, allowing for the emulation software to work even better, and it also means that they can work at the same time at high speed. That means, Mac can act like a PC and a Mac with high speed, not just PC or Mac at high speed. My iMac came with 1 gig memory, some come with more, and you can get more. With this one gig, I can allocate half to Windows, and both run very quickly. BTW: The only reason a PC can't act like a Mac is because Apple will only allow Mac OS X to run on an actual computer made by Apple. PCs can run Windows and Linux side-by-side or one or the other, for example.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
I quite understand...I am hardly new at this. You split the memory when running both OSs: essentially you only have half as much RAM for each -- no matter how you slice it. That means each OS has half what it would when run alone. If you have only 1 GB of RAM to start and the Mac OS uses 256MB, Windows uses 128MB, Photoshop uses 512MB, and the virtual software will use some (these are minimums; Virtual PC recommends 512MB -- perhaps other programs use less)...you have already used your 1GB and then some (whether you can get more is not the issue -- you do it now and don't have it). Photoshop will do a lot more writing to the hard drive. This severely saps your resources, and affects performance. On the other hand if you run one OS or the other, you have a lot more RAM to play with and for Photoshop to use in processing. It would be my choice to keep resources free, and performance high. "The only reason a PC can't act like a Mac is because Apple will only allow Mac OS X to run on an actual computer made by Apple." Even if I were somehow excluding that possibility by whatever I said, does that make the result any different? I still can't buy a PC and run Mac and Windows. In any case, it doesn't help with the initial situation, which is a PC user potentially moving to Mac. The point being they can run a Mac like their current PC if that helps them with transition and using programs they are used to and have already purchased. ALL OF THIS completely muddies the water, and is hardly useful for determining whether a Mac or PC is better for Margaret's needs. A 'serious photographer' could use Mac or PC depending on his/her needs, as either is capable of running image editing software. My suggestions were simply that I would suggest a desktop over a laptop for flexibility in configuration and expandability (e.g., unlikely you'll run a RAID in your laptop, have a dedicated scratch drive, or space for tons of RAM). A Mac may be an advantage for the reasons I cited (RAM use, drive space, hardware configuration ease, and possibly gamma). PCs may be an advantage in cost at the mid-tier. The only reason I ever have for running Windows on my Mac is because I write books on Elements. Elements 5 only came out for PC, and I prefer to work on my desktop...which is a Mac...so I run Virtual PC to have handy access to the Elements 5 program. I can't imagine that many people have that same type of issue. If I could, I would completely avoid running more than one OS, and recommend not doing so unless it is really a necessity. having access to PC-only programs would not make it a necessity if you are running Photoshop, which, IMHO is the only tool a 'serious photographer' really needs.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
Alright, fine. And a Mac will more likely be able to meet the needs of any person, due to its ability to run Mac OS X and Windows. I've only used an iMac with the intel chip. I've used VMware, Parallels, and VirtualBox, but not Virtual PC. I can say that speed is not an issue, though it may be without an intel chip or with using Virtual PC. To tell you the truth, when I run Windows, it is just like the speed of windows alone. Running programs within Windows seems to put about as much drain as it would without Windows. It's like you can use all of your Windows programs along with your Mac programs, and everything is only slowed down a little by the basic Windows OS running in the background. I'm sure I'm just using different words to say the same as you, so I'll leave this discussion now.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||