Mac is better than PC for photography?

[phrehdd]

I'm not sure why you'd come to such a conclusion: on the cpu side, you've access to the same amount of CPU horse power and highly optimized cross-platform apps (say, Adobe Photoshop) can use the exact same optimizations on either OS, because of the way it is programmed. In the GPU department, you're correct because Windows drivers of regular graphics cards are optimized for games (i. e. speed over accuracy and consistency). But if you're seriously interested in games, you'd want to boot into Windows anyway.

But other than that, if all things are equal (e. g. if you boot a Mac into Windows and OS X), it'll give you very similar performance.

There are some things which do not exist as such on the other platform, e. g. there is no direct Windows equivalent of Fusion Drive (you can use a small amount of flash to boost boot up times, but that doesn't give you nearly the same performance or the same advantages as Fusion Drive). Moreover, the newest line-up of Macs already use PCIe SSDs which have 50+ % more throughput than the fastest SATA SSDs on the market (which are limited by the max throughput of the SATA interface).

Moreover, battery life under OS X will be significantly longer than under Windows.

I'm not quite sure you understand what Unix actually is, »Unix«*doesn't gather dust and starts creaking. Apart from the legal definition of Unix (by which Linux is not Unix), they follow the same design philosophy. In that regard, Windows is not really better or worse (the NT kernel was started 20 years ago in 1993). But these OSes have little to do with what they were 20 years ago. And both need to straddle an amazing range of devices, from 12+ core Xeon machines to puny a single Cortex A8 core you find in an iPhone 4 or similar (the NT kernel is also at the heart of Windows Phone 8).

1) OSX is based on the Berkeley Distribution which is a UNIX variant not Linux.
2) I will never defend Micro$haft OS as it is, even with rebuild - bloatware. However, UNIX is an older system and even with changes, it remains steadfast in keeping some rather outdated and antiquated features including a command line that is based on limits of 2nd generation use of ascii.
3) We have to be careful (myself included) in comparing Apple to non-Apple as it can get, no pun included - an apples and oranges comparision.

Non Apple PCs have had PCI-xxx SSD available already. Cost is what drives them out of the hands of the typical user. If we consider non-Apple PCs as boxes, they are (other than the present Mac Pro) easy to swap out, add too and upgrade unlike an iMac or Mac Mini (beyond hard drive and rather limited RAM). Apple's model is to have a fully self contained unit that people buy, turn on and use. Much of the decisions are made for the Apple user base ahead of time.

Photoshop - time and time again, under tests the Windows based system with similar or same basic hardware edges out the Mac. This is no secret but then again it is no secret that 95 percent of the time, it makes on difference with respect to the end user. As far as hardware acceleration, Windows again does better. In fact, some Mac/Photoshop top dogs suggest Photoshop runs better without using hardware acceleration with some video cards that are common to Mac and state it only helps for a couple of activities/filters and otherwise can slow down Photoshop. Again, given a good robust Apple, properly matched to Photoshop needs, most people are extremely happy with this combo (myself included).

OS cost - goes to Mac
Computer cost - depending on how you look at it, I'll sit in the camp that non-Apple PCs are, independent of OS a better buy usually or more bang for the buck.
Upgrade-ability - other than the present Mac Pro, usually goes to the "box" PC. From drives, various cards including graphics, audio and esoteric port oriented cards.
Port connectivity - on pure speed the MAC wins hands down with both USB3 and TB
Typical port usage - tie, as most people wont be buying (for now) TB and that means USB3 is available for both MAC and non-Mac PCs.

We can go on and on about this and either agree or disagree. Bottom line is if Apple's products work for you and you prefer it and can afford it, by all means remain in the Apple camp.

I have built so many PCs over the years ranging back to early DOS days and enjoy creating a computer - built to spec so to speak but gladly happy emptying my wallet into Mac products and will continue to do so. I do have things about OSX that I really find annoying but not enough to dissuade me. My next purchase will be either the next generation of Mac Mini or the new Mac (mini) Pro. The latest changes to the Mac line up, which includes much of what you mentioned, makes the Macs relevant in today's competitive market as far as the hardware is concerned.

Cheers and hopefully you, like myself, consider this just a casual exchange and I do appreciate your comments.

 

[Laird Knox]

I run Photoshop on a Mac laptop and a Windows desktop. Both get the job done wonderfully.

 

[OreoCookie]

Overall, my point is not that Macs are faster than PCs, I just don't think they're slower or that the underlying OS architecture is ancient.

1) OSX is based on the Berkeley Distribution which is a UNIX variant not Linux.

I haven't claimed OS X were based on Linux, it's not. But you included Linux in your earlier post. Linux is based on variations of the same design ideas (meaning that the differences between different »proper« Unixes are at least as large as the difference between OS X and Linux).

2) I will never defend Micro$haft OS as it is, even with rebuild - bloatware. However, UNIX is an older system and even with changes, it remains steadfast in keeping some rather outdated and antiquated features including a command line that is based on limits of 2nd generation use of ascii.

The presence or absence of a command line says nothing about how modern or outdated a system is. Many servers, for instance, do not come with a GUI, but that doesn't mean it is outdated. To me, the command line is one of the features of OS X. Note that the command line of *nix systems has nothing to do with a DOS prompt. Also Windows comes with a shell environment (dubbed Windows PowerShell) which is very handy if you're configuring servers.

In some use cases, a GUI is a hindrance, it's slower than doing things in the command line or automating them via the command line. That's why all modern OSes have command lines.

Non Apple PCs have had PCI-xxx SSD available already.

You're right, so do all Macs with PCIe slots. But previously, PCIe SSDs were workstation/server-class hardware, i. e. very pricey. I was thinking of notebooks, and I should have been more clear here: I know of no mainstream PC notebook that uses a PCIe-based SSD. And since most PC notebooks use SATA drives, you can never be as fast with a PC notebook than with a Mac.

Photoshop - time and time again, under tests the Windows based system with similar or same basic hardware edges out the Mac. This is no secret but then again it is no secret that 95 percent of the time, it makes on difference with respect to the end user. As far as hardware acceleration, Windows again does better.

I haven't seen Windows vs. Mac Photoshop benchmarks in years. Do you have a recent link on that?

Computer cost - depending on how you look at it, I'll sit in the camp that non-Apple PCs are, independent of OS a better buy usually or more bang for the buck.

If you look at notebooks, I don't think this is true: a quality PC notebook will set you back about the same as a Mac notebook with comparable specs. Notebooks are harder to peg down, because you can buy a cheap notebook for less than a quality notebook. Look at the Retina Pro contenders, they're all priced similarly to Apple's offerings.

Upgrade-ability - other than the present Mac Pro, usually goes to the "box" PC. From drives, various cards including graphics, audio and esoteric port oriented cards.

Most PCs sold these days are laptops and also in PC land they're getting less and less upgradable with every version, and you can usually only upgrade RAM or internal storage. And if you max out the RAM at purchase (something I have done since 1998, literally), upgradability about RAM is only important in case of component failure. But I will miss the ability to add more storage to my next machine.

PS I'm not sure what the status on PCMCIA Express cards are, but I have only very rarely seen them used (I used to have a PCMCIA 56k modem card, that should tell you something about my age ).

Edit: My point of view is very notebook-centric since my main machines since 1998 have been notebooks.

 

[macmesser]

I assume the OP was storing and accessing his file from the SSD, but some people have SSD for the operating system and store their files on slow external hard drives. It probably isn't the case here, but if it is...... store the files on the SSD and have another SSD for booting the OS.

256 SSD is pretty small especially if you are accessing the OS along with hundred of RAW files. In any case... I would have 2 SSDs as mentioned.

I use a 256 SSD for boot and an 128 SSD for scratch with Photoshop (with 32GB RAM). The SSDs are for processing (really only camera-sized files) and I have external enclosures for storage. Setup is more than fast enough. With a 256GB SSD you can store whatever you're working on there (usually even on the scratch disk) and move it off when done. It would be different if one needed real time access to everything you have, but how many users do?

 

[macmesser]

I can't agree with this statement, purely based on experience. Just this last weekend I wiped the hard drive of my old laptop and did a fresh re-install of the OS and applications. The OS now boots much, much faster (similar boot time to when it was new 6yrs ago), as do the applications. The OS and applications are the same versions as I had installed previously.

Whilst I believe that Mac OS doesn't slow down with age/use as much as perhaps Windows does, I feel it does still bloat and slow over time.

The existence of programs that clean up junk on a boot drive is consistent with your observation but I have not yet noticed this effect. I find that a periodical directory repair and optimization with Diskwarrior keeps things pretty much humming for me. Assuming a system is slow because it is clogged up, would the best cure be a clean install?

 

[nitromac]

There is no difference at all between photoshop/lightroom on a mac vs a pc.

I use both. Dont' even notice that I am on a different OS at times. And that's a good thing.

The whole "mac is better for design/photography/art" argument has been invalid for many years now because both platforms support the same exact software.

 

[ChrisA]

The whole "mac is better for design/photography/art" argument has been invalid for many years now because both platforms support the same exact software.

That is true if you only run Adobe products.

Not true if you run Aperture, and Final Cut Pro. Pixelmator or any other Mac-only software.

 

[nitromac]

That is true if you only run Adobe products.

Not true if you run Aperture, and Final Cut Pro. Pixelmator or any other Mac-only software.

Okay, but if you are going for OS-exclusive software then you don't really have a choice. Considering the topic is comparing mac vs pc in the field of photography (ie creative applications, available on both platforms) I would assume the discussion is about Adobe (the standard multiplatform creative suite). If the OP wants Aperture, he's going to have to get a Mac and that's the end of it.

I don't really understand the stigma towards PCs that diehard apple fans have. No one ever compares a good pc to a mac, it's always the same "my old crappy $400 laptop is so much worse than my new $2000 macbook pro". Well no **** -- really?!

When choosing between a nice PC or a nice Mac you really have to pick which OS you like more because hardware wise they will be pretty much the same. Gaming PC's don't count because gaming macs don't exist.

 

[OreoCookie]

I don't really understand the stigma towards PCs that diehard apple fans have. No one ever compares a good pc to a mac, it's always the same "my old crappy $400 laptop is so much worse than my new $2000 macbook pro". Well no **** -- really?!

When choosing between a nice PC or a nice Mac you really have to pick which OS you like more because hardware wise they will be pretty much the same. Gaming PC's don't count because gaming macs don't exist.

The stigma to me is Windows. There is good PC hardware out there, no doubt about it, but then it's usually about as expensive as a similarly specced Mac.