Are Macs Really Better for Digital Photography, Compared to a Windows Build?

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by donoreo

Comparing to a Jag and Merc....gee which is in the shop more often, that is hard call with those two

I've done 125,000 miles in my merc and all it's had is a new set of front brakes and a new road spring - and a couple of super-tankers full of diesel! It doesn't even use any oil!

[donoreo]

To go back to the topic and to be specific, it does not matter for photography. The features of programs for photo editing are pretty much the same. The difference is in the overall experience.

I like the Mac OS, but then I am a UNIX/Linux admin so I know that it is really running a version of BSD under the covers and that makes it very stable. I have done hardware work on my own too, both my old Mac (CPU upgrade, DVD upgrade, memory upgrade, video card upgrade) and my current Mac Mini (memory and hard drive).

I only keep a Windows machine in the house because my wife insists on it.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by donoreo

I only keep a Windows machine in the house because my wife insists on it.

A very wise woman.

[MattUK]

Two reasons why creative people use macs:

1: They used to be the best and most compatible for printing about 10 years ago
2: they look pretty (which to creative people means a lot)

There's no difference in performance between the two really, but in my view, a Mac will cost 25% more then the equivalent pc, it's less friendly to upgrade, and the software compatibility is poorer (though that's not such an issue for creative apps)

[Cathus]

25% ?

[MattUK]

Originally Posted by Cathus

25% ?

http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-a...-buying-a-mac/

It was quite a generalisation, I'll admit, but I don't think it's wildly off...

[wavemachine]

Inside the pretty box the mac is essentially a PC main differences are pretty case, different OS and limited supported hardware.

Essentially the same things that go wrong with a standard PC can go wrong with a mac, faulty memory, overheating, PSU etc.

They will both do the same job just down to what you prefer to use, the Apple has less software to choose from but then again to much choice can cause confusion so is not necessarily a good thing.

I am a PC user and have never been tempted to buy an Apple but then I like to build my own PC's so that is my choice and I think Apple do a great job in pulling the package together and have some very nice designs and user interface standards, although I can't help feeling they do impose a few to many restrictions in some areas.
Personally I feel the Windows upgrade prices can be steep in comparison especially with the fiasco called Vista but then if you preordered it was more reasonable.

IMHO one is not better than the other just down to personal preference at the end of the day there is nothing you can do on a Mac you can't do on a PC.

[thefonz78]

25% i would say 300% when your talking laptops and mac books. Basic macbook £1000 basic laptop £300-350. I would rather a pc for all its faults. You can upgrade them without sending them off. You can play all video formats not just Quicktime. And save yourself a grand for a new lens or camera.

[donoreo]

Originally Posted by thefonz78

25% i would say 300% when your talking laptops and mac books. Basic macbook £1000 basic laptop £300-350. I would rather a pc for all its faults. You can upgrade them without sending them off. You can play all video formats not just Quicktime. And save yourself a grand for a new lens or camera.

I was not going to post any more on the subject, but there are just too many things wrong in this post.

1. No need to send them anywhere for upgrades. Those that do, would probably do the same thing with a PC so the point is moot.
2. You can play any and all video formats on a Mac the same way you do on Windows, you install software. VLC is the best to play everything on Mac, Windows and Linux.

[thefonz78]

Sorry i stand corrected. Still a lot more expensive in comparison.