# PC or MAC



## sct69 (Dec 21, 2011)

Long time viewer, short time member, first time topic poster. 
I'm about to start a new job that will require me to travel & fly a fair bit. I am wanting to purchase a laptop to process my images on the run. I was wondering what would be your recommendations?
To date I really only post to the web. However I would like a screen that gives as true a colour representation as is possible in a laptop. (Can they be calibrated?). I would like to keep the cost under 1.5K, run PS and or LR. Hard drive space is not a major issue as removable drives are cheap enough these days. Do any of you process solely on a laptop or do you keep your image processing completely too your desktop?


----------



## te4o (Dec 21, 2011)

On a MacBook Pro "15" quad with 16Gb RAM from OWC you almost have the processing capacity of a big Mac Pro from 2009/10... The display doesn't have hardware calibration but no laptop or iMac has it. Colour accuracy is not really given but enough for web. Think of a fast interface for an external HD eg eSATA or USB 3 if PC or Thunderbolt storage.
Aperture and PS +\- NIK do a very good job together on my Mac-s. I do all PP on my Mac Pro because of the 24 GB RAM I crammed I to it and because my MBP 17" is now 6 yrs old. Would never buy a 17" again.
I am happy that the PC phase is behind me.


----------



## Crapking (Dec 21, 2011)

Possibly a Mac Fan boy but I switched to a MacBook Pro, 2.66 iCore 7 with 4 GB RAM and never looked back. I use PS CS5 daily with Aperture on this device with barely a noticeable lag c/w with my MacPro - for which I use the 27 LED screen for final touch ups prior to enlarging. I also use iPhoto as my family JPG backup viewer for the devoted wife - she makes Christmas cards and the occasional book, but hush, hush don't tell anyone 
C/w with my 'old' office PC, circa 2009 well there is no comparison - the Mac clearly starts up faster, processes faster and never crashes, so put one vote down for the MacBook Pro.
With the newer generation now offering the SSDs for your iOS and startup drive- it is a no brainer.


----------



## gmrza (Dec 21, 2011)

For me, some of the biggest benefits are around colour management being more seamless - even on Windows 7 some weird stuff seems to happen when you have calibrated your monitor using a Spyder. I find that from time to time Windows is running using the wrong colour profile - especially after unlocking my screen it can take several seconds until the display is using the correct profile - highly irritating.
The other big benefit to me, of a Mac, is having UNIX under the hood. That means that open source tools are easier to use than on Windows, and you have ready access to scripting languages like Perl. I am also a big fan of rsync.


----------



## JR (Dec 21, 2011)

Since you will be travelling, I would suggest looking into the Mac Book Air. I just bought the fastest model for my wife and it beats my Mac Pro which is just two years old! Which ever laptop you end-up getting, make sure you get a solid state drive, it makes all the difference.

At home I am still flip flopping between Mac and PC since I have both because it is cheaper for me to buy performance on my PC since I build them myself. For a laptop though, I would not even think about it: Mac all the way.


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 21, 2011)

Macbooks are awesome on the move.

Main workhorse is a PC though.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 21, 2011)

All depends. For screen size, I agree with one poster, if you are using it while traveling 17" can be too big, especially with planes these days. If you are using it more in hotels, and the like, a larger screen can be nice. 

I tend to like PCs because they are more upgradable, even the laptops. I generally have build my own PCs for the last 15 years and as often as I have heard MAC this and that, when thinks like Blu-Ray come out, I just slap them in, where on a Mac, not so much. 

I want a faster machine, I just swap processor. I want a really faster machine, I swap motherboard and CPU. I double or triple my processing power every couple of years for around $400. 

I think the Mac books and the like are a lot smaller and thinner, so if size is an issue, then it might be the way to go. I think when it comes to newer technology, it is easier to add new cards, swap drives, etc, on a PC based machine.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 21, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> All depends. For screen size, I agree with one poster, if you are using it while traveling 17" can be too big, especially with planes these days. If you are using it more in hotels, and the like, a larger screen can be nice.
> 
> I tend to like PCs because they are more upgradable, even the laptops. I generally have build my own PCs for the last 15 years and as often as I have heard MAC this and that, when thinks like Blu-Ray come out, I just slap them in, where on a Mac, not so much.
> 
> ...



+1

Seems too many things break when a new OS/feature is loaded on a MAC.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

This has got to be one of the touchiest subjects in all of computing. But I'll try to explain the real world differences and some points with as little bias as possible. First, it is simply down to user preference and budget. Macs cost more for the exact same thing, plain and simple. That is not some sort of slander to Apple or Apple users, that is just simply a fact. There is also nothing in the end result of your work that you can achieve on a Mac that couldn't be done on a PC for 1/2 to 1/3rd of the price. And with only a few exceptions the software you use to edit your work are identical on both systems. So it's almost entirely an operating system environment/preference that you are paying the difference for. If you cannot stand Windows/just have to have an OSX OS, well then there are almost no two ways about it (at least not legally) you have to get a Mac.

Macintosh computers run on the exact same hardware as Windows and Linux PC's. The difference is that the OSX operating system will only legally install on machines that are built by Apple. Windows and Linux operating systems can be installed on any compatible hardware, including machines built by Apple. This style of software (e.g. OSX) is known as proprietary software. Proprietary allows Apple to release only a small handful of system configurations to the market over the years and then only ever have to worry about keeping compatibility between system configurations working smoothly across these small handful of few variations. This gives the perception that Macs just run great, which is often but not always true.

Windows on the other hand (as well as Linux) support a near infinite combination of system components, developed and configured by a myriad of developers and re-sellers. If you know what you are doing yourself, or choose your manufacturer/seller carefully, then a Windows machine can be just as stable and smooth as any Mac, and if you shop properly, it can cost less than 2/3rds to 1/2 that of a Mac desktop or laptop. That's how extreme the price markup is, for the exact same (or often even more powerful) hardware.

This is not to say that there aren't plenty of PC re-sellers that charge very high prices, equal to or worse than Apple for the exact same underlying components. There are plenty who do. The difference is that on the Apple side of things, there are no alternatives, only Apple. On the PC side of things, there are an infinite number of alternatives.

So if cost is an issue and or having OSX as your OS is no virtual requirement for you, then the way to go is a well built PC from a reputable re-seller who's retail markup is not nearly as absurd as the rest, and there are plenty to chose from, otherwise, you have only one choice and it's a take it or leave it decision.

These guys sell desktops as well, but take a quick look at their laptop offerings, and compare them quickly to Mac Book Pro's, http://www.ibuypower.com/IbpPages/Notebook.aspx The price differences are staggering, on average the systems are 1/2 the price for an equivalently or more powerful machine. And these devices are fairly well regarded among PC users, I'd take one in a heartbeat. They sell desktop machines as well at reasonable prices however for desktops, I always build my own piece by piece from various online retailers. The difference between a desktop and a Mac Pro desktop is quite often 2/3rds the price and often you get more powerful equipment as well on top of a 2/3rds price discount when going for a PC.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

I'd say first decide what apps you want to run, then shop screen technology. If you still have a choice of OS after nailing these two down, it really becomes a matter of preference. I'd definitely view the app and screen as the primary considerations and the rest as just a platform to support the 'core' of what you want to do. This is similar to the approach I take for my audio studio, decide the app and the I/O, then build around them.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

I used to be a hardcore PC guy but literally I could not save ANYTHING on the hard drive... because once a freaking virus hits... i'd lose all my photos... I got a back up hard drive that mirrored my C drive... My computer got a virus, guess what, my backup got the virus as well... and this is with norton and about 2 other antivirus sotfwares going... I had a second back up i'd drag and drop into... that was good but the instability and uncertainty of the PC killed my photography storage... I bought a cheap Mac Mini and ran PS and did what I needed off that until I had enough dough to pay for an IMAC... I am proud to say I've been virus free for nearly 4 years since the switch and haven't had to pay a penny for antivirus software... It's expensive but well worth the switch in the long run.


----------



## iTasneem (Dec 21, 2011)

I have Macbook Pro and it is awsome. Macbook air 11 is your friend of travels.


----------



## superotaku78 (Dec 21, 2011)

I've been a PC user for 20 years and have seen the ups and downs of all the various versions of Windows. I build my own systems because I like the potential power available for the money and it's a lot of fun too. I'm also a big fan of Windows 7. Saying all this, I just bought an 11" Macbook Air and it is by far the best computer I've ever used. The solid state drive combined with OSX Lion creates an incredibly smooth experience even though it's only running a low voltage i5. I'm using Lightroom 3 processing 5D Mark II RAW files. I used to hate OSX and what I saw as its limits, but the newer version seems to have answered all my complaints. I'm getting a refurbed 27" Apple Cinema in a couple of days so will see how well the Macbook runs at 2560x1440. 

So, my advice to you is to get a Mac if you need a laptop. Check the Apple Store for refurb deals. Their refurbs are basically new machines with full warranty.

Oh...and another benefit of Mac is the resale value is far beyond anything I've seen in the PC world.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> I used to be a hardcore PC guy but literally I could not save ANYTHING on the hard drive... because once a freaking virus hits... i'd lose all my photos... I got a back up hard drive that mirrored my C drive... My computer got a virus, guess what, my backup got the virus as well... and this is with norton and about 2 other antivirus sotfwares going... I had a second back up i'd drag and drop into... that was good but the instability and uncertainty of the PC killed my photography storage... I bought a cheap Mac Mini and ran PS and did what I needed off that until I had enough dough to pay for an IMAC... I am proud to say I've been virus free for nearly 4 years since the switch and haven't had to pay a penny for antivirus software... It's expensive but well worth the switch in the long run.



Learn to back up your files, which you have to do anyways, HDD tech is the same in both Mac and PC and is not reliable. Norton is garbage software, don't use it. Keep your work machine clean. And for the money you saved if you go with PC you can buy 2 backup machines, and keep 1 of them offline entirely, making it nearly virus proof. Or yeah, pay for the Mac which has less virus made for it because it only has 5-10% the amount of customers as Windows and isn't as big of a target. But don't think that it can't get a virus or have a hardware malfunction and then not have proper backups of your work files and not have proper backup for your equipment. In other words, I don't have these problems and I don't have a Mac.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

skitron said:


> I'd say first decide what apps you want to run, then shop screen technology. If you still have a choice of OS after nailing these two down, it really becomes a matter of preference. I'd definitely view the app and screen as the primary considerations and the rest as just a platform to support the 'core' of what you want to do. This is similar to the approach I take for my audio studio, decide the app and the I/O, then build around them.



What does screen technology have to do with anything? Apple displays work on PC's and aren't even that good, I don't recommend buying one even for Mac users. Lenovo (fairly pricey) makes laptops with better screens than Mac Book Pro's which are nothing special at this point, even the cheaper lappos I linked to have better resolutions than Apple Mac Book displays. I half agree on the software side, but unless it's some sort of personal requirement/previous engrained preference then this is a no brainier. The only people this is a serious question for are the technically illiterate (in which case yes, get yourself a Mac and just pay the fees but you will be worse off in the long run both $ wise and also your technical ability wise since you won't learn anything) and for people making a switch from Mac to PC which could be a challenge.


----------



## John MARK (Dec 21, 2011)

Hello, this reply was typed on a MacBook running Windows (thru BootCamp).

As part of my job is teaching folks how to better cope with the computers they already own, PC or MAC, I just carry around my "white laptop" loaded with MacOS, XP and Windows 7.

Quite clearly this is not the cheapest alternative you could dream of, but one you might consider to take the best of each world.

BootCamp (supplied free with MacOs) lets you choose the OS at boot time, so your session will be either MacOS or Windows.

Another approach, with sufficient RAM (4Gb+) and CPU power (dual core +), is running virtual machines through Parallels Desktop or similar software like Virtual Box (free but IMO harder to set up for MacOs).

With the proper settings, virtualization is like magic : MacOs AND Windows applications run [glow=red,2,300]at the same time[/glow] on your hardware !

OK magic things have a priceâ€¦ you'll need one valid license for each OS you run, concurrently or not !

Also, you can test new software on a dedicated virtual machine and just dump the whole thing if something goes wrong, with no harm to the rest of your system 8)

Having spent so much time in my life with "Ghost" or similar system restore activities, I strongly advise considering virtual machines (VM's), be it on MacOs or Windows "natively based hardware". 

Finally, while running "Windows on a Mac" on a daily basis, I've never seen the opposite (MacOs running as a VM on a PC) and not sure that's even technically possible.

So if you really want / need some exclusive MacOs features, you probably will buy some (more expensive) Apple hardware :-\


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

It is possible John, and you don't even need to do it via virtual machines, you can run OSX on PC components natively just fine, and with the right configuration it would run like a dream for 1/3rd the price. But it isn't legal and for the technically uninclined it's not easy to do. I would never recommend this, for any reason, especially not professional usage. Nor would I recommend using virtual machines for professional graphics work, that idea isn't viable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2011)

I've been a Mac user for personal use for about 25 years now. I currently use a 17" MacBook Pro and a 13" MacBook Air for travel. Both are fast, reliable, and plenty powerful enough for image editing and processing (I use Aperture, DxO Optics Pro, and Adobe CS5). My current 17" MBP bought earlier this year replaced a 2006-vintage MBP. I also use Windows laptops for work. During the 5 years I used that 2006 MBP (and it's still running, will be used by the kids), I went through six PC laptops (Compaq, then HP, then Lenovo, fortunately paid for by work) - one was end-of-lifed, and the other 4 just flat out failed for one reason or another. Only the most recent of the six had specs that actually exceeded the 5 year old MBP. 

You pay more for a Mac, and we could endlessly debate whether or not you can get an equivalently-spec'd PC for less. My take on that is no, you can't, but really it defines how you define 'specs'. You can absolutely get the same processor, RAM, storage, and display size in a PC for far less. But you can't get that in the small form factor of a Mac, with the stability and freedom from viruses of Mac OS X, with the features of a Mac (multitouch trackpad which makes manipulating images easier, combined digital/analog ports if you work with audio, Firewire/Thunderbolt for faster data transfers that unlike USB2/3 do not tax the CPU to manage the data flow, etc.) that people doing these sorts of comparisons usually ignore.

So, my recommendation would be if your primary need is portability for travel, consider a 13" MacBook Air with the i7 and largest SSD, and a good external monitor to go with that. If you're looking for more of a desktop replacement which can still be transported, either a 15" or a 17" MacBook Pro (with the latter, you can get away without the external display if you prefer).



sct69 said:


> However I would like a screen that gives as true a colour representation as is possible in a laptop. (Can they be calibrated?)



Yes - I use an i1 Display2 to calibrate mine.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say first decide what apps you want to run, then shop screen technology. If you still have a choice of OS after nailing these two down, it really becomes a matter of preference. I'd definitely view the app and screen as the primary considerations and the rest as just a platform to support the 'core' of what you want to do. This is similar to the approach I take for my audio studio, decide the app and the I/O, then build around them.
> ...



The same thing it has to do with a studio monitor: viewing angles, color renditions, etc... The thing that makes it so critical on a laptop is once you buy, you aren't going to be able to "just buy a different monitor", you're stuck with what you bought. 

Case in point: I have a fantastic laptop with all sorts of horsepower that is great for it's intended purpose: software development. But the screen viewing angles and color gamut suck so much I haven't even bothered loading Capture One on it even though I have an extra license seat for it.

And that is even when calibrated with Spyder Elite.


----------



## John MARK (Dec 21, 2011)

Thank you Jettatore for the comments 

Always think "LEGAL" in the first place, that's good advice.

I use DPP daily on several computers including the MacBook running Windows in dual screen mode.

Windows XP under BootCamp for that purpose and much more, because XP is the OS most of my (professional) clients still use, here in France.

On that system (not a VM while BootCamping), DDP is fast and efficient with RAW files from the the T2i or the G12.

For mostly basic processing on large batches of shots, speed and reliability is an absolute must and DPP is the right tool for me.

OK, DPP doesn't provide optical corrections for my SIGMA & TAMRON glass but the CANON glass is there to provide ultimate precision when needed in some applications (macro etc.).

I tested LR3 (sooo powerful !!!) but let it aside for later on, when I have more time to spend on carefully selected photos.

Granted, heavy pro work must be done on dedicated and finetuned hardware... VM's are good for versatility, general pupose office work and even risky testing of... whatever software you may try, don't let me know


----------



## branden (Dec 21, 2011)

My day job has been in IT since forever. I have years of experience with using, administering, supporting, fixing, and customizing Windows, MacOS, and Linux/UNIX/whatever. Before anyone paid me to do this, I built my own computers and networks out of spare parts in high school. There's still as many computers in my house as cameras. 

That said, I use a Macbook Pro 15" to do all photo work. It's portable, it's powerful, and it's reliable. 

Windows 7 is a big step in a good direction for the operating system, I just have not found any PC laptop hardware that is as nice as Apple's laptop hardware (and I've looked). 

P.S. -- I have VMWare Fusion running on the Mac, for the few software makers who still write Windows-only software.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

skitron said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > skitron said:
> ...



You obviously didn't read the rest of my post then, which you quoted out of context. Convenient.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

branden said:


> I just have not found any PC laptop hardware that is as nice as Apple's laptop hardware (and I've looked).



http://www.ibuypower.com/IbpPages/Notebook.aspx


I'll add this to this conversation, mostly in reply to neuroanatomist's post. If you buy a crappy Windows machine (and there are unfortunately a host of opportunities to do this, perhaps even more than not) then you are going to have a bad experience that you wouldn't have had if you bought a good PC or a Mac. One of the biggest reason why people think PC's suck or Mac's are better, is because there are so many shoddy PC vendors out there who screw things up. And or they never learned how to keep a clean machine operating. If you don't know who to buy from/what to buy, then it's very easy to get shafted on a PC desktop or laptop purchase, both in terms of price, longevity, performance and stability. But there are as well, great vendors who don't mess this up and have as good a track record as Apple does. They aren't as well known, but do quality work as good as a custom systems builder would and don't cost nearly as much as the many absurd PC vendors and Apple.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I used to be a hardcore PC guy but literally I could not save ANYTHING on the hard drive... because once a freaking virus hits... i'd lose all my photos... I got a back up hard drive that mirrored my C drive... My computer got a virus, guess what, my backup got the virus as well... and this is with norton and about 2 other antivirus sotfwares going... I had a second back up i'd drag and drop into... that was good but the instability and uncertainty of the PC killed my photography storage... I bought a cheap Mac Mini and ran PS and did what I needed off that until I had enough dough to pay for an IMAC... I am proud to say I've been virus free for nearly 4 years since the switch and haven't had to pay a penny for antivirus software... It's expensive but well worth the switch in the long run.
> ...



Why should I have to always worry about backing up (which I do now with Mac's time machine)... I'm sure there are virus's for macs that make them crash and such, I just never had one yet knock on wood... I dont have to worry about losing stuff like I did in windows... I'm sorry but my 4 years with macs has been the most carefree/unstressful computer situation I've ever had... I have 1 back up drive for stuff I want to keep and I dont sweat the small stuff anymore... that alone makes the Mac more valuable, to me, than the PC... 

In the end, as the late Steve Jobs coined... "It just works"...


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > Jettatore said:
> ...



I just re-read and maybe I just don't follow your point, but in any case not trying to create a conflict. Sorry if it came across otherwise.

I'm just trying to make a point that the app and the I/O (in this case the screen) should be the primary considerations given what the Op says they want to do. IMO, people tend to put the cart before the horse. I come from an IT development background and we engineer our systems this way, so just trying to share a way of approaching that maybe helps...


----------



## Meh (Dec 21, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> I used to be a hardcore PC guy but literally I could not save ANYTHING on the hard drive... because once a freaking virus hits... i'd lose all my photos... I got a back up hard drive that mirrored my C drive... My computer got a virus, guess what, my backup got the virus as well... and this is with norton and about 2 other antivirus sotfwares going... I had a second back up i'd drag and drop into... that was good but the instability and uncertainty of the PC killed my photography storage... I bought a cheap Mac Mini and ran PS and did what I needed off that until I had enough dough to pay for an IMAC... I am proud to say I've been virus free for nearly 4 years since the switch and haven't had to pay a penny for antivirus software... It's expensive but well worth the switch in the long run.



Sorry you had so much trouble with Windows... to be sure, you are highly unlikely to get a virus on a Mac for a number of reasons but it's not impossible. For me, that peace of mind is the major advantage of a Mac. Even my engineering department gets various malware on their computers and it's costly to have the machine restored and/or rebuilt (reload software from scratch). For an individual at home the cost is in your time or actual dollars if you have to pay someone to do it. If you have backups you won't lose data.

As for your specific experience and so that others can be aware: 

1) yes, of course your mirrored hard drive will acquire any virus or software problem of your main drive as it's an exact copy made in real time meant to provide an immediate, fully functional copy in case one drive has a physical failure.

2) you should keep a separate backup drive of you data as hard drives can fail (even mirrored drives if the cause was an electrical surge for example) and that is no different between Macs and PCs.

3) ideally, keep your external backup in a separate location (bank safety deposit box) in case your house was flooded, broken into, etc. Laptops get stolen frequently from cars, etc. so definitely you need a separate copy of your data.

3) you should never run multiple anti-virus software on the same machine, they will conflict. The second usually won't even install properly but some might. Still not a good idea.

4) anti-virus software is not perfect, be cautious what web-sites you visit or what files you open when sent to you by email. Again, the virus issue is big PLUS for a Mac. You essentially don't have to worry.

5) Macs are very slick and cool. There are advantages to Macs and not too many downsides other than the price. Macs are no utopia but the issues are less than PCs for most people.

All of this is Just my two cents. I'm very tempted to switch to a Macbook Air for my laptop (seriously, they're very cool) but haven't quite been able to make that move. Windows 7 is very good. Stability, etc. is not far behind OS X but every users experience will be unique to what software they run and what they use it for.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



You've obviously never suffered the loss of fire damage. I have. Learn to back up your stuff, and make an offsite copy as well. Problem solved.


----------



## PaperTiger (Dec 21, 2011)

I used PCs for years and switched over at my then girlfriend (present wife's) urging. She had a 17" PowerBook for over 5 years. Any laptop that can stay usable over that length of time shows that it's a well built machine. 

We now own a 2008 Macbook Pro (what this is being typed on), and 2009 Macbook, and a 2011 27" iMac quad i7.

I push for Apple for 2 reasons:

I need to use Windows-only software for geology modeling from time to time, and the stability of OS X vs Windows is night and day. That's both on a burly 5-gig dual core Dell running XP SP3 (which many consider to be the most stable Windows OS), and my Macbook Pro in bootcamp. Crashes? Weekly. Quirks? Constant.

The second, most recent reason I choose Apple is their customer service. Just last week I had the NVIDIA graphics card in my Macbook Pro die. This computer is just about 4 years old, but Apple replaced the logic board containing the card ($650 price tag) for free in a day. I don't have AppleCare or anything, but the card was a known issue.

I'm sure that exact same card is in millions of PCs doing the exact same thing. If a 4 year old Dell or HP or Samsung showed up dead do you think they'd replace the graphics card for free even if they knew it was a problem? I'd be surprised.

Basically, you can find identical components from PC to Mac. The choice is whether you can stand Windows OS (I'll never be able to go back!) and the build quality. Once you get into the higher-end PCs, the price difference can be negligible. The only real difference is in the really cheap ones.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

skitron said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > skitron said:
> ...



My point was that Mac screens aren't that good to begin with, in fact they are notoriously mediocre and consumer end. The only laptops you can even get with awesome color correct screens are expensive PC's. And for desktops you can use any monitor on any system.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> You've obviously never suffered the loss of fire damage. I have. Learn to back up your stuff, and make an offsite copy as well. Problem solved.



+1

There is no end to the things that can eventually go wrong and sooner or later you will need an accessible backup.


----------



## Meh (Dec 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> During the 5 years I used that 2006 MBP (and it's still running, will be used by the kids), I went through six PC laptops (Compaq, then HP, then Lenovo, fortunately paid for by work) - one was end-of-lifed, and the other 4 just flat out failed for one reason or another. Only the most recent of the six had specs that actually exceeded the 5 year old MBP.



That's quite the poor track record for your PC laptops. If one was end-of-lifed was that at 3 years old, if so then you had 4 failed machines in 2 years? I wouldn't say that's the typical experience. Is there anything about your work environment that may have contributed?

I had a laptop fail on me just yesterday (an HP) but is coming up 4 years old and essentially runs 24/7. Another (an LG) is 6 years old and still runs Windows XP fine.

Macs are definitely better built with only top notch components so are certainly going to last longer. Historically, they have performed well for longer periods compared to Windows machines but that was largely due to Windows adding performance hogging features over time as new hardware improved... anyone upgrading software of course was then running the new versions on the same hardware so saw a big performance hit. Apple was much more cautious and focused more on maintaining performance. Very smart on their part, it helped to build their reputation.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 21, 2011)

I haven't read this entire thread but here is my take.

Apple clearly has better build quality than most laptops. That much isn't so debatable to me.

It's funny how people just assume that I edit on a Mac because I'm a photographer. I don't. I'm a PC person.
I had a desktop with WindowsXP on it and for 5 years I never had a problem. Now I have a ASUS laptop with Windows7 on it and I've never had a problem. I bought it about 3 years ago with Intel i5, 4gb RAM and a Radeon 5470 graphics chip for $870.

I've used Macs and I've seen them freeze up and be goofy from time to time. I have an iphone and it works really well but sometimes it is goofy too (I switch from Droid because it was a piece of crap). So I don't really buy the line that "Macs/Apple just work".

Truth is they work just as well as anything else. I don't think they are better and I don't think they are worse.
If you choose Mac then that is great because they are good machines. But I do tire of the Apple Elitist attitude.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

Thanks for your input Jettatore and Meh... I cant say I've ever gone through Fire damage Per Se but have experienced HD failure in old machines... In my day job which I shoot commercially for my company, My Macs are hooked up to the same network as the rest of the company/sales floor, which uses PC's... I also have a remote server when i need to access the networks datebase via access on a windows machine... I talk constantly with the IT Manager who has major antivirus softwares for the network and computers... Even the top managers get narly virus's on regular occasions and their computers get replaced on a regular cycle because of them... My dept (marketing) all runs Macs and never once has the IT manager ever have to monitor, trouble shoot, worry about our computers... It's just trouble free... I back up files i deem necessary at home such as clients photos, portfolio stuff, kids photos, etc... But with the PC, when I had one, I remember getting virus's on a monthly occurrence... backing up daily in some situations... and it was always painful when it did crash because not only stuff not backed up gets wasted, but time to reformat, reinstall, recalibrate, etc... all that down time in a professional situation I cannot afford. When I can have a machine work as I expect it when i need it as I need it, that's money in the bank for me. When I need to back up, I do, but it isn't something I fret about. If something happens beyond my control (fire), that's fine, I'll deal with that as I need to (grab my external while I flee out the door as well as my cameras and family), but the choice to run my mac and not a windows is a choice I can make and I did.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 21, 2011)

PaperTiger said:


> I'm sure that exact same card is in millions of PCs doing the exact same thing. If a 4 year old Dell or HP or Samsung showed up dead do you think they'd replace the graphics card for free even if they knew it was a problem? I'd be surprised.



Actually a few years ago, Dell swapped out about 250 HD controllers that were bad at the hospital I work at on machines that were around 3 years old. 

Better yet, I fried a motherboard by mistake, I think on a machine I built, went to MicroCenter, dropped off the board and since the board was no longer carried got a credit on the purchase of a new motherboard for the price I paid originally. 

The main reason I like PCs is I have more control of the components that go into them. A new video card comes out that smokes, it is much easier to swap and install. 

Along the same lines, similar reason that I love MacGurus for their external drive storage solutions. as the technology has improved, the sell you the components needed to upgrade, so no need to buy a new enclosure, just upgrade the HD controllers, etc.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

I went to two highly rated universities for computer graphics. The Apple machines never worked well. They were always jammed up/frozen, completely out of service, unreliable and crashed like crazy. Especially in public settings like a school, Macs are notoriously horrendous. I'm sure your personal workstation or laptop won't have these problems en mass effect like public machines do so the comparison isn't entirely a fair one.

I've also repaired peoples consumer end Windows PC and Laptops and have serviced my friends Mac machines and walked them through necessary purchases like what wiFi modems/switches/routers to buy for their home network. They never know what they are doing, bought garbage in the first place, have no idea how to keep a machine running efficiently and all the extra stuff they bought to help them (McAfee, Norton, etc.) just made everything that much worse. You can't judge consumer end walmart PC equipment for this conversation, it's not relevant for our purposes and if that or some crap sale at Dell is what you are judging PC performance on then you are going to have issues, I'm certain of it.

I've also owned a Mac, and had a horrendous experience with the Apple store. Because I paid in cash via check, instead of using a credit card (never do this, ever, with anything big) I had no back up and got really screwed over on a brand new purchase. I ended up paying full price for a factory refurbished Mac system and suffered over a month of downtime trouble shooting the problem. No way, never again.

And they make high end water resistant spill and crash proof/shock absorbed PC laptops so this idea that you can't get a well built PC laptop is insane.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2011)

Meh said:


> That's quite the poor track record for your PC laptops. If one was end-of-lifed was that at 3 years old, if so then you had 4 failed machines in 2 years? I wouldn't say that's the typical experience. Is there anything about your work environment that may have contributed?



Agreed - I'm sure it's worse than usual. Environment? An office with a nice view of Boston...I can see Fenway Park out the window, maybe the PCs were Yankees fans? 

Yes, Macs are definitely better-built than typical PC laptops, and while the 'low end' Mac laptop starts at $1K, there are lots of less expensive PCs out there. I also agree that once you get into high-end PCs, the cost differences become less evident for similar products. 

But one of the things I really like about Macs is the 'it just works' bit. Granted, sometimes it doesn't. I bought a PowerMac 6500 desktop several years ago, and the HDD stopped working after two weeks - not component failure (which happens to any brand) but a bug in Apple's driver. Tech support helpfully said I could simply download a fix (and I did, from work), but in a fit of pique I pointed out that since their bad software had rendered my Mac inoperable, I had no way to download it - so they shipped a floppy disk (remember those?) overnight. </digression> But mostly, they do work, and in part that's beacuse of the tight controls Apple places on developers, and also the freedom from viruses and/or the overhead of AV software because of the Unix kernel that runs the Mac OS.

Another thing I really like is the host of little features that make them more convenient. Once you use two-fingered scrolling on a multitouch trackpad, going back to a regular PC trackpad is acutely annoying. Ever tripped over a power cord and pulled the laptop off the table/desk? My wife did that to a 12" PowerBook once onto a tile floor, dented the corner but the damage was cosmetic only - the accelerometer parked the HDD, and aluminum is tough; I'm pretty sure a PC would have bit the dust with a cracked case and internal damage. But with current Macs, if you trip over the cord the MagSafe power connector just falls off, and the laptop stays put. Etc.


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 21, 2011)

I've been using my MacBook Pro 17" since 2010, and it still is working great.

I like the software on a Mac better since it helps me stay organized and allows me to do more with my photos and videos.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Another thing I really like is the host of little features that make them more convenient. Once you use two-fingered scrolling on a multitouch trackpad, going back to a regular PC trackpad is acutely annoying.




Actually that's not just an Apple feature anymore. My Asus Laptop has track pad gestures for 1, 2 and 3 fingers. And I must say the two finger scrolling and tapping for a right mouse click is one of the best things ever.


----------



## JR (Dec 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> "Another thing I really like is the host of little features that make them more convenient. Once you use two-fingered scrolling on a multitouch trackpad, going back to a regular PC trackpad is acutely annoying"



No matter how powerful my PC setup is, I often go back to my Mac Pro for convenience. For example I love the iPhoto software and the possibility to build your own books and have them printed professionally. I know this is possible on a PC as well, just more user friendly on a Mac. 

I still need to figure out how to make Lightroom zoom at 100% on pictures on my Mac at lightning speed like my PC does!

Oh, and the mouse scroll thing is addictive indeed!


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

Someone mentioned earlier about how they hate apple users "elitist attitude"... I've heard this also in other mac/pc discussions... I dont feel that even though I use a mac that i'm an elitist compared to a PC person... my dear 85 year old runs both a PC and a Mac because even though he see's the benefits of a Mac, he's just more used to the PC... The PC didn't work for me and so I got the Mac... It's a personal preference... just like the Nikon/Canon debate... Some people just use Canon's and love them... Some adore Nikons and more power to them... and then you got those who swing both ways... It's the same with Mac's/PC's... 10 years ago I swore I'd be a PC person but virus after virus, lost files after lost files, etc... I eventually had enough and made a personal decision to make the jump... It doesn't make me any more right or wrong, it is what it is and "it just works" for me.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

Yeah but Awin, it's not like the Canon vs. Nikon debate or the Coke vs. Pepsi debate.

You have three ranges of OS systems. For profit, closed source and proprietary (Apple), For profit and closed source (Windows) and completely free (Linux). Apple, is continually pulling technology away from open source systemologies and towards proprietary monopolistic empires that they control entirely. It's a BAD idea for all of us in the long run. I'm embarrassed to even still be on a Windows machine at this point and I plan to have this completely corrected by the end of 2012.


----------



## imjwalsh (Dec 21, 2011)

Here is my 2 cents:

I seriously considered going with a 15â€ Mac Book Pro, but ended up going with Lenovo instead as I work with PCs for work and could get more speed for a system that I am very familiar with. I ended up going with a W510 (W520 is current model) which is a â€œworkstation replacement.â€ It has an i7 quad core processor, nVidia GPU with 48 cores, and 16GB of memory. It also has a built in colorimeter and 95% color gamut display. It has an eSata port too, for very fast external hard drive access. I donâ€™t think I would have gone wrong with a Mac Book Pro; I think this was just a better fit for what I wanted. At some point I will upgrade to a Solid State Drive and use my current drive as a secondary after taking out the burner which I do not really use. I donâ€™t think it is as easy to do this sort of thing on a Mac.

I use Lightroom 3, Photoshop CS5, and Premier CS5. I also host a VM that I use for work. It sits in its docking station and is hooked up to 2 displays at home, but still is relatively mobile for working around the house or traveling with it. I did a photo vacation in Utah in February and brought this with me (and of course everyone else had Macs). I personally havenâ€™t had any trouble with the business ThinkPad class of Lenovos; I still have my machine thatâ€™s 4.5 years old and is working fine (although I did have to replace the battery). I also like Windows 7 much better than previous Microsoft offerings.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Yeah but Awin, it's not like the Canon vs. Nikon debate or the Coke vs. Pepsi debate.
> 
> You have three ranges of OS systems. For profit, closed source and proprietary (Apple), For profit and closed source (Windows) and completely free (Linux). Apple, is continually pulling technology away from open source systemologies and towards proprietary monopolistic empires that they control entirely. It's a BAD idea for all of us in the long run. I'm embarrassed to even still be on a Windows machine at this point and I plan to have this completely corrected by the end of 2012.



I understand your concern about the closed source/monopoly that is Apple, however from what I can tell, more and more software providers are given opportunities to provide applications for macs... If you go to the apple store you can find a plethora of Non-apple branded companies, whom i'm sure is sponsored by apple, but the list is growing... There are non-apple stores where you can upgrade/upspec your systems... You can upgrade stuff like Ram on Imacs and towers... It isn't as open as PC's are but shoot, for what I need and use, it's pretty darn close.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

Good to know Awin, but that's not exactly why I am concerned.

When you are working with software (or an operating system which is also considered software), and no one can see what is going on behind the scenes with-in the code, it's not safe for your freedom, as a human being with rights including your rights to privacy. Microsoft is no champion in this regard and they are no great friend to open source methodologies either. Apple just happens to be slightly worse, because their closed source software on top of being closed source, only runs on hardware that ONLY they sell. This is a horrible idea long term, for all of us.


----------



## well_dunno (Dec 21, 2011)

Hello,

This is my first post but I have been following the forums for a few months so firstly, greetings to you all! 

I personally prefer laptops running windows and always install linux in a separate partition (I personally go with ubuntu but naturally a lot of other options are avaliable). Having windows feels convenient basically even though I do not use it frequently. Linux environment, just like mac, is free of malwares so you do not consume the resources of the computer on protecting it. Then most of the software available are under general public license and free. Also, most of the time, it is possible to find a program for any given purpose. Linux systems do require more expertise to manage in comparison to windows though.

Even if you prefer windows and something happens to it, you can run linux and get your files out (non-hardware failure situations naturally)...

Just my thoughts...

Cheers


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Good to know Awin, but that's not exactly why I am concerned.
> 
> When you are working with software (or an operating system which is also considered software), and no one can see what is going on behind the scenes with-in the code, it's not safe for your freedom, as a human being with rights including your rights to privacy. Microsoft is no champion in this regard and they are no great friend to open source methodologies either. Apple just happens to be slightly worse, because their closed source software on top of being closed source, only runs on hardware that ONLY they sell. This is a horrible idea long term, for all of us.



Trust me, the only secure system is the one not connected to the net. The OS is irrelevant in this respect. I know because I write communications software. If you connect to the net, you'd better assume somebody somewhere can see your machine. Now chances are they won't be looking, that is unless you put reasons out there to make them want to. The point is, it's dirt easy and OS doesn't really matter.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

skitron said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > Good to know Awin, but that's not exactly why I am concerned.
> ...



You have absolutely no understanding of what I wrote there, or why I wrote it.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

If you really require a further explanation. Let me put it this way. You aren't going to have to worry about securing your system while connected to the internet for privacy concerns, when the operating system you are using itself IS the privacy concern. This is not an issue when a large community of freely spoken people all have access to study the underlying (open source) code.


----------



## te4o (Dec 21, 2011)

Wow, overnight three pages already! 
I'd like to offer some detailed practical advice from personal experience:
Take a bare bones MBP 13 or better 15" (depending on portability preferences)
Go to macsales.com and max out the RAM for 50-80USD and buy a 60GB OWC SSD for start up disk.
From OWC buy a bracket for installing your Apple 500 Gb rotational HD into the DVD drive area and an enclosure for your existing DVD drive - around 15 USd each AFAIK
Buy a 4in1 Voyager and some 2 tb Hitachi internal HDs or whatever brand you like for back up over FW 800 or eSATA.

REINSTALL your OSX customized and Reduced size onto SSD. backup with Carbon Copy Cloner as a bootable disk partition on your external HD over Voyager.
Put all your photos and personal documents onto the big rotational HD. Backup over Time machine and exclude it from indexing. 
Make a second backup on a second HD via CCC and take it into your office or to someone else. 
The more data you have the more 2TB HD you need. 
Make sure your downloads and libraries go onto the rotational HD otherwise the 60 GB SSD is stuck.
Enjoy.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> If you really require a further explanation. Let me put it this way. You aren't going to have to worry about securing your system while connected to the internet for privacy concerns, when the operating system you are using itself IS the privacy concern. This is not an issue when a large community of freely spoken people all have access to study the underlying (open source) code.



Apparently you have no understanding of my reply above. I can assure you that an open source OS by itself does not mitigate your overall privacy concerns (well unless that is all you're planning on running on that machine...). The OS is but one avenue to breach security. There are plenty others and an open source OS isn't going to help one bit for those.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

You're still not getting it. You're off having your own conversation that is an entirely different issue to what I have been describing, and I guess you're sticking to your guns on that, well have fun. *sticks fingers in ears, lalalallalala*


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 21, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> I used to be a hardcore PC guy but literally I could not save ANYTHING on the hard drive... because once a freaking virus hits... i'd lose all my photos... I got a back up hard drive that mirrored my C drive... My computer got a virus, guess what, my backup got the virus as well... and this is with norton and about 2 other antivirus sotfwares going... I had a second back up i'd drag and drop into... that was good but the instability and uncertainty of the PC killed my photography storage... I bought a cheap Mac Mini and ran PS and did what I needed off that until I had enough dough to pay for an IMAC... I am proud to say I've been virus free for nearly 4 years since the switch and haven't had to pay a penny for antivirus software... It's expensive but well worth the switch in the long run.



I have never had a virus on a PC in the 27 years I have been using them.


----------



## Zuuyi (Dec 21, 2011)

@sct69 for your situation I would suggest a 13 inch Macbook Air. You said tons of travel, so it has to be ultra-light. Hard drive space is not a problem to you, so the SSD would be better for you. A 128GB 11inch might do the job too depending on screen size needs. I would try to add $100 to get up to the 256GB 13inch but that is currently out of your budget range.

I use a MacBook Pro as my laptop, but I do a lot less travel. 

Go to MacSales.com for possible upgrades & MacRumors.com to make sure there isn't a new version being released tomorrow(figuratively).

@Jettatore - Linux isn't safe either. I have a web server, and every single hour I get an attempted attack, I have it locked down super tight so they are failed but they are attempted. OSX isn't as secure as people make out to be, but do to the limited user base there are Currently less attacks. Windows that's just a mess of attacks, if you don't protect yourself.

A computer connected to the web is NEVER secure. You are only as secure as your weakest link, the user. When users don't update OSes, anti-viruses, and other security softwares then you are at risk no matter the OS.

I have OSX 10.7 Laptop, Windows 7 Desktop, and Debian Server.


----------



## EELinneman (Dec 21, 2011)

PaperTiger said:


> I used PCs for years and switched over at my then girlfriend (present wife's) urging. She had a 17" PowerBook for over 5 years. Any laptop that can stay usable over that length of time shows that it's a well built machine.
> 
> We now own a 2008 Macbook Pro (what this is being typed on), and 2009 Macbook, and a 2011 27" iMac quad i7.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

Zuuyi. I'm not talking about that. That is a concern for every system type and I NEVER suggested otherwise contrary to your insinuation.

What I am talking about, is that Y*OU HAVE NO IDEA IF THERE IS MALICIOUS CODE BUILT INTO YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE* when it is closed source and you and the collective community of tech experts can't look at it....


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I used to be a hardcore PC guy but literally I could not save ANYTHING on the hard drive... because once a freaking virus hits... i'd lose all my photos... I got a back up hard drive that mirrored my C drive... My computer got a virus, guess what, my backup got the virus as well... and this is with norton and about 2 other antivirus sotfwares going... I had a second back up i'd drag and drop into... that was good but the instability and uncertainty of the PC killed my photography storage... I bought a cheap Mac Mini and ran PS and did what I needed off that until I had enough dough to pay for an IMAC... I am proud to say I've been virus free for nearly 4 years since the switch and haven't had to pay a penny for antivirus software... It's expensive but well worth the switch in the long run.
> ...



Well you're machine must be one in a million... glad it's worked out for you while I work with my mac...


----------



## EELinneman (Dec 21, 2011)

sct69 said:


> Long time viewer, short time member, first time topic poster.
> I'm about to start a new job that will require me to travel & fly a fair bit. I am wanting to purchase a laptop to process my images on the run. I was wondering what would be your recommendations?
> To date I really only post to the web. However I would like a screen that gives as true a colour representation as is possible in a laptop. (Can they be calibrated?). I would like to keep the cost under 1.5K, run PS and or LR. Hard drive space is not a major issue as removable drives are cheap enough these days. Do any of you process solely on a laptop or do you keep your image processing completely too your desktop?



You will want to find a laptop with an IPS display rather than the cheaper TFT type of LCD. This will give you a wider and more accurate color gamut. Plan on doing regular calibration with a Spyder or XRite device.

Rather than get into the religious war of Mac vs. PC vs. Open Source, focus on RAM, the IPS display and USB 3.0 connectivity if you can find all 3. I would also recommend a 3-2-1 storage approach - 3 copies of your picture, 2 on hard disks and 1 in the cloud - here you have a lot of choices. All hard disks can and eventually will fail. So, having multiple copies of hd backed up images will reduce the risk of loss. I work with very large, enterprise databases and we use redundancy to reduce the impact of disk loss. At home, I have a 4 drive OWC Raid 10 array as my primary storage for pictures and 3 additional copies. One person here mentioned fire damage and that should be taken into account. If you can keep a copy that is updated on a regular basis off premesis, then you further reduce that risk. Bear in mind there is no 100% safe solution, but you can make the risk very low for a reasonable cost.

Best of luck to you and let us know what you decide on.


----------



## sct69 (Dec 21, 2011)

OK so I see that overnight (I'm in Australia) I have really opened up a can of worms. Thank you everyone who has contributed to this post so far, it has been very interesting reading this morning ( 4 pages worth). As someone who is not as computer literate as many on here, I have been a little overwhelmed with information overload. But I take that as a good thing. It makes me think, consider various points of view, learn and in the end that is what I hoped this forum would provide. There a valid points of view supporting either version, though it seems so far in "laptop" world MAC are getting the nod.


----------



## EELinneman (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Zuuyi. I'm not talking about that. That is a concern for every system type and I NEVER suggested otherwise contrary to your insinuation.
> 
> What I am talking about, is that Y*OU HAVE NO IDEA IF THERE IS MALICIOUS CODE BUILT INTO YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE* when it is closed source and you and the collective community of tech experts can't look at it....


Jettatore,

Can you provide a single instance of either Microsoft or Apple building malicious code in their operating systems. Note that a bug is not malicious code. I am sure you are aware that both Apple and Microsoft are subject to approval by the Feds for security standards. As part of that, their code is reviewed by others. Also, if there were malicious software as you put it, the legal field would be lunching on that forever. Offer some proof to this slanderous statement you made.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> You're still not getting it. You're off having your own conversation that is an entirely different issue to what I have been describing, and I guess you're sticking to you're guns on that, well have fun. *sticks fingers in ears, lalalallalala*



Oh I get what you're saying, open source = safe and Microsoft Windows and Apple OS are the boogey-men, yadda, yadda. 

Interestingly enough I don't really disagree with your premise and my point is more directed to how to deal with it. Personally, I'd rather starve the beast than cut off my nose to spite my face. For me that means using commercial OS and commercial apps but either not connecting to the net or never placing any information on the machine that has any value to them beyond product improvement. 

And my the point is, going open source for your OS is not going to mitigate your concerns. If Microsoft and Apple decide to target Linux for data harvesting I can assure you they will be successful. Not as much as in their native OS, but again, there are any number of ways to do it other than native OS components subject to open source review.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

Yeah. MS recently made a huge push to force openGL graphics code to HAVE to run on top of DirectX on all Windows based devices, effectively and forcefully limiting the full potential of openGL which is allowed to run natively on every other device, including Mac computers. I call that malicious.

Apple has entirely blacklisted all Flash support from IOS.

Also, and this is in relation to phones, look at CarrierIQ, which is currently plaguing Google Android and Blackberry devices. It's malicious code, built into your off the shelf equipment where a 3rd party between you and your phone company has full access to every button you press on your device, every number you dial, along with access to all of your messages and stored files and the ability to turn on and record from the device whether you are in a call or not, and not to mention, GPS location data. And this isn't even the government, this is a private company doing this...

This stuff isn't even safe for businesses to be using.

If you care at all about any of this, you need to be pushing and moving open source code, that our collective communities of tech experts can openly analyze and freely discuss.

And also we have Congress trying to pass the SOPA internet blacklist incognito this week and most people don't even know what that is, it's a solutions that is worse than the problems it's trying to solve. Say goodbye to free speech people, it was nice while it lasted, and what's left of it likely won't be here for long.......

P.S. I'm not even sure if Congressmen and Senator's know how to turn on computers these days, I think they have clerks do that for them. The rest of the Feds aren't even elected officials....


----------



## bycostello (Dec 21, 2011)

not much difference, but u look way cooler on a Mac!!


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

EELinneman said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > Zuuyi. I'm not talking about that. That is a concern for every system type and I NEVER suggested otherwise contrary to your insinuation.
> ...



I don't find his position slanderous in the least (but maybe for totally different reasons, not quite sure). And it really is a matter of semantics. Here's how it works: if I'm Microsoft, I can write all sorts of malware and call it things like "remote desktop support", "product improvement data collection", "debugging dump", etc and you will consider it to be legitimate because of who it came from. 

However, if I write those exact same "utilities" and even in total transparency offer those for download to you, I can guarantee you my site would be immediately tagged as a distributor of malware. So the question becomes, is it NOT malware just because it comes from Microsoft (or Apple or some other big name)? 

I say it doesn't really matter. I just assume it's there and either don't connect or don't have anything of value for them to collect.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

skitron said:


> EELinneman said:
> 
> 
> > Jettatore said:
> ...


Now that I can agree with Skitron. +1


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Apple has entirely blacklisted all Flash support from IOS.



That is just bizarre since Flash is an Adobe product and the availability of Adobe products are a significant plus for Apple's platforms.


----------



## pp77 (Dec 21, 2011)

sct69 said:


> However I would like a screen that gives as true a colour representation as is possible in a laptop. (Can they be calibrated?).



The Lenovo W520 series has the option for a build-in colour sensor to calibrate the display (you need to close the lid for that, because it is in the hand rest). But the W520s are massive and heavy, probably nothing for frequent flyer's and lightweight traveling.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > EELinneman said:
> ...



Well, I suspected we were actually arguing the same side of the coin. But maybe in different languages for a while there?


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

pp77 said:


> sct69 said:
> 
> 
> > However I would like a screen that gives as true a colour representation as is possible in a laptop. (Can they be calibrated?).
> ...



The 17" one is enormous and heavy, but they don't even offer that any more. The 15" one isn't, and also has the Pantone calibration system built in and features one of, if not the best portable color correct displays you can get in any laptop.

They also offer the X220, which is a very portable Wacom Cintique with multi-touch so you can push menu buttons with your fingers and draw with a real pressure sensitive Wacom stylus. HP offers something similar, and you won't find that outside of the PC world at the moment, and we've had these devices for years now for those who even knew they existed, most don't have a clue. (I have some reservations/a wishlist of features to be meet before I'd sink $1,500+ on one though since I do heavy 3D work too and this would be in addition to, and not a replacement for a desktop machine, or I'll wait and buy one used so I can have a true, portable sketchpad with a 19-21 hour battery life (if your using it with a slice battery) for an affordable price).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Good to know Awin, but that's not exactly why I am concerned.
> 
> When you are working with software (or an operating system which is also considered software), and no one can see what is going on behind the scenes with-in the code, it's not safe for your freedom, as a human being with rights including your rights to privacy. Microsoft is no champion in this regard and they are no great friend to open source methodologies either. Apple just happens to be slightly worse, because their closed source software on top of being closed source, only runs on hardware that ONLY they sell. This is a horrible idea long term, for all of us.



Wow, scary. It's almost as if Apple could be logging every keystroke and password I type on my iPhone (oh wait that's Carrier IQ on Google Android phones), or tracking every single move I make on the Internet (oh wait that's Google again). I guess my point is that privacy is not really obtainable in today's environment, unless you move to a cave in the hills completely off the grid. If the government aka military-industrial complex wants to know what you had for breakfast they'll just check your poop - and don't think they can't do it. </conspiracy theory>


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > Good to know Awin, but that's not exactly why I am concerned.
> ...



lol +1


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> </conspiracy theory>



You do realize some people were busted this week for stealing six cows...and the tool used was a fed drone?

I wish it were so simple as to write it all off as conspiracy theory, but when we've come to busting cow theft using fed drones it seems rather ridiculous to assume anything good.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

Yes that's a great example Neuro. And I 100% agree, really. I have been making voiced complaints directly to Sprint for selling me a device with that built in, and I'm furious. Everyone who has one should be too and they should be raising Hell, but they aren't.

The only problem is, you _seem_ to have an implied faith that some other company who isn't currently suspected of doing exactly that on their stuff won't do the same in the future. Got news for you, companies can be bought and sold, you never know what they are going to do next year (you probably won't even know who/what owns them), and you never will, since you don't advocate or demand open source workspaces where *we* can analyze this sort of thing effectively.

This is going to get altogether worse when you don't even install your own software anymore, 'and it's all taken care of for you by the magical 'cloud'. That's going to be a real entertaining disaster to watch unfold in the coming years. I wonder, how many people realize that they could set up their OWN cloud that they fully control TODAY if they want cloud computing so bad..... It's going to be the equivalent of putting your software into debt.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Dec 21, 2011)

Depends on your level of computer knowledge. 

If you have basic knowledge or better get a PC, if you are a technophobe or you can't figure out how to use a TV remote control, MAC is a good option. 

Another consideration is, what are your friends using, if they are using MAC, probably best to get a MAC, that way you can ask them questions get help, if they are using PCs, get a PC for the same reason. 

As far as MACs and PCs go these days they both work perfectly fine. The horrible days of Windows and their blue screens of death are long left in the 90s. Windows 7 works just fine and when it comes to using PS or LR on either MAC or PC, they perform the same on both machines. 

If you travel a lot, you could look at the MacBook Air they're small and sleek, or on the PC end, I've used Dell computers for 15 years and never had problems with their machines, their laptop XPS Z series (14"/15") are small and sleek as well. 

Fact is Apple's are trendy, they look nice, and all the cool kids have them, but being cool comes at a price, as other have said you will easily pay 25-35% more for the same hardware components when you buy a computer with an apple on it. For example, I bought a new laptop a few months ago from Dell for $2200 and I looked at the comparable MacBook Pro with the same processor, hard drive, video card, and with half of the RAM of the machine I bought and it was $2900 from Apple.

Regardless if you get a PC or a MAC, don't get a 17" laptop if you travel, I have one and it is a squeeze to use on good sized planes let alone on some of the flying buses I've been on.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 21, 2011)

bigblue1ca said:


> Depends on your level of computer knowledge.
> 
> If you have basic knowledge or better get a PC, if you are a technophobe or you can't figure out how to use a TV remote control, MAC is a good option.
> 
> ...


----------



## Enrico (Dec 21, 2011)

Jesus. He's asking for PC or Mac and we bring BigBrother...

PC is cheaper.
Mac looks nicer and is cooler at least this year...

I used PC's Laptops for over 12 years (Dell). Now I use Mac.

If I would only be asked to pick one reason to go Mac I would say battery time. Can't underestimate it when it comes to laptops.


----------



## skitron (Dec 21, 2011)

Enrico said:


> Jesus. He's asking for PC or Mac and we bring BigBrother...



LOL, his question was answered about fifty times before the thread went significantly off topic, but by all means, answer it again.


----------



## Enrico (Dec 21, 2011)

LOL again. Pardon me for not reading the whole thread all over again 

I just think focus was lost (...ehrm.. at least on page 5...)


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 21, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Amongst my responsibilities it was my job to keep PC's clean. Simple precautions and some knowlege is all it takes. 

The biggest threats are the black hat trojans and hijackers - and they work on all machines. The most vulnerable used to be the DEC machines, nowadays it is the routers and firewalls that everyone hides behind (and assumes they are safe there).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> The only problem is, you _seem_ to have an implied faith that some other company who isn't currently suspected of doing exactly that on their stuff won't do the same in the future.



I didn't mean to imply that. Apple collects plenty of personal information on their customers. Walmart has low prices because they cut deals with vendors for lower wholesale pricing in exchange for data on their customers' spending habits - including detailed dempgraphic and personal identifying information. I'm sure there are companies out there that don't engage in such practices, but not for altruistic reasons, more likely they don't have the capability or haven't figured out a way to monetize the data.

A colleague submitted an online morgatge inquiry (major bank, SSL connection) and within 10 minutes got a phishing call. Coincidence?

There is no privacy. No illusions here... But enough OT, back to the flame war discussion that should typify a Mac vs. PC question. 



bigblue1ca said:


> If you have basic knowledge or better get a PC, if you are a technophobe or you can't figure out how to use a TV remote control, MAC is a good option.



Say...can someone help me with my Betamax player? It's got a 12:00 on the front that won't stop flashing... :



bigblue1ca said:


> For example, I bought a new laptop a few months ago from Dell for $2200 and I looked at the comparable MacBook Pro with the same processor, hard drive, video card, and with half of the RAM of the machine I bought and it was $2900 from Apple.



Did the 'equivalent' PC have a slot-loading optical drive? Backlit keyboard? Multitouch trackpad? Digital/optical audio input and output? 7 hours of battery life? A breakaway power connector? All in a case less than 1" thick?

That's the problem with 'the same computer for a lot cheaper'. It's not the same. Of course, for many people those features are dispensable, and the lower cost it preferable. For others (many others, judging by Apple's stock price and market cap), the additional features are worth the cost. 

The only thing my MacBook Pro and MacBook Air are missing is the red ring.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 21, 2011)

I never got into MACs as I used Windows and Unix and mainframes at work - so yet another interface was not desirable

I dont see there is anything to even debate re Windows vs Mac. You just pick the one that suits you. A bit like choosing between Nikon and Canon really ...


----------



## skitron (Dec 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did the 'equivalent' PC have a slot-loading optical drive? Backlit keyboard? Multitouch trackpad? Digital/optical audio input and output? 7 hours of battery life? A breakaway power connector? All in a case less than 1" thick?



I think Sony offers something at least somewhat along these lines. But I say it as information only...I come from the "choose your app and then something that will run it" camp, without prejudice. If I wanted a laptop for photo-editing I would be willing to run Capture One on either platform since it supports both. It would frankly all come down to the best screen I could find.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 22, 2011)

I switched to Mac a year ago and most of it has been fine.

There's one thing I miss a lot, and that's the start menu. I much prefer that to the dock.

Other that, Chrome and Lightroom work the same... except my hardware has a prettier exterior.


----------



## sct69 (Dec 22, 2011)

So do you suggest the use of glossy or anti glare/ matte screen on a MBP. I would have thought pay the extra for a matte screen seeing I would be using it to edit photos etc. To be honest I only just realised that there was different screen options available.


----------



## willrobb (Dec 22, 2011)

I used to use PC and after about 2 years they would be so slow it was a real pain to use.

NOW I use apple and after about 5 years it gets so slow it's a pain to use. Still, for the extra three years I prefer Apple, but I know plenty of people who love their windows pcs for editing. If it works for you then it's all good.


----------



## Cetalis (Dec 22, 2011)

I think i'm the only one, but I find mac slower and harder to use as it tries to hide everything useful from me, and can't bother to wait for developers to rewrite stuff for mac. Then again I dual boot so i can game on windows and program on 'nix...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 22, 2011)

I believe PC suppliers deliberately keep the spec of thir machines as low as possible to keep their headline price as low as possible. Usually it seems to be the minimum amount of memory which slows things down. As Macs and Wins share the same hardware nowadays there is no reason why there should be significant performance difference. However if you look at the specs you will find that Macs come with a lot more memory than your average Win PC - and to me that is the crucial difference. Put a Core i7 in a 4gb machine and the performance will not be good - the CPU is the headline that the manufacturers push - a Core i3 with 16gb will probably out perform this.

I built my own PC 4 years ago and it has survived the transition from XP to 7 without a problem and still has more than adequate performance. It has 8Gb memory and a SSD C:, fastish graphics card and 2 26" screens. I would suggest 8gb should be the minimum in a PC that is going to do significant work.

I have 2 other PCs doing other jobs, emails and storage management so that my main PC doesn't get clogged down. These are my previous PCs so have only 4Gb and run 32bit win7, however they have more than enough power for what they are asked to do. 

I have cabled my network through the house rather than use wifi (although we do have wifi). Wifi takes a lot of power to drive from the home routers and I have found that 2 laptops on wifi will slow the network down to the point where web access becomes unacceptably slow. The only regular wifi usage now is by our phones, which use insignificant capacity.


----------



## smithy (Dec 22, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Put a Core i7 in a 4gb machine and the performance will not be good - the CPU is the headline that the manufacturers push - a Core i3 with 16gb will probably out perform this.


The i7 would still easily outperform an i3 in that situation. More RAM accounts for some performance increases (it takes the load off the usual bottleneck in a system, the hard drive, due to fewer page writes to disk), but not enough to overtake a significantly faster CPU like the i7 in most situations (remember the i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores, totalling 8 effective cores - twice as many as the i3).



briansquibb said:


> I would suggest 8gb should be the minimum in a PC that is going to do significant work.


I agree. And RAM is so cheap now that there's really no excuse for having less than this in a new system. Unless you buy your memory from Apple, in which case you'll pay 2-3 times more than you should...



briansquibb said:


> I have cabled my network through the house rather than use wifi (although we do have wifi). Wifi takes a lot of power to drive from the home routers and I have found that 2 laptops on wifi will slow the network down to the point where web access becomes unacceptably slow. The only regular wifi usage now is by our phones, which use insignificant capacity.


Wi-fi performance can be hindered by trying to have too much range. Wi-fi routers can broadcast to multiple computers at full speed simultaneously, but can only receive data from one client at a time. So if you have a laptop with a weak signal (which in turn means that it has a slow connection speed), then all of your other wireless devices have to 'wait' for the slow laptop to talk to the router at terribly slow speeds before they can have their turn. In other words, the slowest computer wi-fi connection essentially dictates the speed of your entire wi-fi network. Hard-wiring your network is a good solution too.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 23, 2011)

IRT SMITHY


> The i7 would still easily outperform an i3 in that situation. More RAM accounts for some performance increases (it takes the load off the usual bottleneck in a system, the hard drive, due to fewer page writes to disk), but not enough to overtake a significantly faster CPU like the i7 in most situations (remember the i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores, totalling 8 effective cores - twice as many as the i3).




Photo-editing is heavily RAM intensive and is a very important consideration for anyone doing serious work. 8GB or better is recommended, especially for higher resolution edits. Relying on HDD cache and a fast CPU (which I realize no one here is actually suggesting) would probably be a painful environment to work in for RAM intensive tasks. The slower CPU outfitted with an adequate supply of RAM might very well be the faster setup in this scenario. It' all depends on real world situations and we are speaking abstractly.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 23, 2011)

smithy said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Put a Core i7 in a 4gb machine and the performance will not be good - the CPU is the headline that the manufacturers push - a Core i3 with 16gb will probably out perform this.
> ...



Consider that every thread requires memory, so doubling the number of active threads in a PC increases the demand on memory. An i7 with its multiple cores will try to run more threads than a i5 with half the number of cores. As soon as you exceed the available page pool you invoke the memory manager which will page memory out to hard drive - stopping the other processes using the hard drive - this is a serial activity. Further more if the page fault is on a page that has been written to the hard drive then you will also get a page read . 

You will find that in low memory systems the less cores you have the faster it will process due to the lack of interruption from paging. In addition the effectiveness of each core reduces as it increases due the overhead of the workload scheduler - so twice the number of cores does not mean twice the effective workload that can be processed

I have run many tests of this type on servers over the years - there are two performance curves:

1. The base memory curve with memory vs throughput. This is usually an elbow curve where increasing workload suddenly means no extra throughput, this is moved by adding more memory.

2. The oversupply of memory being used as cache - this is particularly important in spasmodic load workloads such as webservers where more memory than conventionally expected increases the responsiveness of the server. There is a limit here where the increase in processing power required by the memory manager offsets the reduced page reads.

A balanced system is what is needed - so for i7 systems perhaps 12 or 16gb is needed to maximise the workload throughput.

Me, I have a Core 2 duo @3ghz with 8gb which can happily run my workload.


----------



## JR (Dec 23, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I have run many tests of this type on servers over the years - there are two performance curves:



Have you been able to determine which hardware component is the most effective to run Lightroom? The one thing I found with lightroom and when you clici on an image to view it at 100% zoom, it always takes a few seconds to create the view. It does that on both my Mac Pro and my PC. 

In an attempt to make my system instanteneous recently (yes I am very impatient!) I built my self a second PC and went all in! (i7 3960, 64Gb or RAM, SSD drive all the way and a R6990 graphic card, and on top of that I overclock the CPU at 4.5Ghz, so cant do mare than that!). While this last system is wicked fast, there are still some occasion where there is a small delay in building the 100% image in Lightroom (ok, ok now I am being picky now!). I just cant figure out which portion of the hardware is causing this. I dont think it is the graphic card, I have tons of ram, so could it be that I would need a server setup instead with multiple CPU instead of a single 6-Core i7?

Anyway to get the same performace from my Mac Pro I would have had to pay over $10k so I am happy with my home made kick-ass PC, but just curious to make it even better!


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 23, 2011)

I've just been looking into the same question again, only for a new desktop this time around. You'll ask 3 people and get (at least) 4 answers. The good news though is that these days lots and lots of computers will do what you need them for at a reasonable price - even laptops.

I've never been a latest-and-greatest-computer-geek type of guy. I still happily run my 5 year old IBM/Lenovo laptop (T60 with 2GB and some Centrino something) as my main computer (even at home). Why? Because it does what it's supposed to do, because I love love love the old IBM-type laptop keyboards and the relatively small (12"?) high resolution screen is just wonderful and still in the "standard" 4 by 5 ratio and not the new 16:9 ratio which I find still weird on laptops (unlike on large desktop screens where it makes sense). And its not glossy.

Mac or PC? Ouch, that can of worms again. To me a non-religious question and I've always been open to any system including Linux. But I always come back to Windows PCs. I find them most useful and the best value. Macs that do the same are just a little too pricey. And I need my computers to do three things well: business applications (including Excel/Word/Access 2003 and Powerpoint - none of which works properly on a Mac), music applications (Cubase and others - PCs and Macs handle this pretty well these days) and obviously my photographic needs (Photoshop, LR3, others - PC and Mac can do this well, but there are license issues with Adobe where you have to decide or pay extra; stupid, I know).

So summing that up, the Mac has always been out for me because it's too limited and too expensive. And I don't like their screens compared to my ThinkTank. Without the Adobe licensing issue I may have considered a desktop Mac as my main home recording machine, but it still seems like a bit of a waste since a custom built PC for under $1000 will serve me equally well as 2.5K Mac. Even my ancient current music/photo desktop serves it's purpose pretty well and that's only a tweaked Pentium 4 running 32bit XP pro.

If I'll need to replace my laptop one day I'll likely look at the professional Lenovo ThinkPad series again, like a tricked out T420 or so (even though I'm not happy about the new screens, but at least they still kept the keyboards).


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 23, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> You've obviously never suffered the loss of fire damage. I have. Learn to back up your stuff, and make an offsite copy as well. Problem solved.



Excellent and important point. I didn't have fire damage, but just lost about a thousand archived film negatives in a flooding situation that filled my basement. I make it a point now to regularly backup my digital photos to two different drives and then to another portable drive that stays at another location. That way in, say, a fire or break-in I could still lose a lot of stuff and there may be some loss of more recent files. But all digital photos since 2002 are safe in another place.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Dec 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> bigblue1ca said:
> 
> 
> > For example, I bought a new laptop a few months ago from Dell for $2200 and I looked at the comparable MacBook Pro with the same processor, hard drive, video card, and with half of the RAM of the machine I bought and it was $2900 from Apple.
> ...



My 17" Dell laptop, Intel i7 2.4 GHz (Turboboost up to 3.5), didn't have a slot-loading optical drive (I personally don't trust them, a friend of mine has had nothing but trouble with his), 7 hours of batter life is very good, I only have 5 hours, and my machine is not 1" thick, it is 1.3" thick, otherwise my machine has those features. However, my laptop also has 16GB of RAM, the best Mac offered on their store site was 8GB, and it has a FHD (1080p) 3D Display. For $700.00 less than a Macbook Pro, I can put up with the extra third of an inch two hours less battery life. I'm not against Mac per say, like I said in my post, they look great and they're very popular, but they are wayyyy overpriced IMO. Now if price isn't an issue to you, then hey buy two Macbook Pro's its always nice to have a spare. Lol.

I just look at $700 as 1/10 of the money I'm going to need to get 1DX.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 23, 2011)

bigblue1ca said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bigblue1ca said:
> ...




To each there own. Good that there is that much variety available. I was thinking the same thing. A lot of the "features" that Apple products have are really non-appealing to me. Why would I want a slot-loading drive, the silly old magnet power plug or backlit keyboard? Same with the ubiquitous iPhone. You'd have to pay me to use that big heavy thing without a real keypad - and now it even talks to you and you have to talk back. I only hope that normal BlackBerries will be around for a while longer...And laptops with TrackPoint option.


----------



## Meh (Dec 23, 2011)

JR said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I have run many tests of this type on servers over the years - there are two performance curves:
> ...



That may not be a hardware issue per se, although a faster machine would help. If you are shooting RAW then I believe that Lightroom does not fully render each image when the images are imported. In the library view it may just be displaying the jpg thumbnail and only renders each image when you open them, hence the few seconds each time you click on an image. There may be settings in Lightroom that tell it to fully render each image at import... that will cause the import process to take much longer but save time when opening each image. I'm not absolutely sure of the exact process, perhaps someone else has a better understanding? In the meantime I'll will research on the net and post again if I find anything useful.


----------



## JR (Dec 23, 2011)

Meh said:


> That may not be a hardware issue per se, although a faster machine would help. If you are shooting RAW then I believe that Lightroom does not fully render each image when the images are imported. In the library view it may just be displaying the jpg thumbnail and only renders each image when you open them, hence the few seconds each time you click on an image. There may be settings in Lightroom that tell it to fully render each image at import... that will cause the import process to take much longer but save time when opening each image. I'm not absolutely sure of the exact process, perhaps someone else has a better understanding? In the meantime I'll will research on the net and post again if I find anything useful.



Thanks I will look into the Lightroom setting tonight to see if I can find anything. I think you are bang on in terms of a jpg image being displayed and then loading the RAW image when you zoom. That said, the process of loading this RAW image then, it is more related to the graphic card, the hard drive, the CPU or RAM performance to minimize the lag time?


----------



## Meh (Dec 23, 2011)

JR said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > That may not be a hardware issue per se, although a faster machine would help. If you are shooting RAW then I believe that Lightroom does not fully render each image when the images are imported. In the library view it may just be displaying the jpg thumbnail and only renders each image when you open them, hence the few seconds each time you click on an image. There may be settings in Lightroom that tell it to fully render each image at import... that will cause the import process to take much longer but save time when opening each image. I'm not absolutely sure of the exact process, perhaps someone else has a better understanding? In the meantime I'll will research on the net and post again if I find anything useful.
> ...



Not sure what your bottleneck could be in the system you described or in your Mac Pro. Doesn't appear there is anything you could upgrade further. 

Here is a link with information about the preview settings in Lightroom and more info about maximizing performance. Since this is way off topic for the thread can I add that this applies equally to Mac or PC and is in the interest of maximizing performance of either system and therefore supports a conclusion that Mac vs. PC is simply a preference? ;D

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/400/kb400808.html


----------



## JR (Dec 23, 2011)

Meh said:


> Not sure what your bottleneck could be in the system you described or in your Mac Pro. Doesn't appear there is anything you could upgrade further.
> 
> Here is a link with information about the preview settings in Lightroom and more info about maximizing performance. Since this is way off topic for the thread can I add that this applies equally to Mac or PC and is in the interest of maximizing performance of either system and therefore supports a conclusion that Mac vs. PC is simply a preference? ;D
> 
> http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/400/kb400808.html



Thanks Meh! This is very useful. You are bang on about the preview generation. I will change the setting on my machine. I also agree with your conclusion regarding this thread: Mac vs. PC is simply a preference...

8)


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2011)

JR said:


> Have you been able to determine which hardware component is the most effective to run Lightroom?



I dont run Lightroom. I use mostly DPP with a little DxO and PSE9


----------

