Old Question, I need a Current Answer- Mac vs PC

[diver46]

I have just purchased Photoshop CS4, however I am realizing that I am having issues with the software. I am spending way to much time talking to Adobe, and trying to understand what they want me to do, so far I have not been able to resolve my issues with CS4. I only have 2g of ram, so I am not sure if that is my problem. If it is, I decided to make the change to a new computer, mine is 4+ years old. So, Mac or PC. I have a large investment in software with my PC, so it would be a big cost issue to change over to a MAC

Thanks for the help and advice.

[azrussell132]

Sounds like you answered your own question.

[swampler]

Simple, given your investment in software, get a new PC.

[brian.austin]

Before a Mac-addict shows up, I'll tell you why you should consider switching:

1. If you're "trying to understand what they want me to do", it sounds like you're not a PC tech. Macs are fairly bulletproof.
2. Macs tend to be faster and more efficient on processing.
3. Macs can either dual boot, run emulators, or run shells to allow Windows to run on the same machine. (note: licensing issues may be a caveat on that if you don't have an OEM or retail license for your Windows OS. If you don't know what that means...you probably don't.)
4. Macs are less prone to viruses, trojans and worms.

Why I wouldn't switch:

A. I already know PC's and don't want to waste my time relearning a new OS to do the same things I already do fine.
B. Macs are 20-40% more money (or more) for the same box.
C. I'd have to relicense all of my software because, if I use an emulator, I'm back in the same boat, imo. Kinda like buying a new Cadillac and then ripping out the interior and replacing it with your 1988 Buick Regal interior. What's the point?
D. Vista only sucks for those trying to go outside of its boundaries. I've run various apps, including Adobe LR and PSCS3, on it as well as run a small office network on it and have yet to see any issues....when it's managed and tuned correctly.
E. If you're that concerned with budget...you already answered your own question, as both Russell and Steve have noted.

[Delano Color]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

2. Macs tend to be faster and more efficient on processing.

I keep reading that, and hearing that from Mac users but it was not my experience. Has there been some sort of documentation or could it be like an urban legend that keeps spreading?

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Delano Color

I keep reading that, and hearing that from Mac users but it was not my experience. Has there been some sort of documentation or could it be like an urban legend that keeps spreading?

I can't comment on your personal experience so you'll have to do your own research on why you had performance issues. It's not an urban legend and there is plenty of documentation online on how the Mac architecture compares to the PC designs.

[The Viking]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Why I wouldn't switch:

A. I already know PC's and don't want to waste my time relearning a new OS to do the same things I already do fine.

C. I'd have to relicense all of my software because, if I use an emulator, I'm back in the same boat, imo. Kinda like buying a new Cadillac and then ripping out the interior and replacing it with your 1988 Buick Regal interior. What's the point?

From someone who saw the light/made the switch last year, i.e. me:

A. Nothing to relearn, Mac feels much more logical and natural. It really feels like "finally coming home".
C. Interesting view. There has been some PC magazines that found that the best laptop to run Microsoft Office on is a MacBook!

Originally Posted by Delano Color

I keep reading that, and hearing that from Mac users but it was not my experience. Has there been some sort of documentation or could it be like an urban legend that keeps spreading?

I've seen some test reports in PC magazines but can't remember where, sorry.
However, when I first got my Macbook I wanted to test this for myself. As I had Photoshop Elements for both Win and Mac and my stepson has a PC with very similar spec to my Mac (Allegedly his PC is slightly better/faster) it were simple...
20 pictures on a memory-stick, automated tasks in Elements (same on both systems obviously). Not a big test, didn't expect to see much difference and were searching for 2 bigger memory-sticks that I knew were in a draw somewhere. Well, the Mac finished the job and I went and put the kettle on, when I came back with the mug of coffee in my hand the PC were still hard at work.
From memory the Mac did it in 12 minutes and the PC in 19...

BUT, the Mac is expensive if you only look at the spec versus the price tag.

[Delano Color]

Thanks for the feedback. My experiences were with business networked mac systems. Newspaper/photo lab. They were always crashing and I learned to reboot before I sat down to get serious work done.

The lab changed to PC because of dedicated software and we never looked back. Sure, the network needs rebooted now and then but the PCs can stay on all day without rebooting. Win 2000 is probably the most stable platform for PCs out there and I still use it.

[mwrave]

For very reasonable prices you can get a quad core processor and 4+ gigs of ram. On top of that if you run a 64 bit version of Vista you will see an additional 10-15% performance gain over the standard version. Lastly check the Adobe site for a list of supported graphic cards so CS4 can take advantage of your graphic cards' processor.

My opinion on Macs is there is no need for them.

[form]

I just bought a dell vostro with intel q6600 2.4ghz quad core processor, 3gb ram, 500gb hd and 256mb gfx card, for $499 plus shipping and tax. It'll be here tomorrow. Up to this point my workstation, for 13 years, has always been mac. That's going to change. My latest mac was a dual 800mhz g4, up from a 533mhz g4, which was up from a 400mhz g3. After paying $3500 for a new mac about 10 years ago I vowed never to get ripped off so much by buying a new mac again.

I say a similarly performing and built system to the PC I just bought would be $2k from Apple. Even a seasoned mac fan recently argued in favor of mac that "you'd only have to pay $1200 for it..." plus he claimed a few extras are included in the mac that would cost about $100 for me to add onto my PC.

The bottom line for me was price/performance ratio, and until you get into the top-of-the-line stuff where the huge price premium is equal on both sides, macs are consistently more expensive for the same product and performance. I didn't want top of the line dual quad-core xeons, because that's completely out of my budget. 2 years from now those same processors will be 1/8th their current value, but somehow the macs sporting them will only drop in cost by about 20%.

[pjf77]

Originally Posted by Delano Color

Thanks for the feedback. My experiences were with business networked mac systems. Newspaper/photo lab. They were always crashing and I learned to reboot before I sat down to get serious work done.

The lab changed to PC because of dedicated software and we never looked back. Sure, the network needs rebooted now and then but the PCs can stay on all day without rebooting. Win 2000 is probably the most stable platform for PCs out there and I still use it.

based on your win2000 comment were you using Mac Classics? We had one of those in our office and it always had to be rebooted everytime you used it. with that said my macbook has only been restarted about 10 times in the last year and that includes for software updates. In the couple of years i've had it my wife has gone through 2 pc laptops and mine still holds enough charge to go 4 hours on battery.

to get back to the question though the OP should probably stick to a pc. no sense buying all new software. macs are well made and hold their value longer but you pay more up front.

[drichi]

Just got a new iMac 2 weeks ago after using PCs for years. (I had an old Mac in the late 90s too.) The first 10 days I had it I spent hours and hours trying to get it to stay connected to the Internet. It would connect to my wireless system, but would not stay on the Net. Finally had to go back to wired. It still fails to see any other computers on my LAN about half the time. Many have had the same problem and as far as I know it is still unresolved on Mac Forums. (Folks there have reported that machines with Windows installed could still access using Windows when they couldn't with Mac.)

Installed my printer as per instructions and it would not reboot. Had to get back online with my old PC to find the answer and resolve that issue. Still cannot use the maintenance functions for my printer---cannot even see them on this Mac. A google search shows that I am not alone.

Oh, and wait until you see Firefox for Mac. Mighty Mouse is fun too, forget the right click and go back to memorizing keyboard shortcuts. It has been anything but intuitive for me, especially where troubleshooting is involved.

Other issues? Use MS word, Excel etc? Gotta buy and install on Mac or use iWork software. iWork allows you to read read MS Office files on Mac. You can also create similar files, but to e-mail them you get to go through an additional step of exporting them as a word/excel file. Great fun and a good way to kill all the extra time you have. Much of the other software I had on my PC will have to be relicensed for Mac. That includes Capture One. I will be able to switch Nikon Capture NX w/o charge. Much of the free open source software I used---GIMP, Faststone image viewer etc, won't work on Mac. Adobe PSE 7, which I just bought a month ago, won't work on Mac. For me, the cheapest way is to install Windows on the Mac so that I may use my old software, MS Office included, without buying hundreds of dollars worth of new licenses.

It has been a huge expense, and I cannot for the life of me understand exactly what the big deal is with Mac. I never had any problem that I could not solve in an hour or so with a PC. That has not been the case with Mac. Check out the Mac Forums while keeping in mind that Apple makes its own components and software and does not have to deal with all the differences in PCs.

The font is pretty though.

[ohtoberich]

What's wrong with Firefox on Mac? Works fine for me, including plugins.

By the way, Mighty Mouse does have right click if you enable it in the System Preferences->Mouse (I think that's where it is, but I'm on a PC right now). I actually don't care for the Mighty Mouse and I use a Logitech mouse actually... more ergonomic and more buttons.

I actually thought that one of the advantages of Macs was that the open source stuff was available! If it's open source, you can recompile it (requires some technical knowledge though)! If you use alot of windows apps, it's probably expensive to switch though.
GIMP - for Mac OS X

[common man]

As a retired newspaper photographer and also working with photos in prepress, I have used both. I still use both. Once you launch a program, they work the same on eather platform. You might find an old mac and play with it. One thing you might look into is using a trackball instead of a mouse. You will find that you will have more control. You can place the cursor where you want it and then do your operation with out disturbing the cursor position. I use a Kensington TurboMouse for both PC and Mac.

Just a few suggestions. Take them for what they are worth.

[Delano Color]

Originally Posted by common man

a mouse.

What's a mouse? (sorry, couldn't resist, am a dedicated Intuos user)

Yes, the Macs I used at the workplace were in the 90's and at both places, PCs were looked down on. One was a newspaper the other was a prolab. Isn't that what Macs were made for?

Well, both places had problems with dedicated Mac users swearing they both must have been set up wrong. That's understandable but again, MY experience with Macs was not so good.

The differences are not there for me to believe Macs are worth the price difference for me and am happy with my PCs and all the perks that come with having a more popular OS.

[jbrooksga]

Let me say first than some of this could be technically incorrect, it is just my real observations.

I have been involved with PCs since the 80s being in the IT field up until just a few years ago. As a network engineer, we dealt with just about everything. About 98% was PC hardware. When we did run across the "stubborn" Mac user, they were always a one-off. Had to do something special just for them at just about every level. And from my power user standpoint, I felt there was no need for a Mac unless you were one of those people that just did not fit in.

Picking up photography over the last couple of years, I started using apps that were new to me. Mostly Adobe stuff. My PCs at home were configured with enough resources to run these programs. I also know how to manage a network whether it is large or small.

A few months ago, I decided to get an iMac and try it out. My experience with it has been wonderful. Not that I want to throw away all of my PCs, but here are a few nuggets that sum it up.

• I would not consider the interface as intuitive as people say it is. It is certainly different from that of a PC. Not necessarily better....just different.
• Lightroom 2.x would sometimes randomly crash on my PC. On the iMac it has never done that.
• Lightroom 2.x consumes a large amount of RAM on the iMac at times, but when you close the program the RAM is cleanly released. Windows machines do not handle that memory aspect very well.
• Safari, the native browser on the Mac, just feels awkward to me from a usability standpoint. There is an aspect of the address bar behavior that drives me nuts. I installed Firefox which suited me better. This is probably because I used it so much on the PC before. Benchmarks say that Safari is faster on the Mac, but I cannot notice any difference. Google Chrome will be out for the Mac in a few months though. Can't wait for that.
• I hardly ever need to reboot the Mac. Many others here have said the same.
• The Mac found everything on my network: printers, network attached storage with zero issues. We use the NAS as a central file system that is accessed by the PCs and the Mac.
• With 3gb of RAM, I can run Lightroom, Photoshop CS4, Indesign CS4 and Firefox concurrently without any problems. And this iMac is not even a high-end platform.
• With a PC, the answer is always just throw more powerful hardware at it. The Mac does a better job of utilizing the available resources. It does more with less.
• My personal opinion is that this iMac will remain a productive piece much longer than the typical PC would. It seems that PC hardware and software gets refreshed at a faster pace (or traditionally has)
• I use the iMac for browsing and creative work. We have CAD software and hardcore business apps that will most likely remain on the PC. Putting all eggs in one basket can be risky, so I see a need for both. We have to maintain full compatibility with the MS Office files on our network, so that will be kept off the Mac for now. That said, I spend less and less time on the PC as time goes by. I will be testing some of the Windows virtual machine software on the Mac soon however.
• My next laptop purchase WILL be a Macbook, whenever that time arrives.
• FWIW, my church uses an older Mac Pro G4 box with a measly 512mb of RAM. This box is still in production today running a recent version of Mac OS. PCs just don't have that kind of longevity.
• You cannot beat the iLife suite of software compared to what you get on a PC, which is virtually nothing. Sure it is not pro-level stuff, but Garageband for example is really cool.
• As an old IT person, I know all about Unix. The Mac OS is basically that with a pretty interface. Unix is one of most stable operating systems ever, and that is the main reason why the Mac behaves the way it does.

[Delano Color]

wow! what a lovely post! I feel it's completely unbiased, based on facts instead of I-have-it-so-it-must-be-the-best opinions.

Thank you very much!

i won't be switching to mac any time soon but I still appreciate the honest and factual feedback and I would think the original poster should have his questions answered.

[Carusoswi]

You've probably done whatever it was that you decided to do, but, for others who might read this thread, I would suggest also that, if you plan to stay with the PC, make certain the replacement you buy will run your software. My daughter recently dropped her XP notebook and cracked the screen. We purchased a new notebook, and, pretty much the only option in windows that we could purchase on the spot were 64 bit vista machines.

Much of her bread and butter software will not run unless she purchases an upgrade, a real bummer.

Of course, anything Mac would have cost much more.

In the end, it's still six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Personally, I have no problem futzing around with Windows (I run XP), and find XP to be amazingly stable. If I just install it, load my aps, and leave it alone, it can run for years without having to reinstall. If I can't resist the urge to visit questionable sites or experiment with unfamiliar aps, then, I may degrade the installation over time and have to reinstall.

Oh, and if you have a PC and want to see yet another side of the coin, install some flavor of linux as a dual boot and get the best of both worlds. Run your Windows only aps in XP, and have fun browsing the net in Linux. There are plenty of free open source applications for Linux, and, if you like, you can install Wine or purchase Crossover and run many of your Windows application in Linux, too.

Linux tends to be very stable and crash-free, and, other than pure Unix, I doubt there is another operating system that, by design, is so insulated from viruses and other malware.

You can install anti-virus software on linux if you feel you need it in order to check incoming files from emailers who run Windows, but, otherwise, there is no need for, and most of us don't use antivirus programs in Linux.

Neither Windows nor MAC can make that claim.

Life is grand when we have these choices to make. Have fun and good luck.

Caruso