Are Macs better than PCs for photography work? If so, why?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Questions thread
oklaphotog Senior Member • Posts: 1,093
Re: Are Macs better than PCs for photography work? If so, why?

theJuke2 wrote:

I'm trying to look for a new desktop which will be dedicated just to my photography work and I won't be using it for anything else. I am a PC person by nature, but I am not opposed to Mac. What are the pros and cons? Everyone I talk to seems to prefer Mac. I'm trying to find some PC users (or past PC users) to get their input and see how they feel about the Mac/PC comparison for photography work. If you are a past PC user, why did you switch? I'm looking for the pros and cons for each. (Please don't give me the "Macs don't get viruses" reason, and please don't tell me that Macs are made with all Mac hardware and processors - that isn't true any more.) I'm looking purely for functionality. Thank you!

I've used both for several years in photography and pro lab environment as photographer and IT person. Performance wise these days it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other. In use the mac is no better and costs more. Service for a mac sucks if it needs repair and you cannot fix it yourself as you have to make appointments to drop it off to an Apple store and the parts are outrageously priced. Where I live Apple stores are inside large shopping malls and hauling a mac pro tower from the depths of a huge parking lot and a few hundred yards through the mall is not fun from what I am told (I always fixed mine myself).

Windows has better and more in depth color management. Epson and Canon also tend to have better drivers for their printers when using windows vs. a mac. Windows has a much larger software selection, but Adobe products exist for both obviously which is what really matters.

Some people like the interface of one better than the other, but as someone who has been computing since the days of a C-64 and has used too many operating systems over the years to count... I don't really think either is better. Both interfaces have quirks but work well if you know how to use them, and both are easy.

In the end both work and do the job well, but you spend a lot more for an Apple product which IMHO makes a windows machine a much better value. Personally I have no reason to have a photography only computer these days, I use one workstation for everything. Therefore I use windows as many pieces of software I use don't exist for a Mac or don't have an adequate equivalent. Core i7 windows machines are far less expensive than the equivalent in Apple land. I wouldn't want anything less than a Core i7, and that isn't available in an iMac, so you have to step up to a Macbook Pro for an i7 or a Mac Tower to get a Xeon which is capable of performing as well or slightly better than an i7. In the case of these latter two, they are easily twice the price of an equivalent windows machine.

I paid right at about $1k for my HP laptop which has an aluminum case, 2.8ghz 2nd gen Core i7, 8gb ram, 1.5TB HD space, 17" display, BD/DVD/CD burner, beats audio, 1gb Radeon video card and 9.5hr battery. It chews through high res photos and edits/encodes HD video, and plays modern games without breaking a sweat. For that same price you can buy an even better desktop.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow