Photographer Manny Ortiz uses both Windows and Mac computers to edit his photos and video work, so when it came time to choose his next laptop he had a choice: 15-inch MacBook Pro or spec-ed out Dell XPS 15. He chose the PC, and in this video he offers the top 5 reasons why he made that choice.
Most Mac vs PC opinions are put out there by people who are heavily invested on one side, which is what makes Ortiz' point of view refreshing. He has no loyalty. He uses both systems regularly, and spends the last part of the video praising the Mac for its various strengths. Still, when it came time to plunk down a couple grand on a new machine, he chose the PC.
Here's why:
Money – The spec-ed out Dell cost $1,000 less than an equivalent MacBook Pro
Ports – The new MacBook Pros have been lambasted for their lack of ports, and Manny doesn't hold back either. The dongle life is not for him.
Ability to Upgrade – With the MacBook, what you buy is what you get. If you're thinking of upgrading the RAM, or swapping out the SSD, forget about it. With the latest builds, it's all but impossible.
Touchscreen – This one is very subjective, but for Manny, the touchscreen on the XPS is a big win.
Nvidia GTX 1050 GPU – Manny isn't implying the Radeon Pro chips in the MacBook Pros aren't great, but he's had nothing but good experiences with the Nvidia GTX 1050 inside the Dell.
And that's it. Obviously, there are a lot of other factors you could mention here—wins for both the PC and the Mac—but for Manny the decision was simple. The hardware on the PC was better, and he was getting it for $1,000 less.
Ever since the new MacBook Pros with their lack of ports came out, many photographers have been talking about switching to PC for their mobile editing needs. Have you considered it? And why would you choose one over the other? Let us know in the comments.
Well, I have been using a Windows PC forever and have no problems with crashing etc. when I use Photoshop CC.
I do have the touchscreen option with Windows but never, ever use it.
What exactly does this mean? That you need to buy an adapter to connect a USB card reader, for example? "2.Ports – The new MacBook Pros have been lambasted for their lack of ports, and Manny doesn't hold back either. The dongle life is not for him."
If it is that simple, why would anyone complain about the need to use an adapter?? Heck, if you pay $1000 more for a Mac vs. Windows computer, who cares about a few extra dollars for an adapter?
Big-Enders and Little-Enders! My tupence: I tried to switch over to Windows twice. Both attempts ended badly and cost me time and money for nothing. Currently we have two MPB's and an iMac 27 in the house. A new iPad will soon be needed as the old one has a cracked screen and is leaving us. So I will remain a Little-Ender while Macs still are there. PS. Read classics. Gulliver's Travels is a very good book and still fully up to date.
In the end, it all comes to a personal choice, I will not go back to a PC, the interface drives me nuts, the constant crashes of the OS on Windows is just enough for me to look the other way.
For those who conceitedly believe that Mac OS X is more secure should look at US government's National Vulnerability Database where Mac OS X reigns supreme as having by far the most vulnerabilities - roughly 4-5 times more than different recent versions of Windows. So Mac OS X is most vulnerable to security violations OS.
Same database shows that Apple's mobile OS - iOS - is second most vulnerable.
For those Linux boys who believe Linux is more secure they should think again as the same database shows Linux core is only second to Mac OS X on having most vulnerabilities among laptop/desktop OSes.
Windows is most secure OS despite being most popular on laptops/desktops. The tide has turned around 2012-2013 - prior to that Windows used to have more vulnerabilities than Mac OS X which was still not bad for Windows given how much more popular it is compared to 3.49% market share that Mac OS X holds.
I'm not saying Mac's are invulnerable by any means, but it's a matter of statistics. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, but I feel most non-state sponsored hackers become expert on one type of operating system. And since Windows PC's make up about 90% of the computer market, it makes economic sense to become expert on that system since one can reach a much larger set of potential victims vis-à-vis Mac users.
This is completely anecdotal, but I know someone who uses Mac's exclusively and has for about the past 10 years or more. He has not run any anti-virus or internet security software in that time despite my repeated warnings that he should do so. And he has never had a malware issue or stolen credit card number in that time. I'm not saying that is wise, but just try doing that on a Windows PC. I wouldn't even think about it.
Novice Shutterbug I agree. The fact that Mac OS X is less secure and has more vulnerabilities does not change it is not as interesting to hackers. 3.49% market share is an indication of how unpopular Mac OS X is. Being so unpopular Mac OS X will not attract hackers who try to profit from mass campaigns. But Mac OS X is still of interest to those hackers who make targetted attacks.
>> I know someone who uses Mac's exclusively and has for about the past 10 years or more... but just try doing that on a Windows PC
I personally use Windows and for the last at least 15 years did not get any virus or malware that I was aware of. For the last at least 12 years I did not run any anti-virus unless you take into account that Windows has its own antivirus as of late. I reckon Windows is secure enough. If you are stupid and install malware yourself it is your tax on stupidity. If someone really wants to target you they will hack you irrespective of what OS you are on and if you have antivirus.
Well, I do use malware and virus detection software with my Windows PC and would recommend that to everyone. I have never had a problem. Of course, I do get warnings from the software but it does not allow a virus of malware to actually enter my PC.
Windows is secure enough? Not in my view. Windows 8 and later includes a Malicious Software Removal Tool but I have never needed it because the anti-virus and anti-malware software *prevents* the need to use a removal tool.
Peter K Burian, No system is secure but as US government's National Vulnerability Database indicates Windows is by far more secure than Unix and especially than the worst security vulnerability hog - Mac OS. I have not run anything but what comes with Windows for the last 12 years and never had a virus, etc that I knew of in this entire period and even longer going back into the time prior to the last 12 years when I last used antivirus.
Really happy with my Microsoft Surface Pro (2017). Core i7/8GB/256GB. Super light and super fast. Pen support is terrific and incredibly useful in Photoshop. Touchscreen is amazing for Lightroom. Battery life is finally terrific (compared to the Surface Pro 4). The only negative is only 1 USB port so I do have to carry around a USB hub.
Ha, ha, ha, ha,ha! To paraphrase the first Clinton Campaign, "It's the software, stupid"! All the things you mention are secondary (to getting Wannacrypt)! As an IT Pro for 25 years, I've supported both Macs and Windows. Even current studies (lookup IBM switches to Macs) show that Macs need way less support from the IT department. There are also more Lightroom bugs that don't affect Macs but affect Windows (particularly Win10). Good luck, you're gonna need it!
All things said, the only real deal breaker for Macbooks is the use of USB-C exclusively. I think Apple painted themselves into another 'corner' like the trashcan mac pro. They'll have to switch back eventually... I'm not that bothered by the soldered ram as you can always choose your own specs whether new or 2nd hand market. I have both macs and PC. They both have their own flaws. My mac crashed a year ago due to a weird hardware failure. I've never had a Mac die due to OS problems. I had to reinstall my PC a couple of times due to windows automatic updates. I have to say that TimeMachine on Mac is awesome whereas you'll have to purchase your own backup software on a PC among the dozens of options out there. Personally, I'm using a PC at the moment because of the hardware advantage for my professional use. I'm saving up for the new modular Mac Pro when they'll release it in a couple of years.
I think it's great because it's actually prompting the development of USB C devices. You know how Thunderbolt devices have always been rare or nonexistent? It's because they gave you USB as an option. The new port is great and I wish all my computers, phone, etc had USB C.
I can agree with #3, but that's a future point. Many PC notebooks aren't all that upgradable. But - today, if I had to replace my current notebook, I'd go with an HP ZBook, preferably a 17". I've used them, they're highly configurable, and modular to a degree.
As for PC's and malware, I haven't had a problem in years, and I don't do anything "special". My current notebook is pretty much "right out of the box" plus Adobe, Google and Backblaze.
I've used Apple and HP Z's so it's an easy reference. I'm not suggesting one over the other. My one preference is a matte screen, or a very nonreflective one. My current notebook is an Asus, with a matte screen, running Win10. It gets the job done. As for OS's, the recent versions are both secure.
The point is they're all computers with their respective OS's and software. Like cameras, we all have preferences.
I'm currently running a 7-year-old desktop PC and shopping on and off for my first laptop ever to replace it. It most likely will not be a Mac because of my cost/benefit calculus. I can get a new, fully-loaded Dell XPS with 4K screen resolution, 4 GB of graphics memory, 16 GB of RAM and a 1 TB SSD at a local computer chain store for about $600 less than Dell's retail price and about the same amount below a comparable (but less well-equipped) MacBook Pro. And cost is a major factor for me.
However, I can see why Mac's have a devoted following mostly because of the horrendous malware issues with PC's. That is -- and probably always will be -- the biggest pitfall of PC's. That said, the malware reason alone is not enough for me to go with Apple. If money isn't a great concern, I can see why you might make a different choice. But right now PC's give you much more bang for your hardware buck if you shop wisely.
Most of the highly publicised malware issues are caused by government bodies using wildly outdated and/or unpatched versions of Windows, together with inadequate corporate security. Buy a Windows 10 PC, install Kaspersky Internet Security for a few dollars, and you will never have any malware problems. My version of Kaspersky has never even highlighted any issues for several years.
I am currently running Windows 10 (upgraded from Windows 7) on my old desktop. If it weren't for that free operating system upgrade by Microsoft, I probably would have had to have bought a new PC last year since my old system was getting pretty buggy. I have tried Kaspersky in the past but now prefer a competing brand. I admit my malware issues have been manageable these past two years, but I still believe Windows PC's will always be targeted and exploited due largely to their ubiquity and the fact that government entities want holes/backdoors in PC's so that it is easier to spy on people. Sad but most likely true.
And those holes can be exploited by non-state sponsored hackers as well. It's just a matter of time before Windows 10 is shot full of holes too like the older operating systems. Therefore, Mac's will always have a market for the 10% or more of people who don't want to deal with the hassle of constant malware attacks and can afford that premium.
On a completely unrelated note, I regularly trip over the English phrase "all but" (as in "With the latest builds, upgrading is all but impossible"). To me (as a non-native speaker), this seems to suggest the exact opposite of its intended meaning, namely that upgrading is "anything but impossible" or "very much possible", while it seems to actually mean "practically impossible".
At the same time, "all but one" doesn't mean "almost one", but, on the contrary, "all of them, with the exception of one".
Seems like two opposite meanings of the same two words.
Yep, "all but *" can mean both "everything except *" or "particularly/exclusively *". One of the most confusing expressions out there. Good writers (especially those aiming at an international audience) should avoid it.
It seems like most of the anti-Mac arguments in this thread are focused on a combination or variation of these facts: - A PC with similar on-paper specs is cheaper. - The latest Macs often don't have the latest and most powerful tech.
What those arguments don't address is that Apple laptops are all about balance. And with balance comes compromise. You will never get the latest, greatest, cheapest or any other extreme adjective from a Mac. What you will get is a well-thought-out balance of reliability, portability, durability, usability, battery life, performance, aesthetic etc.
Macs may lack the ests, but they have all the ilities. For me, that makes them the best choice (so I guess they do get one est).
Well I use(d) both Mac computers and other computers (also referred to as PC) Have to say that I changed my Mac Book Pro out of 2011 for a Toshiba X20 two months ago. At home I use a custom build workstation with Windows.
Is the Toshiba X20 perfect, no it isn't, was my Macbook Pro perfect, no it wasn't As with thousands of other apple users, my complete MB was replaced due to bad graphic cards apple used.
The balance you speak of is about marketing and gear jizz people fall for are lured into. And both a lot of Apple and non-Apple computer users suffer from it.
so if people say Apples are too expensive attention machines or PC's are always crap "...you HAVE to take a..." I usually take them not so seriously.
I can't stand how Windows constantly gets in my way with constant pop–ups and warnings and notifications. How many times have I seen a person making a presentation on a Windows laptop getting interrupted every time random Wi–Fi network drifts in and out of range. I find Windows just horribly annoying and inconsistent.
Why nobody mention the second hand value of the MacBook Pro? Usually you can sell the old MacBook and upgrade to the new one with affordable fund. Also, nobody mention the quality service and support of the Apple Store!
IMO the 16:10 aspect ratio of the Macbook is better than the default 16:9 everyone else uses, at smaller screen sizes (i.e. typical laptop sizes). Portrait photos and vertical video (a thing that should not exist but I digress) present as tiny on small 16:9 screens.
So if your an appleholic with a lust to be in the 'public picture' (instead of making them) you need an apple, and if you're a basement type of guy who hardly comes out you need a pc? What if you are both?
It remembers me when I made the mistake for once to have a coffee (which does not taste like coffee) at a starbucks in Tennoji Osaka. When I was sitting at the counter in front of the window (and I had not my macbook with me) two western teenagers with their macbooks came to me and the person besides me, and asking us if they could sit on our place in front of the glass so their friends could see them with their macbooks sitting from the outside. You mean that kind of fancy?
A comparison between photo editing on Mac and PC should include the differences in colour management. Commercial Printers use Macs when they can because colour management across all devices and software is centrally managed and has been from the start of OSX. Windows has never centrally managed colour management. What this means for the end user is that if a photo is transferred from photoshop to Indesign or some other software the colours in whatever the colour pallett used are not the same in differing software on a PC. That doesn't mean that they are not close but traditionally one of the banes of Printers has always been colour matching. The colour gamet one person sees or interprets is different from male to female, old young etc. This is the prime reason a Mac would be used in place of a PC in certain applications. its a Unix thing.
Actually, this existed way before Mac OS switched to Unix. Mac OS 8 already had central color management and a built–in software calibrator; don't know about the earlier versions.
The "synopsis" did not comment on screen differences. The Mac Retina screens are very high resolution and 3P colour which is a huge step up on most PC monitors. I agree if your eyesight is not very good you might have difficulty seeing the obvious difference. I prefer to image edit with a high resolution monitor to better see what I am editing.
When it comes to resolution... Well.. Mac also lags somewhat behind the best on resolution and you must have long switched away from Macs if you are as sensitive to resolution as you claim you are.
@nerd2, latest mbpr shines not because of RGB coverage. It has higher contrast at 1200+:1, while most equivalent PC workstations are using screen doing no better than 1050:1.
Those extra contrast actually makes image richer in details and provides better shadow transition.
You have to decide whether it matters for you. For me, I remembered when I first upgraded to FF from apsc.
Hardware - if you're looking at top-shelve models, is pretty much irrelevant in the Mac vs. PC debate... you'll find solid offerings on both ends.
For me - personally - the more interesting aspects are: - OS ... I use both Windows and OS X at my work, and frankly, there's very little that is in favour of the latest (or older) Windows versions vs. OS X... yes, this is a personal thing, I simply utterly prefer the handling, stability, and layout of OS X in almost every aspect of daily computing life.
- Ports... yes, this is where apple really has become a "bit" of a silly thing... make it thinner make it lighter - fine... but please stop throwing out all ports and have me buy some dongle... not worth the tradeoff in my opinion
- Upgradeable hardware? who really cares... buy top-spec, get something that is really powerful enough for your use, get enough RAM from day one... and chances are that throughout the computers average lifespan you will not need to upgrade to better hardware
I care. I keep upgrading both laptop and desktop over their life time. I already upgraded my laptop three times with hardware which simply did not even YET exist when I purchased my laptop. Upgradeability: - saves me money as I do not have to buy a new complete system - gives me more choice as laptop assemblers in particular limit your options too much - saves time as you do not have to migrate to a newer system
You forget that your "get enough RAM from day one" sometimes cannot be done. E.g. in my case higher capacity (16GB per module) DDR4 RAM modules did not even exist yet when I bought my laptop. So I upgraded later once they became available. Same goes for faster and higher capacity m.2 and SATA. I now have 2TB m.2 SSD + 4TB SATA SSD - this was not even possible when I bought my laptop. I knew that I would need more when I bought laptop and I knew that I can upgrade later.
Yes there are so many PCs, of all different prices to choose from. And the choice doesn't stop there. It's not just about Windows. I use Ubuntu with Raw Therapee along with Digikam to manage the photo library. Which lets you integrate any other application you like. Such as LightZone and Gimp. It's choice all the way.
Yes, there are many... but only this one satisfied all my criteria: 1. light, thin and solid 2. up-to-date Intel CPU + good battery life 3. wide view angle and no-gloss (for outdoors and airports) 4. reasonable number of non-legacy ports + SD reader 5. properly placed and directly accessible Fn, Ins and Del keys
My Commodore 64 still has a better keyboard than many Apple options of today.. why does Apple so much hate having a keyboard with enough keys on it? There were a few years there in the '90s where they had really nice, fully featured desktop keyboards.. then Steve Jobs came back.
Photobrush has cost me $40 for 20 years of usage... not a penny more. MAC is hoping you'll morgage you house to finance those ridiculous Adobe suites... :P
The video card and touch screen, in my opinion, are probably not that big of a deal for most editors. At least, as long as you have a dedicated graphics card in there, you're good. Any dedicated graphics beats the on-board (although the new offerings from Intel have gotten much better. My Dell 13" has the new HD 620 which is very comparable to a 4 year old CAD graphics card of the time). The only place I can see a touch screen might be handy is if you wanted to do some on-screen editing with a stylus. But cost and upgradeability are two major factors I think people should really consider (especially upgrading, because Apple makes it very hard if not impossible to add memory to your Mac so you almost have to buy what you think you'll need in the next 3-5 years). Ports is another issue, and last I read, I though the nixed the SD card slot, a staple feature of almost any computer....
i think yor points are the crux of the issue here apples hostility and user unfriendliness towards a users right to access an SSD and ram modules soldering anything on a high end machine is an act of selfishness disrespect to the user
and sd slots being removed which is simply an act of insanity and removing highly important ports that might reflect a reality 3 years from now poisons the user experience of today
I should make one correction: a dedicated video card would be beneficial for those doing advanced edits or working on ultra high res photos, but for many, more current onboard graphics could also do the job and would be cheaper. However, whether you go AMD or Nvidia, I don't think most editors will see a difference. Image quality and responsiveness in PC Gaming is a different story between the two brands.
If Apple let you upgrade the SSD and RAM on newer models, I would possibly reconsider my stance on Apple products, but since it seems they don't care about that, I'm sticking with something I know I can upgrade as my needs change. I mean, to get what I want in the Apple, I'd have to spend $1800. I could get the same type of hardware in a Windows laptop for about a half to a 1/3 of the price AND be able to upgrade it on my own.
Am I the only one who doesn't edit on a laptop, like, at all? I get most people prefer laptops, esp people under 30, but would assume a lot of photographers and videographers still use a desktop for work? I don't care about Mac vs PC, I just don't need a tricked out laptop.
I am with you. I have laptop while on the move and desktop when I am back to my desk. No laptop can beat proper desktop for any heavy duty tasks - especially when it comes to rendering and encoding 4K video.
Yes, I have a laptop, chromebook plus a tablet...just really really prefer doing my work on desktop with a couple screens. I actually have a blasphemous combination right now of a custom built windows box connected to two apple cinema displays.
No, you are not alone. I prefer to use a multi-disk, multi CPU core desktop for my editing. Videos require a lot of computing power and disk I/O performance. For me, laptops are only good enough for "proofs"....
Ditto here. I just discovered my old HP would take two screens about a year ago and W10 handles them well. Not just for photo editing, but we do a lot of traveling among other things and to have two 25" screens up with 4 windows makes research and planning sooooo much easier. My cost... $150 and its a great screen.
He got a virus on his Mac? The last time I read about a Mac virus in the wild, contracting it pretty much required a willing infectee.
Regarding price: Mac components are often better. The SSDs on 2017 MBPs, for example, are really fast. I think it would be hard to find an equivalent SSD upgrade. Also, in my experience, no other large company will go so far to ensure satisfaction. Apple has repeatedly replaced/repaired out-of-warranty products for me free of charge, saving me thousands over time--well worth a higher initial price.
Plus, Mac OS system-wide keyboard shortcuts make screen life worth living.
I have a 2017 13" MBP. It has been fantastic so far. Lack of ports has been a non-issue. I got two USB-A adapters for $9 on Amazon, and got on with my life. I sold my 5 year old MBP for $850!
My 5 reasons to buy PC over Mac: 1- You can't spend more than a few hundred bucks 2- You run Win-only software and can't/won't emulate it 3- You love tinkering with hardware 4- Gaming 5- ?
components are the same really. If you get a higher end gaming laptop most of the spec are about the same or better. thin laptop use ssd pcie as do mac, they look like memory ram size. A high end laptop (with metal body) vs a mac there is only a 10-20% price different really. I call it the apple tax. No a similar spec laptop isn't 30-50% cheaper, people dont compare apple to apple, maybe apple to orange.
your pc vs mar reason seem reasonable. #1 is true and also not. 75-80% f the world are pc to say all don't want to spend more isn't ignoring teh high end pc laptop market. Gamers and professional will spend a few k on a good rig. High end pc and laptop are actually more expensive then the top end mac because you can configure it top the latest and best components that mac don't carry. You don't get nvidia 1080ti, top of the line quatro, amd ryzen on a mac at all.
While you're having such a good time ROTFLing, maybe you should tell us:
A - Does the Dell in the video have a comparable SDD? B - Can the Dell in the video be upgraded with a larger comparable SDD? C - How much does a quality PC laptop cost with a comparable SDD?
I don't know the answers for this specific laptop, but I have a good idea from shopping around before I bought my MBP last month. I'm not saying that no PC has comparable components to Macs. I'm saying that you'll spend close to the same price to get equivalent components in a PC and end up with an inferior machine.
I was initially disappointed with the ports in the new MBPs, so I shopped around a lot. I was interested in the Dell XPS 13 line and the Surface Pro line. Similarly equipped, they're about the same price as MBPs without the amazing customer service, reliability and, most importantly, Mac OS.
I wonder if you'll be laughing when your next mandatory update hits and you're in the middle of something important.
doing a quick look at the MBP's .. it looks like they are just using a M.2 PCIe 2 lane SSD, because they have capacities up to 2TB.
NVMe - which is lightyears faster and better than PCIe M.2 SSD's they aren't using. so no, MBP's don't have the latest and greatest and the fastest.
video never uses SSD - it uses DRAM, and of course dell has it .. duh.
Radeon's suck balls as far as performance, nvidia is simply much better.
C - a top end MBP is around 2799. My laptop ran around 3600. however, it simply runs rings around what the MBP 15 top end is.
Also the MBP tops out at 16GB of memory. that's ludicrous. Mine has 64GB.
Also again, the MBP tops out at 4GB DDR5 radeon memory, which again is pretty low. mine has 8GB.
Running geekbench on mine versus a MBP .. MBP geekbench from a review were 4,739 in single core mode and 15,731 in multi core, mine was 4950 and 16093 *WITH* 5 virtual machines running (3x2012R2 Server,1 pfsense,1 windows 8)
I think you are a bit out of date on what kind of hardware is available on the PC. All PC components are made by the same manufacturers as MBP's. PCs can also host multiple NVMe M.2 PCIe x4 drives. And if you look at the latest multicore desktop processors from AMD and Intel, they have a heck of a lot more processing power compared to puny laptop CPUs. 4 cores are getting obsolete on desktops.
Apparently some of you folks need things stated very simply to avoid getting confused. I am not saying that ALL Macs have better components than ALL PCs. I'm aware that the same components are used across different devices. I'm also aware that Macs don't necessarily have the BEST components available. So there is no need to boast about your 64 core desktop with 256 GB of RAM and a 128GB GPU. In fact, I was only talking about laptops, since that's what the video discusses.
I'll try to say this very plainly. Are you ready?
In my experience, PC laptops often seem to compare and compete directly with much more expensive MBPs on paper. But the MPBs they seem compete with often have better components. In reality, you will usually spend about the same amount of money on a PC laptop to get similar components to a MBP.
Please take a deep breath and forgive the lack of clarity in my original statement--it was a direct follow up to the claims made in the video.
More clarification before anybody brings up the specs on the latest 27 pound gaming laptop. For me, one of the primary considerations in a laptop is portability. So when I talk about PC laptops that compare to Mac laptops, I'm not just talking about the guts. I'm also talking about the form factor.
Another major consideration for me in a laptop is the screen, and I think we can all agree that Mac laptops have nice screens (not necessarily the best available, but very good).
Elsewhere in this thread, somebody linked to a blog post wherein they detailed their search for a MBP alternative and decided on a giant plastic Lenovo of some sort. By their own admission, it was heavy and had an "abysmal" screen. But it was apparently powerful and upgradeable! I get the idea that some of you have similar thought processes to that guy. If you do, you kinda missed the point about MBPs, so why do you even care about this discussion?
And who buys a laptop with an "abysmal" screen for photo work?
Please educate me, rrccad. Please tell me again about your 12 pound $3600 laptop with 64 GB of RAM and 90 minute battery life. Maybe you can teach me how to build my own sweet rig that doesn't suck balls.
You'd realize from me describing the vm's running on it that it's used for far more important work than gaming, if you were so inclined to use some brain cells.
and again, the MBP parts are anything but special or even high end .. my laptop has nothing to do with that fact.
Yes, look at the resale value of 5 years old MacBook Pro. If you include the excellent service of 3 years Apple care, a new computer is much better than upgrade internal components for an old laptop.
Big parts of this just aren't true! The MacBook DOES have a built-in SD slot, PLUS it has an HDMI slot, which is a big deal so you can connect to a large screen when you get home. Also, the price difference in the example showed a $400 difference, not $1000! There were other misstatements but these two discredited the review for me.
Big parts of your comment aren't true: the latest Macbook Pro (the machine he's talking about) doesn't have either a SD slot or a hdmi slot. Take a look at the specs from Apple.
I don't know about the author but I cross-shopped Macs and PCs and found getting a 15" Dell XPS vs. a MBP was $1.1k difference. (That's based on current street prices on what I can get today.)
The MBP also clearly does NOT have an SD card, nor an HDMI slot (I just double-checked.) That said, you can hook up an external monitor with the usb-c port.
I love the hardware/OS on the Mac (it's what I use at home) but the price difference is pretty remarkable. Using my example I'd spend 63% more ($1,599 for the Dell XPS vs. $2,599 for the MBP) to get roughly the same specs.
I recognize that the Macs are better built, but also that the author has valid points.
Shame there's no SD slot now, I have one of those 256GB JetDrives, got it cheap on eBay and instantly doubled my 2015 rMBP's storage while keeping it sleek.
Macbook Pros are made by many of the same vendors which make "inferior" PC laptops.. such as Foxonn and Atmel. Of course Apple is going to spec nicer cases and brighter screens, etc.. but the chipsets (Intel. AMD, nVidia) come from the same makers as do the SSDs, RAM, and screens. So, other than comparing a three grand MPP to a $400 Dell cheap-o.. the quality argument is pretty moot.
On the software side, Mac OS is very streamlined and elegant from a user point of view. However, Microsoft hasn't stood still-this isn't your Dad's Windows 98 box either, folks. Hell, even Linux manages to pull off some pretty respectable UI smoothness these days.
I can see both sides of the argument but the no ports thing kinda clinches it for me.. I'm going to keep that extra grand in my pocket and run a Linux laptop of better hardware specs.
After 21 years with Mac, I am switching back to Windows. For me it's now a hardware and OS issue with Mac -- too little for too many $$$ on the hardware side; and decreasing reliability of the social-networking / commercialized oriented OS w. a new flavor full of bugs every 12 months.
Thanks to Jony Ives, form has been emphasized over function -- like eliminating ports just to be a mm thinner. After waiting three years for a truly pro-oriented expandable Mac laptop and desktop for my next upgrades, I can no longer afford to wait. As Apple changes its market focus, so must I.
My month old Dell XPS has 64GB RAM, i7-7700 processor, 256SSC, 2TB drive, 7 USB 3.0 ports, 2 USB 3.1 ports, BluRay read-write, 6GB Nvidia 1060 and 4-yr warranty for $1,699. Incredible, screaming box. Apple can't come close to price/performance. That's the way it's always been and will always be.
@tomblankenship-dot-com "Apple can't come close to price/performance. That's the way it's always been and will always be."
LOL, good one. Good thing there are some people here like me that know the whole story. Your Dell is using desktop class ram.....so let's just say that you conveniently forgot to mention that Apple's MacBook Pro gets 10 hours of battery life under normal use. Your Dell....well let's just say we both know you get far less than half of that of very light use, so yeah more ram but less battery.
Those (2) USB 3.1 ports on your Dell get you half the transfer rate of Apple's Thunderbolt 3 ports. . The SSD in your Dell isn't nearly as fast as the SSD's in the new MacBook Pro. BluRay on a laptop? What's that? Oh I have one of those connected to my 64" TV. That 4 year warranty will allow you 4 years of outsourced service while Apple's 3 year AppleCare Plus will get you Americans to speak with.....IN AMERICA.
Dell will always be known as junk. A decent PC is a Lenovo.
Decent pc doesn't have to be brand related. You can build a very capable and reliable machine for down to earth money. And since apple computers for last decade or so are intel based etc, there's no real difference from technical point of view. They looks nice, i agree , bur lately even that becoming obsolete..
> You can build a very capable and reliable machine for down to earth money.
Right, assuming your labor rate is pretty low. Of course, it's fine if you enjoy shopping for computer parts and putting the hardware together. I happen to hate the process, so...
@SDPharm. Agreed. It's painfully obvious there are kids responding to this article, as using up valuable time and resources to build a PC is THEIR option. I need a reliable computer with a warranty to do my video and photo editing, as I need it to run my business. Anyone building a computer today is doing so for gaming, and I'm assuming has low responsibilities. I have better things to do than sit in my basement gaming on and constantly tweaking a home-built PC.
SDPharm >> it's fine if you enjoy shopping for computer parts and putting the hardware together. I happen to hate the process, so...
1) Some people enjoy shopping 2) Some people like putting hardware together 3) You do not really have to do it yourself anyway. We are talking PCs - not Macs. You can easily pick what you need and give specification to someone else to build for you. You can even send your spec to several companies to shop around for who can do it cheaper. You cannot do any of it with Macs but you can with PCs.
This last third option is what I do to get exactly what I need. Such services do stunning jobs - pleasure to look inside a properly put together box and I am sure I would not do as good a job in doing all that wiring so unobtrusive - this is simply not my day job. So delegate!
> You can even send your spec to several companies to shop around for who can do it cheaper.
Can you post the link? I would love to look at this option.
I looked at a Dell XPS 13 this morning, with 8GB RAM and 512 GB SSD it's only $200 less than a Macbook Pro with the same configuration (except the CPU). To me, this is too small of a difference as Mac has a much better resale value.
@SDPharm Links to what? Any big city has a myriad of companies that sell computers and they often build one for your needs and spec. Links are useless here. I always go to local companies. You will have your own. I am not talking about big impersonal players.
If you need any links at all here are guys that specialize in building custom systems: https://www.pugetsystems.com/ I never buy anything from them as they are way more expensive than I can do locally. But I find useful some of the articles and benchmarks on their web site.
I am benefiting from targeted upgrades regularly. For example, at the end of this year I will look at pugetsystems testing new i9 processors. I am particularly interested in 16 and 18 core beasts. If those will give significant performance boost I will upgrade my PC (again through a local computer shop - not myself). I will specifically be looking at 4K video rendering and encoding performance as that is the most annoying and most slow performing part of workflow for me and saving time in those would be of significant benefit given how much my time is worth.
Guess what? I will only then upgrade motherboard and CPU leaving the same as I have 128GB RAM, 2x2TB m.2 SSD, 2x2 SATA SSD and 4x8TB HDD, NVidia GTX 1080 Ti. Obviously the case, PSU, etc will remain the same. Overall it is huge saving compared to buying a new system to the same spec. And I do this regularly when there is something what makes a difference to workflow savings.
@SDPharm >> Right, assuming your labor rate is pretty low. Even if my rate is NOT low and I knew how to put hardware together well (which I do not) I would still not hesitate to spend time to do it myself. I have no problem spending time now to save time later continuously in workflow. But I personally outsource this. E.g. if 18 core i9 processor at the end of this year will even give me 50% performance improvement on rendering/encoding it is enormous saving to my time which is worth a lot and would justify me spending time on it.
I am only talking about upgrades that make sense and make a difference. And it is surprising how often these happen. And they never all happen at the same time in one area. So gradual upgrades over time make a lot of sense.
Surprisingly enough the same is true for laptops. I already upgraded it 3 times with things that simply were not even available at the time the laptop was purchased.
All pc fanboys need to know is once you go mac you never look back.. I know a lot of users that use both extensively including myself.. .. Just put it this way there is a reason why live event pros are mostly using mac.. yea your pc might have better specs but in 2 years it will run as slow as turtle with out proper maintense.. I know people that use there macs for 5 years and still run there pro programs... PC is a hopped up car with aftermarket parts that needs insane maintenance .. Mac is a BMW m3.. both will get the job done.. but which will last a cross country trip doing 90 PS I don't care about grammar..
alot of FUD there. modern windows OS's don't get slower over age and don't require "insane maintenance"
SOrry I used a mac and laughed at it and wondered what overcharged bunch of garage it was that enforces you to be entirely bent over a table locked into one vendor.
sure it looks pretty - but for real world use - no thanks.
"Agreed. It's painfully obvious there are kids responding to this article, as using up valuable time and resources to build a PC is THEIR option. "
what kind of snotty arrogant attitude is that?
I outsource my laptop being custom built, they have it delivered to me in less than 2 weeks.
if i need something upgraded after that time, I spend a few minutes and do it myself. unsnap the back, replace / upgrade an SSD,etc .. something you cant do in a MAC for love nor money - you need an upgrade. punt the Mac.
@rrcad. Based on the replies from you in regards mine and other posts, you're too sensitive and take things personally. This discussion is about computers, not YOU, so chill out. Your replies about Mac are calling it garbage and such. Pretty obvious you take things too personally and fire back making attacks in order to try to anger someone like how you feel angry. Calm it. lol.
>> All pc fanboys need to know is once you go mac you never look back
False. I know quite a few around me that did not only look back but actually moved to Windows. Your silly generalization fails to hold once faced with real life. What is more you must be blind since there are people in this forum who did not only look back but moved to Windows and you even responded to some of them. So you kind of should already know that your generalization is false.
@rrcad. Ah playing the victim. Typical. Sorry but you are too sensitive. Even with your last reply to me. It really bothers you that people criticize Windows or various other Windows variants so in turn you start hurling insulting words Apple's products in order to "get back" at the people who prefer Macs and don't want Windows. Calm down,
lmao. i'm not too sensitve... good grief.. who do you think you are? you started this nonsense.
calling someone out isn't being sensitive, if anything your whining about it for now 2 separate posts certainly is showing your sensitive side.
funny you should talk about hurling insults.. let's see what started it.. oh yes.. your comment: "Agreed. It's painfully obvious there are kids responding to this article, as using up valuable time and resources to build a PC is THEIR option. "
Calling posters that disagree with you kids certainly is insulting. So get over yourself and move along..
i was talking about pc build by company and get all support if needed. and i do use pcs for business, not playing games, thank you very much (photo, video cad, renderings you name it) but even that aside, swaping pc components etc these days is chilld game realy. good backup system is needed anyways no matter what super fancy hardware you're using.
@mr.izo. totally agree. I'm giving my laptop a $2,700 upgrade over christmas. takes 4 minutes to unscrew the back, snap off the covers and swap out all the SSD's in it.
@rrccad. "Calling posters that disagree with you kids certainly is insulting. So get over yourself and move along.."
Boy you're a touchy one aren't you. Haha. You knee-jerk way too much. I never actually called anyone directly here a kid. It was a generalization based on the information posted. So let me understand something. So you're suggesting that there aren't young people that post on DPR around the ages of 12 and up? Are you also suggesting that kids ages 12 and up aren't capable of building themselves a computer? You do realize youth enjoys tech as well right? Or did you think everyone that posts here is age 30 and up? Stop being so touchy and sensitive. I was being honest, but you take things too sensitively. That's childish. You need help. You make the Windows crowd look bad.
actually you did. you called those above you that dont mind upgrading or creating their own equipment.. kids. because otherwise as you suggested adults dont have that "time to waste".. lol then again, you're in here trying to defend yourself taking more time than what it would take to upgrade my laptop if I needed to.
So sorry you can't handle being called out on it, but that's reality - then again, it's not as if you post here often.
So really.. stop the whining .. and move on. this conversation has long since ended.
This is such a retro 90s article and discussion. It completely neglects the rise of mobile computing and the monopoly Apple has there. Most photos and video today is shot on mobiles and leans heavily towards the iPhone. There, Windows isn't even a player.
The majority of photos uploaded to sharing sites are taken with iPhones. The data is clear. Some great work is indeed done professionally on the iOS exclusively, not laptops or desktops. Android is the only competitor. The Macs vs PC thing is very Dad Rock.
This comment sounds irrelevant for the site that is geared towards photo/video professionals who have workflows that require power well beyond what is possible on mobile devices nowadays (except for high end laptops). What is more mobile device screens are just not good for profi work anyway.
tonywong To complement: Apple has no monopoly anywhere. On laptops/desktops - Windows dominates by far. On mobile - Android dominates by far.
However, Apple dominates on ripping off what can easily be seen how despite small market share Apple has been leading on profits and huge market leading profits is a clearest sign of the greatest rip off in a generation.
That's absolutely correct. The majority of photos uploaded to Flickr and Instagram are from iPhones. Apple doesn't have a majority of the market for smartphones but it dominates the mobile photography field in terms of user publishing. This article and video bypass that entirely.
As for the idea that mobile photography is not a field for professionals or DPR, that's nuts. Mobiles are an increasing part of the professional workflow and will only take up more of it over time. They'll never take over but their rule and influence is huge. Apple is the most influential brand here.
When Canon switched mounts to implement autofocus many users were dismayed. Now Canon offers compatibility between all its DSLRs and all its lenses while Nikon has many lens/body incompatibilities. Apple has irritated many by going to USB-C, leaving legacy external hardware requiring a dongle. Soon, as the rest of the industry adopts USB-C, Apple will look like the forward thinking corporations they are. Even the lack of an SD card slot avoids the problem of future incompatibilities with new SD card specifications.
The industry already adopted USB-C well before the new MacBook Pro came along. Apple is hardly the pioneer here. There is simply no salient reason to not keep a USB Type-A port (or two) around in addition to the USB-C ports, at least not for the time being. Forcing your customers to buy dongles or new peripherials for no good reason whatsoever is simply greedy, not "forward thinking".
The comparison to DSLR mounts could not be more unfitting.
Albert Einstein once said: "To disagree with Slouch Hooligan is to be a stupid ignoramus." Now that you know the risk I feel sure you will act accordingly. You're welcome!!
The only people that benefit from taking away ports and making them USB-C only is Apple. Now that people that to spend more $ on buying a dongle in order to use their current equipment puts even more $ into Apple's pockets. How does that benefit the consumer? Keeping at least one "old" USB port on the machine would have made it how much bigger? Would have added how much more weight to it?
I remember people mocking Apple for going exclusively USB with their original iMac. At the time Intel was just about to cancel USB as a tech as it wasn't gaining any ground in the PC world. Apple worked with Epson and HP for them to produce some USB-capable printers, scanners, etc. when the iMac was initially released. Intel has been on record that Apple single-handedly saved USB. I agree with the original OP on this.
Dester Wallaboo, well that's a nice anecdote and it has been repeated ad nauseam, but what exactly does this have to do with anything? Type-C USB hasn't been struggling for adoption. The mainboard that I bought for my PC in August 2015 already supports USB 3.1 and offers a Type-C port. So far I haven't used it for anything.
I never said that USB-C is struggling. But going full USB-C will accelerate the full adoption of the tech across the board. USB-C will replace all other USB connectivity in a shorter period of time. If manufacturers want to make Apple customers happy, they'll be cranking out full USB-C devices instead of holding on to older tech. It pushes a market.
And let's not pretend that USB is some single connector deal. I have four different types of USB cables based upon the USB device in which I'm attaching. The regular one you expect for printers, scanners, etc. Micro-USB, Flat micro-USB, and USB3 connection cables. So it's not like we aren't used to having to pick cables based on what we are connecting.
usb will continue to evolve ... but abandoning all previous types is just wrong
and dont kid yourself between the dongle debacle and the missing headphone jack in the 7 alot of folks who were unquestioning fans are saying wait a minute
I seriously question Apple's ability in the Notebook and Desktop sector to still affect market adoption of anything in any meaningful way. They have neglected their non-mobile product lines for so long that they simply have barely any market pull left. Their global marketshare is 5%. Outside of the fanboy/cultist bubble, Apple desktops and notebooks have become utterly irrelevant.
The situation with USB back in the day was different. The adoption of USB was mainly hindered by a lack of peripherials and Apple managed to solve the chicken-and-egg problem by adopting USB while making sure that importan peripherials appear alongside the new Mac product.
USB-C, on the other hand, has no chicken-and-egg problem, making this oft-repeated anecdote of Apple's USB heroism even more annoying than it already is.
The audio industry has been trying to ditch the headphone jack, as it has existed for decades, for a very long time. It's incredibly limited by today's standards. The inability to feed power, send an optional digital signal, drive multichannel audio, or to allow the headphones to talk back to the audio device has hindered the progress of audio listening for a long time. Ditching the headphone jack may or may not have been a good move. Only time will tell.
Of course they haven't. Look at any pro-grade audio equipment and what you won't see is USB-C or Lightning ports to connect headphones or speakers to it. Apparently, our resident Apple cultist thinks that Apple mobile devices are "the audio industry".
Hit Google.... and look up articles specifically on how they have wanted to change the headphone jack. I'm not your search engine. I listed off the reasons. Reasons I read in audiophile mags over the years.
Does the current headphone jack serve well for providing power for noise-cancelling headphones? Is it a great connection for multi-channel audio? How about allowing the headphones to talk back to the audio device to give it an audio profile via metadata so that the device can recognize and provide a correct EQ'd profile for the phones in question? How about the ability to send a raw digital signal to headphones, or another receiver with it's own DAC? I never said the audio industry was looking for lightning connectors or USB. I just said they have been looking to find a way to modernize the connector for today's tech abilities.
since you put such stock in audiophile magazines perhaps you've read as I have that iPhones audio prowess is pathetic and offers a poorer audio experience than many many other phones ... in fact apples dac and audio experience is consistently rated lowest of course, apple is pushing Bluetooth audio further compression an already poor audio signal
still googling around for the headphone jack hatred you claim
I never claimed the iPhone is an audiophile's dream. And I never called it 'headphone hatred'. Crikey, you guys are so overdramatic. The headphone jack needs to evolve. Let me ask you the questions again. Does the current headphone jack implementation support multichannel audio? Does it allow for power to be sent for headphones such as sound cancelling? Does it allow the headphones to talk to the audio device and identify themselves to the audio device? Does it allow the ability to send an digital signal over the connection for either the headphones to to have their own DAC or for another external audio DAC?
This is the natural evolution of headphone jacks. I'm not saying that Apple's implementation is doing these things, however, a lightning or USB connection COULD do these things. And I would love the whole industry to move this direction. Why be stuck in old tech?
ok dester point taken just a little bit of hyperbole... there are many paths to evolution that dont involve ditching the jack headphone can be connected via usbc with a convertible line a point on the line to swap and headphones can be provided with both options
i like the simplicity and the legacy nature of it .... apple has shown that ditching the audio plug adds absolutely zero to the quality of the audio experience ... want power ??devices can have juice their own amps dacs whatever ...without ditching the most widely used connector on earth
in fact so far the only things i see difference is a dependence of a bag full of dongles a and listening devices with lousy Bluetooth fidelity and a another blasted thing to keep charged
and the loss of functionality if you've got legacy listening devices [ which is almost everyone] and youve have no dongle and a incompatible device
One last note on USB-C.... from The Verge: How's the USB-C rollout going? “We think it’s going great,” says Jeff Ravencraft, president and COO of the USB Implementers Forum, who calls early Type-C devices like the Nokia N1 tablet, the latest MacBook, and the new Google Chromebook Pixel “above and beyond our wildest dreams” for the first products to hit the market. Manufacturers like Asus have got on board with USB-C this Computex, too, and it’s hard to walk the show floor without coming across hubs, adapters, and cables that support the new standard. “This is the fastest transition we’ve seen in 15 years or more,” says Ravencraft, “so knock on wood everything’s going extremely well and we’re really excited.”
my zte axon makes use of usb c so if i ever buy headphones using this im covered and for the 99 percent of wired headphone? I've got the sturdy legacy solutions that never let me down
I have been with PC from the beginning because I like the flexibility of having software and tools that predates the Windows era. PC is just more flexible and almost "programmed obsolescence" immune. The issue for a laptop and photography for me is the screen. Performance is nice, but if the screen doesn't display 100% sRGB at least with good black and realistic contrast, what's the point? I have owned and supported Dells in the past and the build quality and durability is always inferior, whatever the model. They seem to choose "B-C" grade components. My brand of choice is Lenovo, but they are expensive and heavy for the same level of performance and the screens are not the best. But, if you bought a fast model 8 years ago, there is a good chance it is still going strong. Their firmware support is excellent and they choose "A" grade hardware. How often do you get bios update with Dell. With Lenovo, they fix the issue.
At the moment, my choices for PCs in order of preference are as follow: - Lenovo P50 15" (Up to 3 hard disks and integrated screen calibration but heavy) - Dell XPS 13/15" (Amazing screen and 1tb ssd model) - Asus Zenbook 15" (Cheap for the specs) - HP Spectre 13/15" (HD screen model which is plenty for 13" but fewer ports)
Good luck with the BS that is Windows. I was a diehard Windows fan (used every version from version 3.1 to 8.1 except Vista), but seriously, Windows is a mess. I still use it at work, and I spent most of yesterday finding and updating Visual Studio 2015 (ended up downloading the 7.2G full ISO because they refuse to make the updater available anymore, but that's once you find it). The installer took 2+ hours to run. That was the tip of the frustration iceberg that was yesterday for me (ALL Windows and Microsoft related).
I was LITERALLY just typing "Visual Studio 2015 ISO" into Google and found a working link to the ISO within 10 seconds. Sorry it took you most of a day.
So let's all ask ourselves if Windows is the problem here or the person in front of the screen.
Why not talk to your IT department about keeping the software up to date? It is Microsoft's fault if the company that you work for is using outdated or not updated software? Why not ask your boss why they not keep their software up to date?
Downloading and updating software without company permission is a serious breach of company policy and a reason for dismissal, because of possible incompatibility with other company software!
I have Photoshop CC 2015 installed on my WIN 7 Pro 64 bit on my computer. I just had no problem installing Adobe's latest RAW program. However, CC 2017 simply wont download or load. I finally got it to download but it won't install. Good thing there is nothing really exciting about the latest version of CC except maybe for "face aware". Seems like it is more for designers.
I'd love to see the direct price comparison. I've spec'd out laptops and if equally configured, they're a lot closer than a grand. But the lack of ports is a very valid complaint. Apple really blew it on this one. Hopefully they'll correct the error when I need to upgrade my Macbook.
Considering how long it took them to update to the latest version, there will be another port that they will go with (that there is barely anything that uses it) and take away USB-C.
I just got a new PC and after working on a spreadsheet for over 10 hours (backing up every 10 Min) the program Excel corrupted the file. Microsoft Tech support took a look and I had to totally reload all. Never happened on my Mac. Let me say that most of the the problems come from Microsoft operating system and office 365, the only trouble I have on my Mac are Office 365. The equipment is not the problem.
Office is a horrendous set of applications for anything but the lightest use. Just recently I had Word crashing whenever I attempted to create a table of contents. It took several hours and deleting keys in REGEDIT to fix the bloody thing. I am a big proponent of just using specialized software for anything that isn't a quick letter, a mock-up or things you need in the office that everyone else can edit. LaTeX is fantastic for longer texts and R blows Excel out of the water for graph creation and work with large data sets.
I wrote a 220 page Master's degree thesis with Word 10 years ago, including TOC, footnotes, image captions etc. Never had an issue with it. Sure, it's not as powerful at layouting as LaTeX but then again, it's a text processor - LateX isn't. Specialized tools will always be better at specific tasks.
It absolutely -can- work. My thesis was submitted in LaTeX, but most of my fellow students submitted theirs as Word files. I am certain that most of them had no serious issues, but being somewhat tech savvy I had to help one with disappearing footnotes. It was the weirdest thing. They just would not show up in print, no matter what options you used. Worst of all, it was not immediately obvious that they didn't, so unless you very carefully checked every final draft after making even the smallest adjustments, there was a real danger of footnote 42 just being absent. Less than ideal when a considerable portion of your final grade depends on the quality of the said thesis.
I still use Word for writing letters. If something goes wrong, it's not too much work to fix it and it's less of a hassle than making a whole new LaTeX project.
I have Office 2016 on my work laptop. It is still either working absolutely fine or not working at all. I guess it makes sense that something as feature-packed as Word would eventually run into bugs of this nature due to the sheer complexity of the thing. It is really rather unfortunate when these bugs begin to occur in theses and dissertations though, where in contrast to LaTeX you don't have an easy way of getting the source text out of the document.
I think he's just counting it very generously. 100 pages of the main body is not unrealistic despite being a bit on the long end*. Then you add a mountain of back matter that does not go towards the page count and you are all set for a thesis that can be used as a murder instrument. If you do data analysis, just add all your data. If you do interviews, add all your transcripts.
* A friend of mine turned in a 160 page main body, the absolute madwoman. I doubt it helped her cause though.
Sure photoshop is available. They call it GIMP. Which is also free. They have a lot of funny names for things which are free too. The money I have saved from the gaping maw that is Adobe pays for a new camera body pretty much every 3-4 years.
It is not about revenue. Linux is just not the platform for which software commonly used by photo/video professionals gets designed and built. Nobody seriously builds for highly unpopular platforms. And Linux for laptops/desktops is highly unpopular. Windows dominates this laptop/desktop market by far. Mac OS follows it quite far behind. And Linux disappears into statistically irrelevant.
Servers and mobile devices are a completely different story.
If you seriously think that GIMP is a substitute for Adobe Lightroom + Adobe Photoshop then I do not see any point to continue discussion with you. They are just in a different league. Further to that DPR is resource for videographers as well and there things are even worse than with photography on Linux. And many mix photo and video and require software for both.
Linux is just out of the league here on software availability.
Just curious: What does photoshop have that Gimp lacks? They seem pretty close to me. Gimp has layers, filters, selection by color, and a gazillion other things.
I think this is a fair Gimp-photoshop comparison. She pans Gimp a little bit. Best guess: she doesn't know how to use it. (Layers harder to use than Photoshop? How so? ) Even so, she says it's almost indisginguishable. How is that "not close?"
>> What does photoshop have that Gimp lacks? Just google for it. There are many answers online with long lists. Messages here are too limited in size. Apart from direct things like extensive raw support there is a lot to do with how professional market supports Adobe platform with excellent additional tools.
Also... You picked only one piece of professional photo/video software leaving out the rest. When it comes to photo processing I do most in Lightroom. I only use Photoshop for cases where Lightroom cannot do it. Lightroom is way better suited for photographer's workflow with non-destructive editing. I do may be 95% of all processing in Lightroom and sometimes just have to use Photoshop. When you have to process thousands of images you would rarely do it in Photoshop.
And... external tools spend effort to integrate with Adobe products because they are popular. E.g. I use JpegMini in export and it is integrated into Lightroom and Photoshop. Saves time in workflow...
Why would I google it? I'm familiar with both products. Oh right, Gimp doesn't have CMYK color model, which messes up the experts on these forums for "printing." Except that Epson printers, which nearly everybody uses, demand a RGB color model which is converted to CMYK in printer.
I admit there may be edge cases where for a few people only photoshop will do, but I refuse to believe that's the case for 99.99% of users.
And gimp integrates with other programs as well. Linux is a real OS. I can open files in Gimp from Digikam, my photo manager. If it's a raw file it calls UFRAW first (my choice), then sends it to gimp. Or I can use rawtherapee, etc. or even batch process raw files on the command line using dcraw, thousands in the same directory at the same time, if I want.
And my computer is not bogged down from the 1 Gb of ram that photoshop requires, and my computer works in the first place, turns on and off when I want, without making me wait a half hour for "updates," etc.
@bobbarber Interesting how you pick on one thing continuing to ignore the bigger picture. I am glad you are happy and are different to the rest of us. Live there happily while almost everybody else is not with you in the professional market place (unless you are not a professional).
So now I see how your mind works--free of all logic and data! That makes it easy to come to any conclusion you want.
1) Reasons you've provided why Gimp is inferior to Photoshop = 0
2) Oh, but professionals use it. That's why Photoshop is better!
3) Yet those same professionals prefer Mac to Windows for editing photos.
In summary, when professionals agree with you, they're right. When they don't, they're wrong. Simple as that! Thanks for clearing everything up.
Let me apologize before this goes any further. I'm old school. My arguments are handicapped by having to stick to facts. That's what they taught me in school. Yet you live and breathe in a fact-free world. I deeply regret any inconvenience I may have caused to your unfounded and cherished assumptions. Best.
I have a speced out Dell XPS 15 with max ram ssd yada yada.
The blue screen of death saying widows did not load properly still appears and high level support at Dell still cannot fix it.
They are so far suggesting it's a wake up problem from sleeping.
They are also suggesting a wipe and reload of windows. If they cannot find another solution, I will abandon Dell forever and go Mac as I'll have to start again loading all my apps anyway. Right now I'm on a tour or New England and will return home after Labor Day so will touch base again with Dell when I return.
Semi rant over. FYI to all, been a Dell customer both in business and home use for well over 30 years so this is not my first rodeo.
Apple hardware also has it's problems... GPU issues in the 2011 MacBook Pro, just to mention one of the worst, or the strange popping noises generated by the current MBP. Or the screen coating issues a.k.a. "Staingate".
Frankly, there is little evidence that Apple notebooks have less problems than the top-shelf products from other manufacturers. They all have their kinks.
All you have to do is go to Apple.com and look in their support section for the pages and pages and pages...., of people having problem with their Macbooks, etc. And then their users claim that they work and never have problems. Just Windows does. I wonder how hard they have try to keep a straight face when they say that.
Dell has become so awefull... my inspiron (over 1000$) has the same annoying wake up problems (not shutting down, not staying off, draining battery utlra fast in sleep mode.....)
I realy like my PC, but my Dell Notebook is just crap (dell inspiron, 2 years old and around 1100€)... Its so unreliable, its incredible. The Wlan sucks (slow) and the LAN is broken (disconnects after 2 minutes). the Battery life sucks. The case needed repair already because the hinges where to tight (which lead to damage on the case). Sometimes it slows down for no reason. Its not shutting down correctly quite often (wakes up after some minutes without reason) which lead to some overheating in the bag. Windows is always forcing updates, which is EXTREMELY anoying if you meeet a client... All in all: spend over 1000 bugs and it just sucks. I am not sure if I will stick to PC notebooks (I will stick to my PC, but for mobile a macbook looks more and more promising, especially if I compare my ipad with my older android tablets... its just working and its well build.)
Strange how I have been using Windows 10 on my desktop since about the time it first came out and I have yet to have it "always forcing updates" on me. I seem to get maybe every few weeks. And the normal monthly one Why is that you are so "special" that you supposedly have them all the time? Even my Dell laptop that is about a year old barely has them.
Dude, why would I make this up? There is definitively more than one update per month. On my desktop PC they dont bother me that much - I use it every day and if it updates once a week while shutting down or restarting, its not that much of a problem. If I use my mobile device maybe 2 times per week its basicaly doing an update every 4th to 8th time I use it. When it wakes up out of deep sleep (because this fu*king bugged thing doesnt reliable shut down quite often) it just decides to install the update in this f*cking moment. Thats especialy funny if its the half-year big update that takes 45 minutes to install -.- Also VERYY annoying: if I shut it down, it installs updates -> so I cant close it and put it in my bag and to my car... I HAVE to leave it open (or else this piece of sh*t overheats) and leave it open on the passanger seat.
The forced updates are good for 99% of the users out there. And these are not the professional users. I want to decide when I want to update MY device.
pahnson 1) It is not the updates that a problem for you, eh? It is reboot to update? You can stop reboots via Windows Task Scheduler and do them at your own schedule. Though better do it soon after (but at time convenient for you) updates were downloaded and you were asked to restart. 2) If you shut down - it will install updates which is perfectly correct as far as I am concerned. But if you want to put laptop in your bag and get going then why do you shut down at all? Just hibernate. This will power it off completely but will keep all software open for when you next power up.
It sounds like you are just complaining about your own practices rather than anything else.
1) I even used a patch to disable Updates at all, but windows managed to "fix" this and installed unasked updates again
2) this crapy dell piece of sh*t wont hibernate correctly. It wakes up without any reason. Todays morning its battery was empty because it somehow didn't stay off. Today after work it turned it self on in my bag AFTER I SHUT IT DOWN COMPLETELY! I did put A LOT of work into solving this. I updated from Win8, updated the BIOS, reset and tried diffrent power settings, I reinstalled windows, I reinstalled all drivers. I kept track of this problem for weeks to narrow it down. It does not matter. I am NOT alone with this problem according to google and dell forums. So please don't tell me its my fault. Also it is NOT perfectly correct for MY pc to install an update if I shut it down. The correct way is to ASK if I want to install it now. Its totaly ridiculous that I have to justify myself for this. Its MY notebook and it just doesn't feel like the software knows this.
What patch do you need at all? Just use Windows tools. In this case Windows Task Scheduler. Not sure what you do wrong but it works fine for me - my laptop and desktop do not reboot without my consent and I keep doing it manually to install updates at my own pace rather than Windows doing it automatically.
I have two Dell laptops of different generations that I personally use. Both hibernate absolutely fine. My wife has another Dell - new Dell XPS 15 - no issues with hibernation. I set hers to hibernate both on lid closing and power button. Works like a charm every single time. So it must be something wrong on your side.
>> Also it is NOT perfectly correct for MY pc to install an update if I shut it down I see no problem with this TBH but then I practically never shut down - only hibernate. In fact it seems totally wrong to me to shut down at all if I just want to turn it off. That is what hibernation is for.
I'm OS neutral; to a large extent it's a question of software availability and usability. I use a desktop PC, and a 13" Macbook Pro for portability.
I built the PC myself, which I like doing and can't do that with a Mac. Not only does it mean that I have exactly what I want, but I find it extremely reliable. I suspect problems people have with PCs are due largely to stuff installed by the PC vendor, rather than Windows itself. Windows updating is generally fine and W10 very reliable.
The Macbook was bought because I wanted something compact and light, but with a top-notch screen, good keyboard, and a reasonable amount of power. The Macbook came out tops. Never regretted it. The OS irritates me at times, too easy to enlarge a window or do something similar when you don't want to, but it's livable with.
nerd2: I realy dont like mac (especialy the OS, but the reliability my ipad shows is making me quite interested in apple after many many years on windows)
But the Macbook pro IS compact and light. There are other notebooks wich are more compact and lighter - but nearly all of them have either less performance or less battery life. And bitching against the screen and keyboard on macbooks is just silly. Both are very very good. Again, probably not the best in every aspect, but still very good.
Got MacBook Pro 2014 which I find far better than any of the following versions... I'll probably switch when it dies if I still need that kind of beast.
Oh, yes, right. The fabled opportunities in upgrading laptops. Instead of buying a machine that already has as much memory as the controller would allow for, you buy the said by now obsolete memory two years down the line at a higher price than modern memory.
You really don't need to invent reasons if the actual reason is that you prefer software written for Windows over that written for the OSX. I do, at least for now.
Upgradability in notebooks has mostly been about: 1. Adding RAM yourself after the purchase rather than paying Apple's rip-off prices 2. Upgrading storage, i.e. HDD vs. SSD or a bigger SSD down the line.
Upgradability is more more of an issue with desktop computers, where you can gradually upgrade virtually every component if you need the additional power. In the Mac world, you have the dated "Trashcan" MacPro, which cannot be upgraded.
I am sorry, but I disagree. If you look at the prices of RAM in Apple products, specifically the exact RAM chips (chip count and generation), they are far from exorbitant. Laptop RAM also does not become significantly cheaper as you go along. Arguing that the advantage of non-Apple laptops (pic) is their upgradability sounds like some kind of satire produced by Apple.
As someone who works on a Windows desktop almost exclusively, I would also disagree with the importance of the whole "upgrade as you go" idea there. The specific generation of RAM you can use depends on your motherboard. The situation is similar with processors, where you have the ability to upgrade one generation up at most, depending on where you land in the tic-toc cycle. Anything else requires a MOBO replacement, at which point you may as well replace the whole box keeping only the cheapest components like drives, WLAN cards and so on. You are hardly better off than you would be by selling a Mac and buying a new one.
MacBook Pro 13". An additional 8GB of 2133MHz LPDDR3 memory adds $ 200, retail price for a SODIMM with the same specs is like $70. I'd call a 200% markup "exorbitant". Upgrading the 128MB SSD to 1TB adds $600. That's a 100% markup over the retail prices of NVMe M.2 formfactor SSDs (about $300 more than the 128MB version).
That makes a total of 430 dollar Apple overcharges you just for the added RAM and storage vs. the actual retail value. That's 100% pure added Apple profit marging that does not offer the customer ANYTHING in return. That's almost a 20% "moron tax" on the final MacBook Pro price.
With regard to the upgradeability of desktop PCs... I've done nothing but for more than 2 decades now. I don't think I ever "bought a new box". My PSU been doing it's job for 10 years now. I swap my video card ever 2-3 years for a new high-end model and eBay the old one and when I upgrade my CPU+MoBo+RAM every 5 years or so, I keep the rest of the system (case, PSU, storage, GPU). I can add and remove storage easily, which I do frequently (I recently went all SSD, they're now cheap enough so that I will even do write heavy tasks on them and simply swap them out in 2-3 years when the NANDs begin to deteriorate).
I couldn't do any of that with a Trashcan MacPro and it has saved me many thousands of Euros compared to Mac. Hell, got a 2013 "Trashcan" MacPro and want a new GPU? Just wait 5 years and be prepared to put down another 6.000 dollar for an entirely new computer. With a PC, you can spend 700 bucks on the latest GPU and ebay the old one.
I do not see where these presumed huge savings are coming from. Sure, you are keeping the old PSU and the case, but neither of those are very expensive. The most expensive parts, GPU being often half the price of the whole system or more depending on whether you are running multiple cards, you admit to be replacing quite regularly.
Furthermore, keeping the old PSU is not necessarily a good idea. I've put together a machine three years ago with a GTX 770. Last year, I've built another with a 1060. Despite the latter being much more powerful, it is also much more efficient, which allowed me to buy a considerably lighter PSU. As you probably know, PSUs are not superbly efficient at drawing just as much electricity as they need, which in the case of an upgrade would have left me with a nice, but expensive heater.
I don't think it's very fair to compare the price of components in the MBP with standalone alternatives on the market due to the differences in size of the end result.
My notebook is a top of the line business Dell ultrabook, which probably doesn't have upgradable RAM either. As compact as it is, it is significantly larger and heavier than the MBP of the same year. It is comparing apples and oranges (yes, I know, very funny). If anything, comparing Apples desktops would make more sense.
Buying a high-end GPU and eBaying the old one (and still get ~50% of what you paid for it) vs having to buy a new workstation? You don't see the advantage here?
And don't try to BS me about the PSU efficiency. The efficiency difference of modern PSUs in different load scenarios (20%, 50%, 100%) is usually around 2-3%, with most PSUs reaching peak efficiency around 50% load. We're talking being 89,x% efficient at 20%/100% and 91,x efficient at 50% and . That's barely worth mentioning. An expensive heater? Please. Buy a quality PSU with some headroom and it will last you many years and many component upgrades.
And it's entirely fair to compare the prices since we're talking about the same crap rolling off the same production lines. Sure, Apple has custom motherboards but then again, the retail parts have added costs for retail packaging and added margins for import, wholesale and retail. So if anything, comparing to retail prices probably underestimates the "moron tax".
No, I don't see any real advantages in you buying and selling GPUs every couple of years vis-a-vis Mac users who buy and sell workstations every couple of years. Nobody is trying to BS you either, buddy. You are counting pennies that you saved by not renewing the least expensive components of your machine, but burning electricity day in day out on an aged PSU? That's just absurd to even consider it!
You seem to be very defensive about not being a "moron". I am not entirely sure you are quite aware how tariffs work if you think that a foreign multicomponent product further down the assembly chain is less encumbered than any of its parts.
>> Instead of buying a machine that already has as much memory as the controller would allow for
Except that quite often such things are not available at the time but may become avilable later. For example, my last laptop had 16GB which was max available at the time as higher capacity RAM modules did not exist yet. Once they became available I simply replaced and got more RAM.
Same goes for other components. It now has 2TB m.2 SSD which was not available at the time and has second 4TB SATA SSD which also was not available at the time when I bought laptop.
And same goes for desktop. Mine now has 128GB of RAM which was not even possible when I first built it. Both RAM modules and BIOS support for 128GB appeared later. Same for other parts.
Again: this argument goes for all components. GPU, CPU, m.2 storage and so on.
Upgradeability is a huge saving over time of getting you cheaper to what was not even possible when you bought your system.
The OS from Apple saves time, so I find normal that is more expensive just for this one important reason. It´s much better and less problematic in the long term. And the weight and feel... toghether... nothing like that.
and the logo too, I don´t mind much, but it´s a very nice one!
I don't know about Leica and their hardware but Apple pretty much use the same hardware as any Windows PC. I would say that they are like Hasselblad and their rebranded Sony Nex cameras, Stellar and Lunar
If it uses the same parts as a Windows running machine, then why does it cost so much more? Shouldn't it be in the same ranges as laptop or desktop with the same specs? Not at least 2x or more as much?
Like The City Lane said below, I think this is a pointless "arguement". Even with any pros and cons considered I prefer the Mac. Simple. If your preference for any reason is a PC, that's fine.
I actually own a top specced MacBook Pro and an 'equally' specced (or is it?) Dell laptop.
Each to his or her own, but I won't bother to own a Windows machine again. On paper they might be equivalent, but in practice the Mac is a dream machine which just works, and works very fast, day-in, day-out. The Dell spends most of its time being... 'maintained' I think would be the most polite term for it.
Let's see what Manny thinks in a few months time when Dell never bother to resolve issues with the graphics card driver for that lovely graphics card, it's registry is full of crap, and it's got four antivirus/malware/godknowswhat bogging it down.
Maybe he'd feel differently if he had to buy and maintain MS Office instead of getting Pages, etc., for free, with seamless iCloud integration and robust real-time online collaboration. Oh and when he has to pay for the next Windows OS.
What is often missed is the cost of ownership AFTER purchase. IBM is saving $millions switching to Macs. Why? ... because Mac users call the help desk a fraction as often.
Have you stopped to think that you are getting Pages for "free" since you are overpaying with the hardware in the first place that allows Apple to "give away" the software?
Just like how Google has "free" software as well but you pay for it by having them sell advertising based on your searches, emails, etc.
You are not paying for it like you by an off the shelf software product. But you have paid for it with the higher prices for the hardware.
@3dit0r: What you describe shows that you did not used Windows since quite some times. You do not need any special antivirus since at least W7 as this is out of the box and makes its stuff transparently for the user. Also, if you use the Store, you have no entry in the registry and there is only a limited number of programs that you need to install which are not replicated in the Store. Also, it is so maintenance free these days that people complain about Windows restarting during the night without you needing to tell Windows.
You can prefer a Mac but stop those bull... description of modern Windows machine.
At last, trying to make like iWorks is remotely comparable to Office is the joke of the century honestly. Office is the Rolls of the office suite with virtually no competitor. If there was a reason to choose a Windows PC or tablet, it is to have Office (the real Win32 programs) instead of the antiquated versions that were available on Mac until recently.
A study on obsession issues... DPR you should have been paid for articles like these from, let' say, something like International Psychology Association...
Sony's flagship APS-C camera, the a6600, is a refinement of its predecessor and now includes industry-leading autofocus and battery life. But is that enough to earn it top marks? We think Sony could have pushed the boundaries a little further - find out how in our full review.
With the EOS M6 Mark II, Canon has taken its midrange mirrorless game up a notch. Offering the highest-res APS-C sensor on the market, 4K video, super-fast burst shooting and comfortable ergonomics, the M6 II is compact and a real pleasure to shoot with. Get all the details in our full review.
The PowerShot G7 X Mark III doesn't stray from the formula that made its predecessors well-liked, at least on the outside. Its feature set, however, has been greatly improved, with live YouTube streaming being the highlight.
The Fujifilm X-Pro3's new viewfinder, new screen and titanium construction all make for an appealing camera, but perhaps only for a certain type of photographer.
Weighing in at just 249g, the Mavic Mini fits in the palm of your hand. You give up a few features in exchange for that tiny size, but we still found it to be a solid performer.
Looking to get in on the instant camera fun? We tried every model and think the Fujifilm Instax Mini 70 strikes the right balance between price and feature - the Instax Wide 300 is our choice if you crave a larger format.
Long-zoom compacts fill the gap between pocketable cameras and interchangeable lens models with expensive lenses, offering a great combination of lens reach and portability. Read on to learn about our favorite enthusiast long zoom cameras.
Whether you're looking for a toddler-proof rugged camera or something for an older child learning about photography, we've identified several options that won't break the bank.
The holiday season is upon us. If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've selected a handful of models at every price point.
The new Tamron 35mm F2.8 Di III OSD M1:2 lens has an attractive price, but how does it stack up against Sony's own 35mm F2.8? According to Chris and Jordan, pretty darn well.
In this week's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan did a shootout between the new Tamron 35mm F2.8 lens for E-mount and Sony's own 35mm F2.8 ZA Carl Zeiss lens. Check out the galleries from both lenses and tell us what you think.
Three months after it confirmed Leica, Nikon and Olympus wouldn't be returning to Photokina, the event organizers have put out a press release confirming Canon, Panasonic and Sony will 'promise a fireworks display of new products at Photokina.'
A new photography podcast has kicked off with an episode that looks critically at the photo preset market, detailing the negative impact it has on photographers and the wider industry.
As promised earlier this year, Sigma will be releasing the L-mount versions of its 40mm F1.4 DG HSM and 105mm F1.4 DG HSM lenses by the end of the year.
Over months of using Sigma's 45mm F2.8 Contemporary lens, Reviews Editor Carey Rose rediscovers that there's so much more to a lens than speed and sharpness.
Looking to get in on the instant camera fun? We tried every model and think the Fujifilm Instax Mini 70 strikes the right balance between price and feature - the Instax Wide 300 is our choice if you crave a larger format.
The new Motorola One Hyper has a 64MP sensor in its main camera, and even the pop-up selfie camera produces 32MP pictures that can be display across the full area of the 6.5in screen.
The Thanksgiving break gave us a chance to take the Nikon Z50 on a tour of New Orleans. See how it did with both the kit zoom and the new Nikkor Z 24mm F1.8 S.
What better way to promote a phone than to shoot a commercial for it directly on the device. It's not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last, but as has often been the case, it's a fun watch from a blockbuster director.
The new Snapdragon 865 is more power-efficient than ever but continues to push the boundaries of mobile computing, especially in the imaging department.
Since launching in 2014, over 18 million aerial photographers and content creators have uploaded their work to SkyPixel. They are celebrating by giving away big prizes for their 5th anniversary.
Senior Editor Barney Britton's first choice for Gear of the Year is a camera that he has carried with him more than any other in 2019 (not including his phone) – the Ricoh GR III.
Chris and Jordan test the Canon EOS R with new v1.4 firmware to see how much it improves autofocus. TL;DR – if you use eye-AF, you'll want this update.
Google's latest update for Google Photos makes it possible to have conversations and share images with others directly from the service's mobile apps and Web.
Google has announced it's rolling out new features for its Google Photos mobile app that makes it possible to manually tag faces that aren't recognized (or mistakenly identified) by its AI system.
ZY Optics says the lens was specifically designed ‘to have one of the longest working distance for any super macro lens.’ It's available in eight mount options and retails for $499.
The fourth lens to debut in Panasonic's full-frame lineup is the 24-70mm F2.8. It's a popular and versatile focal range, and the company makes big claims of its image quality.
Facebook gets the Data Transfer Project moving by announcing the ongoing roll-out of an open-source tool that lets you move all your Facebook photos to Google Photos
Comments