pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Which PC or MAC would you buy "now"?  (Read 32310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 11, 2014, 20:36 »
+1
I am mainly thinking in terms of photo editing, I am not looking at laptops (tired of mine!) or the usual tower desktop pc/mac with monitor, at the moment I believe the all in one pc/mac would suit me better, I understand the usual pc/mac tower is way more powerful with higher expandable cpu or ram or hd etc and cheaper but I am looking for something more "minimalist/practical"

any thoughts are welcome/appreciated, cheers guys :)


mlwinphoto

« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2014, 21:53 »
+2
Well, I've been using an iMac for last few years and wouldn't hesitate to buy another one when the need arises.

« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2014, 22:49 »
+2
I agree - iMac is terrific for image editing. Powerful, fast and great screen. Mine has dual hard drives. SSD (Solid state drive) with all my programs on it and a regular 1TB drive for my photos. Highly recommend it.

« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2014, 23:19 »
+2
Luis,

I just bought a big iMac with 16gig ram. I love it. I am making the transition from PC to Mac. I think my iMac was about $2700 us with the memory.

marthamarks

« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2014, 00:58 »
+4
Count me in as another iMac fan. It's a sweet set-up with a small footprint and a fabulous monitor.

I bought my first Apple II for home use in 1982. Yikes!!! Upgraded to an early Mac around 1985-86. The Mac was already amazing then, considering what else was out there. I've owned a beige cube. A gumdrop-colored, balloon-shaped gizmo. Several variations of the towers. And now my favorite of all, an iMac.

I used PCs at work for years and hated every clunky minute of it. One of the joys of retirement was to never have to work on one of them again.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2014, 01:31 »
+1
You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasnt even around until 83. My first Mac was the 512K in 1984. I think the Mac II came out in '86 or '87. The company got a few 512K boxes in 83 (they came with a case so you could take them home but they were heavy) and asked me to figure them out so I could teach others. It had MacPaint and MacWrite for software, that's it. By 1987 I was learning QuarkXPress but Photoshop wasnt around until 89. It was called something else though. I use an iMac now and love it, the monitor is much improved from that old glossy screen. It is very compact but really sturdy.

« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2014, 01:44 »
+12
Just in case you are not leaning toward the Mac side, most any current PC would work.  Buying a particular brand is far less important than knowing what is under the hood.  I know everyone loves their macs but if I can't open it up and take it apart I'm not interested.  But that's just me, if you don't care then either works just fine.

Fast cpu, either i5 or i7 with lots of RAM, minimum of 8GB.  I use 16GB.  Fast hard disk for the boot drive or preferably an SSD at least 256GB if you can afford it.  SSD prices are dropping fast and nothing else you can add will make as much difference in the computer's speed.  You really have to see it to believe it.  Add a big (2tb at least) drive for file storage and a couple of external drives for backup / off site storage.

Graphics card will depend on whether you use Lightroom or Photoshop, LR does not currently use the GPU so most anything will work.  PS does, so check to make sure your card supports it, or the other way round.

Make sure you get a card reader that supports the card you camera uses.  USB 3.0 ports should be standard now but you should check to make sure.

And the item generally considered last but arguably the most important: the monitor.  I just got a Dell U2713 and am stunned at the improvement over my previous one.  You should not consider anything but an IPS screen, older and cheaper TN based screens just don't cut it for image processing.  If you are using a wide gamut workflow, then of course your monitor needs to support that.  But if you are using wide gamut then you probably already know all this.

stocked

« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2014, 03:37 »
+1
MSI GT60 3k
It's a laptop but a powerful one and the reason I will switch from my very powerful very huge desktop-pc to this laptop and an external raid-system as soon it is available in my country. You can power up four displays in matrix-mode with this laptop and itself has an high-resolution display.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2014, 04:35 »
+1
If you already have a keyboard, a mouse and a good monitor, a Mac Mini with a lot of RAM is a very good option.
You told that you are not attracted by a new laptop, but I would consider a MacBook Pro 13 with the maximum of RAM.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro?product=MD101LL/A&step=config

Mobility is always a good option for a photographer.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 04:41 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2014, 06:30 »
0
oh thanks for all contributions guys, nice to hear what other photographers/illustrators are using, much appreciated!

I am quite divided between the iMac 21.5 and the Dell Inspirion 2350 or even the biggest/powerful 27'' XPS One, I don't really need an optical drive and the 27'' isn't a must as well (same goes for touch display), I don't mind about the operating system too, I am used to Mac because many family members has them

regarding prices is something like buying the fastest PC or the slowest iMac

I agree that having a SSD is essential

« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2014, 09:22 »
+2
My Christmas present to myself was a image processing beast.  Tired of hearing my older computer complain about heavy use of the the CPU by OnOne Perfect Effects 8 and Photoshop.

After comparing Dell and the HP I went for HP.  SSD drives to run operating system and apps.  Photos stored on external drives.  I also got a Asus factory calibrated 24 IPS monitor.


HP ENVY 810qe


Windows 8.1 64
4th Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 processor quad-core [3.4GHz, 8MB Shared Cache]
4GB Nvidia GeForce GT640 [DX11,DVI,DP,HDMI & VGA via adapter]
8GB DDR3-1600MHz [1 DIMM ]

SLOTS OPEN FOR ADDING MORE RAM

128GB Solid state drive
No Secondary HDD

I GOT A 250 GB SSD CHEAPER OFF OF AMAZON THEN HP WOULD HAVE CHARGED. 


Microsoft Office Trial
Security software trial
Blu-ray Reader & SuperMulti DVD burner
15-in-1 Multi-slot Media Card Reader, 4 USB Ports (Front/Top), Audio [Front 2USB2.0, Top 2USB3.0]
No TV Tuner Card
Integrated Sound, Envy Audio; Beats Audio
HP USB Keyboard and USB Optical Mouse
HP WLAN 802.11 b/g/n Bluetooth(R)(1x1)
HP Home & Home Office Store in-box envelope

« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2014, 09:24 »
0
Note the computer equipment sans monitor was about $1200.  Same with Apple probably be $5000 (ok maybe I exaggerate)

« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2014, 09:49 »
+3
I've been using iMacs and MacBook Pros for quite some time now and would continue to do so. I do image and footage processing with my Mac.
If I were looking to upgrade my system it would be an iMac with the 3TB Fusion Drive and with the 27" screen, because of the user accessible memory slots.
I use 4TB and 2TB network drives for backups. Also a laptop for memory card backup and cloud backup when traveling.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2014, 10:56 »
+3
I'm a PC user that just picked up a Macbook Pro. Regardless of what you get I'd agree with some of the other comments that specs are probably most important. Especially an SSD over a regular hard drive seems to have a big impact on performance. Or a hybrid version that combines SSD/HDD. Then after that a bunch of RAM. I have my Macbook connected to a 24inch Dell and it works great. I haven't used any of the all-in-ones so not much to add there.

Mac vs Windows is personal preference. I went to Mac because of my experience with my Iphone which has been flawless for the past year. So far OSX Mavericks has also been pretty painless. I grew tired of wasting time on tech problems.

« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2014, 11:03 »
+1

This is what I use, and I love it.


« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2014, 12:01 »
+8
I had to add another vote to the PC/cost-effective camp. I agree that specs are MUCH more important than brand and if you're looking at specs only, PCs are so much less expensive than Macs. My build which cost ~$1,000USD is below:

AMD FX 8150 8-core processor @ 3.6GHz
Biostar TA970 motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630 w/ 4GB DDR3
32GB RAM
2x OCZ 240GB SSD
2x 2TB 7200RPM HDD
850watt modular power supply
Generic case w/ 6 fans
Window 7

I built this system to be able to handle Canon HDSLR video editing and it's been superb. I tried to price out a Mac with similar specs and the price that I came up with was about $3000 with only 16GB of RAM.

That extra $2000 could buy a nice lens! The other benefit is that I can easily upgrade my system when I need to. The motherboard supports up to 64GB of RAM, so I plan to increase that in the near future.

« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2014, 23:23 »
+3
You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasnt even around until 83. My first Mac was the 512K in 1984. I think the Mac II came out in '86 or '87. The company got a few 512K boxes in 83 (they came with a case so you could take them home but they were heavy) and asked me to figure them out so I could teach others. It had MacPaint and MacWrite for software, that's it. By 1987 I was learning QuarkXPress but Photoshop wasnt around until 89. It was called something else though. I use an iMac now and love it, the monitor is much improved from that old glossy screen. It is very compact but really sturdy.


The Apple II came out in 1977. It's not unlikely that Martha would purchase one in 1982 because Apple continued to sell them and introduce new Apple II models up until 1988, well after the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984. I used a Lisa at work for awhile in 1983-4 and also owned a home PC, an XT clone which ran MSDOS 2, I purchased in November 1983 to replace an older Commodore 64.

Apple History: http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/01/the-evolution-of-apple-design-between-1977-2008/
IBM PC History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer

cuppacoffee

« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2014, 23:41 »
+1
The evolution of the Mac is interesting and not many early ones were sold http://oldcomputers.net/lisa.html You've brought back memories with the mention of the Commodore 64 http://oldcomputers.net/c64.html. I learned BASIC on one of those, or it might have been a TRS-80 http://oldcomputers.net/trs80i.html. Time flies!

« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2014, 00:15 »
+1
I also had a RadioShack TRS80 color computer. I remember being SO excited when I soldered in my gigantic new 128KB chip and also when I was able to store programs on cassette!

Basic was great!

« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2014, 02:34 »
+2
16GB Mac Mini is a neat, small footprint and almost silent solution which runs at only 85W consumption max. Great for photo editing, inexpensive to run and will retain its resale value even after a few years (none Apple computer hardware has very little resale value).

People doing big video editing jobs might want something more powerful - though I believe that a Mac Mini with an external thunderbolt drive would be plenty fast enough for most stock clip length video. Seems to me that Macs are, for many people, a better platform for video since Final Cut Pro does not run under Windows - therefore running Windows would restrict choice and increase costs (Final Cut Pro cost only $300. Premiere is significantly more expensive and now requires a cloud subscription).

« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2014, 03:29 »
+3
I had to add another vote to the PC/cost-effective camp. I agree that specs are MUCH more important than brand and if you're looking at specs only, PCs are so much less expensive than Macs. My build which cost ~$1,000USD is below:

AMD FX 8150 8-core processor @ 3.6GHz
Biostar TA970 motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630 w/ 4GB DDR3
32GB RAM
2x OCZ 240GB SSD
2x 2TB 7200RPM HDD
850watt modular power supply
Generic case w/ 6 fans
Window 7

I built this system to be able to handle Canon HDSLR video editing and it's been superb. I tried to price out a Mac with similar specs and the price that I came up with was about $3000 with only 16GB of RAM.

That extra $2000 could buy a nice lens! The other benefit is that I can easily upgrade my system when I need to. The motherboard supports up to 64GB of RAM, so I plan to increase that in the near future.

A beast... and macfans still don't get why savvier folks just laugh at them. I'v recently got an i7 with 32 gigs of ram, have been running win7 for about 6 months almost non-stop, zero problems. One thing many neglect: I also bought a pro gaming mouse + appropriate high grade mousepad = retouching twice as fast, regardless of the computer. (I also hit people mid air with rockets :))

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2014, 06:05 »
+4
the eternal Mac vs PC diatribe is going on since 30 yrs and will go on forever and ever.

BUT, until 15 yrs ago the Mac was king in DTP while nowadays there's little difference between the photo apps running on both systems.

and if we talk about CAD/CAM applications the PC has been king since day one apart for Archicad and some other exceptions to the rule.

what really makes the difference today is a good calibrated IPS minitor in my opinion.
by the way, the Mac fan boys should be reminded that they should recalibrate every 6 months at least with a hardware solution, no matter what the apple's marketing BS says.

as for OSX, well it's nothing more than a glorified revamped NextStep UNIX GUI recompiled for X86/64, with removed Finder and the * "dock" added.

and the file manager bundled with OSX can't even sort directories on top of files ... that's unacceptable for Pro users.

i'm using PC and Macs since the early 80's, if mac users are still ok using just one mouse button i'm afraid they're going to be confused with two buttons .. the mac user base is quite colorful to say the least, they could be put on par with those using Sony NEX and expecting to shoot in Auto mode forever in any situation as they've been told that Sony does it better ... they're indeed a sort of "cult" and go tell them otherwise.

now, talking about laptops, have you tried the Lenovo Ultrabook U series ?

as for monitors, Apple displays are mid-range in the best scenario, try some better stuff like 2-3000$ Eizo, Sony, Panasonic, etc

the bad reputation still affecting WIndows is that it's born and still is a general purpose OS, it's like a 18-200mm lens, jack of all trades and master of none.

moreover, users don't even want to hear about reading a manual and have unrealistic expectations from a PC.

thanks god now they're migrating in droves to smartphones and android in particular so the PC arena will go back being a tool for Pros rather than people buying a laptop to surf facebook and twiitter.

« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2014, 06:45 »
+1
PC vs Mac is a no sense battle but did someone say his imac screen is wonderful?
How can a reflective screen be good for pro photo use?

imacs and macbooks (even retina) screen is rubbish. And the Cinema Display (the old non glare version) is a joke compared with a Nec or Quato (I own the three)

« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2014, 06:55 »
+1
"imacs and macbooks (even retina) screen is rubbish. And the Cinema Display (the old non glare version) is a joke compared with a Nec or Quato (I own the three)"

Of course you do.


Anyway, another vote for iMacs here. I use it for illustration mainly, but photo processing too, I must admit when I swapped from the Apple Cinema Display I was concerned about the glossy screen but have come to love it. Very stable reliable platform, wouldn't use anything else personally.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2014, 07:01 »
0
"I agree that specs are MUCH more important than brand and if you're looking at specs only, PCs are so much less expensive than Macs."

This is an old and boring argument, ably refuted in this article, comparing a very highly specce'd new Power Mac and the attempt to build a PC equivalent in power ( to save you reading the whole article, the PC was more expensive)

http://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
9659 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
4 Replies
8947 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
8697 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
25 Replies
49830 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
8 Replies
5334 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 23:16
by stockphoto-images.com

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors