| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Switching to Mac for speed gains?
Joshua Sy, Student/Intern
 |
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 11:44 AM on 08.13.08 |
->> I'm considering a switch to a Macbook Pro in September (waiting to see if the rumors of a new form factor are true) and wanted to know if OS X Leopard had any real speed and stability advantages over Vista for photographers.
Currently, I use XP on a 2-year old computer and I basically have to choose between running a Photo Mechanic ingest or Firefox if I want to do either at a reasonable clip. I know that a Macbook Pro would smoke my current computer for photo editing on specs alone, Vista or OS X, but Windows computers seem to be smaller and cheaper for the same specifications on paper - the Dell XPS M1330, for instance, is significantly smaller and several hundred dollars cheaper than the MBP but looks almost as powerful on paper. I also like the idea of having an Asus Eee-type computer for backing up photos (onto an external hard drive) and doing e-mail/web surfing out of while traveling; there isn't really an affordable Mac equivalent for this kind of computer, and I'm not sure how file management would work with two computers running different OS's.
However, I hear a lot of bad stuff about Vista, especially when it comes down to performance - apparently it's even slower than XP - and that OS X has some kind of inherent speed advantage for graphics/photo/video people. I guess I'd like to hear from you guys if this is true, especially in the wake of Lenovo's new 17-inch photo editing monster laptop, which happens to run Vista. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
|
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 12:16 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> Did you see Rob's posting of the new ThinkPad coming soon?
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9314-9557
*********
Apple is planning on a speedy new OS called Snow Leopard. Personally I am still scratching my head why I switched from Tiger to Leopard. Safari and Mail on Leopard have always been buggy for me.
Let's see what comes out this fall, after all the back to school sales.
This debate between Mac Intel and Microsoft Intel drives me about as nuts as Canon vs. Nikon. Why can't all telephoto lenses be just one color. HA!!!!!! |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 1:20 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> Yes, macs are awesome.
Wait... What was the question? |
|
Sam Carleton, Photographer
|
Mason | OH | USA | Posted: 1:24 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> I make my living as a software developer, not a photographer. I have spent my career on the Windows platform but always kept up, to a point, with Mac's. In the end I really think it is splitting hairs.
As far as Vista goes, it got a bad rep in the early days because a lot of folks tried to upgrade older systems to Vista and did *NOT* have the correct hardware, most the correct video card, to drive Vista. I upgraded my 3 year-old computers video card and it runs Vista just fine, well as fine as it runs XP (I need both for development of my event photography software, Photo Parata, http://www.photoparata.com). With the right hardware which is going to cost you about as much as a Mac, Vista should serve you well.
The one thing that had always bothered me about Windows laptops is knowing which one has a good display for photography, with the news of the new ThinkPad W700 (Walter provided a link above), there is finally what looks like a good solid Windows platform for us photographers. Considering the horse power it has with the mobile quad core processor, 8 gigs of ram, two hard drives, etc, I think this will easily out preform the existing Mac's. Of course, one should expect to see the mobile quad core processor in the Mac's any day now, I would guess.
Sam |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
David Meyer, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 2:56 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> I don't think it matters which platform you use. Go with what works best for you. Much of what you hear on both sides of the argument is regurgitated, trickle-down marketing hype. Kind of like Republicans vs. Democrats, Canon vs. Nikon, Coke vs. Pepsi, etc.
Down in the weeds, people will try to sway you with a myriad of niggling arguments (not sure why). Once you get above the fray, however, you realize that they're pretty much all the same.
CAVEAT: I do think OS X has a better base installation than XP or Vista. iLife outshines anything the default Windows install has to offer. Unfortunately, most of those applications are not going to stand up to day-to-day use by a professional. You'll likely end up installing Adobe CS3, Lightroom/Aperture, Final Cut Pro/Premiere, and Microsoft Office. If that's the case, then platform becomes irrelevant as those applications are very much alike on either platform (aside from the Mac-only Aperture and FCP, of course).
If you're on a budget, looking for a Windows-based laptop and trust Galbraith's advice, you may want to take a look at the Thinkpad T60. In the article Walter links to above, Galbraith -- who has written extensively on Mac portables -- says:
"The finest laptop screen for photography we've ever owned is the 1400 x 1050 pixel Flexview display in a ThinkPad T60."
I've owned both a Thinkpad and a Macbook Pro. The MBP was a fine machine, but the Thinkpad was a tank. Nearly indestructible. I purchased it used and have owned it for two years. It has held up remarkably well.
I think the display is the biggest factor when choosing a laptop. In my experience, most are not fit for proper color correction and toning. If it's going to be hooked up to an external display 95 percent of the time while at home, get a desktop and keep you current laptop for culling and tagging images on the road.
PS - I think the rumors about the new Apple notebook form-factor are specifically directed at the MacBook -- not the MacBook Pro. Something along the lines of a MBP-like aluminium chasis. Also, I think many Apple consumers will tell you to avoid first-generation Apple products. Give them some time to work out the kinks. |
|
Jim Metzendorf, Photographer
|
Columbus | OH | United States | Posted: 3:18 PM on 08.13.08 |
| ->> Regarding the new 17" Dell - I can feel the second degree burns on my crotch already. |
|
Todd Kirkland, Photographer
|
Dallas (Atlanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 3:36 PM on 08.13.08 |
| ->> Ok.. here's my take.. I have alot of friends who love their Macs. I have for years claimed they couldnt do a thing that I cant. I decided a month or so back to try one and see for myself so I bought a macbook pro. My personal opinion... I'm not a believer of the hype that has been thrown on me from forums like these. Dont get me wrong.. I like the Mac just fine and some things I really like. But most of those are trivial such as the backlit keyboard, etc. As far as speed.. Yes the new Mac is faster than the 2 1/2 year old Dell it replaced.. But shouldnt it be? I think it boils down to this.. If your proficient with a PC (I like to think I am) then I dont see a much of a difference except price. If you dont know right from wrong on a PC.. Maybe the Mac is a good thing. Although I do really like the Mac.. I second guess spending all the extra money on it. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> There is one thing a Mac can do that a PC cannot- run Windows via Boot Camp and run Mac OS X. I prefer to use Parallels Virtual Machine on top of OSX (Windows in a Window). The Mac is known to be mostly virus free which can be a big plus. Windows has more software and obviously it runs 90% of the world's computers. Now that Macs run on Intel, it is easier to compare hardware. The biggest difference is the Mac OS. It only runs on Macs (legally). Visit an Apple Store to get a feel for what the Mac is all about.
Should you buy a Mac and prefer to run Windows, you can do that! You can boot into Windows. Of course you need to install a copy of Windows to do that but an OEM version will cost as little as $100. |
|
Sam Carleton, Photographer
|
Mason | OH | USA | Posted: 8:20 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> Languna,
As far as running both OSX and Windows, there is the osx86project (http://www.osx86project.org) which is a group of folks working on getting OSX running on any Intel machine. It looks like the site is down right now, don't know if Apple had something to do with it or if there really is a technical issue. It is also my understanding that it is non trivial to do, but it is possible;)
Sam |
|
Bryan Hulse, Photographer
|
Highlands Ranch | Co | USA | Posted: 11:16 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> Having switched from an XP desktop and multiple XP laptops to a MBP about 5 months ago, and having been a long time Windows user, I thought I would throw in my 2 cents.
Yes, I still use Windows occasionally on my old desktop and laptops.
Yes, the XP machine can pretty much do everything the Mac can do.
Yes, I do like a few things better on Windows. OK, maybe just Windows Explorer.
However, the days of fighting with anti-virus software are over.
Hip Hip Horray!
The days of inconsistent performance (probably due to anti-virus software) are over.
The days of my XP machine just plain checking out for a while are OVER!
Many say they never have to re-boot the Mac. Mine seems to need a re-boot every 3 weeks or so. Something goes nuts, and I reboot. Or often it's due to a Mac software push that I install. However, my Xp machines need it every few days.
I've also had several XP laptops over the years. Yes, they can hibernate. But I was always fighting with internet connections and various software issues when waking up from hibernation that often lead to a reboot. With the Mac, you open it, do what you need to do, then close it. That's it!
So, try the Mac, and tell me if after a few weeks, you don't agree that your time spent fussing over the damn machine has been significantly reduced. |
|
Daniel Putz, Photographer
|
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 11:17 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> Todd nailed it. I was just about to say exactly what he said, heh. It's all about comfort level...some people like the sleekness of Macs, some like the flexibility of PCs...and then there are people like me, who love them both for what they are and what they do. :)
And about the virus discrepancy, use Firefox with AdBlock Plus AND AND AND!!! NoScript. You'll never get another virus or malicious script again...ever...for all time. |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
|
Washington | D.C. | USA | Posted: 11:44 PM on 08.13.08 |
->> If you're planning on working at a newspaper then you'll be doing plenty of visual journalism. I'd suggest you go Apple because most newsrooms you go to will run Final Cut Pro.
Most people in this industry are on apple. For better or worse. FCP is what switched me to mac and I've never looked back. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:11 AM on 08.14.08 |
->> If you are a self-supporting computer user and don't mind spending a little time tweaking out a windows laptop before you use it, you will get more for your money with a Windows machine, and you have access to a lot of software (if you need such a thing). Once I do the initial tweakout on my machines, rarely do I have to do anything other than run the occasional update to download patches and the like. It just works. Even with sleeps and hibernates.
But if you use a laptop like a can opener and just want the thing to work, and you don't mind spending 20 to 30 percent more to get that simplicity, go with an Apple. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|