Mac or PC?

mrlarter

I am opening a photography studio in the next month that is to be rented out to local photographers. Right now I am getting to the nitty gritty of the financials and such and need to make some big choices.

So I need to decide mostly do I go PC or do I go Mac? Macs are of course a lot more expensive then a PC but is a Mac better for photo editing?

Personally I use a pc and it works fine but I need to keep a more general audience in mind here.

DavidTO

mrlarter wrote:

Macs are of course a lot more expensive then a PC but is a Mac better for photo editing?

This is not true for the feature set you're looking for. Compare a MacPro to any comparable PC and you'll find the pricing very competitive.

I'm biased towards Macs, but as far as PS goes, there's not much difference. The big difference will be for you. Your long-term costs will be much lower with Mac as your maintenance and protection costs with the Macs will be less. And your man-hours will be MUCH less.

kres

mrlarter wrote:

I am opening a photography studio in the next month that is to be rented out to local photographers. Right now I am getting to the nitty gritty of the financials and such and need to make some big choices.

So I need to decide mostly do I go PC or do I go Mac? Macs are of course a lot more expensive then a PC but is a Mac better for photo editing?

Personally I use a pc and it works fine but I need to keep a more general audience in mind here.

If you get an Intel Mac, you have the OPTION of running both windows and Mac OSX at the same time. That will give you maximum flexibility. I find Mac displays and graphics to be crisper then PC's. I personally run both.

FWIW: End users can muck up a windows box alot faster then a Mac in most cases, at least in my experience.

DoctorIt

I think this thread should be titled: them's fightin' words!

kini62

Rented out to other "photographers"
Yikes! Perhaps you should to the God of good luck.

As Mr. Ito said it would be harder for them to muck or infest it with all sorts of nefarious software and virii.

Of course you can run Windows on it as well, but it will collect all that "good" stuff just as if it were a Windows only PC.

Right now similarly equipped the Macs are actually a little less. Rumor is early next year Apple will be putting in Intel's server grade quad core chips.

Anandtech already installed test samples of this chip and they worked flawlessly.

Only drawback right now is that PhotoShop runs in emulation on the Mac Pros and it appears that it may be until the 2nd quarter of 07 before Adobe has a native version.

So performance in PS takes a big hit even with the ultra fast Mac Pros.

Gene

Richard

mrlarter wrote:

I am opening a photography studio in the next month that is to be rented out to local photographers. Right now I am getting to the nitty gritty of the financials and such and need to make some big choices.

So I need to decide mostly do I go PC or do I go Mac? Macs are of course a lot more expensive then a PC but is a Mac better for photo editing?

Personally I use a pc and it works fine but I need to keep a more general audience in mind here.

I'm not exactly clear on what the purpose of this machine is. If I were to rent a studio it would be to take advantage of professional lighting equipment, not to edit photos, which I can easily do at home. If you are going to offer professional editing services, then whichever platform you are comfortable with is the best. While there may be some minor performance issues, Photoshop is Photoshop whether it is on Windows or a Mac. If you are hoping to rent machine time to customers, then you need to make sure you have all the popular packages available. You should also invest in very large, very high quality monitors and calibrate them, so that you offer an environment that is superior to the typical home environment.

On the other hand, if you are looking to use the machine for running software related to the business of running a photo studio, then you need to look closely at the availability of accounting, scheduling, billing, tax and marketing programs to support your business. Just as in the Canon vs Nikon decision, you are choosing an ecosystem. If you are not technically inclined, the availability of technical support for both hardware and software in your area should also be considered.

Just a few thoughts.

ChrisJ

I think John Hodgman is funnier.

SloYerRoll

rsinmadrid wrote:

If I were to rent a studio it would be to take advantage of professional lighting equipment, not to edit photos, which I can easily do at home.

DavidTO wrote:

The big difference will be for you. Your long-term costs will be much lower with Mac as your maintenance and protection costs with the Macs will be less. And your man-hours will be MUCH less.

They have done case studies to prove Davids point. Most of there studies are done in a "desktop" environment, where the user has the Mac dialed in to exactly how they want it to accomidate their workflow. Using a Mac setup w/ default settings and different individual users changing out on a wekly basis to use it for post.... I don't think your time saved will pan out in this situation.

Either side you chooose (Mac partial here). There are going to be users that are used to the other and make a comment about "On my Mac" or "If you had a PC".

Remember Firewalls and Proxies are your friends. Unless you do this kind of stuff as a hobby. Factor in some IT pro's time to get you set up the right way. You'll save yourself a lot of potential grief if you add this initial cost in....

marlinspike

DavidTO wrote:

The big difference will be for you. Your long-term costs will be much lower with Mac as your maintenance and protection costs with the Macs will be less. And your man-hours will be MUCH less.

Ever had to replace the motherboard on a mac? The last time I saw this the entire module was needed at something like $600. PC's there are SO many aftermarket companies making SO many parts.

That said, I would probably go 50-50...just don't put Vista on the PC's - memory hog OS's are no friend to a photographer.

bwg

marlinspike wrote:

...just don't put Vista on the PC's - memory hog OS's are no friend to a photographer.

should I assume that you've done the research and have the data to back that up?

CatOne

marlinspike wrote:

Ever had to replace the motherboard on a mac? The last time I saw this the entire module was needed at something like $600. PC's there are SO many aftermarket companies making SO many parts.

That said, I would probably go 50-50...just don't put Vista on the PC's - memory hog OS's are no friend to a photographer.

Get AppleCare on the Mac and you get a 3-year warranty. So replacement would be at no cost in that window. After that, yeah, it'll be expensive.

That said, you try getting a motherboard for a ~3.5 year old "homebrew" PC. Unlikely to happen. So you need to get a new motherboard, new CPU, and new RAM (oh, and likely new vid card as most new mobos use PCI-Express). So you're out $1K. And of course, you get to reinstall Windows because your drivers have all changed -- that's about 2 days to do the install and re-install of all applications (and 3 or 4 product activations... with phone calls most likely).

If it's a Dell or something the process would be easier but they use motherboards that are as "proprietary" as Apple's... so you're out a similar hunk of bucks.

marlinspike

bigwebguy wrote:

should I assume that you've done the research and have the data to back that up?

Well..I should note...last I checked was a while ago. I think it was a G4 that this had happened to.

marlinspike

OK, I looked into it. It was a G5 dual cpu unit, so whatever mobo that is. It cost $1200. You'd be really hard pressed to spend that much on a intel cpu, a mobo, and a graphics card, even if you bought the best stuff on the market. Plus, you can just buy old system mobos and not have to upgrade the rest.

jaydoug

I have an intel macbook pro duo with 2gigs of ram..

I just recently installed vista on my old notebook.. (p4 3.4ghz 2gig from hypersonic pc).. I freaking love it... everything is very responsive.. it's crazy

bwg

marlinspike wrote:

Well..I should note...last I checked was a while ago. I think it was a G4 that this had happened to.

reading is hard. i replied to your statement about Vista being a memory hog OS.

marlinspike

bigwebguy wrote:

reading is hard. i replied to your statement about Vista being a memory hog OS.

Oh...hmm...well...
reading is hard

Um...not research, just playing around with the computer of a friend who had the beta. It seemed that he had a lot more of his ram got sucked away to the OS when running Vista than XP. Also, being a laptop, it was hot in short order...though maybe because all the effects were on? (aero for instance, battery lasted for crap too).

bwg

marlinspike wrote:

Oh...hmm...well...
reading is hard

Um...not research, just playing around with the computer of a friend who had the beta. It seemed that he had a lot more of his ram got sucked away to the OS when running Vista than XP. Also, being a laptop, it was hot in short order...though maybe because all the effects were on? (aero for instance, battery lasted for crap too).

You don't think it's a bit premature to pen Vista as a memory hog based on a beta?

marlinspike

bigwebguy wrote:

You don't think it's a bit premature to pen Vista as a memory hog based on a beta?

Not judging by all the stuff it does. I mean, this darn thing lists 1gb ram and 128mb vid ram as a requirement for vista premium ready. What kind of OS requirements are those? If I could, I'd run Windows 95.

bwg

marlinspike wrote:

Not judging by all the stuff it does.

what?

marlinspike wrote:

I mean, this darn thing lists 1gb ram and 128mb vid ram as a requirement for vista premium ready. What kind of OS requirements are those?

You just said it does a lot of stuff, shouldn't the requirements be greater?

marlinspike wrote:

If I could, I'd run Windows 95.

I'd run OS X, but to each his own.

marlinspike

bigwebguy wrote:

what?You just said it does a lot of stuff, shouldn't the requirements be greater?I'd run OS X, but to each his own.

Not legitimate worthwhile stuff, just stuff that makes Windows look cool. Note than WinXP only requires 128mb of ram (long way off from 1gb) and makes no demands on your video card specs.

We're going OT though. To the OP, I think my small sample of photographers may be informational. Of the guys who shoot as my schools basketball games, it's typically 100% PC, though every now and then you'll see a Mac or two. That said, a lot of non-sports photographers seem to prefer mac, which is why I was recommending 50-50.

DavidTO

I would buy macs, install XP on them, and then charge anyone who wanted to use Windows a premium for the virus/malware and system maintenance that I'd have to do.

devbobo

DavidTO wrote:

I would buy macs, install XP on them, and then charge anyone who wanted to use Windows a premium for the virus/malware and system maintenance that I'd have to do.

back in your box...zealot boy

DavidTO

devbobo wrote:

back in your box...zealot boy

I'm just suggesting he charge for services rendered, and in the case of OSX, pass on the savings to the customer.

devbobo

DavidTO wrote:

I'm just suggesting he charge for services rendered, and in the case of OSX, pass on the savings to the customer.

fyi, your virus stance is going to come back to bite you in the arse one day.

hmm macs don't need system maintenance ?

come now, that's a bit OTT

DavidTO

devbobo wrote:

hmm mac don't need system maintenance ?

come now, that's a bit OTT

Not much. Less than XP.

W.W. Webster

marlinspike wrote:

Ever had to replace the motherboard on a mac?

No, not in the 20 years I've been using them! I've been completely spared the disruption and downtime involved, but of course I've paid an incredible price premium.

bwg

marlinspike wrote:

Not legitimate worthwhile stuff, just stuff that makes Windows look cool.

so in that same vein, OS X must be a memory hog too?

marlinspike wrote:

Note than WinXP only requires 128mb of ram (long way off from 1gb) and makes no demands on your video card specs.

1) nobody in their right mind would run XP with 128MB of RAM. You can actually have a pleasureable experience running Vista on 1GB of RAM. 2) The reason there is a video card requirement is because the non-legitimate cool looking windows stuff is offloaded on the gpu. Just like OS X, which we've already determined to be another memory hog OS.

devbobo

DavidTO wrote:

Not much. Less than XP.

it's all relative. Guess it comes down to how much that skivvy is choking you.

DavidTO

devbobo wrote:

fyi, your virus stance is going to come back to bite you in the arse one day.

My virus stance at the moment is that on OSX you're better off maintaining a healthy backup than running virus software against a non-threat. The software is more dangerous than not running it. And if you have a good backup, then that is all you need right now on OSX. I've never said that it will forever be that way. But no sense getting a smallpox vaccination when the bug is not in the wild. If it did make sense, we'd all be getting smallpox vaccinations. But we don't. Not that smallpox isn't dangerous, but our risk of exposure is exceedingly small, smaller than the risk associated with the vaccine.

bwg

DavidTO wrote:

Not much. Less than XP.

eh, my xp box gets auto defragmented once a month. Macaroni does all my Mac maintenance.

either way, no maintenance for me.

devbobo

DavidTO wrote:

My virus stance at the moment is that on OSX you're better off maintaining a healthy backup than running virus software against a non-threat. The software is more dangerous than not running it. And if you have a good backup, then that is all you need right now on OSX. I've never said that it will forever be that way. But no sense getting a smallpox vaccination when the bug is not in the wild. If it did make sense, we'd all be getting smallpox vaccinations. But we don't. Not that smallpox isn't dangerous, but our risk of exposure is exceedingly small, smaller than the risk associated with the vaccine.

so by that definition, does that mean that you didn't immunise your children since the risk of exposure to most of the vaccinated illnesses is on the decline ?