Desktop vs laptop and Mac vs pc

wats005 · December 12, 2008

I know I am opening a can of worms here but I need to make a purchase soon and it will be my first one based on camera needs, not to mention i have little to no clue with computers. Lets just say i am a beginner in the digital world all around. I just bought my first DSLR - Canon's 50d

So first off- for my first "working with files" computer is it better to have a desktop or laptop. I have heard desktops go faster, but I also travel often enough to make looking at a laptop a consideration.

Secondly- Mac or PC? Every photog I know seems to have Mac, but my IT people seem to think that mac people are paying preimum prices for year old technology (not my statement- remember the "I have no clue with computers" mentioned above)

SO let me have it....where do I start?:dunno

colourbox · December 12, 2008

If you require portability - well, you kinda have to get a laptop, but it has to be a good one, with lots of RAM, a big disk, and something faster than USB 2 for external drives or Photoshop scratch drive

If you don't require portability - you'll save a ton of money with a desktop instead of a laptop.

(I own both. To cope with the cost, I buy a laptop, then a desktop a couple years later, and leapfrog the upgrades.)

If you want to concentrate on photography instead of playing with the computer - get a Mac.

If you don't mind working on computers - get a PC, you'll spend less money. (I use a Mac)

The Mac PC price difference is with the main computer itself. After that, the drives and RAM are about the same now, so the more you soup it up, the less the difference in cost. Also if you hold onto your Mac longer than a PC, which many do without a problem, the cost difference is even less.

darkdragon · December 12, 2008

For photo editing (Lightroom, Photoshop), I found no difference in Mac/PC. Mac do retain their value better (so if you want to upgrade later, you'll still be able to ressell your mac for a good price), however you need to baby it and keep it damage free.

I use mac laptop & desktop, and PC desktop - I find that most of my image editing (heavy stuff in photoshop) I do on my laptop just because I can do it wherever I am and not tethered to a desk.

The software is exactly the same, from my experiance on either OS - so that won't make a difference at all. I use an external drive for all my photos for Lightroom, but when I work on a large project in Photoshop I make a local drive copy on my laptop (USB 2 external drive). I use the external on my desktop for everything (Firewire 400 external drive) I do on that system.

Richard · December 12, 2008

If you are completely new to computers, you have a lot to learn no matter which flavor you choose. In addition to the stuff that others have mentioned, I would ask the people you are likely to turn to for help what they are using and take that into account.

jforbes · December 14, 2008

Apple computers are significantly more integrated than PCs. They tend to have less issues, but are not a panacea. Hardware problems, IE messed up hard disk, is going to the be the same on Mac or PC as they use the same parts. CPU, video chips, RAM, hard disks, chipsets, network chipsets, and almost everything in a Mac is the same, or nearly the same as what's in a PC. Software issues depends on what you use. There's a bunch of crap on Windows that people use that can screw their computer up, particularly the people that tend to bumble themselves into spyware laden boxes. There's less of a market for crap on the Mac. The vast majority of spyware is targetted at XP/Internet Explorer, there are far fewer issues with spyware on Vista and particularly OSX. Also, XP isn't the most secure system around, and Vista is a major improvement over it in that regard. UAC is annoying, for instance (The thing that pops up and demands user intervention when something desires control) - but it and other security enhancements have made viruses and spyware significantly less of a problem for Vista users. Vista is kind of bloated, and takes a relatively modern system to run well, but once you've got enough to run it, it is pretty quick. XP or OSX will be a bit faster on the same hardware - but with any decent modern hardware, you won't be able to tell the difference.

If you're concerned about security for security's sake:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060306-6321.html
http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/711

Essentially - while there are far less spyware issues on OSX and XP is particularly vulnerable, it's more due to the number of people that run the OS. If someone wishes to access your computer, and it's, say, being used to serve content on the 'net, they're going to get it. I'm not saying Windows is great. It's not. I'm saying nothing's great. At least nothing that you'd want to use. There are secure systems, but you don't want to try to dive in to that for photo editing, it wasn't the intent.

Macs cost a lot more. I build my own systems, so I tend to save 20-30% under what the cheaper Dells might be (Once you add in dedicated video, load it with RAM and HDDs, etc), and will tend to be under half the cost of a comparable Mac, or even less. But my PCs come in black boxes, don't look pretty, and are meant to sit under the desk, not be a showpiece. I could make them pretty, but I have to pay for it, so I don't. If you want an example desktop build, give me a price and I'll show you what you can get. I only build for local people, and charge $200, roughly $70/hour to do what is essentially putting electronic legos together. I can make something small, fast, and quiet, or large, loud, and super fast, and anything in between.

My general rule of thumb for the price difference is that if you get a Mac, I can get a PC desktop and laptop, one of which is significantly faster than the Mac (Obviously doesn't apply to a loaded Mac tower, which can be matched but not really beat - unless they've not adopted corei7 yet), the other being slower, for the same price.

The software you use is in most cases the same software. For photography use, for instance, you're spending your time using Photoshop in most cases. With only very minor differences, Photoshop is the same on Mac and PC. Yes, there are some apps on the Mac you may want. You may be insane and like iPhoto for some reason. You may prefer Aperture to Lightroom.

The user interface paradigm is somewhat different. I don't really understand how Macs are intended to work (Human interface? I often don't understand what is "human" about it, I just see it as different), and don't use them on a very regular basis, so there are occasionally snags I run in to where it takes me far too long to do something. But, for the most part, doing any given thing is going to be pretty easy on either system. The vast majority of daily tasks on either system are going to be done faster by the person that's using the platform they know better. So, Mac users can ham on Windows for its inconsistencies, and vice versa. IMO, it's a wash here.

IMO, the bottom line is that if you're using software that's only available on the Mac, then the money for one is well spent, but if you aren't, then it really isn't worth it for the majority of price conscious people.

The cost of a hard disk/RAM/etc is exactly the same, if you put them in yourself. On some models, it's very easy, and on others, it's not very easy, particularly with laptops - PCs and Macs. If you don't put them in yourself, various vendors will charge you differing sums of money for upgrades. Inevitably, Apple will charge the most or nearly the most for these upgrades, but many PC vendors ask for large sums of money for small upgrades. For example, paying $60 to upgrade to a larger hard disk is silly, when the cost of the larger hard disk itself is only $70 to you if you buy online.

Once you've learned to deal with the most common issues a PC has, it's seriously a lot LESS of a hassle to just do it yourself than to deal with, say, Dell's terrible consumer tech support.

If you get a PC system and don't build it yourself, I strongly recommend you get a business machine. Just put your name in as the business name. You'll have business support options which are far more worthy than the crap that they foist upon the fools that buy a random HP POS at Best Buy.

As far as desktop vs laptop, my theory is that if you'll be in one place to do most of your work, get a nice desktop and a basic, though reasonably capable laptop. This is exactly what I've got, and it works well for me. My 2.5 year old, $1400 at the time Dell (Core Duo 1.83Ghz, 2GB (Upgraded from 1GB for $15 or so some months ago), 80GB hard disk, dedicated video, 1920x1200 display) gets on pretty well for fairly heavy work, and my recently upgraded desktop (3Ghz core 2 duo, 4GB, 1.5TB HDD space on a bunch of hard disks, 8800GTS) cost about $800 to build 1.5 years ago and $200 to upgrade a month ago (CPU and RAM).

On resale value: The $600 PC of today is worth $400 next year, $150 in 3 years. The comparable $1500 Mac today is worth $1100 in a year, and $600 in 3 years. Maybe $450 more than the PC, but you've lost $450 more in value. The issue with PCs is that if you sell a used piece of junk, you're on the same market as someone like me, who can throw a full, decent working computer together at eye popping prices, particularly if I use used components. I see someone selling a used PC, and I look at what's in it and see that I can toss something together that's faster for less money. I can't really do that with a Mac, should I really want one (If I did, I'd run OSX on a PC anyway, it can be done with some work)

If you want a laptop, look seriously at Lenovo. They're well built, a bit pricier than a comparable consumer Dell/HP, a bit cheaper than a Mac (but built better than either), have a nipple (trackpads = horrible!). The T series covers almost everything you'd ever really need.

If you want a desktop, if you're willing to experiment and spend some time, I recommend building your own. It's not too hard, and I or others can help pick out components. Most local computer shops are rip-off outlets. As I said before, I'll show you the kind of deal you can get on something you slap together yourself. Not to mention you can pick the exact form factor you want, and get every ounce of performance out of each dollar that you spend.

BradfordBenn · December 14, 2008

Tethered shooting?
Something else to consider, and I am just starting to do this myself. Is that if you have a laptop you can do tethered shooting and see the images on something bigger than the preview screen or through the view finder. I decided to try it after a few photos that looked go on the LCD screen did not look so good once I looked at them on the screen. What a difference.

I also went laptop but I travel for work quite a bit so I always have my files with me.

wats005 · December 15, 2008

I too travel maybe about half the month. SO i was thinking that a laptop might give me more playtime while bored at night in my hotels (single female- get a little jumpy exploring sometimes on my own at night).
Everyone provided good advice, i guess part of it come down to my choice vs a clear "this one is the best".

Holidays are here so I guess I have unitl the new year to figure this out.

Cheers and let me know if anyone has more ideas!

redrisker · December 16, 2008

I'm sorry to butt in but I guess this is the best avenue to get comments on this: given if budget is not an issue, what would you choose?

I've heard and read opinions that CRT monitors (and therefore desktop set-up) provides more accurate colors than LCD or plasma. Another opinion that I've heard a number of times is that Mac is best for photo and video editing (the reason that they give, I don't remember), and that Mac monitors provide more consistent colors across different set-ups since only one company makes them hence the manufacturing settings are consistent.

Any comments?

colourbox · December 16, 2008

redrisker wrote:

I've heard and read opinions that CRT monitors (and therefore desktop set-up) provides more accurate colors than LCD or plasma. Another opinion that I've heard a number of times is that Mac is best for photo and video editing (the reason that they give, I don't remember), and that Mac monitors provide more consistent colors across different set-ups since only one company makes them hence the manufacturing settings are consistent.

I use and prefer a Mac, but...those opinions are either outdated or flat out wrong.

CRT monitors were once the best, and certainly better than the first LCDs. What happens if you take that advice? You go out and buy a CRT...and there's the problem. Where do you buy a CRT these days? You almost can't. Oh, you found one? Bet it's a cheap entry-level model. The era of new CRTs for pros is over. And LCDs have improved.

Apple monitors are not the best. The best are the Eizos and the +$1000 NECs. The important thing to know about color management is that it is based on the ICC industry standard. You can calibrate to the standard and use ICC profiles using either platform. Apple does have better color management support in the OS, but once you step up into pro apps like the Adobe suite you will be working inside smarter color-managed apps anyway, Mac or Windows. A profile is actually easier to install in Windows (right click it and choose install), and Safari has some color management issues.

Apple monitors are factory tuned for design-oriented color somewhat more than cheaper monitors are, making them easier to calibrate, but if you pick your non-Apple monitor carefully you can do just as well. While you might do better with an Apple system out of the box, the fact is that no monitor - Apple's or anybody's - should be used for serious photography without calibrating the monitor first.

There are too many people happily doing great photo editing on both platforms (on this very forum) to declare a winner. I use Macs because I chose to trade off price for ease of use and maintenance, simplicity combined with Unix power, long stable uptimes, security, lack of viruses, and long service life. I am also used to them. But if you put a Windows computer and a good monitor in front of me I could set it up and get real color-managed work done too, I just wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much.

Pupator · December 16, 2008

jforbes wrote:

If you want a desktop, if you're willing to experiment and spend some time, I recommend building your own. It's not too hard, and I or others can help pick out components. Most local computer shops are rip-off outlets. As I said before, I'll show you the kind of deal you can get on something you slap together yourself. Not to mention you can pick the exact form factor you want, and get every ounce of performance out of each dollar that you spend.

This used to be true, and may still be, but I've stopped building my own because I couldn't compete with the Dell Outlet. They sell their scratch & dent or refurbs (but come with a full factory warranty) for really great deals and I often can find 20% coupons to use, too. My most recent purchase was an XPS One (dell version of an iMac) with 20" screen & mid/high specs for $500. I looked at high end desktops too and there was no way I could have built one more cheaply.

Dell installs a LOT of crapware, but they also send restore CDs (does anyone else do that anymore?) so you can do a clean install the moment you get the computer. If you go the PC route I'd recommend at least looking at the Dell Outlet. I've probably bought 3-4 laptops and 5-6 desktops from there in the last 2 years for myself and others and have yet to be disappointed.

dlplumer · December 16, 2008

Get a Mac and Aperture.

jforbes · December 17, 2008

Pupator wrote:

This used to be true, and may still be, but I've stopped building my own because I couldn't compete with the Dell Outlet. They sell their scratch & dent or refurbs (but come with a full factory warranty) for really great deals and I often can find 20% coupons to use, too. My most recent purchase was an XPS One (dell version of an iMac) with 20" screen & mid/high specs for $500. I looked at high end desktops too and there was no way I could have built one more cheaply.

Dell installs a LOT of crapware, but they also send restore CDs (does anyone else do that anymore?) so you can do a clean install the moment you get the computer. If you go the PC route I'd recommend at least looking at the Dell Outlet. I've probably bought 3-4 laptops and 5-6 desktops from there in the last 2 years for myself and others and have yet to be disappointed.

If you add refurbished or potentially used computers from Dell to the list, why not add used individual computer parts or computers?

One can throw together a decent, if basic setup extremely cheaply if they know where to get the parts. My bet is I could get a basic A64x2 system set up and going for $200-240 or so.

One major disadvantage of the Dell Outlet is that you don't get to configure the PC. The last computer I helped make (I didn't build, just helped someone choose the parts as he'd been out of the loop) had 3TB of HDD space, in an otherwise relatively moderate package (Total price about $900 with OS). You won't find that on the Dell outlet, and the case might not even fit 3 HDDs.

Also, as I said before, once you get the basic techniques on troubleshooting hardware down, it tends to be easier to just fix it yourself rather than try to do it with a random guy on the phone. Some might be good, but none that I've spoken to. This can of course be fixed by getting a "Business" machine which gives you access to better support.

What building your own does not get you is an all in one computer. I don't even know why people like them, because I reuse a lot of parts when making a new machine, and you can't do that with an AIO, except a newer HP model, which is not pretty, but it looks like a mini ITX case mounted on the back of an LCD, where both can be removed/replaced. Sort of like an AIO deal that might be easy to work on.

DavidTO · December 17, 2008

redrisker wrote:

I'm sorry to butt in but I guess this is the best avenue to get comments on this: given if budget is not an issue, what would you choose?

I've heard and read opinions that CRT monitors (and therefore desktop set-up) provides more accurate colors than LCD or plasma. Another opinion that I've heard a number of times is that Mac is best for photo and video editing (the reason that they give, I don't remember), and that Mac monitors provide more consistent colors across different set-ups since only one company makes them hence the manufacturing settings are consistent.

Any comments?

FCP is the best video editing software out there, so in that case the Mac wins, since FCP is Mac only.

It's not going to influence you heavily, but I did want to point out that the Mac IS better for video. Not true of photography. PS is the same on both.

Having said that, I'm on the Mac side of things. I would never buy a PC. Ever. If I had to run PC software I would cave in and install Vista on my Mac. But I haven't had to do that yet, and I'm glad of it.

pathfinder · December 17, 2008

One topic that has not been discussed yet is the quality of the experience when editing on a laptop versus a desktop unit. I own and use both a Mac Book Pro and a Power Mac tower with a 30 in LCD. While I CAN edit images on either one ( I calibrate both screens with a Spyder2Pro ), I vastly prefer editing on the larger screen and the larger RAM space in the tower versus my laptop. My tower is a lot faster.

IF you decide to use a laptop as your ONLY computer ( because it is cheaper say ) I suggest you give very serious thought to also buying a larger 24 in LCD display to use with your laptop at home. And maybe an external drive array also to store your images, for secure back up.

Once you get to this spot, you have to ask yourself if a laptop is really that great. I have one, solely, for travel; at home I use my desktop machine.

Just a thought, I know lots of folks love their lappies. But their screens do not compare with their larger desktop LCD brethren in ease of use or visual quality.

Rhuarc · December 17, 2008

I agree with jforbes on pretty much all counts. I feel that both Macs and PCs have their uses. For me personally, I am used to a PC, and it takes me a much longer time to do anything on a Mac than it does on a PC because I can't find anything. On a PC I know where the Control Panel is, I know how everything is setup and where to find it. There are people equally as proficient with a Mac that cannot find anything on Windows.

From a photography perspective I believe the old adage that Mac > Windows is out the window. Everyone uses Photoshop, and unless you really want Apeture or iPhoto then either one will work equally well. (In some cases, for CS4, I belive that a Windows machine actually makes better use of a dedicated graphics card, or maybe it is that you can get much beffier graphics cards on a PC, not really sure) From the video side, there is a friend of mine that is sticking with Mac because of FinalCut Pro, so there is that to consider.

One last thing I might mention is games. I may be in the minority here, but I use my PC for video games. Something that is much more difficult to do on the Mac. Games come out much later, if ever, for the Mac. And you are also limited in video cards by what Apple will let you put in. I decided if I'm going to have a powerful beefy computer to do photo editing on it might as well be able to do one of my other hobbies as well!

Just my two cents worth! Whichever way you go I think you will be happy!

CWSkopec · December 17, 2008

pathfinder wrote:

Just a thought, I know lots of folks love their lappies. But their screens do not compare with their larger desktop LCD brethren in ease of use or visual quality.

I've got a laptop as my only computer right now (though a nice powerful desktop is on the horizon, hopefully) and the screen is awful!! I mean it's nice and bright for watching movies and anything else I would want to do, but absolutely awful for photo editting. Abisimal... laughably bad... horrendous...

Too far? Ok I'll stop... Anyway, I have a 19in LCD (I know, I know... it's tiny... hopefully that'll get upgraded along with the computer) at home that I hook up to my laptop whenever I sit down to process photos. It's no contest in terms of accuracy.

DavidTO · December 17, 2008

You can always hook up a regular display to a laptop, folks!

Tee Why · December 17, 2008

If you travel, I'd definitely go for a laptop.
I'd also recommend getting the monitor calibrated.

As for PC vs Mac, it's the same old Ford vs Chevy type of debate. You'll have to decide which is better for your needs.

As far as I can tell, I can't tell which shot was processed with a Mac or a PC, so there may be no difference in the final output, just the way of getting it there.

Pupator · December 17, 2008

jforbes wrote:

If you add refurbished or potentially used computers from Dell to the list, why not add used individual computer parts or computers?

Because they normally don't come with warranties.

One can throw together a decent, if basic setup extremely cheaply if they know where to get the parts. My bet is I could get a basic A64x2 system set up and going for $200-240 or so.

I wasn't talking about an extremely cheap setup. I was talking about a high-end dual or quad core system at a good price. Not bottom of the barrel stuff.

One major disadvantage of the Dell Outlet is that you don't get to configure the PC. The last computer I helped make (I didn't build, just helped someone choose the parts as he'd been out of the loop) had 3TB of HDD space, in an otherwise relatively moderate package (Total price about $900 with OS). You won't find that on the Dell outlet, and the case might not even fit 3 HDDs.

Why does the computer have to be "finished" when you get it from Dell? I bought my XPS One with only 2GB of RAM and a 320GB HDD because that's what they had the best price on in the store. 30 minutes after it was here I had (extremely cheaply) upgraded to 4GB and 500GB. Dell sells lots of computers in completely normal cases - just don't get a One or a Mini-tower if maximum expandability is important to you.

Also, as I said before, once you get the basic techniques on troubleshooting hardware down, it tends to be easier to just fix it yourself rather than try to do it with a random guy on the phone. Some might be good, but none that I've spoken to. This can of course be fixed by getting a "Business" machine which gives you access to better support.

My case on the XPS one rattled (turned out to be my fault after the RAM install). I called Dell and they had a technician calling me to come to the house to look at it within 2 days. This was for a refurb machine.

What building your own does not get you is an all in one computer. I don't even know why people like them, because I reuse a lot of parts when making a new machine, and you can't do that with an AIO, except a newer HP model, which is not pretty, but it looks like a mini ITX case mounted on the back of an LCD, where both can be removed/replaced. Sort of like an AIO deal that might be easy to work on.

The all in one is beautiful. It saves space. It goes nicely in a home office room that doubles as a guest room. But it's not for everyone. I wasn't even suggesting that the OP get an AIO - just suggesting they try the Dell Outlet.

None of your counter-arguments seem to hold up - so I'd still suggest the person check the Dell outlet.

I used to not like Dell, but with the prices the way they are at their outlet store (plus coupons online!) it's hard not to and, in my recent experience, it no longer makes sense to build my own from scratch.

jforbes · December 18, 2008

Yeah, the Dells have warranties, and a computer built from used parts won't. I'd rather spend $20 to replace a bad part than wait on hold (Or rummage around in the closet), though. Another example would be that the motherboard in the Dell may or may not be suitable for upgrades. i build my personal systems with an expected lifespan and essentially pre-plan upgrades when I build it new.

The AIO systems don't need to be AIO, though - that's my main point there. I can put together a tiny little system that doesn't take much space, and do it pretty cheaply, and it doesn't need to be uselessly slow, you can get motherboards that'll run current C2D chips in mini ITX form factor.

Lastly, the cheap used setup that I can toss together for $250 isn't all that compromised. As I noted, we'd still be talking a dual core system. The X2s don't compare to a new C2D by any means, but can match and beat the lower end chips in Intel's lineup. Or I could use older C2D chips.

I've poked around too many OEM computer cases that are non standard, have a terrible amount of expansion for the size they are, and similar issues, so I'm very wary of getting something when I don't know exactly what it is. It's one thing to slap one part into the machine, but it's something else to want to replace all of them because they don't meet your needs. May as well just built it then.

I'm not saying that buying from the outlet isn't without merit. I'm saying that if you know what you want, or know what is best for you, you can craft something perfectly to your needs.

Every time I look to build a PC for myself, I look at what it'll cost me to get what I want, and, every single time, it's a better deal to do it myself. Whenever I deal with Dell (I have a Dell laptop), I find myself less and less impressed by them. And, yes, a fresh install of Windows is the first thing I did when I got that computer.

Pupator · December 18, 2008

Okay.
Enjoy your home-built PC!

Desktop vs laptop and Mac vs pc

Comments