# As a pro, what keeps you on the Mac?



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

Having recently decided to move from Aperture to Lightroom (mostly for Smart Previews), I am now faced with a choice I was not offered before: should I run Lightroom on the Mac, or PC (I already own both).

Aperture is what got me into the Mac world professionally. I had built a Hackintosh as a hobby, and I liked Aperture enough I eventually decided to buy a refurb Mac Pro in 2008, and I eventually went through a lot of different Mac models since. But now, having abandoned Aperture, I'm re-examining my choice of platforms. After all, Lightroom is Lightroom and Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of the platform.

I have very high-spec PC I use for gaming (six-core i7-3930k @ 4.2 GHz, 32GB RAM, SSD, Radeon HD7970 graphics). That PC gets a Geekbench score pretty close to the highest end Mac Pro you can buy (for about 6300$). It's very tempting to move my photo workflow over to that machine instead of my docked MBP (which has about half the computing power, although still more than the 2.8 GHz 8-core Mac Pro from 2008).

I was wondering if any of you had tried going to Windows for similar work and came back to Mac because of some showstopper. I guess I could just try it, but moving platforms involves some significant changes in my backup strategy and file handling, so if I'm going to do this, I probably won't want to waste the effort. The pragmatist in me says "stick with the Mac, it works well enough", but the engineer and hardware enthusiast in me finds it hard to ignore all the computing power in the PC...


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

the question you really need to ask is will lightroom really take full advantage of all that extra horsepower...

theres no point buying a car that goes 330Km/hr vs one that goes 280 km/hr when the speed limit is 100km/hr 

Lightroom: Make use of extra cores to process multiple photos in parallel

Lightroom, multi-core scaling - Ars Technica OpenForum



> From what I can tell, Lightroom's scaling seems to be somewhere between crap and non-existent. It will process concurrent batches in parallel, but it apparently has no interest in parallelizing any single batch.


lol


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

That's a good point. My bottleneck is usually on import; I'll do a test and post back the results tonight.



broad said:


> the question you really need to ask is will lightroom really take full advantage of all that extra horsepower...
> 
> theres no point buying a car that goes 330Km/hr vs one that goes 280 km/hr when the speed limit is 100km/hr
> 
> ...


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Good question and one that I'm sure many folks are on the fence these days without a new Mac Pro update.

For me: and this is my experience, I loaded Windows 7 onto a Mac Pro and a Macbook.
Nothing but problems trying to install drivers, having to reboot, crashes. The same stuff I went through when I started on Windows then jumped to Mac.

Then I thought, ok...perhaps the issues are because I'm on a Mac trying to use Windows.

So I tried my buddy's brand new PC.

Same issues.

So I'm sticking with Mac OS X unless they really screw it up. A long list of workflow issues for which I find working on a Mac to be faster.

Now that isn't the case for all folks. Some people are techie enough (or patient) to work through the issues.

Me, it's a waste of money and frustration trying to work on unnecessary BS, imho 

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

I launched Oakbridge in late 2001. My primary machine at the time was a Windows 2000 machine with a PPC 7200 as my Mac running OS 9. At times I felt that I spent more time keeping that Windows machine going than actually using it productively. 

In spring of 2003, I bought a used Titanium Powerbook running Tiger. I got more work done on that machine than I ever got done on the Windows machine. As a business professional (regardless of the fact that I sell, train, implement, etc. business software solutions), I couldn't afford to continue to do maintenance on the tool that was supposed to make me more productive.

Other than refilling it with staples, I don't spend any time 'maintaining' my stapler, or a ruler, or ... you get the picture.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

What keeps me on a Mac? 

A huge investment in high end software over the years.

OsX is starting to p*** me off with all the i features, but I see Windows 8 is desperately trying to imitate it, so why bother switching if you need to buy all new software to run it on a second rate iteration of the Apple OS.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Windows keeps me running Mac. I have just never had good luck with it and spend more time repairing or diagnosing issues than I can justify. Also I've never had any kind of luck with the long term for windows ... always end up having to nuke and pave too often for my liking. Lastly I'm a *nix geek, and having native *nix stuff is essential to me (and cygwin doesn't cut if for me).


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

Thanks for the input everyone. I just did a quick test comparing Lightroom 5 on my rMBP and my high-spec PC. Based on Geekbench, the PC has twice the rating as the rMBP. In pure CPU power it should be more than double.

I did an import of 100 ORF RAW files from my Olympus OM-D (16MP, about 15-18MB each). Minimal Previews selected, Copy as DNG, generate Smart Previews.

On both machines, it took about 2 minutes to do the DNG conversion. Neither machine was running at over 40% CPU during this operation.

On the rMBP, it took 3 minutes to generate the Smart Previews. On the PC, it took 1:18. Both running 100% CPU. So certain operations in Lightroom can take advantage of all the power you can throw at them, but not everything.

Of possible interest is that the PC was pulling just under 400W from the outlet generating the smart previews. The rMBP did it at under 50W. So it wins hand-down for efficiency.

I can't really take sides on the Windows vs. Mac OS fence. I've used both, and as of Windows 7, both have been reliable and stable. Since I'm a CC subscriber (please, keep the CC comments for the appropriate thread), I can have my critical software on either PC or Mac (or one of each even).

It's even more of a hard decision when considering mobile options. I have, side-by-sde, an HP 8650w with DreamColor IPS RGBLED display, and the Retine MBP. The rMBP has great sharpness, lightweight design and long battery life. The HP with dreamcolor has the most accurate colour reproduction I have ever measured on ANY monitor, desktop included. But the battery lasts 2 hours and the beast weighs 9 pounds. I love my rMBP for most uses, but whenever I look at the display in the HP with Dreamcolor, I tend to forget about its drawbacks


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

I'd agree with Oakbridge on all points.
I need a computer that just works. I don't want to spend time fiddling with the drivers, crashes, software issues...
I use my Mac Pro like a pencil or brush, that is as a tool to get a certain result.
Speed, while nice, isn't the most important factor. Reliability and problem free is.
That is also why I am still on 10.6.8.
Great thread BTW.
Robert


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

Good points, but I'd like to play the devil's advocate for a bit, and make a point of saying that inherently, Windows PCs are not more buggy or more prone to crashing than Macs. It's the cheap PCs sold in big-box stores that are crap and cause utter grief to their users, who then think all PCs are crap.

My high-spec PC was built my my own hands. I chose excellent quality components: Asus motherboard with active cooling, RAM that has a thermal management solution attached, Corsair closed-loop liquid cooling for the CPU, top-of-the-line Corsair HX power supply (that's the biggest part not to skimp on!). No cut corners. This PC wan't cheap (probably the same as an entry-level Mac Pro), but it is utterly stable. It doesn't crash more than a Mac. It will run 24/7 at 100% CPU load in 30C ambient temperature. It was designed that way. I could say the same of the HP Elitebook. It's as reliable as any MacBook Pro I've used. It also costs as much as a high-end MacBook Pro (if not more!). Maintenance on either machine is minimal. They just work.

Software-wise, I'm still on the fence. Big apps like Adobe products and Microsoft seem to be about the same on both platforms. It's the smaller stuff that's hit or miss. Epson printer drivers are so much easier to use on the Mac, yet they have more features on the PC (the Auto setting for gloss optimizer on the R2000's Mac driver is a glaring omission).

I've been using both platforms on and off for a few weeks, and it seems to me that the PC/Windows platform gives me access to more tools to get better results, but I have to work more at it to get there. The Mac just works, but doesn't get me the extra 10% I can get when using specialized PC hardware that supports 10-bit colour, super-wide gamut, etc.

But I have to admit, that when it comes time to take a laptop with me for the day, I reach for the rMBP. The combination of computing power and light weight is unrivalled, and I don't have to worry about power either. And that may be enough to sacrifice the extra processing capacity and colour gamut I can get on the PC hardware.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

ldphoto said:


> Good points, but I'd like to play the devil's advocate for a bit, and make a point of saying that inherently, Windows PCs are not more buggy or more prone to crashing than Macs. It's the cheap PCs sold in big-box stores that are crap and cause utter grief to their users, who then think all PCs are crap.
> 
> My high-spec PC was built my my own hands. I chose excellent quality components: Asus motherboard with active cooling, RAM that has a thermal management solution attached, Corsair closed-loop liquid cooling for the CPU, top-of-the-line Corsair HX power supply (that's the biggest part not to skimp on!). No cut corners. This PC wan't cheap (probably the same as an entry-level Mac Pro), but it is utterly stable. It doesn't crash more than a Mac. It will run 24/7 at 100% CPU load in 30C ambient temperature. It was designed that way. I could say the same of the HP Elitebook. It's as reliable as any MacBook Pro I've used. It also costs as much as a high-end MacBook Pro (if not more!). Maintenance on either machine is minimal. They just work.
> 
> ...


You raise 2 very important points, which together, make it a great reason for me to stick with Macs (and I believe the majority of people):

1. cheap pcs do suck right out of the box. no doubt about that 

2. well built, personally hand picked and organized PCs can be well maintained and steady machines.

The trick is that I'm not that techie do build my own, nor do I want to take the time. Give me something that works right out of the box. 

This is a great thread. Some good points.
Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Employment-wise, I used PC's from 1998 to 2004. Personally, I cut my teeth on an Apple ][+ in 1983 and have used Apples, Macs & a Clone since. Business-wise, I've used Macs since 2005.

That said, the reason I use Macs is comfort & familiarity with the tool & the fact that the tool works with (usually) minimal effort & upkeep. As long as this relationship maintains the status quo, I'll continue using the same tools. If that ever changes, I'll have to consider the pros & cons of another tool. If your tool does what you want when you ask it with a minimum of fuss, it's a good tool. Otherwise it's garbage.

It's as simple (& as complicated) as that. I have no emotional attachment to my computers.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

FeXL said:


> It's as simple (& as complicated) as that. I have no emotional attachment to my computers.


I think you hit the nail on the head there. In a sense, I do have some emotional attachment to my computers  I have an Electrical Engineering degree, and I've always been a hardware geek. I once has a freezer as part of the cooling system for a PC I experimented with... I'm just that kind of guy. Regardless of whatever I use for my photo work, I will always have some form of PC system around, just because I really enjoy building and tweaking computers.

My wife gardens in her spare time to relax... I work on computers instead. To each their own


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

FeXL said:


> It's as simple (& as complicated) as that. I have no emotional attachment to my computers.


Well said, I feel much the same way.

Also just for the sake of completeness my bad experiences with windows also included bad experiences with hand-built good hardware, but this was before Windows 7 and newer came around and the most stable choice at the time was Windows XP SP2 ... I haven't given it an honest try since then because my Macs are still doing what I need with minimal fuss (plus I really really do need a native terminal w/ bsd core).


----------



## jellotor (Feb 22, 2008)

Many of the pro editing applications are cross platform licenses now (and the hardware to extend them) so there's less and less practical reason to own a Mac.

That said, I'm working on a job with FCPX right now and actually enjoying most of the experience...no FCP of any sort on Windows (which was always a selling point for Macs and still may be) so I guess it all comes down to what you're comfortable with.

I prefer OSX but ultimately I will use whatever gets me cuttin' the fastest/easiest.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'll chime in here and basically agree with what's been posted; I've used both mac and PCs extensively (my first personal computer was a commodore PET, and I worked extensively with mainframes before that), and I was actually fairly anti-Apple until OS X (I'm a Unix geek, and I've always liked the command prompt), and clearly both work fine when the hardware isn't crap. But ever since OS X, it's been clear that the Mac has had the lead in terms of easy things being easy and hard things being doable (windows seems to make everything more difficult than it needs to be). Since all* the software I need is available for OS X, I've been using Macs for everything.

* the exception seems to be lab instrumentation; I've purchased literally millions of dollars worth of scientific equipment over the past decade, and for every purchase with which a computer has been included as part of the system, the options have been "the PC comes in beige or black." I just came back from a scientific conference at which literally every presenter used a mac, and yet the companies selling us equipment can't seem to figure out that we'd rather have macs than PCs running our confocal microscopes, flow cytometers, real time PCR systems, plate readers, chromatography systems, electron microscopes, etc. etc. etc. I've pointed this out to sales reps; when you've got Leica and Zeiss competing for a half-a-million-dollar sale, and you can't fit an eyelash between their systems spec-wise, having a system that runs on macs as well as PCs and therefore provides the user with that choice might make the difference (it would've for me). But no. They say there's not enough demand for Macs so they develop all their software for Windows only.

Interestingly, in our department, in which the majority of the faculty use macs, we've got one IT guy; he spends all his time dealing with problems with the PCs hooked up to the instruments. Just yesterday the PC running our chromatography system started throwing exceptions, and when we rebooted it, it wouldn't start. Looks like a drive failure. Obviously that could happen to Macs to... it just never does.


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

I too started with a PET (actually a Commodore CBM 4040 -- but close enough). I did have a stint in the OS 8-9 era where I switched over to Linux and/or Solaris for a few years as my primary and just kept the mac around for my music and graphics stuff (or ran Mac On Linux when I needed it), but OSX won me back with the *nix.

I think the lab equipment makers are just scared to try and get something new going on ... I know a couple of other people that have made the same observations as you point out here, saying that there is not a big enough demand (yet everyone uses Macs for everything BUT running their equipment because they can't).


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'll chime in here and basically agree with what's been posted; I've used both mac and PCs extensively (my first personal computer was a commodore PET, and I worked extensively with mainframes before that), and I was actually fairly anti-Apple until OS X (I'm a Unix geek, and I've always liked the command prompt), and clearly both work fine when the hardware isn't crap. But ever since OS X, it's been clear that the Mac has had the lead in terms of easy things being easy and hard things being doable (windows seems to make everything more difficult than it needs to be). Since all* the software I need is available for OS X, I've been using Macs for everything.
> 
> * the exception seems to be lab instrumentation; I've purchased literally millions of dollars worth of scientific equipment over the past decade, and for every purchase with which a computer has been included as part of the system, the options have been "the PC comes in beige or black." I just came back from a scientific conference at which literally every presenter used a mac, and yet the companies selling us equipment can't seem to figure out that we'd rather have macs than PCs running our confocal microscopes, flow cytometers, real time PCR systems, plate readers, chromatography systems, electron microscopes, etc. etc. etc. I've pointed this out to sales reps; when you've got Leica and Zeiss competing for a half-a-million-dollar sale, and you can't fit an eyelash between their systems spec-wise, having a system that runs on macs as well as PCs and therefore provides the user with that choice might make the difference (it would've for me). But no. They say there's not enough demand for Macs so they develop all their software for Windows only.
> 
> Interestingly, in our department, in which the majority of the faculty use macs, we've got one IT guy; he spends all his time dealing with problems with the PCs hooked up to the instruments. Just yesterday the PC running our chromatography system started throwing exceptions, and when we rebooted it, it wouldn't start. Looks like a drive failure. Obviously that could happen to Macs to... it just never does.


Interesting point. Maybe the powers-that-be have some kind of inside connection, like when schools get a free scoreboard if they only allow Pepsi / Coke machines into their schools. I know it so with the preference for being cheap (ie. Lenovo, Acer, etc) machines for the school system I work for over quality devices, although iPads are making inroads. Smartboards were a waste of money in my opinion, especially if you have a sore rotator cuff. Nothing that an AppleTV with AirPlay couldn't do better and from anywhere in the classroom too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

For me, a combination of some minimal emotional attachment, high software investment, legacy equipment passed to family members and fear of Windows.


----------



## bluepanties (Sep 30, 2010)

I'm in the same situation to, I am about to sell my Macbook Pro and build my own computer, most the stuff that I need sadly need more professional equipment, well, just to do some of the most basic stuff really but I'm fed up of having to buy lots of expensive adapters and lots of other work arounds to get it to work and then have to wait for ages for things to come out to, for example thunderbolt accessories, displayport to dvi-d dual adapters and thunderbolt docks just to do some of the most basic things that a desktop would do for me for free and automatically. I know, especially that I don't use my Macbook Pro for anything other than a desktop for like 99% of the time but there's just not really another good alternative if I want to keep using Mac OS X, which I do want to, the Mac Mini and iMacs are both desktops sure but they're just laptops in a different packaging and then I have a Mac Pro which is expensive and overpriced and usually outdated, which is really a shame.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

bluepanties said:


> I'm in the same situation to, I am about to sell my Macbook Pro and build my own computer, most the stuff that I need sadly need more professional equipment, well, just to do some of the most basic stuff really but I'm fed up of having to buy lots of expensive adapters and lots of other work arounds to get it to work and then have to wait for ages for things to come out to, for example thunderbolt accessories, displayport to dvi-d dual adapters and thunderbolt docks just to do some of the most basic things that a desktop would do for me for free and automatically. I know, especially that I don't use my Macbook Pro for anything other than a desktop for like 99% of the time but there's just not really another good alternative if I want to keep using Mac OS X, which I do want to, the Mac Mini and iMacs are both desktops sure but they're just laptops in a different packaging and then I have a Mac Pro which is expensive and overpriced and usually outdated, which is really a shame.


Those may have been the two longest sentences I have tried to read in recent memory.


----------



## bluepanties (Sep 30, 2010)

ldphoto said:


> Those may have been the two longest sentences I have tried to read in recent memory.


Well, keep reading my posts and you will see even longer sentences than that I'm sure. 

Owen


----------



## JessicaSideways (Jul 10, 2013)

Well, I am on the Mac because I remember my PC experience. I switched back in 2006 when I was living in Calgary. I switched because I was fed up with a HP Pavillion laptop I purchased before leaving for Canada (I think I spent around $2,000 US for it) and it was already acting up.

I bought the 17" MacBook Pro (a couple weeks before the hardware refresh in October 2006  ) and even though I criticized people for using Macs (back when I thought Macs were inferior) I was to the point where I was fed up with my PC issues. I had that MacBook Pro until 2009 and I have been a Mac User ever since.

So yeah, my personal data and professional work is too important to trust to a PC.


----------



## Appleukit (Jul 3, 2006)

Unfortunately for me it looks like I will need to sell my iMac and MBP. I need more power and the hardware isn't cutting it. I love OS X, though. So I think I will be going with a PC desktop and either a new Air or 13" MBP.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Appleukit said:


> Unfortunately for me it looks like I will need to sell my iMac and MBP. I need more power and the hardware isn't cutting it. I love OS X, though. So I think I will be going with a PC desktop and either a new Air or 13" MBP.



I don't know what you're doing or needing nor what exact Mac models you have, but some of the latest models are sure fast.

If not fast enough for you, maybe consider building a hackintosh instead.

IE:
Build the Mac Pro That You Wish Apple Released


----------



## Gerk (Dec 21, 2012)

Those machines honestly fall a LOT short of a Mac Pro if you look at the specs. Sure they are full tower machines but that's about where the similarity stops. The "high end" one that they are comparing to the 12 core mac pro there is a bit of a joke. It's a single CPU quad core machine with 1/3 of the CPU cores, a much crappier case and a bunch of PCIe cards to get you some of the features that you are missing on the Mac Pro. Yes it's almost 1/4 of the price but will it run 24/7 for years and years like the Mac Pros do? Maybe, maybe not ...

Hackintoshes are not for me (and I'm a geek). They require a lot of work (some more than others) to even get the first install done, and then you have to do a lot of research every single time there's a security or OS update from Apple to make sure that you don't "brick" your install.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

I see what you mean, and just a basic Mac Pro if not some other Mac models properly configured would blow them out of the water!!
And with checking some of the top Geekbench scores, and the top ones running Microsoft Windows Server with some specialized hardware, one would need some pretty deep cash pockets!!

By comparison, a decked out Mac Pro is sure mighty fast and very affordable by comparison and right up there and close with their Geekbench scores. 

And as for any Hackintosh, count me out as well yet I'm sure I could. Life can be too short and frustrating as it is.


----------

