Why buy a Mac over a better spec PC? Advice on purchase needed

Les McLean said:
For me it was considerably cheaper, I saved around a £1000 against a similar specced Mac Pro , which was and is a significant saving, and yes you do need PC type of tweaks to keep it going, but that's part of the fun :)
Click to expand...

I think it is very hard to do a true like for like. A proper decent case is not cheap and then it doesn't come even close to the Apple one. Then a proper decent quality PSU same story. Then it is swapping out all stock vans and sound proofing etc. Likewise with ECC ram like the pro will have. Etc I didn't skimp in my experiment on any component and didn't end up significantly cheaper. Naturally you can choose to go low rent on many of the components.
 
dejongj said:
I think it is very hard to do a true like for like. A proper decent case is not cheap and then it doesn't come even close to the Apple one. Then a proper decent quality PSU same story. Then it is swapping out all stock vans and sound proofing etc. Likewise with ECC ram like the pro will have. Etc I didn't skimp in my experiment on any component and didn't end up significantly cheaper. Naturally you can choose to go low rent on many of the components.
Click to expand...

I used a 'proper decent case', a Mac Pro G5 Case , so it came as close as you can to an Apple one , I detailed my build in this thread, http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/power-mac-g5-mod-to-intel-i7-3930.481150/

I spent £1200 on building it, so definitely not low rent, at the time a similar Mac Pro (using almost identical case) was over a grand more.
 
Last edited:
Les McLean said:
I used a 'proper decent case', a Mac Pro G5 Case , so it came as close as you can to an Apple one , I detailed my build in this thread, http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/power-mac-g5-mod-to-intel-i7-3930.481150/

I spent £1200 on building it, so definitely not low rent, at the time a similar Mac Pro (using almost identical case) was over a grand more.
Click to expand...

The pros run Xeons and ECC ram....pretty big difference to a desktop mobo + I7 and non-ECC setup. From what I gather the latest Mac Pros are cheaper than a similarly specced PC.
 
mid_gen said:
The pros run Xeons and ECC ram....pretty big difference to a desktop mobo + I7 and non-ECC setup. From what I gather the latest Mac Pros are cheaper than a similarly specced PC.
Click to expand...

When I built the machine (i7 -3930 3.2GHz 6 core) over a year ago, the Mac Pro's then were 5.1 (current models are 6.1) , and at the time, a comparable Apple Mac pro (3.2 GHz Quad-Core)was around a grand more for a similar spec, and all the benchmarks I ran on mine compared favourably with the similar mac pro.

Regarding the latest mac pros , I can't comment on the price/spec comparison.
 
Last edited:
There is no Mac Pro workstation that is 'similar' to your desktop build though, so I don't see how you can compare.

Xeon Mobo/CPUs and ECC memory is significantly more expensive than cheap core I-series desktop parts.
 
since Apple changed to Intel processors every Mac can dual boot Windows and OSX flawlessly through Bootcamp - so if you have any windows based software (this no longer becomes an issue). You can generally see a good discount on Mac's (c12.5-15%) if you know someone in Education (teacher, lecturer, student etc) i.e. anyone who has access to an 'ac.uk' email address as they can order from the Education store (you also benefit from much cheaper AppleCare pricing) - I think it was £43 for 3 years cover on my 27" iMac (which I've already put to good use i.e. new screen, new magic mouse, hard drive (under recall)) so it's fairly bomb proof as well.

I certainly wouldn't change back to a Windows machine - why would I when the Mac can (and does in my case!) run both OS's.. I know you can get windows machines that also run OSX (Hackintosh's) but this isn't really an out of the box solution - and many often have niggles/quirks that would prove frustrating over time (that plus they're not supported!).
 
Dual boot is so last century... IMHO if you have to have two os' on a single machine, you are run ing the wrong os.
 
mid_gen said:
There is no Mac Pro workstation that is 'similar' to your desktop build though, so I don't see how you can compare.

Xeon Mobo/CPUs and ECC memory is significantly more expensive than cheap core I-series desktop parts.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not quite trues, the processor I used is currently £418 at Amazon, compared to the Intel Zeon processor that Apple used in their quad core Mac Pro's at £240.
The motherboards Apple used is around £320, compared to £240, so my combination is slightly more expensive than the Apple configuration.
So nothing cheap about these core I series desktop parts at all.

And you can compare desktops, there are thousands of reputable websites that carry out benchmark comparisons on CPU's memory, MB etc, alongside geek bench, luxmarc, cenebench etc.

Anyway, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree on this :)
 
arad85 said:
Dual boot is so last century... IMHO if you have to have two os' on a single machine, you are run ing the wrong os.
Click to expand...

:mooning: or the software you need to use only comes on ONE of the platforms! o_O

You get software that ONLY comes out in one version (either Windows or OSX) so can't really see your point?.. if you need to run such software (as I do) then the Mac running Windows/OSX is the best option (if you want a one box/device solution).
 
Just before moving on from my Macbook I installed some Macfun software, which is, of course, Mac-only. :p
 
pangster said:
:mooning: or the software you need to use only comes on ONE of the platforms! o_O

You get software that ONLY comes out in one version (either Windows or OSX) so can't really see your point?.. if you need to run such software (as I do) then the Mac running Windows/OSX is the best option (if you want a one box/device solution).
Click to expand...
Not found anything that doesn't run on Windows... or a program that is Mac only and doesn't have an equivalent in Windows land. Developers tend to support the lowest common denominator, so there is generally a Windows version... or someone has an equivalent program somewhere. I've not yet found something that is Mac only that I want to run (and I try a lot of software). Yes, you can always say I want to run program X that only runs on OSX (Aperture for example), but there are equivalents that run under Windows or Linux - hiding behind wanting to run program X is dodging the issue.

I'll stand by my original point - if you are dual booting, you are either selecting the wrong OS or the wrong software. IMHO of course ;)
 
PS. and yes, the "lowest common denominator" phrasing was intentional ;)
 
arad85 said:
Not found anything that doesn't run on Windows... or a program that is Mac only and doesn't have an equivalent in Windows land. Developers tend to support the lowest common denominator, so there is generally a Windows version... or someone has an equivalent program somewhere. I've not yet found something that is Mac only that I want to run (and I try a lot of software). Yes, you can always say I want to run program X that only runs on OSX (Aperture for example), but there are equivalents that run under Windows or Linux - hiding behind wanting to run program X is dodging the issue.

I'll stand by my original point - if you are dual booting, you are either selecting the wrong OS or the wrong software. IMHO of course ;)
Click to expand...


Ok Bill Gates ;)... if you say so... LOL!...
 
I have used personal computers since the first twin floppy IBM XT, (1984?)

I just find that Mac's last longer and have a more useable life - just my opinion
 
Les McLean said:
Sorry, that's not quite trues, the processor I used is currently £418 at Amazon, compared to the Intel Zeon processor that Apple used in their quad core Mac Pro's at £240.
The motherboards Apple used is around £320, compared to £240, so my combination is slightly more expensive than the Apple configuration.
So nothing cheap about these core I series desktop parts at all.

And you can compare desktops, there are thousands of reputable websites that carry out benchmark comparisons on CPU's memory, MB etc, alongside geek bench, luxmarc, cenebench etc.

Anyway, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree on this :)
Click to expand...

It's well established that the current Mac Pros are good value compared to a DIY build, cheaper in some specs. Comparing a bottom end workstation to a top end desktop part doesn't make any sense, there are reasons why you use Xeons and ECC beyond number of cores and clock speeds.

You didn't build a DIY Mac Pro workstation for loads cheaper than the real thing, you built a high end desktop PC. They are different beasts for different uses.
 
mid_gen said:
there are reasons why you use Xeons and ECC beyond number of cores and clock speeds.
Click to expand...
Yes - there are. And none of them are to do with video or photo processing ;) :)
 
ajax_andy said:
Macbook pro arrive today... love it already! can't believe how quiet it is, doesn't make even the slightest noise, no fan whirring away, it's as quite as my iPad which is mental!
Click to expand...

Great news :)

arad85 said:
Yes - there are. And none of them are to do with video or photo processing ;) :)
Click to expand...

Xeon processors and ECC memory are not faster than their Non-Xeon/ECC counterparts. 4 and 12 core options are clocked lower than the four core counterparts. With multi-core processing comes increased latency too.
For tasks that benefit from multiple cores with well crafted software, there's a definite advantage. I'd imagine even more so with the video cards that the Mac Pros ship with. And they do look beautiful.
 
afasoas said:
Xeon processors and ECC memory are not faster than their Non-Xeon/ECC counterparts. 4 and 12 core options are clocked lower than the four core counterparts. With multi-core processing comes increased latency too.
For tasks that benefit from multiple cores with well crafted software, there's a definite advantage. I'd imagine even more so with the video cards that the Mac Pros ship with. And they do look beautiful.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The reason Xeons and ECC memory exist are to handle applications which need both high numbers of parallel tasks accessing lots of disparate data and the ultimate in data integrity - i.e. transactional processing in data centres or other similar applications (we use Xeons with lots of memory & fast disks in work as departmental compile servers).

Whilst spending on a top-of-the-range Xeon box with ECC will return you something due to a higher number of cores if you spend all day transcoding lots of HD video or rendering 3D graphics, it's going to buy you very little other than pub machismo points if you are doing what 99% of photographers do on a day-to-day basis.

But. as you say, Mac Pro's do look nice.....
 
Pretty much the same as you, the benefit to your average Joe (or Joanne) is going to be minimal. If anything, for running a single instance of Lightroom and/or Photoshop, possibly even disadvantageous.
On the other hand, if you are rendering multiple streams of 4k video ...


(Edit: On the other hand, the architecture appeals to me because I'm using a lot of virtualisation for testing purposes and all those cores would be a real boon extending my virtual lab. Made all the more attractive by their modest power consumption..)
 
Last edited:
Yup... Rendering multiple 4k video streams, day in, day out, and you might be using one sensibly. Anything other than that and it's a want purchase rather than a need purchase (don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that, I went and test drove a very high performance car the other day as it was an itch that needed scratching - fortunately for my bank balance, I didn't think it was a practical day-to-day drive so passed on the opportunity...).

But if you are running a virtualisation server, there's no point in heavy graphics cards and 64G of memory would soon become very limiting. I have a (completely silent - it is in my living room and there are no fans in it at all) i5 virtualising server with 32G that has 50% memory utilised with half a dozen mickey-mouse machines (as far as memory goes) on it. You'd probably be better off with a Dell with some inordinately large amount of memory installed if you are into serious memory apps.
 
neil_g said:
one of my facebook friends just bought an imac with 32gb for excel..

:-\
Click to expand...
Interesting approach. I've been doing some heavy Excel work just lately (multiple worksheets with 800K rows in), and Excel is all out of ideas performance-wise way before 32GB would ever be required. It's all about the CPU. I don't think I saw Excel go above 2 or 3GB in use before the calculation overhead became unbearable.
 
Backups are your friend. I am much more comfortable now that I've got all my stuff backed up to Crashplan.

Before, there was always that nagging worry about losing all my content. (Software's replaceable, especially in these days of online licences like Office 365 and Creative Cloud)
 
I've found my 1st annoying thing about the Macbook... got in from a wedding at 11pm, spent an hour copying everything across from the camera's to the Macbook using the default program that pops up 'iPhoto'. Only once this is finished do I realise it has converted them all to bloody JPEGs!!!

Now downloading every image using LR instead when I should be in bed. Quite an odd thing to happen IMO, especially on a machine designed for creative professionals using more than likely raw files regularly. Would NEVER have happened on a windows PC that's for sure. Mind you I'm only downloading them to the Macbook because my Windows PC has completely died after less than 18 months :D
 
Another annoying thing about Macs and my only gripe really, (I wouldn't use anything else apart from the sluggish PC I have to use at work that is) is iMail. It annoys me intently that I can't send photos as an attachment. It Imbeds the image into the email so that the recipient has to go into each image, right click on it to save it. If any other Mac users know a work-around it would be good to know?


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
ajax_andy said:
I've found my 1st annoying thing about the Macbook... got in from a wedding at 11pm, spent an hour copying everything across from the camera's to the Macbook using the default program that pops up 'iPhoto'.
Click to expand...
You may already know this but...
Plug in your card/camera/reader; then open "Image Capture" (in your Applications folder) and use it to set which application you want to open automatically when you plug in that card/camera/reader in the future (eg. LR instead of iPhoto).

Blank_Canvas said:
Another annoying thing about Macs and my only gripe really, (I wouldn't use anything else apart from the sluggish PC I have to use at work that is) is iMail. It annoys me intently that I can't send photos as an attachment. It Imbeds the image into the email so that the recipient has to go into each image, right click on it to save it. If any other Mac users know a work-around it would be good to know?
Click to expand...
I use Attachment Tamer to control attachment handling in Mail.
 
TonyHall said:
You may already know this but...
Plug in your card/camera/reader; then open "Image Capture" (in your Applications folder) and use it to set which application you want to open automatically when you plug in that card/camera/reader in the future (eg. LR instead of iPhoto).


I use Attachment Tamer to control attachment handling in Mail.
Click to expand...

Attachment Tamer - never heard of that but will look into it. Thanks for that little piece of information.


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
neil_g said:
You can do something about the mail attachments. Can't remember what the option is to hand, don't have a mac to hand to check.
Click to expand...


theres an option when you attach something to tick. Helpfully labelled 'send Windows friendly attachments?' Its right in the attach dialog box in mail.

5768-1404568610-78a6d9d584718968c516610495a7fdd2.png
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
theres an option when you attach something to tick. Helpfully labelled 'send Windows friendly attachments?' Its right in the attach dialog box in mail.

5768-1404568610-78a6d9d584718968c516610495a7fdd2.png
Click to expand...
You can also do that in the settings somewhere so you don't have to keep remembering.

Also worth ticking to add attachments at the end of the email as that can cause problems too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top