Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Time for a whole new PC....Help!


dougv e2
10 8.4k 3 England
20 Dec 2013 9:02AM

Quote:Get a mac, don't waste time and money on a PC,

Unless of course you intend to run software that will only run on a PC.
In which case a MAC is a total waste of time and money.

At the end of the day it is about having the right tool for the job.
Work out what you need before spending any money and you will end up with the system that is right for your application.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

banehawi e2
10 933 2947 Canada
21 Dec 2013 2:45PM
With respect to those suggesting or owning an iMac, - dont.

The iMac display is quite poor compared to a good monitor, and in my experience (I own one iMac and one PC), its near impossible to calibrate accurately using any external colorimeter. Now, its possible I have a not so good monitor, - yes, - but Ive also calibrated two other iMacs, and the screens were poor. Makes some sense that the entire computer costs about the same as a high end monitor.

The Mac/PC discussion will always go on. To many its like Nikon/Canon, - you have a loyalty, and you stick with it.

So I will simply add my own experience with both, as I won both simply as a matter of fact:

The iMac, or any Mac is not easy to get used to if you are coming from a PC, - and since 95% of the world uses PCs and not Macs, thats likely. Wonder why that is, 95% of the personal computing world used PCs?

If you have a hardware problem with the iMac, - you will more often than not, need to send it back to Apple for repairs, so keep the box it came in. If you have a PC, you can fix, alter, expand any part of the system quite easily and at a reasonable price yourself, - so dont keep the box. if you want to upgrade the monitor, you can. Unless you buy an iMac look alike, - I wouldnt.

If you need technical support from Apple, get used to the idea that Macs NEVER have problems, and its your fault. This is the standard response. Honestly. Since owning the iMac, for two years, I have called Apple for software issues 4 times. I have called Microsoft twice in over 30 years. Microsoft gave me a fix for the issues, Apple told me the issues didnt exist, - and that despite thousands of complaints on the support forums.

I have not had one software issue with the PC since Windows XP Pro.

As an example, it was during the time since I bought the iMac (it was originally for my wife, - she hates it) that one of the OSX releases boated the ability to maximise the size of a window by clicking the green button. Yes, you couldnt maximise a window to fit the screen longer than two years back. You could do it, but not with a click.

The idea of wasting time and money by buying a PC makes little or no sense at all. If you enjoy being a Unix expert, and paying way too much for a computer thats also Intel based and will run Windows, than by all means buy a Mac. Thats what wasting money is about.

The iMac is a beautifully designed and made piece of equipment. It looks gorgeous. But it has drawbacks as Ive described.

Apple are masters of the spin. They religiously maintain that their products dont ever have problems, - while there are many frustrated owners resorting to forums with problem reports. I have had experience of this in the cell phone world. where I worked since the start of cellular, and have dealt with all the phone manufacturers. Apple, in their contract specifically forbid usung the word Apple in reference to any product issue, and rather the name ACME has to be substituted. This is standard behavour with all carriers. Very paranoid about perceived reputation, and that spills over into the mainstream, and they become seen as the epitome of quality. They have as many issues and problems as any other decent manufacturer.

They do make quality gear. Its priced well beyond its value in terms of performance. Many others make the same or better quality, at much lest cost. But, and the killer argument, - you will need to spend that 50 quid on anti-virus software for a PC, which you dont on a Mac. That should really make the difference when deciding to spend twice as much or not, considering the number of free AV programmes available.


Buy a good PC.

W
21 Dec 2013 11:51PM
What problems did you have calibrating or profiling your iMac, banehawi?

Not far from my home is an advertising agency with an open-plan office visible from the street. Inside are rows upon rows of iMacs. Apparently the displays are good enough for professional design work (which I readily admit may not make them good enough for you, but still).

I too would caution against switching to a Mac, not because I doubt Macs are better but because itís a lot of work to learn a new desktop operating system. I doubt I would make the change nowadays, though I did in the early days of Mac OS X when I was younger and braver, and when Macs had dazzling advantages like cool-running PowerPC chips and proper colour management.

Banehawi wrote:

Quote:As an example, it was during the time since I bought the iMac (it was originally for my wife, - she hates it) that one of the OSX releases boated the ability to maximise the size of a window by clicking the green button. Yes, you couldnt maximise a window to fit the screen longer than two years back. You could do it, but not with a click.

The green button wasnít meant to maximise the window, but rather zoom it to the size of its content. Mac OS X was built around multitasking, dragging and dropping between windows, and the idea that users wouldnít always want single windows spanning their whole screen in an era of ever-larger displays.

Mac OS X (and now OS X) didnít change that behaviour, but [http://gigaom.com/2007/04/09/hey-apple-fix-the-green-button-already/] over the years, so app developers responded by making the Zoom button behave like the Windows Maximize button in their apps (at times going against [link removed by ePz]). Firefox, for instance, adopted this behaviour.

As app developers migrated from [link removed by ePz] to [link removed by ePz], they sometimes temporarily or permanently reverted to the previous behaviour, or otherwise changed the zoomed size. You probably experienced this, which is obviously confusing but not something Apple would call a bug Ė since itís expected behaviour.

It does drive home the point that switching operating systems requires real work. No-one is born with knowledge of an operating system. If youíve used Windows for years, even in a limited fashion, you know more about it than you think Ė†and it will take time to gain even that level of proficiency on a Mac.
23 Dec 2013 5:58PM
mac. I wil say no more.
banehawi e2
10 933 2947 Canada
23 Dec 2013 6:39PM
Here come the big spenders!

Advertising agencies use loads of iMacs, not because they are any good, but since they are in advertising, and image is important, the fact they LOOK good is what they want.

The problems I had were with getting the displays to be 6500 K, - not possible on any of the three. The newer iMacs have an improved display that I havent tried. Mine is a 2011 model.

Hopefully the Magic Mouse that comes with the new iMac is kinder on batteries. Mine, and if you like to check the Apple forums, uses a pair of premium AA batteries every 3 weeks. The corded Apple mouse has a trackball that becomes unusable eventually as it picks up dirt and fails.

Unfortunately, 95% of the computer users in the world see expected behaviour as that of the dominant OS, and that not OSX.

For those looking on, and who want to make and INFORMED decision, not an emotional one- this is exactly the respose you can expect from the Apple cult.

Thanks for proving the point!
23 Dec 2013 9:13PM
Oh boy, I wish I was a big spender!

Iím surprised you had trouble hitting 6500 K on an iMac (or any display). Thatís a pretty easy target for most of them, within the usual spectrum constraints.

My earlier post had its links mistakenly removed. Iíll just repeat one here: Appleís Human Interface Guidelines for windows behaviour in OS X. Scroll about half-way down the page to Resizing and Zooming Windows to find out how the green Zoom button should behave if app developers follow the guidelines.

It would be pretty pointless if Apple copied Microsoft Windows behaviour in OS X just because most people know how Windows works. Apple does things differently when it believes a different way is better. I happen to agree with Appleís take more often than not, which is why I use a Mac. But I donít always agree. In fact, I think windows resizing on Macs is a mess. Most of that is the fault of developers, but when so many developers donít follow guidelines itís probably best to change the guidelines to something more likely to be followed.

I have a cult meeting to attend now, so Iíll have to leave it at that!
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
24 Dec 2013 1:06AM
Colour temperature is unpredictable anyway when applied to a monitor, even though it seems the opposite. At any given colour temperature, a range of colours is possible, all under the scope of 'correlated colour temperature'. The meaning of 6500K can alter between monitors and calibration programs. This is not true of the standard D65 illuminant, even though these terms are used interchangeably (possibly even by Apple). Most LCDs have a native white point of around 6500K (CCT), so there should never be any issue in achieving that.
franken e2
12 3.2k 4 Wales
24 Dec 2013 8:05AM
Bookmarking.
24 Dec 2013 11:16AM
Glenn, thatís what I was hand-waving about when I said, ďwithin the usual spectrum constraints.Ē

Backlights are flawed things that, even at a correlated colour temperature of 6500 K, donít very closely emulate a 6500 K black-body radiator or a D65 standard illuminant. And two backlights at the same CCT can look surprisingly different from each other. I think anyone whoís tried to get different side-by-side displays to match has bumped into this problem, such as it is.

My experience with displays suggests backlights vary a lot in quality. Some, like my EIZO ColorEdge, produced a very convincing white. Others, especially older notebooks, felt Ďoffí no matter what I did to them. The whites just didnít look very much like white objects in real daylight. I never had problems getting any of them to a desired CCT, but hitting that desired CCT was no guarantee of really satisfying whites.

This is before even considering individual colours and gamut, which also greatly depend on the characteristics of the backlight.

Right, I have some last-minute big spending to do!
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
24 Dec 2013 6:28PM
I tried briefly to get two entirely different displays to match. The chances of that are always increased if you have identical monitors (and increased further the more money you spend - handy for you Samuel Smile).

Targeting D65 is theoretically more precise than aiming at 6500K (CCT). It's illustrated here:

6500.jpg



The lines that are perpendicular to the blackbody curve (aka Planckian locus) show the ambiguity of correlated/monitor colour temperature.

This is all at a tangent to the original post, I know. For the record, I'm a [Windows] PC cheapskate, likely to spend two or three times more on a monitor than a computer.
25 Dec 2013 1:17PM
Interesting. However, being about as thick as two Plancks, I only have a fuzzy understanding of what that diagram means.

Quote:For the record, I'm a [Windows] PC cheapskate, likely to spend two or three times more on a monitor than a computer.

Oh dear. It sounds like you might have less than 32 GB of RAM and a 750-watt power supply. How can you get anything done on that old jalopy?!

Happy Christmas to you anyway, and to one and all.
JJGEE 9 6.4k 18 England
25 Dec 2013 1:48PM

Quote:The iMac, or any Mac is not easy to get used to if you are coming from a PC


Quote:and since 95% of the world uses PCs and not Macs,

But Macs are PCs ! !
GlennH 9 1.9k 1 France
25 Dec 2013 2:30PM

Quote:Interesting. However, being about as thick as two Plancks, I only have a fuzzy understanding of what that diagram means.


Ah, well, I'm sure I can out-Planck you with my natural gift for dimwittedness. The curvy line is the plotted path of colour temperature (i.e. 'proper' black body colour temperature), whilst the lines going across it represent the range of colours possible at various 'correlated colour temperatures' (which apply to monitors, as you know). So, for example, you can see that 6000 K could mean anything from magenta to green, whereas if you target D65 (also shown) you're aiming at a specific colour with precise 'x' and 'y' coordinates in any given colour space.

Would a Mac be able to help me with procrastination? I think it's me that needs the extra RAM.
dougv e2
10 8.4k 3 England
25 Dec 2013 4:30PM

Quote:But Macs are PCs ! !

Indeed.

However the IBM PC Clone is commonly known as a PC. Smile
25 Dec 2013 6:29PM
Apple always polarize opinion. And equally there are very many people who HATE Windows. Neither PCs nor Macs are perfect, nothing in this world is, and any of us can only speak from personal experience.
I use a Mac and am very happy with it. I've had it for almost 2years and have had no problems. The screen is still colour accurate, everything is as good as the day I bought it. Recently on-line I was attacked by the "Ukash" scam ... it locked up the browser ( Firefox ) but couldn't get past the firewall, so I just force-quit the browser and secure-trashed it; no further problems. I have no problem with the reflective screen, which is the thing many people hate most about Macs, I just use it in a darkened room and it's fine. I personally know 3 landscape photographers... 2 professional, 1 serious amateur... who in recent times have changed from PC to Mac, and they all say they wish they'd done it earlier. One of them, the amateur, was using a Dell ( don't know which model ) with a 27" ( I think ) EIZO monitor. Since getting the Mac about a year ago he says he never bothers with the EIZO now. A professional print lab that I used for several years also used Macs, and the technician I used to deal with thought they were far superior tools for the job, though admittedly I never really learned precisely why.... I wasn't that interested in that side of things at the time, I was too busy taking photographs.
Joe Cornish was using a Mac, probably still does, and was using them for his Photoshop Workshops at his Gallery. Whether you like his work or not, you have to acknowledge the fact he's a very discerning and experienced top professional, unlike us commentators here, so if Macs are good enough for him.... well...

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.