[cooldude14es]

Ok, so this is the time when one needs to decide what to choose because I need a new computer. Until now I was shooting in jpeg but from now on I will be shooting RAW (I think I have enough info thanks to this forum to choose my software), so whats the question?

Well, it is not the right place to talk about this, I know, but any new PC desktop or PC laptop is coming with Windows Vista and I think thats a real problem... for all what I have read about it Vista reminds me of the ´wonderful´ Windows Millenium, and almost everybody is waiting for a new OS from Microsoft, but on the other hand there is no more XP selling so if I choose PC I am condemned to Vista...

Maybe I can choose Mac, it is the standard for audio-video-photo (my hobbies!) but it is more expensive and here in Spain even more.

So what would you do if you had to buy a new system? If I choose Mac, for RAW processing anything better than Aperture?

Thank you.

[tybeck]

First off a disclaimer, I've been a Mac user for over 10 years and used Apple computers for 10 before that. Despite that I've used every version of Windows in come capacity since Windows 3.11 for Workgroups except Vista. I've also had some time in various UNIX, VAX, and Linux operating systems as a user. Having said that I think OS X is one of the best operating systems I have ever used.

That said, most any major operating system will suit your needs, the two major consumer ones being of course Mac OS X and Windows. In photography there are versions of the major software packages for both platforms, with the big exception being Aperture. I think you will if you look at reviews that whether of not is it "better" that a similar package like Lightroom is a matter of preference.

So that's that it comes down to, preference. From what I've heard from users who's opinion I trust Vista is okay. Actually Windows ME was not all that bad if you set it up right on hardware that was designed for it. The problem, like with Vista and some things in Linux, it didn't "just work." MacOS OS X and XP (by this point) do just that.

So my advice. If you don't have the cash for a Mac (shame to see that price is so much higher in Spain. Here in the US a Mac is about the same price as a name-brand quality PC) get the PC. If you don't like Vista get a cheap OEM copy of XP and install it yourself. Some companies will even still install XP (Dell for example) because of the strong demand in the enterprise sector. My company is still running XP mainly because some of our core security software has not been updated yet. They've been testing Vista for over a year now and still not rolled it out.

My $0.02, what ever that is worth nowadays.

[Tom S.]

First off a disclaimer, I've been a Mac user for over 10 years and used Apple computers for 10 before that. Despite that I've used every version of Windows in come capacity since Windows 3.11 for Workgroups except Vista. I've also had some time in various UNIX, VAX, and Linux operating systems as a user. Having said that I think OS X is one of the best operating systems I have ever used.

That said, most any major operating system will suit your needs, the two major consumer ones being of course Mac OS X and Windows. In photography there are versions of the major software packages for both platforms, with the big exception being Aperture. I think you will if you look at reviews that whether of not is it "better" that a similar package like Lightroom is a matter of preference.

So that's that it comes down to, preference. From what I've heard from users who's opinion I trust Vista is okay. Actually Windows ME was not all that bad if you set it up right on hardware that was designed for it. The problem, like with Vista and some things in Linux, it didn't "just work." MacOS OS X and XP (by this point) do just that.

So my advice. If you don't have the cash for a Mac (shame to see that price is so much higher in Spain. Here in the US a Mac is about the same price as a name-brand quality PC) get the PC. If you don't like Vista get a cheap OEM copy of XP and install it yourself. Some companies will even still install XP (Dell for example) because of the strong demand in the enterprise sector. My company is still running XP mainly because some of our core security software has not been updated yet. They've been testing Vista for over a year now and still not rolled it out.

My $0.02, what ever that is worth nowadays.

That's not completely accurate. You can and most likely will run into trouble trying to install a OEM copy of XP on a machine that it's not designated for. You can still buy generic copies of XP that will work - maybe. New computers may contain hardware whose manufacturers have abondoned XP in favor of Vista, so there may not be any drivers available.

Dell was offering XP, but I am 99% sure that ceased when the Vista service pack was released. A quick look at the Dell site didn't turn up any computers with XP, or the option for XP.

I am one of the original Vista haters, but even I have to admit that the service pack resolved nearly all my issues. The big plus for Vista is security. XP is/was reknowned for having issues when it came to that.

If you're going to buy a PC online and want Windows XP as the operating system. You have only through Monday, June 30, 2008 (2 days). After that, Microsoft has forbidden its licensees to sell systems with XP installed. They must have Vista after Monday.

Tigerdirect.com has a number of PC's with XP offered on their site. I do no know if they can, or if it is feasible, to ship to Spain.

[a a i b]

I run both OS X and Windows XP at work. I only run windows for one program that I need; everything else I run on OS X. Eventually I'll upgrade the work machine to an intel mac and run windows programs with Parallels or Fusion (as I do at home).

I like the Mac OS. It's not without its quirks, but basic things work well, and software/hardware integration is tight, meaning that certain types of incompatibility problems are minimized. The OS isn't perfect, of course, but it does have a lot of basic, useful functionality. The downside is that you have to like the Apple way, because of course fighting the OS and its assumptions about usability is counterproductive.

In the old (DOS) days there used to be a joke that Macs were Catholic (sumptuous icons, tight controls and hierarchies) while PCs were Protestant (you needed to read the Word yourself, and not everyone was going to heaven). Nowadays the two operating systems have much more in common, of course -- Windows brought some of the mac experience to PCs, and Apple's switch to a UNIX-based OS (fronted by a GUI) means a whole lot of tinkering is available to those who want that kind of command line experience.

Since the gap between the two is now not that meaningful, one should evaluate each OS based on what solutions they offer. I've found the Mac OS to be pretty good about offering solutions to common consumer tasks -- management of specific files (music, photos, whatever), back ups, networking set ups (pretty easy on a Mac), peripheral management (pretty easy on a Mac), predictability and consistency across applications. The downside is you give up the ability to make the environment exactly as you want -- you really do have to have a sip of the Steve Jobs Kool-aid to not feel like you're fighting against your machine.

For me, the trade off is worth it. I don't want to constantly think about how I would optimize the hundreds of tasks a computer can do for me. I'd rather have most of my peripherals work seamlessly than have every single one of the planet somewhat compatible (after hours of tinkering, in some cases). I'd rather have easy to set up wireless, and general hardware/software integration, though I have to pay more and have less "choice." The "choice" of the windows world can be too much.

As for Aperture, I've found it to be a good-to-great program. It definitely has a lot of depth, and as an organizational tool it really is clean and neat. For me, it lets me concentrate on the photos. I'm not saying other tools don't, but I am saying I've found the Aperture-Mac workflow to be relatively easy to learn, troubleshoot and manage.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

[GaryML]

Ok, so this is the time when one needs to decide what to choose because I need a new computer.

Well, it is not the right place to talk about this, I know, but any new PC desktop or PC laptop is coming with Windows Vista and I think thats a real problem...

Maybe I can choose Mac, it is the standard for audio-video-photo (my hobbies!) but it is more expensive and here in Spain even more.

So what would you do if you had to buy a new system? If I choose Mac, for RAW processing anything better than Aperture?

Thank you.

I've been a Mac user for 4 months. Before that, I used PCs (primarily IBM ThinkPads and desktops) going back to the original PC. Before that, I used CP/M machines like the KayPro. Before that, it was the IBM System/360 ... .

IMHO, the best choice for most users these days is the Mac, either a desktop iMac, or MacBook/MacBook Pro notebooks. Mac OS X (10.5) is superior to the current offerings from Microsoft, and it is free of the Product Activation and Windows Genuine Advantage crap. It doesn't treat the customer like a thief. All of the major photo editing software programs are available for the Mac, including Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, etc. Most camera manufacturers support the Mac with their software. Most applications have decent Mac alternatives.

If you need to run an occasional Windows program, then just run it in a virtual machine using Parallels Desktop or VM Ware Fusion. I use Parallels Desktop to run a few Windows programs that I need on occasion using a copy of Windows 2000 Pro (the best desktop Windows version ever made and activation/WGA free). The Parallels Desktop program including the copy of Windows 2000 and the Windows apps only takes a total of 4 GB of disk space and it runs FAST! You can edit documents stored on the Mac file system & share documents with Mac programs, cut and paste between Mac and Windows programs, access printers, networks and drives, and do just about anything else you need to do. It is very impressive. For games you would need to run Windows directly on the hardware, which you can also do with Apple's Boot Camp.

The new Macs really do it all, and they are selling like hotcakes. They are more expensive than the cheaper Windows machines, but they are worth the extra cost IMHO. I only had one problem with my MacBook Pro (a glitch with multi-monitor resolution settings). I called Apple support and made it through to someone well informed about the problem. He acknowledged that it was a software bug and told me it would be patched soon. He couldn't promise a date for the patch, but about 3 weeks later a firmware patch appeared that fixed the problem. The nice thing is that Apple makes both the hardware and the OS, so there is no passing the buck with a problem.

The other option in desktop OSes is Linux. For many users, it is a better alternative for Windows. It does just fine for basic stuff like offices applications (using OpenOffice), Internet Web and e-mail, etc. There are tons of open source and commercial software for Linux. But for photo editing, I prefer the applications available for the Mac or Windows. And Linux still has some hardware support issues in spite of making great improvements over the past few years.

For RAW processing software, you might look at Adobe Lightroom as an alternative to Aperture. Lightroom version 2 should be out within the next 6 months and it should have features comparable to Aperture. You can get free demos of each and try them for yourself. Macs come with iPhoto which is very limited in editing capabilities but will process RAW files. And there are other Adobe programs from Elements to Photoshop available for the Mac. (I personally use Nikon Capture NX 2, but it only supports Nikon .NEF RAW files so that won't be a good choice for .PEF or .DNG files.)

[cooldude14es]

Thank you all for your answers full of interesting info.. it will help me a lot on taking a decision. Right now everything is pointing towards Mac (iMac is somewhat affordable for me, I guess but Macbook Pro is out of my reach)...

Thank you.

[maxwell1295]

I was an early XP Pro user who was somewhat reluctant to switch to Vista. I still have Vista on my desktop, but spend most of my time on the Toshiba notebook which came with Vista installed. My first instinct was to wipe it and do a fresh install of XP Pro w/SP2. I decided to give Vista a trial first and I've been pretty happy with it.

For RAW processing, I think the hardware is more important than the OS you're running. A powerful CPU with a decent size cache and a lot of memory is the ticket. My Toshiba has a dual-core AMD and 2GB of RAM (soon to be 4GB). This machine goes through large files a lot faster than my P4/1GB RAM desktop does. Memory is cheap these days so any dual-core processor with a boatload of RAM will be up to the task....

[PDL]

I still have my first Personal Computer (TRS-80 Model I - purchased in 1978) and I have never owned an Apple. Apples have always been overpriced, they are slick but they are over priced. One of the things I do not like about Apple is, that with Apple - you do it the Job's way or you don't do it. With the available list of OS's on the PC underlying platform - you are in control of what you put on it. Think of it as getting off the "green" mode of your camera - take control.

That said - my advice is always been the same. Buy the fastest box with the most memory and the biggest hard drives you can afford. Once you buy the box - stop looking for "better" deals. Something will always be faster, bigger and cheaper - just suck it up.

If you currently have a PC and depending on what you owned before - if you get a Mac you will have to replace most if not all that software with Mac software. I know you can run a virtual machine - but you are still purchasing a copy of Windows and you just might run into additional issues if you have old software.

Apple is the world leader in UI design and implementation. But after a while - what if what you want to do is get into the guts - a PC is much easier, from what I can tell, to dive into internal stuff. The early issues with Vista are old hat, if based on old hardware, the vendors did not keep up with appropriate drivers. I am running Vista Ultimate on a 5 year old P4 with 2GB of memory and everyting I have been working on runs just fine -- except my 10 year old copy of TurboCAD --- one piece of software.

Remember - it is not the PC - it is all about the image. You can not tell if an image was processed on a Mac or PC running OSX, any flavor of Windows or Linux. It is all about getting what you are comfortable with and you can afford.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[ftpaddict]

Apples are overpriced/overhyped. Buy yourself a VBI or CBB (common building blocks) laptop. You can configure your own laptop for almost HALF the price of a "brand name" such as ASUS or Toshiba. Then buy your own OS license and live happily ever after for years to come.

VBI and CBB laptops are very easily upgradeable with off-the-shelf parts. Try doing that to a Mac.

[GaryML]

I think there are some misconceptions stated above that should be addressed. But first let me say that I'm not a "fanboy" of Apple or any other manufacturer of mass-produced goods. I use what works best for me, and I will switch to a different system if it will serve me better. I loved my old IBM ThinkPads, but IBM abandoned its OS (OS/2), sold its PC division to a company based in China, and the Microsoft OSes packaged with recent ThinkPads have steadily declined in quality since the pinnacle of Windows 2000.

Apples are overpriced/overhyped. Buy yourself a VBI or CBB (common building blocks) laptop.
...

VBI and CBB laptops are very easily upgradeable with off-the-shelf parts. Try doing that to a Mac.

I used to think Macs were overpriced and more hype than performance, and it was probably true in the pre-OS X days. I don't like the Apple hype and marketing. But ignoring the marketing image and just using the product, the computers and OS X offer a lot for even power users. The Unix command line is there in all of its glory. The machines and the software have an elegance and consistency that is simply lacking with any other product. OS X is based on the Mach micro-kernel and BSD Unix, with the most attractive and functional GUI available anywhere. Neither Windows nor Linux does as well in so many respects. Apple is moving away from DRM to the extent it can, while Windows continues to harass the user with Product Activation, Genuine Advantage, proprietary data and media formats, etc. (And yes, I know that the whole iTunes market is a proprietary lock-in with Apple DRM and support only for iPod devices. Jobs announced that he wants to move away from DRM but that idea has little traction with the movie and record companies. But here we're talking about the Mac computers and not the iTunes/iPod/iPhone business.)

Yes, most current Macs (other than the MacPro) are appliances that are hard to upgrade. But you can add memory and replace the hard disk, which are the only upgrades that 95% of users need to do, so it really isn't an issue. If you are a hard core gamer who wants to replace your graphics card every 6 months, then you are better off with a PC. (And have fun with Product Activation: start changing parts around frequently and you will be on the phone to the Microsoft call center in India reading and copying 60 digit Activation codes. I know, I've had to do it three times in the past 7 years when I used to shuffle parts around in PCs. Best to do your upgrades at 120 day intervals to avoid re-activation failures.)

Compare the quality of construction of my MacBook Pro 15" with the OEM machines, and consider the quality of the Mac OS X ver. 10.5 with the OSes available for the OEM machines (Windows XP or Vista, or one of a variety of Linux distributions). Yes, the Apple product is more expensive for comparable performance. But you do get value for your money in superior quality and a superior OS.

One of the things I do not like about Apple is, that with Apple - you do it the Job's way or you don't do it. With the available list of OS's on the PC underlying platform - you are in control of what you put on it. Think of it as getting off the "green" mode of your camera - take control.
...

Apple is the world leader in UI design and implementation. But after a while - what if what you want to do is get into the guts - a PC is much easier, from what I can tell, to dive into internal stuff.

If you really want to get into the guts of the computer, Mac OS X does as well as any version of Windows. If you dig into the GUI configuration tools, you can do as much as any other GUI OS. It just takes some time and research to know where to look. If you want to get even deeper, the key is "Terminal" that gives you the the Unix command line in all of its glory. With some investigation into the tools available in Bourne shell, you can do everything available at a Windows CMD prompt and a whole lot more. And check out the free programming tools from Apple (XTools) and compare them to the programming tools you have to buy from Microsoft.

Most everything in OS X is controlled by text-based configuration files. If you know what you are doing, then you can edit these files and have anything work the way you want. Much easier than dealing with editing the Windows registry. If you screw up, then boot from the OS CD, run Time Machine, and restore from the automatic backup made every hour. Just restore the file you screwed up, or restore to the exact state of the last back-up.

One could easily make the claim for Windows that you are forced to do things the Microsoft way. Just like Mac OS X, Windows XP & Vista hide the system files, system configuration, file extensions and similar internal details from the user. But with either OS X or Windows, you can get at any of this stuff if you have a little know-how. And with Mac OS X, you also get the benefit of "the world leader in UI design and implementation" as you put it. What's not to like?

[ftpaddict]

What's not to like?

OS X doesn't run my games.

[GaryML]

OS X doesn't run my games.

You have a point. You can install Boot Camp and runs Windows directly, but I certainly wouldn't buy a Mac if I wanted to runs Windows programs a significant percentage of the time.

[Maxington]

The anti-Vista hype is completely overblown. On a reasonably modern computer, you won't find any more problems than any other OS. It has quite a few nice functionality upgrades from XP. I use both across multiple computers, and don't really find any problems with either OS.

No real opinion on OSX, it doesn't run any software in my field of work, or games, so its a non-starter for me.

GaryML, in your own post, you said you had to ring to re-active 3 times in 7 years. Are you kidding? Thats a big problem with "being harassed?" Wow.

And yeah, proprietry formats, both companies do that. You quickly let Apple off the hook for itunes/quicktime yet attacked Microsoft. Be consistent please, you are coming off as a huge fanboy. Neither company does anything different to each other, they are both corporations out to make money, and both their products have flaws.

[davemdsn]

I am a photographer and a musician. I switched from PC to Mac last summer after 17 years on PC. The difference is night and day. I can do so much more, and so much faster on my Mac than I ever could on a PC. IMO the hype is justified. It really does what it says it does.