Apple v.s PC for photoshop

[Key]

By default, Mac systems are better adapted to graphic applications than Windows systems. I have no time to elaborate now, but some Googling on 'native gamma' (for starters) might help you. Be aware though, there is also a lot of male cow poop going around.

Erik

[nilsko]

You have to compare apples with apples Up until PS CS2 the Mac version was optimized for PowerPC based CPU architectures. When you'd use this on the Intel based platforms like the newer iMac's the performance on a Mac was worse than on a PC due to the conversion of the programme via the "Rosetta-layer" which translates PowerPC like instruction sets to the Intel CPU.
As from PS CS3 Universal Binaries are used which negates this difference and so performing all the same. I am a Mac user, so I can't make a honest comparison between Mac or PC. I think that as long as you have enough RAM and CPU PS performs well on both platforms, but there are surely some aspects which perform better on a Mac than on a PC.

Overall the switch for me from PC to Mac was one I never regretted.. But that's another discussion almost as fiercely battled as Nikon vs. Canon users As far as PS/editing goes, it's still the man, not the machine..

[Leeuwarden]

As far as PS/editing goes, it's still the man, not the machine..

That's true. A 2CV brings you everywhere you want to go. A nice Mercedes does the same thing. You choose...

(I'm a Mac-user for over 20 years)

[Leeuwarden]

One note about Mac's. An iMac is the obvious choice for Photoshop. Be aware that the 20' version has a TN screen. The 24' version has a H-IPS screen.

Do not buy memory in an Apple-store. Local shop Norrod can deliver quality memory for a lot less money.

[Wildpicture]

Basically there is little difference between the two systems in Photoshop. The talk about Apple being better in graphics and "native gamma" is something which was valid several years ago. For each system you will need a very good monitor (Lacie or Eizo, not Apple!)to get the very best results.

At the moment there is one big difference between the systems in performence and that is the fact that the 64-bit version is only available for Windows (XP x64, Vista64 and Windows7 x64) and NOT for Apple.

If you are up to the very highest performence and specs, but merely advanced amateur use, there is not really any difference.

Apple users are just a bit more fanatic about their beloved brand.

[Tom Tiger]

I loved Apple but could never afford it. I made the switch to GNU/Linux and Open Source. I'm NEVER going back to windows for editing my photos. I've got the Gimp, DigiKam and Lightzone.

Apple is excellent, there is no doubt about it. But since I can get excellence with Linux I no longer need to buy Apple or M$.

Just my humble 2 cents

[Polecat]

twenty years ago I trained with apples as the whole ''graphic'' society worked with them. Though more expensive than PC's at that time they were ahead in everything, especially concept-wise.
Even ten years ago, studies showed that printing companies using apples were more protfitable than the ones using Dos/Windows systems.

However, all the programs developed for Apples at that time gave them the edge over "the other computers" (In fact one can say the whole idea of icons stems from Apple..). Benchmark programmes like Illustrator, Quark X-press, (later Indesign) and Photoshop used to be Apple professional programmes but these are now also available for Windows..
Though it seems the Apples are still a bit faster in rendering images, in my opinion the differences are minute and as has been said before, getting an Apple has also become a bit of a fashion statement and even if Apple would launch a toilet-roll dispenser tomorrow the apple-adapts would buy it...

(wouldn't mind swapping my PC for a big fat powerMac though...)