Little things like right-clicking the header of an open document to open that file's containing folder or anywhere in its tree with ease is vastly superior to Windows. There's no comparison on reliability. I won't just make a statement like that without explaining why. The reason is Apple licenses the OS to work with their own hardware built computers.
Meaning they know exactly what configurations of Apple computers are running their OS, since they manufactured them all. Either operating system, Windows or MacOS, is capable of running the programs and getting the job done. They differ greatly in workflow, but they do run the same programs with relatively the same capabilities.
Windows even has a few little things that are better than Mac, such as the ability to customize extra mouse buttons if you have say, a seven-button mouse. Mac has never been able to utilize those buttons and that's a real shame because that one little thing can make a tremendous difference in efficiency when utilized. As cool as that feature is, it doesn't make up for all the benefits MacOS provides, but it's something.
Mac vs. PC Pros and Cons List
Bottom line, a capable computer user who has above novice level computer skills can use either operating system and get your work done. It's the same speed it was in 08, but that's not good by today's demanding standards. So, my options for the workstation Mac Pro? That's a lot of money for an already four-year-old technology, and while they are fast and work well they still are much behind the current curve of fast processors and hardware architecture, such as the i7 For example, for less money than a used Mac Pro costs, one could buy this.
That computer, performance wise, will run circles around a Mac Pro. Yes, MacOS is ideal for what I do, but at some point hardware that is 20x faster has to make a difference. Yes, there will be some negatives about the Windows OS to deal with such as having to deal with some kind of anti-virus , as well as a few positive little things like the mouse button customization.
Thanks for subscribing!
They are a great home or family computer, but I require more customization than that. What if I don't like the screen size? That's a rough place to be in because I truly love MacOS and what it gives me for my workflow. Windows will definitely be cumbersome but the speed of the computer is so much farther advanced, that it is appearing to now be the lesser of two evils. The rest of us are left with a tough choice.
It seems Apple is gearing heavily toward the consumer market and as a business decision that makes sense since there are a lot more regular consumers than graphics professionals. But it also seems like a huge mistake to abandon the original customer base that made the Apple computer so strong and good, evolving into what it is today.
What do you think? Is this really the end of the line for feasibly using Apple computers for professional photography? Bill is an automotive and fashion inspired photographer in Reno, NV. Bill specializes in photography workflow and website optimization, with an extensive background in design and programming. Great write-up! Also for those of us who use the Adobe Suite, by having Adobe doing what seems like throttling on Mac software it's most definitely frustrating.
PC still has the stigma, whether you believe it to be true or not, that their hardware has a short shelf life compared to Apple. From my experience, this is true and is why I switched to Apple a few years ago. The price tags of PC hardware is tempting but I can't change back given the experience I have and of those around me.
Personally I don't think that Adobe is "favoring" PCs - in my opinion it has more to do with how the drivers are updated on Windows vs Mac. It's something not just Adobe is struggling with, also PhaseOne CaptureOne wrote an article about the problematic a year ago or so.
It's a fast evolving technology but Apple throttles it down because they don't let GPU vendors update anything that relates to OpenCL and such things. Many professional programs that make use of the GPU had issues on the Macs which never happened on the Windows version. Actually mate, it is. Your graphics card directly relates to how much video ram you have and your video ram processes all of your image data. No, it is not. Yes and obviously the vid card has the vid ram. Not photography.
It's apparently a surprisingly common misconception, because I seem to be the only critic here of the mistaken notion that Photoshop requires a fancy video card. It doesn't even materially benefit from one. Rendering moving images in real time benefits from a powerhouse vid card, photo editing does not. You want to do expert Photoshop editing, save your money. Please read the reply below I made to Bill Larkin and see the links.
Happy to be corrected if you think you have a correction, but I'd like it to be fact-based. The GPU has everything to do with common daily tasks in Photoshop, including but not limited to live brush, brush size changes with full tip view GPU rotates The menu you posted does not support the point you are trying to make. Read it. It just says you can turn off features if your machine does not run well with them on ie if your card does not support certain features ie OpenCL or OpenGl.
This is not a function of your card's power. Being able to turn it off is a backdoor trick for older hardware compatibility. I refer you back to Northrup, or at least I invite willing learners to watch his very clear advice. The machine he has there, with it's common graphics card, is fantastic, even at two years old. Blinding by any standard.
This computer will not render half of the adjustments, you cannot use scrubby zoom, and you can forget about rendering files larger than a Gig. Your very specific example is not particularly useful for the purpose of generalization. You have one setup that is showing some error which probably invalidates it's usefulness, another works well.
It does not then follow that you can make a general case from the what you see as a difference. I'm not the perfect source of all info. I have common sense, I read critically. This is why when I see an absolute expert Tony Northrup agree with what I know, I feel I am probably on the right track. Speaking as a professional programmer, this is utter BS. There are some advantages to having a more powerful GPU, but data for the image being worked on by a graphics applications resides by default in main system memory.
I say it is not, but I'm happy to be proved wrong on tech matters, because it's like winning by losing: Another factor overlooked in this piece that I was going to comment on but did not is disc speed. Disk speed is the main bottleneck, not ram or the CPU. Disc speed, and the bus speed. I digress, back to the point: Think about it, why would a graphics card matter for still images? A fast graphics card is all about frame rates and rendering surfaces, all non factors in editing a single photo. The rotation of a single image via open GL is a puny task so that is a non-issue.
Linux vs Macintosh vs Windows (unbiased comparison)
You don't need a gamer card, and therein is where you really save real money on your PC which I suggest geeky people build from components partly at least for the fun of it. Graphics card info starts at if you are impatient, but the whole vid is excellent albeit old info beautifully presented. Key line is repeated as the last line in classic pro tech writer style, " And I'd like to emphasize that my view is not and yours should not be based on the celebrity status of an Internet opinion alone although Northrup is a "go-to" source of information on digital photography.
Rather it's simply computing hardware and old info at that and if it does not ring true for you, it's time you restudy the topic. John, this video is old and no longer accurate. I personnaly use Capture One for raw editing, and with OpenCL acceleration turned off for rendering, the image stutters when I make editing changes sliding a slider , whereas it renders smoothly in perfect real time 96hz, which is my screen refresh rate whenever I turn on OpenCL on my GTX The same is true for OpenCL assisted image exporting in Capture One: I recorded a three times faster rendereing speed whenever this feature is turned on as compared to CPU only rendering.
I can also monitor my GPU use and all of its power is maxed out whenever I make editing changes I can also hear the fan ramp up it speed! This proves that the GPU is fully utilized for still image rendering. It's , which is relatively new.
To which Tony N. The PC industry has ground to a halt.
- wizardpen 5x4 driver mac os x.
- mac cleanse off oil amazon!
- Mac vs. PC: The Pros and Cons | gofeqysyjiva.tk.
- minecraft forge download mac 1.3.2?
- mac and jacks friar street.
- mac constructivist paint pot dupe;
- Mac Pro (Late ) review: Apple's new Mac Pro really is for pros | Macworld.
The principles behind it include older established ideas the RAID setup that are rock solid. The incorrect assumption is that they do much better with a high end card. Yes you want them activated. Fewer offerings in CL, but still some low cost.
My understanding is, Tony's is, and yours should be, no. John - What you have said is also substantially incorrect. Your statement is a non sequitur. A slightly faster cpu is faster too, but it does not matter in real time work flows. They have needs. Technical professionals expect Apple to appear at their favored conferences, mix with them, listen to and respond to their needs.
Sales by desire, not checkboxes. They like to have sales reps who are technically deep and who have enough clout to help solve their problems. But those field sales people must be exceptional: both politically astute and technical.
The Mac Observer's Videos
They are rare. For the mothership to dwell on industry accepted, technical details that make or break a product for the scientist or engineer is an alien idea. Apple prefers to excite the average consumer with how cool a product is and deal with consumers in a more controlled way in the retail stores. Apple relentlessly leaves low profit products behind. Do the sales justify the investment in time, continued expertise, and human resources? Not by the scale of iPhone sales. Enterprise Depth. Apple has never been deep with enterprise technologies.
Apple recognizes that there are companies with vast expertise in the enterprise it can never compete with: Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Microsoft.
Better to partner in key areas, as with IBM, than go toe-to-toe. The world has gone mobile. A Mac Pro, and its OS, need serious expansion and corresponding backup capabilities. Displays and desktops. Apple is out of the display business. Still, the black cylinder remains an ugly duckling, out of sync with the jazz of the retail stores and not of much interest to the consumer crowd. So those are the reasons I think Apple might be thinking about letting the Mac Pro line go extinct. There is definitely a need for Mac Pro. With so much video assets and photo assets, I am not sure any level iMac can do the job.
Or you can stack up such bases. Many decent options in my opinion. Apple should make a brand new Mac Pro and Mac mini. The All-in-One iMac is a waste and Earth aggression, since computers may last seven years, but displays last more than There is a need for Mac Pro, as in Mac that is powerful, self serviceable in both professional Desktop Niche, and Server rack. Then there is the Mac being used in Rack, which is a space continue with increase usage. If Apple is really questioning its commitment to pro-level desktop computing, perhaps it should license macOS to third-party hardware manufacturers, like it did over two decades ago.