Computer performance should not cost more than our Cameras!

[HDNitehawk]

Agreed. Although the Dell is slightly better in processor, video card, ram, and HDD, they don't offer 1080p on their 17" for some reason (just the 15.5").
<p sizset="41" sizcache="11"]Other manufacturers, do, though. HP does have a 1080p in their 17", though, and I just compared it with a 17" MBP, both with 1080p, 8GB RAM, 500GB 7200 RPM HDD and got $1500 vs $2750. Even with 1080p, the Apple is almost twice as much.

My Dell Laptop was upgraded with a better video card, and the monitor upgrade they offered because I wanted the best resolution possible. The Laptop does have the best picture quality of any PC I have ever had.


But on the wifes $1200 MacBook Pro the pictures look even better. I don't know what Apple does to get their monitors to look this good but they have done it right. People can quote numbers and processors all day, but the proof is in the end whenI put the picture you worked so hard at up on the screen, I want it to look the way it is supposed to look. Isn't that part of what photography is about, getting the best picture possible.

[Daniel Browning]

But on the wifes $1200 MacBook Pro the pictures look even better.

That surprises me. The $2700 3-year-old Macbook Pro that I have is the. worst. screen. evar. In fact, macbooks and macbook pros have always had such inaccurate, junky screens that it's caused false advertising lawsuits against Apple. Last time I researched them (in 2008), they were still just 6-bit. I stopped using 6-bit monitors last CENTURY, their quality is so poor. I don't know if Apple has finally upgraded their laptops to 8 bits or not (they don't bother telling you anywhere that I can find).


Apple Cinema displays, on the other hand, are a lot better for accuracy. Not as good as NEC, but worlds better than their laptops.

[Trowski]

Last time I researched them (in 2008), they were still just 6-bit. I stopped using 6-bit monitors last CENTURY, their quality is so poor. I don't know if Apple has finally upgraded their laptops to 8 bits or not (they don't bother telling you anywhere that I can find).

I'm not sure where you did your research... Apple has been using at least 24-bit color (8-bits per channel) in all their laptop screens since 1998. For specs, check http://apple-history.com. I've always loved the screens on my Apple laptops. I usually have to buy a high end monitor to go with the laptop so the external monitor doesn't look like junk in comparison.


When you speak of 6-bit color I assume you mean 18-bit color, which I've actually never seen, but is apparently was used in really cheap LCDs, something Apple has never used. Apple did use 16-bit color (5-bits for red, 5-bits for blue, and 6-bits for green) prior to 1998. It's very obvious when using a 16-bit screen, since it can only display 65,536 colors vs.16,777,216 for 24-bit color. You'd definitely notice that in your photos, lol.

[alexniedra]

Interesting post, Thomas. I

[bob williams]

I have to reluctantly admit that I often drool and am seriously considering the switch to MAC ----not for any particular reason other than my photography is the most important computer demand I have have right now; and MAC seems to be the industry standard for photo and video manipulation. But I have reservations:


1. I am not familiar with the Mac OS--I wouldn

[Daniel Browning]

[EDIT: changed the wording of my post to be a little less rude. Sorry.]

I'm not sure where you did your research...

Lookup the model number of the actual manufacturer of the laptop display (e.g. L.G. Phillips), then refer to the published specifications for it. Apple doesn't publish specifications for any of their own products, but many times their suppliers do.

Apple has been using at least 24-bit color (8-bits per channel) in all their laptop screens since 1998.

That is incorrect.

For specs, check http://apple-history.com.

That site doesn't publish the true bit depth of the display itself -- it doesn't even indicate the manufacturer of the panel, let alone the model number or actual specifications. Apple uses dithering to display 8-bit color on a 6-bit display, and dithering is most definitely not the same as having the true bit depth.

I've always loved the screens on my Apple laptops. I usually have to buy a high end monitor to go with the laptop so the external monitor doesn't look like junk in comparison.

I've never heard of Apple using high quality IPS displays in their laptops or imacs, but I have personally verified that many of them (including mine) use the very cheapest, junkiest type of LCD: TN.

With 6-bit color I assume you mean 18-bit color

6-bit refers to each of the three R, G, and B pixels on the LCD display itself, while 18-bit refers to the information before it is displayed. It's essentially the the same thing said in a different way.

which I've only seen in really cheap LCDs,

Me too. Unfortunately, "cheap LCD" is synonymous with apple laptops and imac displays. (But not their cinema displays, thankfully.)

something Apple has never used.

I'm looking at a 6-bit TN display on my $2,700 macbook pro right now. If it didn't use dithering as a crutch, it would only be capable of 262k colors, and the "millions of colors" are only possible with all the dithering artifacts.


After all the lawsuits Apple settled out of court in 2008, I would have expected them to finally stop scraping the bottom of the barrel with their 6-bit TN displays.Unfortunately, even now in 2010, the Macbook Pro is stillusing the cheap, junky 6-bit TN displays: a Samsung LTN154BT08. It's incredible that they continue to hoist such poor quality on their faithful customers, but it helps explain why Apple's margins are triple that of everyone else.

[HDNitehawk]

I have to reluctantly admit that I often drool and am seriously considering the switch to MAC ----not for any particular reason other than my photography is the most important computer demand I have have right now; and MAC seems to be the industry standard for photo and video manipulation. But I have reservations:


1. I am not familiar with the Mac OS--I wouldn't know the first thing about fixing it, customizing it or even routine management.


2. I have operated PC's since the DOS days and Windows since the first release. I am very comfortable with windows and can usually make do anything I want it to do. If it crashes, I can handle that without panic and without a great deal of frustration.


3. The only data I have ever lost, at work or at home, is my phone book, and that is because I failed to back it up before a baseload---my problem, not windows.


4. I actually buy my software, but how much of it will run on Mac I don't know.


5. I fully understand the componants on my PC, i can usually figure out what the problem is and if neccessary fix it, fix the driver or replace the componant if necessary.


6. PC parts are typically interchangeable. If I decide I want a new system, then I buy a new motherboard, memory and processor, most everything else will work until I can afford to replace the hard drives, graphics card, network card, cd drives etc.---I am not sure if Mac is this versatile. (Since everything is packed into the monitor---I doubt it). Now, if some items don't need to be replaced, I don't have to replace them.


7. I don't know how much of the MAC hype is trendy and how much is truley functional.


8. I am 50 years old, I have a graduate degree and my learning interests lie in photography and photographic post processing----which is very challenging for me. I am normally a right brained individual, so the arts and artistic impression is a challenge.


So, regardless of the cost, would someone please tell me why I should switch to MAC---and "it just works" isn't good enough?


Thanks


Bob

Bob to answer your questions:


1 I had the same concern, there is a tutorial on the apple website that discusses this. Its nothing to learn, a couple weeks and your up and running no problem.


2 I really haven't had any problems with crashes. And not one issue to call support over. Can't say that about my PC's the last year.


3 Well..backing up is the same for both. Apple does offer some back up and storage options but you can still get any exterior hard drive


4 Software is a good question. You should check it out. Especially Adobe, I have CS5 complete and it would be bad having to pay another $2500 license


5 PC and Macs are both computers. Mac selects the stuff they put in there computers to control the quality and their reputation. I do not know about the I Macs upgrading them, may be a problem but if you pay the premium and it has good stuff it shouldn't be obsolete tommorrow


6 With Mac Pro you will be able to use 3rd party stuff..again I do not know about I Macs


7 Probably both, functional and trendy. I don't care about trends, I want my stuff to do what it is supposed to.


8 I am 50 as well and that description probably fits me somewhat as well


And ....it just works...and the reason I say that is all the times I have brought a PC home...and it didn't


I brought my apple home worried, and was pleasantly supprised

[bob williams]

Rick, Thanks---Good response, Not convinced yet, but getting closer.


Ya know, My boss is a photog and he has a MacBook and he is always trying to sell me on Mac and when I look at it, I hate all of those little "cartoonish" icons along the bottom---drives me crazy---


C

[Daniel Browning]

MAC seems to be the industry standard for photo and video manipulation

That it is. What's funny is that Microsoft's own TV and print commercials have been made on Macs. MS even had to do a little press release about it (which boiled down to "we couldn't find an ad agency that didn't use macs!")


That said, I prefer to use Linux and Windows for photo and video editing.

1. I am not familiar with the Mac OS--I wouldn't know the first thing about fixing it, customizing it or even routine management.

1. OS X is very intuitive (more than Windows, I think), so you wont have a hard time learning it, but it will take time. Basic customization is very easy, but advanced customization requires command line editing and/or additional software. For example, I didn't want my laptop to go to sleep every time I closed the screen. On Windows, this is a simple dialog box, but on OS X (10.5 at least), it requires 3rd-party proprietary software.


That is one example of the basic difference in philosophy. Windows is "we'll give you enough rope to hang yourself", Mac is "our way or the highway". Another example is disabling the super-annoying "do you want to use this disk as a backup?" prompt every time I plug in an external HDD (several times a day). This you can disable by executing some commands in the terminal. Not as nice as a "don't show me this again" checkbox, but at least they made this customization possible without 3rd-party software.

3. The only data I have ever lost, at work or at home, is my phone book, and that is because I failed to back it up before a baseload---my problem, not windows.

The backup solution that ships free with OS X (Time Machine) is excellent. It wont work for anyone with a lot of data or advanced backup needs, but for the majority of folks it provides the perfect dirt-simple solution. I haven't bothered to check if MS bothered to put a halfway decent backup in Windows 7 or not -- most folks use a free 3rd-party backup solution.

4. I actually buy my software

Nice to meet someone with a healthy respect for copyright law. That rules out Hackintosh (running OS X on non-Apple hardware), of course.

but how much of it will run on Mac I don't know.

Just about all of it will, one way or another. Some will execute "natively" with Wine (I recommend CrossOver for ease of use), others will run well using virtualization (Parallels, VMWare, etc.), and for the ones that need maximum performance you can just reboot into Windows (though I find this option too inconvenient).

[Trowski]

That site doesn't publish the true bit depth of the display itself -- it doesn't even indicate the manufacturer of the panel, let alone the model number or actual specifications. Apple uses dithering to display 8-bit color on a 6-bit display, and dithering is most definitely not the same as having the true bit depth..

You're right, that site I provided only specifies what the graphics card is capable of displaying, not necessarily what the display is capable of. My claim that Apple has used 24-bit color since 1998 came from info on that site, and I guess was based on the graphics card, not the actual display. When I do more research I find conflicting information about what screens Apple uses... some sites say what you do, other's say they use TFT LCDs.. I don't really want to argue. Comparing them in the store, the Apple screens look as good or better than their PC competitors.

Me too. Unfortunately, "cheap LCD" is synonymous with apple laptops and imac displays. (But not their cinema displays, thankfully.)

If they do use TN LCDs, it might be a power consumption issue. Would make sense as to why the cinema displays are better as you claim. Like I said, I find information for either side.


I guess I might have to do more research on monitors. Perhaps what I thought was a 24-bit monitor may only be a 18-bit monitor with dithering. I must have been mistaken about the cheap LCDs I referred to that I saw years ago... those were probably 16-bit LCDs. As a web designer, I've never really had to learn specifics about such things, since generally graphics for the web are fairly simple and I don't have to worry about accuracy of color reproduction.


I don't really want to argue about Mac vs. PC anymore... just like with Canon vs. Nikon, each has their advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day they're both great tools.