[toni-a]

A formal test done, and from the results the MAC has been clearly lacking behind 

ok it is 64 vs 32 GB of RAM but the price is the same, although much lower prices for some PC items with same specs  can be found.

For same performance PC is much cheaper 

 

https://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-mac-vs-pc-speed-test-4k-imac-vs-4k-custom-pc-performance-test/

[JJ_SO]

So what? What's new about that? Adobe is developing for PC, that's no secret, Macs use the same components, also no secret.

 

Stupid comparison, really. If you never go to the internet, you'll need neither firewall nor virus scanner - good for you - but as soon as you do - and with Adobe Cloud you're forced to use internet for activation and everything - you might very soon experience, how bad it is with malware. PCs taking as hostages to blackmail money for unlocking them again - ever heard from Macs?

 

Go ahead and enjoy the speed of the moment. the last 10 yearsI still saved weeks of work by no longer using a PC. You get what you pay for...  ^_^

[Rainer]

ever heard from Macs?

 

That's an argumentation that really doesn't hold. (And the same applies for Linux-Desktops as well).

 

Just because virus-development for Mac (and for Linux) would be a niche-market (due to the

relative nonexistance of these systems in absolut numbers) doesn't mean the OS on those

systems is in any way safer!

There are many holes in Mac-OS and Linux that were open for a very long time ... and in case

of Mac-OS they often remained open even after Apple has been notified.

(Just google the latest problems with PNG-Files and Apple-SW).

 

So ... it's just a question of time ... sooner or later we will certainly hear from a encrypted MAC.

[JJ_SO]

Since I have a Mac, I always read posts like yours, Rainer.

 

Only thing is: just because an OS-X is as penetratable as any Windows PC, it doesn't mean it's happening any time now. See Android / iOS. Yes there are lots of holes in OS, but if nobody takles the trouble to use it, I'm each day winning time with by not bothering about that shit. I also don't have to burn lot of energy just to keep the virus-scanner active - just take a look in your task-manager, when it's scanning. Here in the office it takes about an hour to scan only 250 GB, and I notice always when this bloody app is on 100%.

 

And I'm certain, that if it happens one bad day, a lot of very careless, backup-free Mac-users always logged in as Admin will make big blue eyes. But your argumentation is like telling dutch people, it's only a question of time until your dams will break. The answer is "so far they don't". To encrypt a Mac-OS hard drive which sometimes is already user encrypted, it takes more than just one click.

 

In the light of reality my argumentation does hold. Since 11 years and counting. And I don't mind that in theory you're right. What counts is what's real.  ^_^

[Brightcolours]

Funny. What are they comparing? The iMac costs a lot due to the 27" screen with 5120x2880 resolution (and good build quality). What do they compare it with? A crappy put together PC thing they put together themselves, with.... a 2560x1440 screen. That is half the resolution. And then they add things one does not need for Lightroom and such, just to jack the price of the iMac up. And have some inhouse geek put together the silly PC from ordered parts and charge no labour.

 

And then the real drive behind this "comparison":

 

"To those arguing efficiency and reliability in having to maintain the PCs, I would say that if users were to do the following, they wouldn’t have said issues.

1. If you are building a custom PC do your research and use only the best components

2. Stop downloading freeware, crap files, torrents, movies, software, porn and any other illegal content and much of your problems will disappear. 

The honest truth is, I have spent just as much time in a Apple store at the Genius Counter getting my Apple machines repaired as I have maintaining my well built PCs."

 

So basically, "I am a PC guy and feel the need to defend my Windows choice with a crooked comparison because I have something to compensate". 

 

Whoever believes the part where he has spent time an Apple stores to get his Apple machines repaired is silly. The guy doesn't have said Apple machines.

 

At home, I have been using Macs since the late 90's. Have a spent any time at any store to get a Mac repaired? No. Never. I have had one Mac Mini harddrive fail after 6 years of constant usage, I put a new one in and could copy the data from the failing HD even. That is it. 

 

How many times did I have to reinstall a computer because it just got to be too slow and busy with nothing all the time? Every year or so. Oh wait, I don't use Windows. So, never.

Do I download freeware? Often. Crap files? No idea what he means with that. Torrents? Yes. Movies? Was that covered by torrents? Software? Yes (but is freeware not software also?). "Other" illegal content? I love the framing.

No, I don't have the standard Windows slow down with my Macs, even after a number of years. And never even one virus, no malware.

 

Yeah, I see why they were able to spend so much money on more expensive processors. Lame article, thanks for posting.

[Klaus]

Ah, yes.

It's not only Canon vs Nikon but also PC vs Mac ... ;-)


I have both and I have likes and issues with both. Security is not an issue on either side - the concerns on Windows are obscure to me.


My next thing will be a Macbook Pro - not because the software is any better but because only Apple seems to care about really long battery life combined with 15" and quad core CPUs.

The other day I had to return the latest Dell XPS 15 because the battery life was beyond dismal.

I am wondering whether Apple will stick to their tradition there or whether they'll go for a 15" version of the Macbook 12". In any case it takes them ages to release something. The current Macbook Pro 15 is from the stoneage by today's standards.

[JJ_SO]

"Takes them ages to release something" says the tester of the 150-600 mm lenses  :lol: That was too good to be missed, sorry. You know, my hardcore "whatever you make, I'll buy it, Steve"-times are over since quite a while. Also, I have not much of a use of a huge 15" laptop which itself is stoneage, no matter who builds it. If it has to be mobile with all the limits ergonomically and can't be done by a tablet, I prefer small ones.

 

Anybody remembers some bonmots? "Netbooks simply don't work" and now they sell 11" and 12" MacBooks (but I must say, the keyboards used on them are very impressive). "Styluses are always bad because you don't know where to store them" And now they make two iPad Pro and a stylus - once the Genius left Earth, Apple returned to be an ordinary IT company with some nicely designed devices and also carefully kept up prices   Sure, when they started to make a device which already existed like MP3 player, cellphone, all-in-one PCs, they came up with a bucket of new ideas or/and better quality at a higher price - which doesn't look like that high when I think about how long I can use the devices. But these days they are only re-chewing Steve's ideas. 

 

And the question, on which device Lightroom runs faster... I could not care less about but somehow I enjoy the prejudice that LR would crash with libs over 30.000 RAWs. Making performing databases user-friendly was one of the big core competences of Apple - Adobe just copied what they were able to copy.

[stoppingdown]

LOL - being in the computer business since decades, I'm not surprised by these debates.

 

I think that the benchmarks have a value, if they have been ran in the proper way, but the value of those data depends on the context.

 

First, it's quite obvious that the maximum performance of a computing system is achieved by picking the best parts and assembling them, instead of buying a pre-made product. It's also well-known that Apple stuff is expensive; OTOH taking advantage of the broader competition in the PC side you can enjoy lower prices. The problem, as others said, is that performance is not the only quality of systems, and reliability is another. While I've been in the unlucky side of Mac owners (my late-2011 MBP suffered from a well known issue with the discrete graphics board, that broke twice - pain and money, until at last Apple was pressured to reckon the problem and at least I was refunded). But in the end I'm much more relaxed with my Mac stuff, when I compare to the long series of PC that I owned (and, BTW, I still own: for my business I have to continuously deal with Windows and Linux).

 

For security, I think there are reasons to say Mac OS X is better, but there is not an abyss. For instance, I've been running a shield with an anti-virus on my Mac for several years now. The point is that it is less intrusive and has a lesser impact than the similar products I see on Windows (exclude Windows 10, that I don't have a deep experience with).

 

There are also things to consider. What are your priorities? If you are a pro, or an advanced amateur that likes to invest a lot in your hobby, and have a real concern about speed so that you might consider having a dedicate workstation for post-processing, and do nothing else on that, the benchmark makes sense and the PC approach makes sense. If you are going to have a single computer, typically a laptop, where you do also everything else, the thing makes less sense. Honestly, I'd be happy to post-process faster: my laptop is in its final working year, which means it's obsolete, and I understand I waste 30-40% of my time while I prune my photos; this has an impact, since I have a long backlog of things to do. Amen. I

 

 

There are also a couple of points that, AFAIU, the benchmark misses. The former: today IMO it doesn't make sense to have a computer without disk encryption, for a number of possible enemies. I'm not a pro, and I won't suffer economic loss if somebody steals my photos, but I'd be extremely disappointed. Having part of the disk encrypted, when you keep sensible stuff, and part in clear text doesn't make sense: there's always the risk of erroneously copying sensible files to the clear text partition, and once you've written something on a SSD chances are you can't be sure to safely delete it. So, everything should be encrypted, but the benchmark seems not to take care of that.

 

The latter point: it would have made sense to take the Mac desktop, install Windows on it and re-run the benchmark, just to understand whether the performance difference is due to the hardware or the operating system (or the lack of optimisation by Adobe).

[borisbg]

The clash is definitely not fare...

They should've used MacPro instead of iMac. The lower tear of MacPro + Display is about the same price.

The custom PC is using only top notch parts + overclocking.

[JJ_SO]

The costs for putting the "custom build" PC together are zero, yes?

And we don't mind the double pixel number of the retina display, no?

We also don't mind the graphics with 50% more RAM in it on the PC side? With two fans making quite some noise? Nor the double RAM in the PC?

We also don't mind, that the iMac can be unplugged and then moved to another place, while the custom build PC with all it's cables... no, we don't.

 

I mean, I don't expect miracles for the Mac Pro. At this price it should perform way better these days. But professional movie or picture makers are no longer Apple's clients, they rely on iPhones and a part of me is wishing them to hell for this arrogance and ignorance.  <_<