Mac vs. PC Digital Photography Comparison

An anonymous reader writes "Rob Galbraith posted a comparison among two Macs and two PCs. Both a high-end Mac and PC are included with somewhat surprising results given the number of Mac zealots who will claim otherwise... optimized for PC, Mac support second, Photoshop is faster, yada, yada, yada."

Comments

heh..

[Suppafly]

I submitted this same story around the same time and being the rabid mac hater that I am, I still managed to try not to make the submission sound baised and what happens, they post the one submitted by an anonymous reader which is overly rude and biased.

although a lot of the ones posted by micheal seem to be submitted by anonymous readers and other unlinkified names, so perhaps he just rewrites them and doesnt accredit the submission to anyone..

I'm sure someone else will mention the Gimp...

[$$$$$exyGal]

I'd like to see the Gimp compared to everything else in the list. I am by no means a professional graphic designer, but I love the Gimp. I use it to touch up photo's, etc. Does it even compare to Photoshop where professionals are concerned?

And especially in terms of this article, would productivity improve if the Gimp was used on, say, a Linux box?

--sexy gal

*nix rocks

[allotrope]

this may sound like a troll, but i'm always suprised at how few people on /. like linux.
i use redhat on my pc, and os x on an ibook. i'm generally pretty excited about the commonality between platforms, even if it is mostly "under the hood". macs are a *nix operating system; they use unix utilites and have much in common with my redhat box. i'm very happy if i can write an app or shell script and have it run on both machines with little hastle. apple currently does a very good job (compared to other vendors) in supporting open standards. even though there are licensing issues, there is enough in common, that using a mac i feel like my programming effort isn't wasted.
as a user example, i use CUPS to print to a printer that isn't technically supported.
i also notice that most of the really techie stuff doesn't show up much in these discussions. the mac windowserver is the thing i most miss under redhat/x11. i'm not sure how it compares to the current MS windowserver. my experience using Adobe applications under Widows2000 is that it does a poor job in rendering text. i'm not technically adept enough to say exactly why, but applications such as InDesign actally do look a little better when scaling stuff on the mac. quartz extreme can (in some cases) partially offset the cpu slowness.
i realize it's hard to benchmark something like "it renders the text more accurately", and i'm also suprised that people don't take that into account.
the speed thing really isn't that important; it can be, and will probably be fixed. having open standards and a cool graphics api is what rocks!!

Re:Price/performance...

[FatherOfONe]

First, let me say that I like Apple. I would LOVE to have one of the new powerbooks.

Now to use your comparison of cars, lets assume that 95% of the driving that you do is raceing, and the Dodge actually had around 100 more HP and a lot more torque.

This is what the article was expressing. It did not say that the Mac sucks. It just said that image processing was a lot faster on a SINGLE P4 than the fastest dual G4 Mac.

Now, Apple should take this and take a long hard look at their relationship with Motorolla.

I will ask you a question. Would you still buy a Macintosh if it had an Intel/AMD chip in it? This assumes that it had all the currently quality and functionality of a current Macintosh? Now what if it was faster and cheaper? I would!!!!