Move to Mac?

[bloodhound31]

I was thinking of upgrading to handle the TB of image data I now seem to be handling in my photography pursuits.

I hear Macs are just MADE for graphics in oh so many ways better than PC. Is this true, or a matter of opinion?

If I change to Mac from PC, will all of my Photoshop software and Canon software programs work with it?

What about running my EQ6 pro mount, Autoguide camera, PHD and all the programs, ASCOM languages, MaxIM DL Essentials, etc, that I am currently running on PC.

Is changing over to Mac going to make my life a misery sorting it out or is it all plug and play now?

Baz.

[Octane]

Question: does everything just WORK for you now?

Question: if so, why change?

Question: precisely how is changing to a Mac going to better your images?

H

[Steffen]

By lowering the level of stress hormones in your blood stream ;)

Whenever I have to support a friend or relative with their Windows PC I need to take an extra blood pressure tablet. That system is designed and optimised to frustrate :eyepop: And no, I'm not a noob, I've been dealing with it since MSDOS 2.1...

As for going Mac, there are various Windows-only astro utilities, especially those dealing with imaging hardware directly. This doesn't need to turn you off, though, as Macs are perfectly capable of running Windows, either alternatively to Mac OSX or side-by-side (using VMware/Parallels/VirtualBox).

Cheers
Steffen.

[Octane]

Steffen,

Joking aside, I fail to see how someones images will become better by changing an operating system environment. Both bits of software will perform the same arithmetic to each pixel location in an image. Granted, one might do it a bit faster, but, in my opinion this does not warrant the extra several thousand dollars.

If one has money to burn on nice equipment, then by all means, go for it. But insofar as processing an image goes, it's six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

If a Mac will improve my images, phw0ar! ...

H

[bloodhound31]

Yes, but it is slow and getting slower. My files are a LOT bigger now and I have a LOT more of them to process. My low-res timelapses are ok, but if I want to do bigger and better HD, then I need more power.



I don't know, that's why I am asking.

[bloodhound31]

Thanks Steffen, I think If I buy another computer it will be for in the house to process my images.

I'll probably leave the PC laptop out in the observatory to run the gear out there. That should avoid any nasty hardware/software/firmware incompatibility issues.

I'm just testing the water to see if I should buy a faster and more powerful desktop PC, or perhaps go to Mac, as I have heard they are much better for image/graphics-type work.

Baz.

[Octane]

My personal recommendation would be to invest in a beefy new PC. All your software will work, and fast, as well as at the fraction of the cost.

That's just me, though. I'm sure others who own Macs and use them for a living could sway you.

H

[iceman]

Without going into the pros and cons, to answer one of your questions, I'm pretty sure your photoshop license is for Windows only and you'd have to buy it again as a Mac version.

Canon software is free so you'd just need to download the Mac version.

From using both Mac and Windows recently, the Mac is certainly a bit faster when doing image processing in Lightroom and Photoshop.

[gbeal]

I've had both, and now have about 4 Mac's about the house (my son is a web/graphic designer so that helps), plus iPhone, iPad, you get the picture.
The only PC I have is solely used for imaging, and is a reasonable, but not the latest desktop that is firmly attached to the base of the rolling pier that is my imaging unit.
The only area that is problematic for me at present is capture software, and I can if necessary get round that by going to the likes of Nebulosity, but right now I am ingrained in capture software that is Windoze only.
Processing software presents new challenges, as I have CCDStack, again Windoze only. However I am thinking very seriously of going completely to PixInSight as it is Mac as well, native OSX Mac, not Virtual.
Baz, the simple answer is no I don't think the images are going to turn out any better, honestly.
Yes PS and the likes will work under the Mac, but you will need to get the appropriate Mac versions. I do and they go well.
There will be folk who suggest running Windoze within the OSX system and I draw the line at that, I don't/won't and haven't, hence the sole imaging PC.
Like Steffen eludes though, the stress levels are way lower, Macs are great, and for day to day about the house stuff, unbeatable, but I am significantly biased. They "just work".
Go back the PC and Windoze? Me? Never.
Gary

[mozzie]

i dont image at all (maybe in future)but run starry night to control telescope was running windows for years but the computer was just getting slower and slower and shutting down.had my head in the sand for years over macs there rubbish never change etc etc.... and i was scarred to try another system.cracked the ****'s one day bought a mac book pro and well never looked back no system shut down no anti virus garbage and kwick starry night pro has never run so good,thats my option on the system people say for imaging theres not the programs but for what i do ducks nuts!!!!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thum bsup:

[troypiggo]

So it was YOU who ordered all that Apple/Mac stuff on my credit card!!!!
YOU!!!! :)



I've heard that too. Now owning a Mac, I don't think they produce better images. There seems to be plenty of image and movie editing applications built in to the OS for it, and the computer does run a little faster, but think it's negligible.



Adobe/PS - is available on the Mac, but your current licenses will be for the Windows version and I don't believe they're transferable. An option might be to install something like VMWare which allows you to run a Windows virtual machine on your Mac, and install your Win software on that. That's what I do for Windows only software. But there is PS that is Mac-native (I have that), but you can't use your current Win licence for it. I think I said the same things several times over here. Sorry for the redundancy.

Canon (free) - yes



Don't know about Maxim, never used it. ASCOM and EQMOD is Windows only. So I have to run that in the above-mentioned virtual machine. Runs/performs fine.

But you can certainly do astro-imaging and guiding etc with Mac-only software. PHD and Nebulosity are available in Mac. As is Cartes du Ciel, Astroplanner...



It's pretty simple. I figured it out.

All that being said, if I were you, I'd stick with Windows notebooks or desktops. The driving reasons for me getting this Mac were that I'm a closet computer nerd, I regularly remotely log in to Linux machines and I like the Unix-based back-end of this OS, and I just gotta have da gadgets.

[multiweb]

MAC s are pretty cool. Always loved apple script. Originally PS and a lot of other graphic and macromedia utilities used to run on MACs only and they're still very engrained into the printing industry to date. Windows machines have come a long way though. I wouldn't make the move to a MAC solely based on the assumption you'll get better graphic tools but if you're more comfortable with a MAC then why not?

[veejo]

I have mac and pc. I like my pc because it has broader software support (more apps). The mac is, I have a macbook pro, great for browsing while in bed, no fan underneath so the doona doesn't ignite, and the battery life is great. Have an imac in the kitchen, handy. But the serious work is still done on the PC. My nephew does professional video editing, the pro platforms are on PCs not Mac.

Mac comes with some good apps straight from the box for money, but they have their limitations.

Find the apps you need and see what platforms they're supported on.

I own both, and use them for different things. Choose the apps, not the platform first.

[Omaroo]

Hmm.... here we go. What "limitations" may I ask? Seems that "serious" means different things to different people and environments. I run an advertising/graphic arts/prepress company's IT and development division. Macs are everywhere as front-end desktop machines that the artists (all) seem to prefer. As high-end desktop image processors and pagination systems they are absolutely as capable than their Windows counterparts that we also have - they work more seamlessly together, and the applications feel much more "fluid" for some reason to the users. There are no "limitations" to them - at least in my industry, whatever that means. Both the PC's and the Macs at our place are similarly powered - and have the same suite of applications on them. The Macs are used all the time, the PC's are strangely quiet.

One of the main reasons video is done on PC's at our place is that they are cheaper when you need to cluster multiples of them. A waste of Macs. LOL! Maya et al runs just as well on the Mac platform - they're all Intel-based at the end of the day. Maybe your nephews applications are specifically written, bespoke code that the authors chose to develop on the Windows platform for what ever reason. That's cool - we do it too.

Barry - if you run mostly PC-based software, especially if it's a little older, I'd stay with the PC platform. Unless you want to go OSX for the sheer fun and ease of use of it, there's probably little point. Remember - Macs are easy to use because there has been an incredible of amount of under-the-bonnet development to make them that way. They aren't "simple" in any way. If you run XP or Windows 7 natively on them instead of OSX, as you would a beige box PC, then the hardware itself is very, very good. A bit of a waste of OSX though.... :)

[bloodhound31]

WOW. There is some EXCELLENT dialogue going on here from ALL who have posted. I even got a big effort PM from Rally. Thanks mate! Lots of food for thought there, once I look up all the jargon.;)

Just to get the record straight, I never said or expected either machine to produce a "Better" end image. I was just asking which machine would be "better" for predominately doing large amounts of image work.

I have been comparing processors, RAM, storage and more on mid to top-of-the-range PCs and Macs today and am trying to understand what the biggest differences are. I'm sure either one can do very well, so it will probably come down to budget after all. I don't give a rats what it looks like.

I guess if I buy anything desktop, the scopes and image capture hardware/software won't be an issue, as I'll just use this old 1520 Dell lappy to run it all out in the obs, while I bring the files in to process in the house on the desktop. Less setting up and breaking down on obs nights that way too.

Thanks heaps everyone for your input. I am quite sure others thinking along the same lines of "what do I get" will benefit greatly from this thread too.

Bless ya's!

Baz.

[SkyViking]

I would recommend a high end PC as the software base is just a lot broader. I used to have Mac but eventually switched to PC because of this.
PC's are also a lot cheaper for the same processing power. Just install plenty of RAM for your Photoshop and it'll be great.
I'd also recommend using an SSD (Solid State Disk) as our OS disk, they are lightning fast.
I've recently installed Windows 7 on an OCZ Vertex2 SSD disk. Best thing I ever did. Word and Excel opens in 0.5 second - yes literally, from double clicking the icon to being ready to type. The splash screen only shows as a quick flash :D It's a joy to use.

[Omaroo]

Barry - you're correct in wanting the best throughput you can achieve, not the best image. That's up to you. It really is much of a muchness these days in the former. Again - I manage these questions professionally in my capacity - in a highly graphical environment to boot. If you've been trained as a graphics artist, you've probably come up through the ranks of Macintosh users from way back - and you'll be so-influenced. As you haven't, both platforms are pretty-much line-ball these days in terms of capability. If you want the machine for image processing you won't be disappointed with either platform I don't think. For some astro-specific packages that you may chose to use, they've mostly been written specifically for Windows. If the machine is solely for image post-capture processing then Macs have no disadvantage whatsoever, and their sheer ease of use may impact on your level of output. In the professional graphic arts space, only a few short years ago, the question of the day was "will a PC be able to do what my Mac does" - not the other way around.



Sorry Rolf, but not a good move in my opinion. SSD disks are still unreliable for operations that write back to them repeatedly. You'd think that the OS itself (as opposed to document storage) was relatively static and once loaded didn't change much, but it isn't. As an IT manager I've investigated this thoroughly and only a couple of weeks ago, and have come to the conclusion that our company won't be doing it. It may seem fast and that's great, but at the extreme expense of reliability. Virtual memory's constant disk paging will kill an SSD in no time. It's a technology that is being focused on and will mature quickly - but it isn't there yet. Kingston came out ahead when I was looking.

[avandonk]

I bought an i7 920 Intel thingy only because it can have 12GB of RAM with a 64 bit OS. It can open 60 RAW or fits images with 64 bit Images Plusfrom my Canon 5DH in memory and manipulate them in memory. No need for SSD's at all!

When 4GB sticks come out will get them so then can have 24GB of memory.

Meanwhile PS and lots of other stuff open and stll have memory to spare.

Some of my mosaics are now over 1GB in size and the system still does not swap off, at least on the active programs.

I have found that a 1250W power supply is worth going for as then adding lots of storage is then a doddle.

Memory speed is not as important as memory stability.

Bert

[Omaroo]

Absolutely Bert. I run Mac Pro towers at work with dual quadcore E5620 processors and 32Gb of RAM (eight slots at 4Gb/slot). The requirement for an SSD is nullified to a greater degree. My 27" Mac at home runs 16Gb and it screams when processing multiple FITS images. Memory and storage are king - just like aperture.

[SkyViking]

Thanks Chris, but the SSD market is moving fast and while your concerns were valid until recently I think now the reliability is no longer an issue, especially if you purchase the best hardware. OCZ are currently the leaders in the SSD field, along with IBM.
While I of course have yet to see how long this particular drive will actually last I'm quite pleased with its specs of 275MB/s speed and 2 million hour MTBF.
By the way, installing more RAM and completely disabling the page file was another best thing I ever did. I was initially worried that I might get the occasional BSOD and run out of memory but that has never happened so far.

For reference here is OCZ's own specs for the drive: http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/sata-ii/2-5--sata-ii/performance-enterprise-solid-state-drives/ocz-vertex-2-sata-ii-2-5--ssd.html

Regards,
Rolf

[Omaroo]

Keep an eye on the logs Rolf - I'd be very interested to see how the drive goes. I still won't use one for critical file or web server duties yet. 2MHr MTBF - I take it that's referring to total drive failure. This is only around four times the average MTBF figures listed for normal hard disks, which you'd expect because of their lack of moving parts. Still, I'm keen to watch their progress over the next couple of years.

Highly-configured Mac Pro systems come with an option of four 512Gb SSD drives as either individual volumes or in a raid configuration. They get away with it because paging is minimised via the employment of up to 32Gb of RAM as stated.

[Tandum]

4x512gb ssd drives would cost more than my car they are like $2.5K each.

Give them a chance, get them into laptops first which is where the big difference will be seen. It's stupid to concider them for mission critical stuff at this stage. Stick to 15K sas drives.

[edit]
Oh yeah, Apple sucks, Linux rulz :P

[Omaroo]

They're AU$1,800 each over and above the cost of the standard 1Tb drives Robin.