sloanie: Here's the story: it's purely personal preference :D Once upon a time, Macs were the industry standard because PCs did not have the software / interface that Macs did. You simply couldn't do the same things on a PC when it came to graphics. That's obviously not the case today. So, Fast forward to now? I can't find that OS X offers any *technical* advantage that makes OS X more compelling. (I was told years ago something about color accuracy and Windows not having a color engine to be able to manage / provide accurate of color, but I can't find any evidence to suggest that this is the case now with Vista / Win7... maybe even XP). In other fields of work (not photography), you once had to consider what system your vendors were using (like sending a magazine to a printer to be printed)-- you didn't want to run into compatibility issues with fonts not transferring over, etc. So Mac was the "industry standard". I think that in general, software has been developed to the point where this isn't much of a concern anymore. Also, the guts of a PC are the same as Mac now-- you just pay a premium for the industrial design and unified hardware / software on mac. (I have to admit it's worlds easier to pop a hard drive out of a Mac Pro than a my PC I just built a few months back). So yeah. I haven't compared yet the speed of the same app on the same hardware in different OS's so far. It sounds like SPEED is your top priority (though it depends on your budget whether a marginal speed increase could be worth several hundred more-- it wouldn't for me). As long as you have the software you need and a good display that's calibrated, it's a function of OS preference (unless there were a significant difference in speed, which I doubt it's that big). Long answer, but I believe that there's no reason why any photographer needs to use a Mac. I switched to Mac as a designer almost 4 years ago, but I was using them in the office so I was gradually converted from using PCs. I'm generally just impressed with the interface and the bundled software compared to what comes with a PC. Yes, you can download some freeware solutions to some apps, but the overall experience and software on a Mac is more cohesive for the general user, not to mention that I've had fewer problems to troubleshoot on my Macs than on my PCs. (Now? I recently cheated the debate and built a Core i7 PC and loaded a retail copy of Mac OS X on it... so I have the benefit of the cost-effective PC with the software experience of a Mac, which tells me software is why I use Mac, not hardware). So for a power user with very specialized use? I see no special benefit to either platform. Mac for what you're doing (Lightroom with some Photoshop). I can't speak about video, but yeah. I see no great advantage with either system when it comes to photography. (The mac screens you talked about, I'm assuming you're referring to the glossy displays? I hate those. They do change the way photos looks but I've heard plenty of debate amongst photographers, those that say the glossy displays are bad for photo work, and those who say it does just fine for them-- I prefer non-glossy.) (Sorry for the long comment :) )

scott: No I loved your long comment! This post has recieved TONS of replies and comments on facebook. Kinda funny it's the first one on the actual blog. On facebook even though I said no hype and not to rely on circumstantial evidence that's what everyone did. (Perhaps why I was challenging the MAC thing because most of their loyal users. Don't have any logical well founded reasons behind their purchase, which points to apple's brilliant marketing strategy to appeal to people's emotions and not worry about the head.) But Sloanie I loved your review and I think many points were right on. I like that you acknowledged that it seems to be the user interface of the OS software and that bundle that people appear to be after along with the hardware look) Which in both cases DO NOT affect a photographers editing performance. I will continue to suggest MACs to people looking for that complete overall computer experience with no desire to learn about computers. But I implore people to stop this CRAP about how a MAC is somehow better for photographers when there is no evidence of how it would improve speed or quality of pictures. (Yet) If someone asks you give them both sides of the coin and let them understand what they'll get. Tell them there are options to have a really really good PC built (ibuypower.com) and that when you compare equals the debate is different than if you buy a bestbuy 800$ PC and compare it to a $2300 iMac If they like me need fast speeds and an effecient working environment and to spend their money efficiently. Then perhaps MAC is not the way to go. Specially if they want 3 monitors, lots of ram, an SSD hard drive. The option might swing heavily in favor of PC specially when price is viewed. As for Laptops as of 4 months ago when I bought the MacBookPro the best option on laptops was the MacBookPro for HIGH END laptops. (Not lowend) It was only $200 more than nearest competitor and that was a reasonable amount for the style and build and look of the product. I encourage anyone else with an intelligent comment to post here. Perhaps we'll even venture into some actual stats and numbers and less subjective reasons for MAC vs PC.

sloanie: Part of the perception is what you said-- marketing. Apple caters to creative types (as mentioned in my previous post-- that's their heritage, they were the pioneers in the digital realm of art). They cater via industrial design, their designer friendly UI, the applications they create: Final Cut Studio, Aperture cater to the film and photo folks, and if you prefer those software packages then yes you will be using a Mac. But if you're using Photoshop / Lightroom? Yeah. Take your pick. I pretty much found the same thing when I bought my first Mac-- a MacBook Pro. It was pretty similar in price to comparable PC laptops (well, cheaper because of a student discount available to me at the time). It's the tower machines that kill me where price is concerned (and part of that is in the hardware they use-- server class processors in the Mac Pro instead of desktop class, I think it's a way to keep the "premium" label and claim the best performance, even if the value isn't as great). And you're absolutely right-- Macs get awfully pricey when you start to add on options like extra graphics cards and SSDs and higher quantities of RAM (though for a long time you really had no other option than Mac-- or a high end workstation of another manufacturer-- if you wanted 8-16+ gigs of RAM. Thankfully that's not so anymore). So yeah. When it comes down to getting the job done... the rivalry is just that ;) Each will have their strengths and weaknesses, but they'll both do the job well.

sloanie: p.s. the speed test would still be fun. My only hangup will be having a license for the windows version of the software used, as otherwise it'd be fun to run it on the same exact hardware and see how each OS / native version of the software performs. ;)

Jeremy: I have to agree with Sloanie - It is all about personal preference. I have been using Apple computers for over 20 years and there is no way with all that OS knowledge and familiarity I would switch to a PC. Having said that, I have only been a "photographer" for 2 years now and my first camera was a Nikon D40 my wife bought me for Christmas in 2007. I will probably always buy Nikon from now on because of my positive experience with the brand and how my "personal preference" has changed or been defined based on that experience. I am sure Canon has a lot to offer - but unless they come out with the first digital Holga - I will probably always stick with Nikon. Does owning or using a Mac over a PC make you a better photographer? No. Does your ability with one machine over the other because of familiarity and history of use make you more efficient? I would say yes. Does it allow you to process photos better? Maybe. So Mac vs PC, Nikon vs Canon, hell, Chevy vs Ford or Coke vs Pepsi - it all comes down to personal preference - the technology is virtually the same (meaning there is more than one way to skin a cat) - the only limitation being your personal knowledge (or lack thereof) with your chosen platform. One thing for sure - owning and using an iPhone not only makes you a better photographer - it makes you a much cooler and better person. Oh, and Utah is better than BYU too.

sloanie: I wonder if Nikon is to photography as Apple is to computers :D I jest, I jest. I just saw an awful lot of Nikons at the photowalk the other day, it appears to be the popular brand round these parts ;)

Brian Beck: I agree with your thinking on this Scott, but here is where I see the major difference with the Mac os, mind you I started with windows back in the DOS days, and ran a full time debian linux system for over three years right before XP came out, and switched to mac before Vista, With Mac; 1- I can call up tech support and schedule a tech support call back time, or I can take it in and ONE company takes responsibility for the issue, hardware and software. 2- I spent one and a half hours fixing a pc for my father in law last night - he wiped the drive and reinstalled XP - issue - he did not have the drivers for the sound card, video card, ethernet card. I had to go find these and download them and install, this is not an issue with Apple products. 3- Virus, as of today there is not a major threat for the mac OS with viruses, maybe in the future this will change, but as of today not an issue, No one installing a back door in this system and downloading child porn and using my system for their illegal files. There are plenty more but these were the major points for me. So in the big picture "from my window anyway" this saves me time and energy and frees up time for more creativity, I sit down at the computer wake it up, and start working, when I am ready to work, not first checking to see if the computer is working and if the anti-virus is working, and when I print it prints. Cars have come a very long way, it used to be that you had to adjust the points every 15,000 miles, and don't get me started on how difficult is was to start a carbureted engine on a cold morning, even tires are reliable, these days we put gas in them and do an oil change and were done, for me, the Mac OS is that way now, I know how to fix both systems, these days, I just want it to work, when I need it. No cool aid drinking here, at the moment the Mac os is the better OS, if I need to pay more for the machine that can run it so be it, I do it gladly. For me it is all about the software, not the hardware. Now form factor has some influence, I'll admit. Then again why do some people choose a Lincoln over a Lexus, vs the yugo? they all will get you to the store. It is the user experience that matters. ( Photography - why do people re-hire you? I'd guess for the experience that you provide, not for the cheapest photographs, they can get those at walmar* ) When Windows or Linux figures out how to achieve what Mac OS has, I'll switch back, ( and enjoy the savings )until then I happy here. More subjective, ( sorry ) but with my knowing how they all tick at the end of the day, I just need to get to work, not fix the car on the side of the road.

Brian Beck: Jeremy, man, you had me right up to the BYU, vs Utah, darn ;-)

scott: Yes it is a tad subjective Brian. It doesn't attempt to answer wether we get better quality edits or faster production out of a MAC. But the points do help to solidify the Apple brand and their style and approach to the market. Though the software is only one brand for each OS, people should realize the hardware on PC has dozens of brands to choose from and in many of them you can call up tech support. Your arguments are great for the apple brand in general but do not speak to why photographers are so overwhelmingly in the Mac Camp. This is an actual quote: “If you do anything with graphics or video, 100% hands-down, no option go with a MAC.” And to me this statement has no legitimacy... yet. Plus though track records are important should we continue to compare new or old apple products to strictly the OLD PC software. I'm interested to start comparing new vs new mac os vs Win7 What if they fixed your issues in point #2 and #3. (I would be interested in knowing the stats for Apple vs each of the PC brands that build and sell their computers as Apple does, do we know for sure that Apple breaks down or has less problems than each of those vendors. It seems blue screens are no longer happening on new computers) Perhaps then it will ALL become fully a preference issue. Perhaps by that time they'll be the same cost anyway ;) At the moment it seems that there is no performance difference for photographers between PCs and MACs (that I've been given, though I'm still seeking) and it'll come to straight comparisons of prices and packages. - I'm not sure which will win out.

Brian beck: myself I would laugh at a statement like that with the video cards, Apple does not make the video card, now snow leopard does use the second video card in my MacBook pro for other uses and I can find the source for that if needed, but I would not in general suggest a mac over a pc for that reason.

Brian Beck: Yes, of course we should be comparing win7 with Snow Leopard, but I'd argue that "performance" needs to be better defined, (raw performance along with total system stability ) From where I am sitting right now, I am totally satisfied with Snow Leopard, I have stopped looking for OS's, Maybe I burned out with all of the attention that Linux needed( or that I gave it), hardware for hardware, I think that windows has the advantage right now, but like Nikon vs Canon, competition is good for all of us, Mac had USB long before windows users had ever heard of it, and right now windows users have Blueray. Tit for tat? Which is why I am looking at the OS, From my POV the MacOS is Linux with Photoshop. So IMHO own the system that you like to work on and with, trying to do both gives me personally a headache. ;-) Brian

Adam Findley: I have used PC's with Windows XP and dabbled in Vista and 7. I've used many flavors of Linux for several years and have recently switched to using a Mac. The reason why I switched to a Mac wasn't because it could run program x, y or z. I switched because it's a user interface that typically does what you expect it to, is consistent and gets out of your way. I'm often surprised by what's built in, for example controls for a UPS. My other favorite thing is it has full Unix underpinnings which lets me have much better control over my system. That's my personal preference. Speed is secondary as long as it's comprobable, though in my experience my Mac just seems snappier. With Windows and PC's, the reason why I don't recommend them to friends is I find that from my experience upkeep really is rough. While a Mac may be made out of PC parts, they typically are made out of high quality parts where as Dell, HP and others typically go for the cheap parts in their consumer lines and you have to spend as much or more to get the same level of quality build. I've seen several 5-8 year old mac's where people are still using them day in and day out without any problems. I really haven't seen that with PC's. They tend to last ~3 years, 5 years tops and often times that involves at least 1 complete reinstall. Fixing software problems on a PC tends to take me hours where on a Mac it takes me minutes (and I'm an expert on both). My priorities are usability and reliability and for that reason I will continue using Macs. That said, I think that you should be using the machine/operating system that best fits what you want to do. Macs get hyped and are loved because they are designed well, both industrial and software wise. There's a reason why Apple has one more D&AD Awards than any other company in the last 40 years.