Mac vs PC

[Stephen Townsend]

This debate has been going for a long time, I know too well, and often results in firey discussions but I believe RED forums have a more mature and informed community so I'm interested to hear what experienced experts really think these days?

A typical PC user will swear by PC and often dislikes Apple - claiming they overcharge and 'trap' you in to their ways whilst an Apple 'fan' will claim Macs just run better, don't get virus's etc etc - same old debate.

What I'd like to hear is some genuine analytical responses as to why PC's might be better over Macs and why Macs might be better over PC's - preferably from people who have experience with both.

I grew up as a PC user even building them and having pretty strong knowledge of their ins and outs. As I developed in to a designer I inevitably moved over to Mac since my industry is dominated by them and now, as a motion graphics designer, I am working from a Mac Pro in a creative company.

So one question is: Why has Mac found found a dominance in the design industry - does it really have advantages over PC these days? If so, what? Is this the same in the video/film production world or do PC's dominate more and if so, why?

One of our 'friend' companies is a full motion graphics company and are PC based despite being a creative company. Why might they have gone for PC over Mac?

I repeat, lets not make this in to a flame war but an open minded analytical comparison and this might hopefully inform others which is the best choice for them.

[Tim Morten]

Discussion is sure to degenerate, but I'll say the following:

I work in the videogame industry, which involves 2D visual design, 3D visual design, audio design, and engineering. We used 100% PC on the projects I am involved in.

Why?

1. PC is faster - The newest nVidia cards are available on PC long before Mac, and the drivers for these cards are consistently faster on PC than on Mac even when they finally become available. The newest CPU's are available on PC before Mac. The highest configurations (most cores, most memory) are available on PC before Mac, and now that Apple has failed to refresh Mac Pro for so long, may simply never become available on Mac.

2. PC is cheaper - The "Apple tax" is not a joke. You actually pay a substantial mark-up for the exact same hardware to use an Apple.

3. PC has more software - There is a tremendous amount of software that is very important to what we do that is simply not available on Apple's OS.

4. PC is more flexible - We can configure any build-out and any peripherals we want to. Not so for Mac.

5. Our customer base OVERWHELMINGLY uses PC - Despite figures that suggest a total market penetration of roughly 5% for Apple, and monthly hardware sales that are approaching 10%, the actual audience for core games on the Mac is something like 2% of the overall market (probably for all the other reasons I listed above).

Is Apple's interface better? Subjective, but some vocal percentage seem to think so. Does Apple's interface offer any measurable benefit to productivity? My subjective opinion is: quite simply no. As far as I know, there has never been an objective study. Windows 7 is a perfectly usable environment.

Is Apple hardware easier to maintain? Based on my experience, there might be some slight benefit to Apple here (closely guarding their ecosystem as they do), but Macs are by no means trouble-free. If there is some benefit here, it is more than offset by all the flexibility lost in going with Apple.

Bottom line: Apple inspires near religious fervor in its users. Running a business, we need to make decisions based on true merit rather than 'hipness' and brand loyalty. Apple has great industrial design, and an admirable focus on user experience. Meanwhile Apple is also aggressively focused on profitabiity, prioritizes mainstream consumers over niche professional markets, and is proudly isolationist when it comes to their hardware and software environments. None of these are good things in my opinion.

PC for the win.

[Paul J Steinberg]

Somewhere a long the line discussion about computer brands developed the same reason as discussing religions.

Greater nerds than I can talk with greater authority than I but I believe the design industry started with Mac as they (Mac) had the first GUI which made them easier to use and you could see your layouts on the screen while you were working with them.

I'm equipment agnostic. I don't care about brand, I just want the tools to work. I've have been working with PC's just because they're significantly cheaper whenever I've priced out Mac equivalent, they're completely flexible in the configuration, Win7/64 is very stable and all the software I want to use runs well on them. I just picked up a portable workstation that is the size of a lawyers briefcase but replaces the huge DMT carts that you usually see on set (http://www.1beyond.com/products/mobilehexdflex.asp?search=mobiles) Self contained, internal SSD RAID, RedMag/SxS/CF reader running ScratchLAB/CS6/Resolve/RedCine-X Pro. Solutions like that you just can't find in Mac.

Just my 2¢.

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I was PC for a while, then my first real job landed me in a place that was 100% Mac. I never used one and was up and running on Illustrator and Photoshop by the end of the day. My biggest issue was only having one mouse button...am I dating myself here? LOL! After working there for a few months I decided to go for a Powermac G4. I got the baddest thing out, Dual 500mhz processors maxed RAM and TWO hard drives! Got me some Final Cut v1 and I was a happy camper.

It was the overall experience that made me love Macs. Using a Mac made using a computer intuitive and fun, it just worked. Now I've always kept a PC at home and still do to this day so I've kept up to date on Windows, and honestly, it hasn't changed much on that side, it still "feels" like Windows. Why does a PC seem to ALWAYS be doing something? Seems like the drive is always active and doing stuff even when I'm not in front of it. It's like the primary function of a PC is running background processes. My MacPro just sits silently and waits for me. I feel like I'm interrupting my PC whenever I need to do something.

I feel better on a Mac and much less stressed out. I think that's most important above anything else. I just don't trust PCs.

[Stephen Townsend]

Cheers Jarek. I was trying to find a way of putting something similar myself but you've summed it up there. I think designers love Macs because they like things well designed, which Mac is. They expect things to work because (the good ones) design things that work - if they didn't they wouldn't be good designers.

My own experience is that devoted PC users are generally people who prefer more flexibility, like customizing things their own way and don't want to be ripped off whilst a Mac user is prepared to sacrifice those things to just get on with what they want to do with less hassle and worry about the thing that's powering them to do that. This relates back to the designer preference. The best designers produce work that you don't actually notice but still influences you or does what it needs to do. I think it's the same for Mac. You don't really notice it because it just does what it needs to whilst on a PC you always feel like it's there ready to trip you up and make you want to fiddle with it (which some people like/prefer of course).

I totally appreciate Tim and Paul's comments though and it's their reasons for preferring PC that would make me switch back and this becomes particularly relevant if Mac don't release a new line of Mac Pro's. I'm still keen to see the pro's and con's of each for different people but other than the stereotyped 'Mac Fan Boys' and stubborn 'PC geeks' (in quotes as its an untargeted generic phrase) I think it's very a much a case of 'Horses for Courses' in that different things suit different people. I'm just keen to see which platform suits which people and for what reasons. It's just a shame that too many people on both sides of the pond can't respect other peoples preferences in the same way many people can't appreciate why some people just have different taste in Music. It's not good or bad (apart from some cases perhaps), it's just different.

[Maz Mawlawi]

I honestly I think that today there is very little differences between a Mac and a PC... They should notice virtually no differences when working with either. Having said that....here is my take on it. I feel more secure working on a Mac as far as viruses goes...but I get much better performance on a PC due to the wide availability of high end hardware and the ease of upgrading. we used to be mainly a Mac workshop and now the tables have turned and we are mainly a PC studio....this may change in the future again...who knows. The point is never limit yourself by a brand or tools. I think it's pretty ridiculous that some people swear only by Mac or PC...use the best tools available to you no matter what the OS or brand it is. :)

[Bruce Ingram]

Honestly, the debate over PC vs. Mac is moronic (not the debaters, just the debate). If you are truly pushing your hardware, the perceived differences between Macs and PCs mostly disappear. They both can utterly fail and both can perform beautifully. In context to this forum, I have posted heavily in both the Mac world and PC world and found little difference in reliability and overall performance. I have had both systems cause me late hours and hair pulling just as equally. And, having been an administrator for both systems at a some what larger scale (5+ systems), both were of comparable pleasure and pain.

Much of this debate is ego-driven, "My shit is better than yours".

But, always happy to geek out, and never passing up a pointless argument :devil:, here's my two cents. A lot of the preferences out there come, in my opinion, from two things; what you started on and how savvy technically you are.

I'll be blunt, the less tech savvy you are, the easier Macs are to run. Mac users, generally, are less inclined to maintain and self-diagnose their own systems. Usually, they are more likely to use a service to fix whatever they or bad-luck has brought down there machine. They are less likely to expand their systems (until the next new version is released) and less likely to really have reason to. Now, this is generally not true of Mac power users, but more of the general Mac user. However, in saying that, even the Mac power users are often not interested (or capable) of properly maintaining their systems to avoid problems. They may push their machines to the razor edge, but are just as lost when it sputters as the general user.

PC users, in general are about as tech savvy as Mac users, and in the world of Windows that can get you in trouble (almost more so in the world of Linux). That is were much of the bad reputation for the PC world comes from (although Vista didn't help much either). I do, honestly, recommend to family and friends that I know can barely set up their TVs to consider Macs right now because I know I'll get less phone calls. But, as a power user, I generally recommend to others at my same level to still consider PCs due to better upgrade options, better hardware and software flexibility, and an easier upgrade cycle to deal with.

I love and hate them both. As an former illustrator, I miss the days of pencil and papar, they were so much easier to maintain. But, that's not an option for us. For myself, I've had enough of the obscuration of their product cycle and future plans. I simply can't run my business hoping they do what I need, I need to be able to look six months out and have a confident plan on what I can expect hardware-wise and Apple just doesn't fit into that. I'll still have my Macbook and probably venture back to the iPhone one day. But for the machine that pays my rent and buys my food, Macs are likely to never be what I put my trust in again.

[Stephen Townsend]

Bruce - It's the pointless the debates you talk about that I wanted to keep this thread away from. Debates of most kinds end up ego-driven rants which is why I wanted this to more about peoples personal experience with each and why they made their choices making it far more informative than pointless.

Nice point about the maintenance of PC/Mac though. I imagine this is one of the reasons why Mac has appealed to mass market over PC's recently since they see them as less hassle, especially with their excellent support that comes as part of the deal.

[Bruce Ingram]

Stephen - Heh, yeah, it's really not a pointless debate when both sides actually look at it without a personal bias (but that rarely happens). For a geek like me it's a very valid debate, actually, with enough variables and challenges that it is always interesting for me. I can quickly bore non-geeks if they make the mistake of bringing it up.

True on the support end for Macs unless, I'll argue, on the pro end. The Apple store and Apple's support in general has gone so much the iPhone-way that it's no longer much value for me on mission critical stuff. The 2 and 3 year plans are great if you have time to suffer the delays and hoops that they throw up in front of you. That's why, if it's an option, I tend to recommend to users that need fast support to purchase their Mac though a 3rd party vendor that can offer that type of support themselves. This holds true of PCs, too. Most vendors aren't much better. Although I hear decent stuff through the grapevine about HP's high-end system support, but have little experience with it myself.

The thing that makes me comfortable with PCs (not so much Windows but the hardware), is that if one component fails, I can usually replace it myself. Same holds true for upgrades. I can do major system upgrades without ordering an entire new box. Heck, I can even change the box by itself if I go all crazy. Macs, not so much. For me, flexibility is a huge part of how I work and what I offer, so PCs just work well with that.

In this business, though, as a colorist and finisher I will still likely always have the need for a fairly good Mac so I can deal with offline and conform issues from my Mac-based clients. Right now, the iMac does that very well.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I must first act as moderator here and state that all religious and/ or political discussions are usually shut down immediately here, often deleted.

If one wants to be truly analytical about the topic, then that's a bit different. Both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses and most of the commonly cited issues with either platform are simply not true. Many of the purported strengths of each platform usually aren't as one-sided or unique as proponents of either will claim. The Mac and the Windows PC have their respective market shares and places of establishment due mostly to historical upbringings. I'll spare everyone the history lesson on that one, wikipedia does a good job of that, although seems to leave out some key info as to the shortcomings of both platforms and much of the turbulent history of the Mac through the '90s before moving to the unix-based OSX. And how the old MacOS was a severely virus-ridden OS with little to offer moving forward. The primary reasons the old MacOS was discontinued.

I'm platform agnostic myself, use both Mac and PCs and like them both for their differences. IMNSHO, as soon as anyone claims one platform to be truly better than the other, they have lost this debate. It really comes down to individual preferences and needs, available software, etc.. With the current state of the industry and related tech, both the Windows and OSX platforms are very stable and reliable systems. The PC does offer the opportunity to provide more computing power at a lower cost, however most comparisons like this are biased and not comparing Apples to apples, so to speak. When you compare an Apple system feature for feature to similarly classed systems from other mainstream PC vendors, HP, Dell, etc.., that perceived PC pricing advantage erodes away quickly. You want to save money over a Mac by building a PC yourself? Sure, no problem, that's great, you can and you should do it. But one can make the same argument (and people often do within PC-only circles) about saving roughly the same amount of money by building their own PC compared to buying that shiny new HP workstation. For powerful computers, the mid-range dual Xeon box is as big as it gets with Apple. In PC land we can build 4-way and 8-way systems with off the shelf components. And with various interconnect options, we can effectively cluster and scale beyond that. Apple's system designs are very personal in focus, the PC is more scalable.

Video card / GPU selection. This is Apple's Achilles Heel at the moment, IMO. And it's not even completely their fault. Apple has opened up the GDI and graphics driver foundation. As of 4 years ago (YES, 4 YEARS AGO!), anyone can release a video card for the Mac Pro and supply drivers for it. As of about 2 years ago, Apple removed the certification requirement. So, now what's the hold-up? Well, Apple and the video card makers like to point fingers at one another. What it really comes down to is market potential for Apple-supported video cards. The only system that can take them is the Mac Pro. It's a niche system so to speak. It performs very well in terms of sales when compared to like PC systems -- dual Xeon workstations and servers. Feature wise, the Mac Pro is very much in-line with the HP Z600 workstation and pricing is similar between the two. Anyway, with that being the only real Apple system to accept add-in graphics cards and most people who buy the system probably have their GPU needs met just fine with Apple's standard options, there's little incentive to provide more products. This may be changing though if Apple continues to release new Mac Pro systems. PNY discovered with their Quadro 4000 Mac edition that there is indeed a market. nVidia is up to something as well as their current drivers support all the current Quadro cards as well as the GeForce 200 thru 500 series in OSX. It's just the cards themselves (with the exception of the discontinued GTX285 and the Quadro 4000 Mac editions) don't include the proper EFI support for the Mac. So some of the base functionality is not there for tasks outside the OS. But something is happening... Lots of rumors flying and PCs have pretty much adopted EFI in favor of the old BIOS system.

People like to bash Apple for not updating the Mac Pro for a long time. That's an unfair complaint. There was no way to update it. There was no new CPUs or chipsets or other hardware to add in there. The only thing new since the last revision of the Mac Pro 2 years ago was Thunderbolt. There was no technical advantage to releasing a modified system with a Tunderbolt port... Especially when it meant they would have to eliminate one of the PCIe slots from inside. A precious commodity as it is. Even now, HP is the only mainstream vendor shipping systems based on the latest Xeon CPUs. Dell has announced, but have yet to open up pre-orders (unless they did so in the last 48 hours, I haven't looked). But they are nearly 2 weeks late on the pre-order window. HP was 20 days late shipping my new Z820 system. Chipsets are scarce, CPUs are in short supply, proper RAM is hard to come by. The current crop of E5-2600 series CPUs are going to be short-lived and are already due to be replaced in less than a year with 22nm Ivy Bridge versions that will consume a lot less power while offering another 15-20% boost in speed. I know it sucks for people hoping for a new Mac Pro, but if I were Apple, I'd wait.

When it all comes down to it, I really don't see how people can solidify themselves on a single platform these days. Both platforms have a lot to offer. I wouldn't want to give up either one.... My first computer was the Apple IIe that my dad bought the family in '82, from there I went to the PC. My interests were programming and CAD and building PC systems. Dabbled a little bit with the Commodore Amiga platform and almost bought a Mac II at one point. Ended up working on SGI and Sun systems a lot through the years and found that I preferred Unix, especially the SGI Irix flavor. After being thoroughly underwhelmed with the Apple IIgs and subsequent Mac systems over the years, I finally found a system that convinced me to buy Apple again -- the G5 Quad. Bought 2 of them and started using Final Cut. Loved it and at the time it was the best and only real solution for properly working with footage from the HVX200. I've been a fan of Apple systems again since then. And I think it's my Unix history, but I do prefer OSX to Windows. Both the UI and the underlying OS. That said, I still spend the majority of my time on Windows systems still. I'm a computer geek at the core and I'll happily use any computer I can put to work, as long as it's at least close to being capable of the job at hand.

[Bruce Ingram]

All good points Jeff.


You want to save money over a Mac by building a PC yourself?

I've never grasped, on the high-end, this thinking. You are correct that even building a DYI PC to the same or similar specs as an Apple tower would be very close in cost, or even higher in some cases. For me, I saved money by building my own PC by purchasing what would get me started with the flexibility to upgrade as I could and as needs dictated. This worked for me, may not be right for anyone else, so grain of salt and all that. I can support my own system for the most part, so this makes even more sense to me. Others cannot so a OEM system can be a much better option.


Video card / GPU selection. This is Apple's Achilles Heel at the moment, IMO.

Very good point. This was a huge reason I first started reconsidering the PC. As a colorist, the PC side offers far more options in relation to prices vs. performance. So, considering my build strategy, having this flexibility was very attractive.


There was no way to update it.

This is one part that I slightly disagree with. For me, the limited PCI expansion is what was killing me about the towers. I can, and did, walk into Frys and purchase a very nice board with almost twice the bays and, if I had wanted, even more with other boards. For me, this was critical, for others it may not be so much.

It does all boil down so much to what you are using the system for. My iMac is awesome at offlining, but even the Macbooks are pretty good for that.

[Carter Cammack]

My 2c.
A computer that does it's job is awesome. One that won't or can't is a pain in the ass. One that tries to do mine (Vista?) is an even bigger pain in the ass.
We all owe a lot to the Mac. Largely because of it, we have much more stable and user-friendly PCs.

[Stephen Townsend]

I was expecting a very in-depth and informed post from you Jeff so I'm glad you didn't disappoint. You mentioned you prefer OSX to Windows, both the UI and underlying OS. I wonder if you'd mind explaining a little what it is about the UI and OS you prefer?

[Terry VerHaar]

What Jeff said... I particularly agree with his comment "...most of the commonly cited issues with either platform are simply not true."

I like and prefer Macs because I have used them almost exclusively since 1984 and have found no reason to switch. I appreciate elegant design and I feel that Apple has consistently incorporated that in both their hardware and software. Like a lot of people, the "dark years" when Steve Jobs was gone from Apple had me wondering if they had a future. During that period, I did have a Windows PC on my desk next to my Mac but even then didn't find anything that made me want to switch. In the last 10 or so years, I have enjoyed the convergence of my data and my user experience onto multiple devices like my iPhone and my iPad. IMO, technology should disappear and let you get the work done; I think the Mac GUI does this for me. I currently own a 6-core 3.33GHz Mac Pro (2010) and a 2008 MacBook Pro (soon to be replaced) and for my needs, there is no lack of performance so I don't imagine a need for an over clocked supercharged machine of any type. I am also a big fan of FCP and, obviously, need to run this on a Mac. Finally, I always figure if I need to run a Windows program, I can run it on on of the emulators.

People complain about the cost but I think that is really only true for the people who are really aggressive about building their own computers. I add my own RAM and my own drives to my Mac and by the time I do that, I don't see much of a cost difference between mine and a similarly equipped PC. Of course, if you're building your own machine, all bets are off.

Soon, I believe, computers will be very modular. I think Thunderbolt is leading the way to that. I hope to have a small box that houses my main CPU, boards, chips and RAM (expandable, of course), connected to an expansion chassis for fast GPUs, Rockets, RAID controllers, whatever - and to the video monitor of the moment - whether its a 4K REDRay, a grading monitor, a dual display set-up, etc., along with whatever storage I need/want. Whichever platform leads the way to that will have a leg up on getting new customers.

[Brian Merlen]

I also don't see why someone would choose just one, so I chose mac because I can run both OS'S on it while getting support! Hackentosh is fine if I could get support, but so far I don't know anyone doing that, (heard someone mention it in a thread, but Apple will kill whoever does that). So if you want to run both without getting 2 workstations, buy a mac pro and get bootcamp on it. makes perfect sense, then you can do jobs for clients on either OS from the same darn box. Its a great option I think, support, warranties, and legal, all on a mac pro

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I've never grasped, on the high-end, this thinking. You are correct that even building a DYI PC to the same or similar specs as an Apple tower would be very close in cost, or even higher in some cases. For me, I saved money by building my own PC by purchasing what would get me started with the flexibility to upgrade as I could and as needs dictated. This worked for me, may not be right for anyone else, so grain of salt and all that. I can support my own system for the most part, so this makes even more sense to me. Others cannot so a OEM system can be a much better option.

Exactly. That's where I said the PC gives the opportunity to save some money. There is the flexibility there to do what you did and to build and upgrade over time. There's the ability to the put together just about any system to fit just about any budget.


This is one part that I slightly disagree with. For me, the limited PCI expansion is what was killing me about the towers. I can, and did, walk into Frys and purchase a very nice board with almost twice the bays and, if I had wanted, even more with other boards. For me, this was critical, for others it may not be so much.

From the standpoint of offering an updated model between the last iteration of Xeon processors to this one, I don't think there was anything to upgrade or update to. Sure, all of us would have liked more PCIe slots and there are ways to provide that. With the i5520 chipset, there are 40 lanes available and Apple gave us all 40, split amongst two X16 slots and two X4 slots. A reasonable offering. IMO, especial due to the lack of multiple-GPU support from apps on the Mac at the time, I think Apple would have done better to have given us one more slot by making the second X16 into two at X8. Some PC motherboards went a bit further and would run dual i5520 chipsets in a cascade arrangement. They could expand to 64 PCIe lanes by doing this. Unfortunately doing so also came with some other compromises. For many the extra expansion outweighed the costs, for others it did not.

If Apple does offer a new Mac Pro system, it's difficult to say what they will give us for expansion. I think it unlikely that they'll release another Mac Pro tower in the same form factor we've all seen now since the G5 days starting 10 years ago. With the new Xeon platform incorporating the PCIe host into the CPUs, there is a lot more room to add PCIe slots than before. I'm hoping they capitalize on it.


I was expecting a very in-depth and informed post from you Jeff so I'm glad you didn't disappoint. You mentioned you prefer OSX to Windows, both the UI and underlying OS. I wonder if you'd mind explaining a little what it is about the UI and OS you prefer?


I find the UI on the Mac to be cleaner and less obstructive. Windows feels as if they have tried to make things overly friendly and beautify it in a lipstick on a pig sort of way. Windows, really starting with XP to some extent, but more so with Vista and Win7, has that artificially friendly feeling. I don't know how else to explain it. In the application world a great analogy would be Quicken or PeachTree accounting softwares. They suck... They have gone so overboard trying to dummy-proof their systems that they have become cumbersome to use and necessitate tons of extraneous steps to accomplish tasks that should be easily do-able by other more intuitive means. That's how Windows feels to me from a UI perspective.

Don't get me wrong though, there's plenty of little issues with the Mac's Finder UI that irk me too... Overall I just find it to be a more cleanly presented and consistent interface.

Underlying OS... That's more a philosophical point of view. One, I'm still a unix guy and that model just makes more sense to me. The Windows system drives me nuts with their massive registry approach and opens itself up for a lot more issues in terms of reliability and vulnerability. Microsoft has done a great job over the past couple years keeping Windows secure, but they wouldn't have had to try so hard if not for its inherent design flaws that make it a more vulnerable architecture to begin with.

[Jeff Whitehurst]

The key point for me: Apple designs both the hardware platform and OS to work together from the ground up. Generally speaking, they keep the OS clean and uncluttered. True, there are way fewer opportunities for tinkering with a Mac box, but generally speaking, the components built in or available will work. In contrast, Microsoft makes the OS and then some other company designs the hardware platform to (hopefully) perform well with it. There's so many options, so many pitfalls, it can be more difficult to track down the cause of problems. IMHO, Windows OS also tends to be more cluttered with profit motivated add-ons. Some users love to push the envelope, some just want dependability. I prefer the Mac platform, for me there's an obvious performance vs. cost vs. overhead advantage.

Seems like whenever a new data intensive graphics or video workflow comes along, the forums light up with people crowing about how one platform outperforms the other. The truth is you could configure either to do just about anything you want, but the stability of your workstation is more important than anything else. I feel the entrenched attitude people get about their platform comes from the stance that "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, so just don't look over the fence". My neighbor literally cuts his grass with a pair of scissors and seems very happy to do so. Me, I cut my lawn with a mower and go to the beach. Neither one of us gets letters from the HOA ;)

[Paul Toth]

I have used both extensively and to me they are both the same. They do the same things with much the same, if not the same, software. The issue I have with either platform is the person operating the computer and either ignorance (or deliberate) methods of using the software. For example, I recently received a QuickTime video file from another production house in another city, for a shared client. They are Mac based, I am PC based (I have MacDrive as I quite often need to access Mac drives + I have the Apple Windows QuickTime ProRes which 'sort of' works). But I cannot open this file on my PC... however, when I take it to a Mac it can be opened easily. Of course I complained and the response I received from them was "Good Luck" since they are on a Mac and see it no problem. So I advised OUR client of the 'Good Luck' statement and likely the other company will not receive much business from our shared client in the future as this really pissed them off. My issue was due to a Mac-centric QuickTime format (it was some flavor that I couldn't see). I never send a file out that only a select few can see or work with. But these guys assumed that everyone is on a Mac and it was no longer their problem. OUR client doesn't have any Mac's in their facilities so they couldn't view the footage either.

So long story short: both platforms do the same thing, however there are some PC-only/Mac-only hurdles to remember and overcome. My skill set is not defined by what platform I'm on and I can easily edit on a Mac or PC.

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Video card / GPU selection. This is Apple's Achilles Heel at the moment, IMO. And it's not even completely their fault. Apple has opened up the GDI and graphics driver foundation. As of 4 years ago (YES, 4 YEARS AGO!), anyone can release a video card for the Mac Pro and supply drivers for it.

Just bought a Mac Pro, without doing proper research. I was 5 minutes away from selling the machine, but found that nVidia made drivers for GTX 580, just ordered one... Should it not work fine?

[Justin O'Neill]

I use both daily actually. My primary computer is a Macbook Air and I built a PC for crunching through the heavy data. I definitely prefer OS X for things like its multi-touch interface and multiple desktop system. Windows has these things too but it's just the way they work together on OS X…it is so freaking smooth it just becomes a background operation in your brain. Little things like "Versions" are huge time savers too.

I love PCs because they are like Legos…you can build them up anyway you want. You can always build with the latest and fastest hardware and usually for pretty cheap. Building PCs in college is kind of what led me to the RED camera actually.

[M Most]

I don't really care about things like GUI's, particular file systems, or screen displays. I prefer OS X because it's Unix, and as such has a pretty robust set of tools that operate in a standard way. That allows for easy scripting (both using the standard command shell and specific standard scripting languages like Python), very rapid file manipulation, access to a whole lot of open source software, robust networking, and, in general, a lot of good things for those who know Linux or Unix reasonably well.

I think you would find that once you get past the individual user with personal preferences based on personal needs, most companies of size who have settled on Macs in this industry have done so for the reasons I just stated, not because of anything else.

[Bruce Ingram]

Some users love to push the envelope, some just want dependability.

Just a note on reliability. Between my iMac and my PC (running Windows 7 Pro), my apps on my Mac will crash more often than apps on my PC by far (usually FCP7 or a web browser), and neither system has crashed at the system level since they have been running. Essentially they both have similar stability records (in my sample). More often than not, a very unstable Windows system is less the OS and more the user.


Windows OS also tends to be more cluttered with profit motivated add-ons

Again, that is less Windows and more the system vendor. A Windows install from a standard disk is pretty barebones. Buy an eMachine or HP consumer system and that's where all that preinstalled crap comes from. Come Christmas time, this is a huge headache for me.

Jeff - Totally see what you mean with the upgrade issue on the towers.

As far as GUI, to be honest neither is the end-all-be-all in my opinion. They both get in my way at the most frustrating times and both are so candy now that I can barely stand it. In my perfect OS, it would be a mix between a command-line interface with a minimal GUI for file management. I really only care about the GUI of whatever app I'm in, I can live without a pretty desktop, but that's just me.

[Stephen Townsend]

Very interesting Most. Interesting to hear a decision for mac based on something other than the usual!

[Jeff Whitehurst]

Just a note on reliability. Between my iMac and my PC (running Windows 7 Pro), my apps on my Mac will crash more often than apps on my PC by far (usually FCP7 or a web browser), and neither system has crashed at the system level since they have been running. Essentially they both have similar stability records (in my sample). More often than not, a very unstable Windows system is less the OS and more the user.
Of course your experience is a valid example that both OS choices have problems, my experience is different. My statement was actually not simply a criticism of the Windows OS, but rather I was pointing out the endless customization opportunities (with associated pitfalls) in the Windows box market, which is often cited as a primary motivator for choosing the Windows platform. Some people love that DIY stuff, others like me would rather have reliability.


Again, that is less Windows and more the system vendor. A Windows install from a standard disk is pretty barebones. Buy an eMachine or HP consumer system and that's where all that preinstalled crap comes from. Come Christmas time, this is a huge headache for me.
My opinion is that because Microsoft makes their OS available to these third party vendors to add the "preinstalled crap", it creates an environment of susceptibility. Let's don't forget the other garbage that gets "installed" just by simply going online unprotected. Microsoft largely profits from the actual OS and third party deals, not hardware. Apple primarily wants us to buy their hardware, which gives them a powerful incentive to make the OS reliable.

[Robert Kurhajetz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeOHEU7Ykyg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sometimes it feels like this :]

[Scott Shropshire]

No one has even touched on the overclocking potential of pc hardware. If you know what you're doing and build a computer with water cooling you can run a sandybridge intel cpu safely and stable at 4.5ghz+ 24/7. Add 2-4 580 overclocked watercooled graphics cards or a red rocket and 5k footage becomes butter along with any vfx work! My work pc is currently a dual 5690 xeon system overclocked from 3.46GHz to 4.25ghz using an evga sr-2 motherboard with 48gigs of ram, 2 msi gtx 580 lightning xtreme 3gb graphics cards each overclocked from 832mhz to 1ghz on the core. Both cpus and gpus are watercooled. I also have a red rocket and an arcea raid card running an 8 ssd raid for 5k editing. The system screams and makes epic footage in premiere and resolve a lot of fun to work on! I think overclocking unlocks free performance in hardware especially in intel cpus! It's also a lot of fun, like modding your cars engine for more horsepower except it's free! Just 1 advantage to pc hardware. The disadvantage though is that it does take some time to learn how to do and every system/ configuration acts a little differently. Although Asus now has auto overclocking settings in their new motherboard efi bios' that make it very easy to do now :)

[Nick Wernham]

I find the UI on the Mac to be cleaner and less obstructive. Windows feels as if they have tried to make things overly friendly and beautify it in a lipstick on a pig sort of way. Windows, really starting with XP to some extent, but more so with Vista and Win7, has that artificially friendly feeling. I don't know how else to explain it.I know precisely what you mean and have a hard time explaining it. With that said, when it came time to purchase a new computer for editing Red footage I went with a PC because the current generation of Mac Pros just do not seem future proof enough. They aren't nearly as powerful as a similarly expensive PC (mostly because of the difference in GPU performance). I do love my Mid-2010 MacBook Pro though. Apple has really hit a sweet spot for performance, size and battery life with their laptops that most manufacturers of Windows laptops struggle to match. I hear that Lenovo is good, but I haven't used one of their systems.

[George Butterfield]

I'd like to see this discussion but only in relation to processing r3d files.

[Subhadip Sen]

As far as GUI, to be honest neither is the end-all-be-all in my opinion. They both get in my way at the most frustrating times and both are so candy now that I can barely stand it. In my perfect OS, it would be a mix between a command-line interface with a minimal GUI for file management. I really only care about the GUI of whatever app I'm in, I can live without a pretty desktop, but that's just me.

I couldn't agree more! I am not sure which is more cheesy, the fake wood / fake metal on OS X Lion or the fake glass on Windows 7? Overall, I give the edge to the Windows 7 UI - leaving the aesthetic aside - for the attention to detail. I have been using Windows 7 for 3 years now, and even today I find minor details which all add up. Most importantly, it is extremely customizable. You can strip it down, you can build it up, you can even make it look identical to OS X!

Either way, all of today's classic desktop interfaces I am familiar with - Windows 7, OS X Lion, Unity (Ubuntu) and Gnome (Linux) - between them are very, very similar but unfortunately extremely cumbersome. I didn't realize it till a few months back when I stumbled on to something that radically altered my computing experience.

That was Windows 8's Metro UI. After about 5 months of the Developer/Consumer Previews, I am convinced Metro is the future. The genius - I don't use this word liberally, I don't think I have ever used it in conjunction with software ever before - of Metro UI is that there is no UI. Gone is chrome, gone are icons, gone are windows. Everything is "authentically digital", there's no candy (as you put it) of any sort. It is not an interface, it's a whole new design language where the content is the interface. Live tiles are brilliant too - the Start Screen updates with information from the apps in a suspended state. You only open apps when the updates inform you that you need to directly interact with them. Once you open the app, the OS gets out of the way completely - the entire screen is devoted to your app. At the same time, all apps are tightly interconnected and built to share between each other. Along with Kinect for Windows, we are looking at the first steps to the Natural UI era. There's obviously a whole lot more to Metro, but I will stop here. Needless to say, I have to drop back to the classical interface for getting work done, and it is a real chore.

However, Metro is just beginning, it has its drawbacks and limitations in its current form. The writing's on the wall - Windows 8 is headed for disaster, at least on the desktop. It's way too much of a paradigm shift. It is great to see Microsoft committing to it, however. The transition will be harsh, I wouldn't be surprised if Metro is not embraced by the likes of Adobe Creative Suite till Windows 9. In the near future (think Windows 11), Metro will take us here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cNdhOKwi0&feature=player_embedded.

For the foreseeable future, I think we will be dropping back to the classical interface for productivity applications. Luckily, Windows 8 will have a completely overhauled desktop interface as well, which will once again be "authentically digital", all the make-up removed.

I have gone completely off topic, I do apologize.

Back on topic, I think it all boils down to - Choice. I think this has been covered aptly in the first two replies by Tim and Paul (and more since), though I do see merit in Apple's walled garden approach as well. The problem with choice is that there's such a thing as bad choice.

[Shapour Daneshmand]

Tim,
this discussion will not degenerate.
I have used IBM based computers since 1986 and from 1993 i have used PCs exclusively for non linear editing.
in 2009 i was forced to use mac because i had to edit a project on FCP.
since then i never looked back and i hope i will never have to.

[Stephen Townsend]

Tim,
this discussion will not degenerate.
I have used IBM based computers since 1986 and from 1993 i have used PCs exclusively for non linear editing.
in 2009 i was forced to use mac because i had to edit a project on FCP.
since then i never looked back and i hope i will never have to.

Shapour, for the sake of the thread - can you just clarify the reasons you stuck with Mac, being as analytical as possible? (unless it's as simple as still using FCP)

[Shapour Daneshmand]

stephen,
its a long list.
FCP is not the reason.
I also edit on Avid composer 6 and Premiere CS6 on Mac.
i have 5 units of +$15000 PCs sitting in my storage .
in my opinion, it's a myth that Macs are more expensive.
thats all i am going to contribute to this discussion.
but i love the Reduser community regardless.

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

in my opinion, it's a myth that Macs are more expensive.


Correct, especially if you buy when they launch new products. When bought the first i7 iMac, it would be impossible to find a better or equal computer and monitor for the price. Historically, MacPro's has also been very cheap - compared to Dell, HP or self-build - when they launch new models.

But price is not a factor for sticking with Apple, OSX is. And the OS/hardware user experience... It's a smooth experience and it feels better. Feelings are important.

[Peter Moretti]

I'm definitely a PC person, but you have to know what you are getting yourself into when you are building your own system. When you buy a Mac you plug it in and you know it will work.

When you build your own PC, you will spend a lot of time specing it out. You'll have to figure out if you should get OEM hardware and/or software. You're going to be reading reviews of cooling devices and PSU's. You'll be waiting for the boxes from Newegg, Amazon and TigerDirect to arrive and maybe have to RMA a mobo or something.

When you finally get the thing humming like a turbine jet, you'll feel aweseome. Just don't believe yourself when say that you actually saved money, unless your cash poor and time rich, LOL!

And the above is if you're lucky. There are also those times when someone puts together a PC and the dang thing just doesn't work. It can literally take months to track down the problem. Uninstalls, reinstalls, disabling/renabling devices; emails, chats and calls to tech support. It can really be a nightmare. With the multitude of hardware and software for the PC, you might have unwittingly chosen a combination that doesn't work at all or, even worse, isn't stable.

[Will Keir]

From my experience building PC's in the mid 90s and switching over to MBPs/Mac Pros in 2005 and OS-X there is NO question. OS-X has increased my productivity in film editing, e-mail, web search and script/word creations. Even still, when I am on the XP side I get less done. I work with ease on OS X. The interface is more CREATIVE. It is made by more creative people, for more creative people.

I still use both. I use REDUSER.net on my mac side with Firefox. Firefox on XP is a little worse. I read less, post less, seem to find better things to do then research/respond.

This is from my experience using Win3.1, Win95, 2000, XP.

There is no question PC's are faster, more flexible, support more software, cost effective and most of the world uses them. There's also more bugs, viruses, pop-ups, drivers to install, reinstall, and format/reinstall XP.

I'm glad we have options and programs like Adobe Premier and RCX support both.



Discussion is sure to degenerate, but I'll say the following:

I work in the videogame industry, which involves 2D visual design, 3D visual design, audio design, and engineering. We used 100% PC on the projects I am involved in.

Why?

1. PC is faster - The newest nVidia cards are available on PC long before Mac, and the drivers for these cards are consistently faster on PC than on Mac even when they finally become available. The newest CPU's are available on PC before Mac. The highest configurations (most cores, most memory) are available on PC before Mac, and now that Apple has failed to refresh Mac Pro for so long, may simply never become available on Mac.

2. PC is cheaper - The "Apple tax" is not a joke. You actually pay a substantial mark-up for the exact same hardware to use an Apple.

3. PC has more software - There is a tremendous amount of software that is very important to what we do that is simply not available on Apple's OS.

4. PC is more flexible - We can configure any build-out and any peripherals we want to. Not so for Mac.

5. Our customer base OVERWHELMINGLY uses PC - Despite figures that suggest a total market penetration of roughly 5% for Apple, and monthly hardware sales that are approaching 10%, the actual audience for core games on the Mac is something like 2% of the overall market (probably for all the other reasons I listed above).

Is Apple's interface better? Subjective, but some vocal percentage seem to think so. Does Apple's interface offer any measurable benefit to productivity? My subjective opinion is: quite simply no. As far as I know, there has never been an objective study. Windows 7 is a perfectly usable environment.

Is Apple hardware easier to maintain? Based on my experience, there might be some slight benefit to Apple here (closely guarding their ecosystem as they do), but Macs are by no means trouble-free. If there is some benefit here, it is more than offset by all the flexibility lost in going with Apple.

Bottom line: Apple inspires near religious fervor in its users. Running a business, we need to make decisions based on true merit rather than 'hipness' and brand loyalty. Apple has great industrial design, and an admirable focus on user experience. Meanwhile Apple is also aggressively focused on profitabiity, prioritizes mainstream consumers over niche professional markets, and is proudly isolationist when it comes to their hardware and software environments. None of these are good things in my opinion.

PC for the win.

[Will Keir]

Exactly what he said and the resale on a Mac is higher.


"m definitely a PC person, but you have to know what you are getting yourself into when you are building your own system. When you buy a Mac you plug it in and you know it will work.

When you build your own PC, you will spend a lot of time specing it out. You'll have to figure out if you should get OEM hardware and/or software. You're going to be reading reviews of cooling devices waiting and PSU's. You'll be waiting for the boxes from Newegg, Amazon and TigerDirect to arrive and maybe have to RMA a mobo or somthing else.

When you finally get the thing humming like a turbine jet, you'll feel aweseome. Just don't believe yourself when say that you actually saved money, unless your cash poor and time rich, that is, LOL!

And the above is if you're lucky. There is always that time when someone puts together a PC the dang thing just doesn't work. It can literally take months to track down the problem. Uninstalls, reinstalls, disabling/renabling devices, emails, chats and calls to tech support. It can really be a nightmare. With multitude of hardware and software combinations for the PC, you might have unwittingly chosen a combination that doesn't work at all or isn't stable.

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Exactly what he said and the resale on a Mac is higher.

I can still probably get a good $1500 for my 2006 MP if I tried selling it today. Try that with 6+ year old PC hardware.

[Paulo Emílio]

my reason: Smoke 2013 on mac.
by the way,in analogy terms is EPIC a pc or a mac ?

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

by the way,in analogy terms is EPIC a pc or a mac ?

Interesting question. I see RED as the PC company that toppled the big guns. As did the PC for giants like Silicon Graphics.

MAC vs PC is a stale question. We are splitting hairs in this debate now. Which proves the point exactly. That PC has caught up to the advantages of the MAC, and that soon, the MAC will lend itself to exposing its frailties (sadly, to a very complacent set of users who think its unassailable).

I fully intend to buy an iPad and a Macbook Air for the kids. For myself, I'm eyeing the HP workstation after ejecting FCP and the Mac Tower from my post suite.

[Subhadip Sen]

by the way,in analogy terms is EPIC a pc or a mac ?

The parallels are pretty obvious. Modular, infinitely configurable, upgradable, vibrant community and third party hardware/software support, democratization strategy, close communication with customers during the development process, bleeding edge of performance and technology, etc. The original RED One was definitely the cinema world's Windows 95 moment - both massively influential for democratizing their respective industries. RED has also embraced some of Apple's traits - creating a strong brand, direct sales, an independent ecosystem, innovation in packaging.

[Subhadip Sen]

Maybe none? Maybe it's a Linux?

Definitely not. RED is proprietary all the way though. Linux would be something like the Apertus project (http://apertus.org/). Doesn't Linux come under the "PC" banner though? The real irony is that the Mac range is limited to Personal Computers (PCs) while Windows or *nix can scale to massive systems which could hardly be called personal.


BTW: A big plus with Macs are the fact that you don't have to be a system builder... not that I find system building difficult, but I feel like a geek-amature working on my self build maverick solution... There are some relaxing factors being able to just plug in a finished and elegant system. It makes me less the geek, and more the artist, somehow... makes sense?

I think this is entirely a different debate - self-build vs buy, and nothing to do with the topic on hand. I don't see how buying a HP Z820 is any less "finished" than a Mac Pro? Or Thinkpad X220 vs Macbook Pro? In both cases, you turn on the systems and you boot into your OS and can start working immediately. There's nothing more to it. I would guess a large majority of the 92% computer users who use Windows are not geeks.

What you have with Windows is the option to tinker. In fact, Windows is much more forgiving once you start piling on hardware. Microsoft's Windows Hardware Qualification Labs (WHQL) has enormous resources and certifies every bit of hardware and software on the market before pushing them through Windows Update. This is something that is often eliminated from these debates, but WHQL is a crucial factor in opening up a whole world of possibilities. What this means is Windows Update automatically updates to the latest stable drivers and is effectively maintenance-free. On the other hand, Mac Pro is often caught out by broken drivers or OS X updates breaking drivers, especially graphics drivers, including the latest 10.7.4. Of course, this does not apply to the other Mac lines, which are all based around laptop hardware - the solution there is simply restricting configurability.

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

1 - They are all PC's, but I've never used a Windows system that comes ready to use according to my expectations. The preview function/program is awful. No PDF printer. Weird MS default formats. Basic productivity tools are missing. Dell and/or HP machines ship with a lot of weird stuff. Generally, Windows 7 is better, but not there yet.. OSX is my favorite walled garder/my atelier of choice, and it's not always a pure rational choice for all the aspects of my work, but I LIKE it - I don't enjoy windows, if I did, I would use it.

2 - On silly imagery. Red Cameras are not Open Source, but they are extremely customizable, and they don't feel like the windows kernel...

Beat me up Scotty. Bye bye :p

[Hans von Sonntag]

What I'd like to hear is some genuine analytical responses as to why PC's might be better over Macs and why Macs might be better over PC's - preferably from people who have experience with both.


My daily typewriter is a MacBookPro13. It's a very reliable and good looking device with a very user friendly OS.

My main Workstation is a MacPro. Why that? Because I run Smoke and need a system that is stable, reliable and supports a ProRes workflow. But I also have a HP Z800 with Windows7 which is as reliable as the MacPro. I can only say good things about this box. But it cost a tad more than a MacPro with equal specs. I got it almost 3 years ago because I needed the Nvidia SDI card which is only supported on PCs.

IMO, Windows 7 is a good and stable OS. It doesn't look as friendly as OSX but Microsoft was never good at designing. However, the functionality and user-friendliness has much improved.

Since the combination of R3Ds, Smoke, PremierPro and Nuke is working well together on one reliable platform I go with Apple.

But I can see advantages for the PC platform. The entry costs are much lower. They work well with CS6 and can reach a stunning performance when Cuda is enabled and disks are fast. With a Scarlet, a PC and CS6 you can purchase a very capable production package at a convincing price point.

Hans

[Stephen Townsend]

Thanks Hans. Nice comparison.