For years, I've been the biggest supporter of everyone using a Mac, except gamers. Especially if you are a photographer or graphic designer, it just makes sense and it always has. But as current events unfold it's becoming harder and harder to stick with the platform, no matter how great it actually is.
The Good About Apple
The Mac operating system is what makes it so great. It's not so much the hardware, although it is very nice high-quality hardware. That said it's still commodity hardware and they are using Intel processors just like PC. It's not about the hardware really for the "user" anymore. The operating system (when you know how to use it as a power user) is what makes things so efficient and effective for graphics professionals in general, and especially photographers.
The MacOS Finder is truly incredible and as I mentioned before in my Mac tips. Little things like right-clicking the header of an open document to open that file's containing folder (or anywhere in its tree with ease) is vastly superior to Windows.
The reliability of MacOS is probably a decade ahead of Windows, no joke. There's no comparison on reliability.
I won't just make a statement like that without explaining why. The reason is Apple licenses the OS to work with their own hardware built computers. Meaning they know exactly what configurations of Apple computers are running their OS, since they manufactured them all. Windows, in contrast, has to "generalize" many things to be able to work on an infinite amount of different hardware configurations. On PC Part Picker alone you could configure a PC with thousands of different setups and the one operating system Windows, has to try and work with all those different configurations. That is a lot more difficult than making an OS work with your own handful of specifically built hardware, therefore the reliability of the Mac by that alone is very solid before even getting into the BSD derivative base system that MacOS runs on.
Apple Versus Windows: The Pros and Cons
Either operating system, Windows or MacOS, is capable of running the programs and getting the job done. They differ greatly in workflow, but they do run the same programs with relatively the same capabilities. Windows even has a few little things that are better than Mac, such as the ability to customize extra mouse buttons if you have say, a seven-button mouse. Mac has never been able to utilize those buttons and that's a real shame because that one little thing can make a tremendous difference in efficiency when utilized. As cool as that feature is, it doesn't make up for all the benefits MacOS provides, but it's something.
Bottom line, a capable computer user who has above novice level computer skills can use either operating system and get your work done.
Why Apple Is Making a Grave Mistake
Here's the scenario: I have one of my workstations that's a 2006-2008-era Mac Pro and when it was new it was leading edge quad-core with 32 GB RAM, 512 MB GPU. Now the Apple operating system is designed well unlike Windows which I believe is planned obsolescence the way the registry is structured, Windows actually slows down the longer you use it. MacOS will stay the exact same speed, however the perceived speed will change as software continues to develop and become more demanding. Cameras get higher megapixels, software has new features that are more processor and GPU intensive; those are the things that are making my 06-08 Mac Pro not work as well as it once did. It's the same speed it was in 08, but that's not good by today's demanding standards.
Apple's Mac Pro releases are few and far in between and the last release was the 2013 MacPro, and it was absolutely cutting edge with the 2nd Gen PCI-e SSD, good GPU, fast RAM, Thunderbolt, etc., but it's now four years old already and in computer terms that is an eternity.
So, my options for the 06-08 workstation Mac Pro? I could buy a used 2013 Mac Pro for still close to $2,000. That's a lot of money for an already four-year-old technology, and while they are fast and work well they still are much behind the current curve of fast processors and hardware architecture, such as the i7 7700. For example, for less money than a used 2013 Mac Pro costs, one could buy this. The 8 GB GPU, i7 at 4.2 GHz, DDR4 RAM, SSD. That computer, performance wise, will run circles around a 2013 Mac Pro. You can back a few of those specs down and be around $1,000 for a really fast modern-architecture computer system.
This makes it very difficult to buy a four-year-old used computer that has half or maybe less the performance specs for twice the money. Yes, MacOS is ideal for what I do, but at some point hardware that is 20x faster has to make a difference. Yes, there will be some negatives about the Windows OS to deal with (such as having to deal with some kind of anti-virus), as well as a few positive little things like the mouse button customization.
Further doubling down on Apple's mishandling of the pro market, they announced at the keynote that there won't be a new Mac Pro desktop built, rather a new iMac Pro which does boast some nice specs, but I hate iMac's for professional use. They are a great home or family computer, but I require more customization than that. What if I don't like the screen size? What if I want extra HDs or a different GPU? With the Windows build if I want a different GPU I can just pop out the existing and add a new one, no big deal.
Then there's the cost of this new iMac Pro at a rumored whopping $5,500 or more.
So Apple is leaving a certain market of professionals behind with the path they are headed down, a really expensive high-end iMac which I don't want anyway, or pay a lot of money for really old technology and there's no in-between. That's a rough place to be in because I truly love MacOS and what it gives me for my workflow. Windows will definitely be cumbersome but the speed of the computer is so much farther advanced, that it is appearing to now be the lesser of two evils.
Apple is essentially forcing my hand and likely many others. There will be a few markets left for them as professionals, since some folks may like and be ok with an iMac Pro and have the $5,000-plus to buy one. The rest of us are left with a tough choice. In the past, I have been happy to live with four-year-old hardware to not have to deal with Windows, but the gap now is only growing in performance due to the lack of Mac Pro production, so at some point it makes more sense to deal with the hassle of using Windows for the performance while saving a bunch of money and increasing future upgrade options without having to go out and buy into a whole new system.
It seems Apple is gearing heavily toward the consumer market and as a business decision that makes sense since there are a lot more regular consumers than graphics professionals. But it also seems like a huge mistake to abandon the original customer base that made the Apple computer so strong and good, evolving into what it is today.
What do you think? Is this really the end of the line for feasibly using Apple computers for professional photography?
From having worked with Windows machines for decades, I recently was forced to us an Apple machine temporarily. I don't think I want to go back. At least not for LR and Photoshop.
Nevermind that PC users call themselves the "master race" lol
I've never heard that before. It's true, but I've never heard it. :-)
Its a PC vs Console gaming thing. They have to justify spending $1000 on GPUs somehow.
That explains it. The only games I've ever played are Solitaire and FreeCell. :-)
For me, it's not a matter of justifying spending money on a GPU so much as the fact that I rarely see the point of owning a console when I already have a computer that can play the games that I want (many of which aren't released on consoles). I think a lot depends on what type of games you're into and how you like to play those games.
Since when do people have to "justify" how much money they spend on their own business and/or hobby? With pc you at least have the option, and to have both on one machine. You can also spend far far less btw. Nobody has to justify on what they spend their own freaking money on.
How do you write that without seeming arrogant?
You add a smiley face. A lot of statements take on different meanings, depending on your expression. Hence, the saying, "Smile when you say that." :-/ <- this expression indicates frustration that you didn't know that.
Thanks. I should have used one.
Pot calling the kettle black.
I was joking. That's why there was a winking smiley face at the end like this -> ;-)
:-)
For still photography it actually doesn't make a whole lot of difference these days. Even mid-level systems are blindingly fast. I use both. Every day. I've built literally hundreds of machines. Mac laptops are better constructed as a general rule and tend to make better tethering machines because of that but frankly the speed difference between a really fast PC desktop and a Mac desktop is negligible in practical terms for what we're doing.
The two operating systems are both extremely stable. The uptime on my PC is measured in weeks and not in hours. Mac is just as stable. By the way they're both good for games these days. Steam and the rise of pay-for game engines have put an end to the lack of games on mac. Antivirus is built into windows these days by the way. It's not like any serious users should have ever used that stuff anyway. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease.
You kept your desktop for 13 years. Use the OS you like. It's not like it's not going to amortize out for you. PC desktops are a better value it's true but not to the life altering extent you seem to suggest.
From my experience, the bottleneck for stills are Lightroom and Photoshop rather than the specs of your computer.
“they announced at the keynote that there won't be a new Mac Pro desktop built”
Did they? I clearly remembered reading this earlier in the year: https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives
Yes, Bill, Apple has become a "bottom-line" only corporation, and a very successful one. Unfortunately for us photographers, Apple no longer considers the graphics professional market a significant part of their bottom line. Thus the lack of R&D investment and new products.
And for those of you who think the iMac Pro is a significant solution, do you not require a wide-gamut monitor (100% Adobe RGB) for production? Its big beautiful retina display can only be used as a palette monitor at best, a VERY expensive secondary monitor.
My first Apple was a new Apple II, and I have been using Macs ever since. But I have also used PC's for accounting and business, so I'm no stranger to both OS's. My ten year old Dell PC still works fine, so I harbor no illusions about Mac hardware being any better than a premium PC build. My ten year old Mac PowerBook died three years ago.
I feel your pain, Bill. Next month I will be replacing my aging 15" MacBook Pro with a biz-level Dell workstation. My refusal to participate in Apple's "new flavor every year" OS upgrades to avoid production problems has (as intended by Apple) rendered my Mac obsolete relative to the software I need to run. Years ago I made a decision not to join Apple's "eco-system" of inter-dependent products and services. I'm free to decide what's best for my business and creative endeavors. And that's no longer Apple.
a truly high quality professional 4K and up monitor (and not the regular tv / monitors in that range) for a PC is not cheap really!
the price you pay for an iMac is not for its "palette" monitor only but includes a really good computer too!
so, for most pro photographers out there, that's quite an option even if its monitor is not per specs of your expectations ...
(a pc user photographer videographer graphics artist IT specialist here btw!) :)
I used Apple until my laptop battery swelled and screen backlight started shuttling down at random. Until installers wouldn't even let me install basic editing apps because I didn't have a dedicated graphics card. To remediate the issue, I installed Linux, and not only did it work, it let me install any piece of software I wanted, and these worked too. I wanted to buy a new Apple laptop, but at the same time they came out with models that it was near impossible to upgrade in significant ways.
I like OS X, and think it's a good OS. Much, much better than Windows. By miles. I absolutely hate Windows. But I also don't like buying an expensive computer on which I lack control. So I bought a PC, installed a Linux distro on it. And you know what? The OS works really well. There are some features I wish it had that OS X or Windows have, but overall, I found it the least frustrating to use. I have a laptop with an i7-7700K, a GTX 1070 desktop version, 32GB of RAM that I could upgrade to 64GB but don't need to, and three drives. Two m2 drives and a 2.5" SATA SSD. When the i7-8700K arrives and is tested, if it is significantly more powerful than my current processor, I'll be able to make the switch. In a laptop. Same when NVIDIA comes up with new graphics cards.
I couldn't do that with an Apple laptop, unless I go back to the time they were running on PowerPC. And I couldn't do that with most PC laptops either.
Graphics wise, I had to relearn to use open source software instead of Adobe, and for some things Adobe does have the advantage, but not for everything. I have retried it on Windows last week (I sadly have to dual boot Windows to upgrade firmwares because manufacturers usually don't make firmware upgraders for Linux), and using Photoshop for the exact same task as I was using GIMP for, it didn't perform noticeably faster, to my surprise. Not only that, but it crashed when doing something that merely slowed GIMP down.
Honestly, if one doesn't need the few extra features that Photoshop and Lightroom offer, and don't need to exchange .psd files with coworkers or clients, using open source software becomes a viable option.
And the more users, the better. The more people decide to use a Linux distro, the more options will become available for it. Linux isn't perfect, and it doesn't always work out of the box, although it does most of the time and has been improving its accessibility to novices a lot over the last 20 years. But it's an OS with options, good compatibility with hardware, it doesn't cost anything and if you don't like a distribution, you can just try a different one, and the same software will run on it anyway. The updates are mostly quick and easy, compared to Windows' horrible update system.
Size:
Typical Apple comment i guess. Who cares about size, the question raised in this article is about performance & proficiency. The answer is clear: Windows on PC hardware. Apple is an overpriced option, Linux isn't even an option.
The Linux-guy is a joke as on Linux there's no fluently working Photographic software such as DXO or C1. If you're business decisions are made based on "hate", you can't be considered proficient.
And I'm not a professional, either. Neither are most other photographers, so it's somewhat relevant. It's true that the workflow under Linux isn't fluid, but it does work by exporting tiffs. All solutions are somewhat flawed, when we think about it.
Apple has a great OS, but is quite controlling and the hardware, albeit well made, is not the most powerful, offers limited configurations and is expensive.
Windows is the most popular OS, so almost any piece of software runs on it. But its update system is a real pain in the butt and is disruptive, and the interface is a hit and miss between versions. Permissions aren't managed as well as under Unix based systems, either. But there is a lot of hardware options, and you can build a monstrous workstation for it.
Linux is stable, the updates are quick and effective, it supports old hardware better than any other OS. Newer hardware can take some time to be supported, but generally you can build extremely powerful configurations for it and you can make almost anything work. The downside is that a lot of software suites aren't available for it, because it isn't a very prevalent system on the consumer side (almost everything else runs on Linux, thought). Still, pretty much everything is doable with it, it just takes extra steps.
So, pick your flawed solution. I chose Linux because I can make it work and because it is both well engineered, free, and I can have almost any configuration I want.
Of course it's not the only thing. The way I saw Apple as being controlling when I chose not to buy Apple anymore was things like not being able to downgrade Safari when it kept reloading web pages unless I extracted it from an installation package. Not being able to install iMovie despite my computer being able to run it from a technical point of view. Apple chose those things. By the end, I needed to use my laptop with Linux anyway in order to be able to do things that OS X would no longer let m do, and the laptop ran faster under Linux than under OS X. Hardware-wise their RAM is welded to the motherboard. You can't even buy it separately. That's what I meant by seeing Apple as controlling. And they are also controlling on iOS. For the longest time, they prevented people from tethering their phone's internet connection. They didn't allow bit torrent clients for a long time, either, and now the only bit torrent clients accepted on the App Store will only search torrents on pre-approved sites. For the longest time, there was no file browser, and you still can't have full self-management from an iPhone despite the thing being more powerful than computers from a few years back.
My Linux distro installs apps from repositories, too. But those repositories are decentralised and you can choose your sources, so they're not controlled by a single big corporation. That makes a difference to me. My Android phone gets its apps from Google's Play Store, and Google isn't perfect, but it lets me manage everything from my phone, download anything I want and install apps manually from files.
Anyway. I'm not necessarily just trying to trash Apple. It's just not for me.
It used not to be typical on laptops, thought. I remember Powerbook G3s, they were very modular. Apple laptops lack options, to me. Not everything should be paper thin. Their laptops only take one drive, and max out at 16 GB of RAM. I don't want to pay $3000 (CAD) for a "Pro" laptop that comes with a so-so processor, so-so graphics card, doesn't have that much RAM or storage and cannot change components. If I want their most powerful Macbook Pro, it costs almost $5400 (CAD). I paid $2500 for my laptop, which came with a better processor, better graphics card, one stick of 16GB of RAM and a 500GB m.2 drive. I got a second 16GB RAM stick, and can still add more if I want to. I added a second 500GB m.2 for not much money, and transfered my 2.5" SSD from my old laptop (which also had three drives, one of them hot swappable). I don't need a laptop to carry around all day, I just don't have space for a desktop, and I can't easily bring a desktop with me. My laptop is pretty much as powerful as an iMac Pro, and I can cram it in my backpack, plug it in somewhere and work on it. No Apple product offers that, and it they did, it would probably cost even more than the super expensive Macbook Pro. Also, soon, phones will have almost as much power as most laptops. Heck, the most powerful phones probably outperform the worst laptops (Atom chips really suck), so why would I even carry a laptop if it doesn't significantly outperform my phone?
And I'm comparing oranges to Apples. :D
As for the viability of Linux... It already is viable for most users. Look at what most people do with their computer. Use a browser. Manage music. Sometimes basic image editing for which GIMP is very much sufficient, and same for video and audio editing. None of it costs anything. The only reason more people use Windows is because it is the incumbent OS. Microsoft made sure it would be installed on every new PC, to the point that it's almost impossible to buy a PC with no pre-installed OS unless you get it from a specialised store. Most users are simply complacent, won't use their computer that much and don't really care as long as it works, so of course none of them would install Linux. And it doesn't help that PCs usually don't even ship with an installation USB key, so it makes no sense to risk it.
People used to carry bigger laptops all the time. I know I used to. I'm not even advocating for that. Just being able to change the RAM and have space for an extra drive would be pretty decent.
Macbooks currently selling on Apple's website come with a maximum of 16GB of RAM. To get 64GB of RAM, they'd need four slots. But Apple welds the RAM sticks to the motherboard, and the max configuration on its site is 16GB.
The most powerful processor an iMac Pro comes with currently is an i7-7700K. Not to be confused with a Mac Pro, which does need an update.
Macbook should benchmark similar to equivalent Windows laptops or slightly better due to better design, either in the software or in heat dissipation.
2TB is a good amount of storage, and sufficient to my needs. On the Canadian Apple store, going from 512GB to 2TB costs over $1400. And since my laptop has two m.2 slots, I can install 4TB if I ever need to. And I have a hard drive, which can add even more space. I don't need that much, since I have a NAS. But still. Options.
I'm not carrying my laptop everyday. I move it from place to place when I need to, and do a lot of stuff on my phone instead. The reason I have a laptop is because I don't have enough space to have a desktop. I don't even have enough space to have my own desk.
And I agree, phones do run a crippled OS. It'll get better in the future.
For support, there are some distributions that offer professional support, and that's how they make money. If one doesn't want to use professional support, there is also very good community forums.
GIMP isn't that much more complicated than Photoshop, and yes, Photoshop has more features. I wouldn't say it's insufficient to all serious professional photographers, tho. Most of what they do in Photoshop, based on what I've seen by watching videos, can be done in GIMP. The one tool that I found GIMP was lacking that Photoshop had is the tool to correct line distortions in architectural photography for those using shift lenses. The rest can be done either with a different program (panoramas, HDR), or with a plugin (frequency separation, AKA wavelet decompose).
And hey, I'm not saying everyone should switch to Linux right now. If you're a working professional, don't change what works for you. But if you're an amateur, or even a semi-pro, and you're annoyed either with the way your OS works or because you can't afford decent hardware with your OS of choice, all you have to do is dual boot a Linux distribution and give it a shot. I don't even try to push it on my relatives or anyone really. A few months ago, I helped my girlfriend buy a Macbook Air. Looking at her price range, it was the most powerful Apple laptop she could get. And she really wanted a Mac. I understand. I have problems with Apple, but Mac OS is a very good OS, with a lot of very nice finishing touches. And the hardware is well built. Whatever works for people.
I mostly wanted to share my story of disappointment with Apple, dislike of Windows, and found satisfaction in the open source world. I like my system like it is. It's powerful, customisable, upgradeable, it satisfies my needs, is less expensive, and I have as much control on what's happening in my machine as I have understanding of it. The user interface I use is convenient, but not dumbed down. I'm sure others could find a system that matches what they want in Linux, and I want to encourage those people to try it out.
Fair, I understand. I was also using a phone to type all that, and it was pretty tough. Wish you the best.
if Adobe released Photoshop and the rest of its so-so industry standard AV programs for Linux (and Micro$oft also did the same with its own Office products) then both MacOSX as well as Windows would go debunked overnight!
"Then there's the cost of this new iMac Pro at a rumored whopping $5500+."
And how much will an equivalent Windows PC cost? Can you even build an 18-core Xeon PC?
An eqivilent PC would most likley be cheaper. And building a 18 core Xeon Pc is a walk in the park. If you got the money you could even go for a dual cpu build. However for photography that is not neccessary at all since all you need is a fast quad core as one of the new i7’s
... yet.
As I recall, Windows equivalents of the original MacPro were actually MORE expensive for a good long while.
and they weren't as good either!
the G5 Mac Pro computer was a really good system!
Really? Every 12 year old kid has built their own gaming rig (which basiacally is the same hardware as a proffessional video editing rig)
If we are talking all in ones we can start to look at Windows surface studio for example. Laptop wise we can look at DELL’s XPS series. Or if you want an insanly high end laptop buy a gaming laptop with a dedicated gpu and desktop grade cpu.
Building a hackintosh is quite easy as well. My buddy installed it on his laptop in a few hours.
no, sorry, a video (and photography) editing system is a totally different animal and you're just coparing apples with oranges in here! game machines are usually much more 'advanced' in some areas and require different types of CPU/GPU and related hardware combinations ...
Gonna have to disagree about using a gaming system for photography. It's exactly what I do. They both require a decent processor, dedicated graphics card and a fair amount of ram.
Specs for games are a bit higher these days but if you're running photoshop and lightroom together there's not a lot of difference from a basic game.
isn't that what i said too, only in different wording?
surely no one can say we can't use a fully blown up gaming machine for photo editing as well, but considering the costs, a really fine photo editing system costs half as much as a 'fine' gaming machine, if not third or even less ...
now, as a not so wealthy photographer that barely plays even Solitaire much less to play one of those stupid violent shoot`em up games, i'd rather save a little or so there and spend the difference on something more useful instead ... say a new lens or the next several month's utility bills and so on ...
on my current 'server' machine, which is an old X58 mobo with 24GB memory and some other not so fancy goodies, i can run PS alongside LR with almost no slow downs ... (not a regular LR user anyway ... PS is more than enough for my present needs ... besides, i don't quite find LR any 'easier' really!) :-)
as for editing video though, i'm still having difficulty finding a truly decent system that can let me edit high quality above 2K video files with ease, fast and smoothly ... no current photo editing or gaming machines i know of can do it as good as expected really ... unless i could invest ten times more perhaps? dunno ...
agreed the Surface Studio is a good choice but still not as professional as the most high end video editing machines ... even Mac Pro lacks there, especially these days when 4~6K and (soon 8K and higher) is the norm ... most 'regular' low priced digital cameras are sagging behind in that department too btw ...
Yeah you just buy an Intel Core i9 7980XE. But you probably wouldn't. You would probably buy a 16 core Threadripper at literally half the price. That's the beauty of PC, you have choice and you can customise your PC to what you need it to be. I needed mine to be fast in Photoshop. So I just bought parts for that which are very different to the parts you would buy if you wanted a fast machine for 3D or gaming etc. With a Mac you just get an expensive allrounder that's not perfectly suited for anything.
There's never a CPU option on a Mac you can't get on the PC side as Apple don't manufacture chips for their machines. They're just buying them and sticking them in a box like we do. It's always a lot cheaper to do it yourself. The cost on a 18 core mac is going to terrifying. I think, snipping a few corners, you could bring it in for 5 grand-ish on a PC.
I don't get the arguments for a Mac. "It has a better operating system". Firstly that's entirely subjective. The one you prefer will be the one you've used the most. I can happily jump from PC to OSX to Linux and I don't really see them being massively different. And it doesn't matter if they are. When I sit down to edit I spend 30 odd seconds with the OS and then 4 hours in photoshop. The OS is a non issue.
As for the complaints about windows: Stability? I've been using this machine for 2 years and it's never crashed once. Neither has photoshop. Virus protection? I don't have any. Windows Defender is built in. I've never noticed it. Haven't had a virus in years.
The main reason I use Windows though is cause I need to for the programs I use. Sometimes for my images I need to jump into Autodesk 3DS Max. The 3d equivalent of Photoshop and there's no Mac option.
a pc user photographer / videographer / IT etc guy here and i know Mac has its own limitations but PC's limitations aren't any less either! i guess most people defending PC vs Mac here are those who want a single computer for both photography as well as gaming, which is certainly an area where PC is more successful than Mac ... but gaming PC systems are NOT suitable for photography or video editing! these are two totally different areas! iMacs are pretty decent systems and they have a great display too ... try finding a display just as good for a PC (if there is such a thing out there that is!) and then you'll see how costly your PC system would be!
Right, there are parts of the "os being better" argument that are subjective, but then there's parts that are simple fact. Certain things just are. Example 1: tabbed finder windows / Windows/Explorer doesn't have it. Period, that's not "subjective" it just is that way.
In comparing Windows vs. macOS, a lot of talk is about stability. And that's fine. But it's not the sum total of the differences. I recently worked in a government office producing a video, and it was my first exposure to Windows 10. I was absolutely dumbfounded at how clunky and unintuitive it was. Also - I had to use Exchange for the first time, and I was appalled at how ugly and visually difficult to understand it was. I literally sat there with my jaw hanging down, saying "omg, omg, omg...this is SO...Where's the goddam SEND button???" for ten minutes. I mean, the graphical design is the worst I've seen in decades. All the buttons are the same size, with few graphic cues as to their function or even distinctions between one and another. The toolbar is just a hideous mishmash of flat white boxes, mostly the same size, with hard-to-read non-anti-aliased text. It looks like something from 1992. I mean, they've had 30 YEARS to learn from Apple how to do UI, and it's like they said to themselves, "FUCK Apple, we hate them, we're not going to do ANYthing like they do it. In fact, let's do the opposite! Retro is IN!" and deliberately made everything look as pixelated as possible.
That's not the aesthetic I want to embrace in my work environment.
the point is, Micro$oft has not learned much in the last 40 years from Mac or anyone for that matter! only those who have used both (and other) systems know very well what i'm talking about here ... Micro$oft's other products (Word, Excel etc) are fine and at times even beat the competition in some areas ... but these guys have simply failed in the OS department ... big time!
Jacques, you do know that Exchange is the mail server software and Outlook is the email client?
I was referring to the client side, so it must have been Outlook. Honestly, a high school extracurricular club could make a better UI in a week.
I agree that Apple's lineup doesn't give pros a lot of choices. And, I've long advocated for a headless iMac or similar affordable mini tower so photographers can choose or reuse their own displays and expand/upgrade the internals. A Mac Not-So-Mini would make a lot of photographers happy. But this article reads like a DIY fanboy's hit piece on Apple.
"Mac is like a cult."
Trite, unoriginal, and absurd.
did you ever support a pro-Apple claim :+