Is Apple Pushing Photographers to Use Windows?

Is Apple Pushing Photographers to Use Windows?

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?

Bill Larkin's picture

Bill is an automotive and fashion inspired photographer in Reno, NV. Bill specializes in photography workflow and website optimization, with an extensive background in design and programming.

Log in or register to post comments
168 Comments
Previous comments

Last year Fstoppers featured my data workflow video.. this year I made a big change to my setup and a new video is out on my new PC. Check it out here, I speak a lot about Apple and why I have made the switch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G3kA-eZIZ0

Looks Great Travis.

Having been a MAC User since 1985 I have a tremendous number of things to say about the current leadership, design and software that Apple is putting out but that would take forever. I'll just leave it at this, Apple has been abandoning it's base since Cook took over. The bean counter in charge doesn't understand that you never abandon your base....

The amount of ignorance and small, but key bits of misinformation in this article is appalling.
Apple abandoned creative professionals years ago.
The notion that Windows has planned obsolescence via the registry is completely absurd. Everyone knows damn well that nobody does planned obsolescence better than Apple. Just look at their entire product lineup going back the past 10 years and it's obvious.
My computers have outlived every single Mac produced in the past 13 years in price and performance.
Every single Windows computer I have built in the past 13 years has ran just as fast as the day I built it. They never slowed down anymore than what any Mac would have at the same time.
If you want to talk about planned obsolescence in Windows, the only real valid argument you have to make is Windows 7 not fully supporting AMD and Intel's newest processors.

I just wonder how much experience you have in using Windows computers. Have you actually used extensively the latest Windows 10 software?? I rather doubt it.

Most of the editors in Fstoppers seem to have a clear bias towards Apple products and a lack of knowledge of Android devices and Windows pcs. You seem to be among those.
The differences in using the OSs are not that big of a deal anymore.

My experience with Windows computers is rather extensive while I only use Imacs only so often. Most of the times because two of my friends use Imacs (the 27inch variants) and they never seem to be able to work out how things work on an Imac and I as a PC user has to explain it to them.

I like Apple products but I would never buy them because, and this is strictly personal, I hate being offered limited choices. I love the products but I hate the company's policy.

My conclusion is that they are quite similar to each other. I am of course much faster with Windows but I think it is just a matter of what you are used to instead one being superior to the other.

While I wholeheartedly admit that in Apple products the marriage between hardware and software is much better (you explained why that is), it is with Apple products a matter of swallowing what Apple offers you while Windows pcs offer you a fit to measure solution.

You can choose the hardware you like and can afford and have a custom build pc instead of limited choices for a much steeper price. Apple is about taking what Apple wants you to have and Windows pcs are about having what YOU want.

Talking about planned obsolescence, lots of Apple products have soldered on memory, hard-drives and graphics cards. And even the ones that have removable hardware, it is not easy to replace this stuff on an Imac. You have to remove half of the computer, cut the seals from the screen and void your warranty. On a Windows desktop/tower, it is really easy. You can replace the hard-drive, memory and graphics card in under15 minutes and everybody who knows how to use a screw driver can do it. A motherboard replacement is also possible but this is much more work.
Things get even worse on the Mac Pro. Since form is prior to function, you can't really update the Mac Pro because of the limitations of the form factor. Here is you mayor obsolescence.

A couple of month ago, I had a major upgrade done to my 4,5 year old computer which was quite fine but since I'm editing 4k footage, it was becoming slow. The case and drives (2xssd and 3 magnetic drives) stayed the same, but the motherboard, memory, CPU and graphics card were replaced. Try doing this to Mac Pro or any other Apple product. You can't unless you do a mayor surgery on the system.

If you write an article like this, you'd better make sure you have the facts straight. Although I quite like this site, the main problem with this site is that most editors (not all of them) only seem to know Apple products and don't know an iota about other hardware.

Then there is the lack of 10-bit color depth on all Macs except for those released in late 2016.

Duh!!!!.

You also need 10-bit color depth supported on your Graphics Card, OS, Post Processing Software, and Monitor. For the Record Lightroom only supports 8 bit while Photoshop supports 10 Bit if you know how to configure it....

"Finder is truly incredible? Windows is planned obsolescence?" I'd question if you understand what you are talking about here. I've used both platforms between work and home and I can't agree with these statements at all. Finder is the #1 thing I can't stand about the Mac. Normally it's Apple that is criticized as being planned obsolescence, not Windows.

I switched to Windows for my photography/video editing workstation. I built it myself 5 years ago and it still runs great. No lag, no crashes. Easily upgradable. From my experience, Windows 10 is far ahead of MacOS these days. As much as I hate to say that.

Add to this the fact that iMac displays can't be calibrated and have traditionally shipped with glossy screens that will drive you nuts in post and a $5,000 iMac Pro is entirely unsuitable for professional photography.

Apple's been walking away from photographers for awhile now and the Mac Pro I purchased, for $5k with all the RAM and SSD power I had to add, is the least satisfactory computer I've every owned. I've had to work around the lack of internal storage coupled with Thunderbolt-2 IO for a less-than-optimal storage situation and it's not been the most stable hardware I've ever used either.

Agree with some...but as with other Win/OSx articles we don't highlight the main issue...that software companies are not leveraging cutting edge hardware for the specific purposes we desire. As I've said many times, Adobe LR is one of the worst offenders. It's actually gotten slower over time and throwing a top notch computing system at it rarely nets anything beyond a few seconds here and there.

I would rather use an integrated system designed from the ground up to run software on specific hardware..by the time I've amortized it's cost, I'll be ready to upgrade to the next big thing.

However, it's not about just speed...it's capacity. That's why I still use a Late 2013 8 Core mac Pro. I can run every single production software in my workflow simultaneously and never miss a beat.

This is absolutely true as well, most all software doesn't leverage the power that's available to it, that's for sure!

FStoppers meeting: "Hey, clicks are down, we need to do something."

Person#2: "I know what we need!"

Meeting organizer: "what's that?"

Person#2: "we need another Mac vs PC article with comment flame war, we haven't had one in, oh, 2 months"

Meeting organizer: "oh really? has it been that long????? You are absolutely correct. Make sure it's about lack of Mac Pro hardware and make sure it forgets to mention that Apple is indeed coming out with a new Mac Pro in 2018. Instead, make it sound like Mac hardware is at a dead-end and the author is in a quandary".

Person #2: "Piece of cake. Let the Mac v PC debate ignite once again!"

Interesting comments. I recently switched from Mac to Windows. I have worked with Macs since 1984, was an Apple Rep in the 1990's, and supported WIndows and owned it for many years as well. I could go either way if money were no object, but when certain large merges either crashed Lightroom or using another software took 40+ minutes on the Mac it was time for an upgrade. I love OSX and priced out the Macs.

I only needed the processor and memory upgraded and wanted the vid card upgraded for some gaming. The Mac was going to be $3K, and would come with a mobile type version of the video card instead of the full card listed. I built a Windows rig for a bit over half that (splurged on an ultrawide monitor) and got the full card overclocked. When I need a part upgraded in the future, it will be even less money than that - a surgical upgrade as it were. If at that point I ran Macs, the upgrade would be yet another $3K Mac. If money were no object I would still run OSX, but that is not my reality. YMMV

>>John Smith - 20 hours ago [Edited] David Mawson NEW
>>Pardon, excuse the Latin; "A non sequitur, in formal logic, is an invalid argument....blah"

It's wonderful that you can cut and paste from wikipedia, John, but it's a shame that you're not smart enough to understand what you read. No one except you has come close to using a non sequitur - ie an argument based on assuming the conclusion. People have pointed out that you are wrong to assume no one needs a fast GPU for photoshopping because they actually need one to their work without significant delays. This is not argument by conclusion and the degree of befuddlement required to confuse it would arouse my sympathy if your personality seemed more sympathetic

>> Tony Northrup

Firstly, Mr Northrup is not infallible. Secondly, you may well not have been smart enough to understand what he said...

>> Like your blur. If you spend all day blurring images

Yes, I'm sure this seems like a smart thing to say to you - you don't understand why someone might want to blur an image other than to make a blurry image, which you think is ridiculous. But the intelligent people are laughing at you, because you've given away that you don't understand unsharp masks and several other retouching techniques that use blur layers as tools and intermediates.

Once again, ***you*** probably don't need much horsepower in post. But people doing, say, advanced black and white conversions with multiple layers and selective sharpening have different needs to you, "John".

..Possibly you should spend your time learning how to be a more competent photographer rather than doing what you are doing now? Not that I haven't appreciated the yuks...

And, no, that citing blur as an example wasn't a trap - I'm shocked that you are THAT ignorant, John.

..Although I don't feel sorry for you, because you were trying to edit to distort the argument to look clever, instead of have a real debate - so you cut out the other examples (film simulations etc) to concentrate on the one you thought was invalid. Which was stupid, of course - if 5 reasons are cited for doing something and 1 is invalid, it's still a valid thing to do...

You can't contribute to a discussion via name calling. Please see Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagree...

Misrepresentations in a thread are not helpful, and getting personal is desperation so ....
~~~~~
What is important is that willing learners are not be misled and get clear info. It's simple to restate the proper general case about what is needed in a Photoshop editing PC:

When building a PC for editing in Photoshop plan to get nearly top end: 1. cpu, 2. motherboard (bus speed), 3. RAM drives and disc drives (plan a RAID), 4. good RAM and 5. a strong power supply, case & provision for cooling. Save your money (you'll save over $500) by NOT getting a top end vid card, it is not a bottle neck as are the drives and bus speed.

An authority by the name of Tony Northrup states these points more clearly than I can, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbsyglPqK6o

And on laptops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQkE6dQ4wGg

You don't need anti-virus in a Windows machine, no more than you need anti-virus on a Mac; I've been using Windows without anti-virus for years and never had a problem. I've also come across Mac users that have been victims of malware, because they continue to believe the nonsense that Mac's don't get viruses. In the past year alone there has been a 230% increase in Mac malware.

I agree Bob, I haven't really come across anyone's Windows PC that isn't affected by some form of adware at the very least, like you said. :)