Windows vs Mac OS

[Sauron]

What delicious claim chowder. To bad only one of the iMacs is using a laptop part! (not even ULP...awww so sad)

 

I'm pretty sure the 1.4ghz dual core i5 is ulp, yeah. It's the same cpu found in macbook airs. Not to mention most (if not all) of the imacs have laptop gpus such as the r9 m290x in the 5k one which is about equivalent to a 7870, not even close to the desktop 290x.  So how exactly is my claim that most imacs use laptop hardware wrong? (awwww it's not... so sad).

[Sauron]

So the Dell UP2414Q costs $700 now and the Dell 27" 5K monitor (with 1.8 times the pixel count) is supposed to cost $2500.

Big fucking surprise, that smaller and lesser models are cheaper.

Just buy 6 1080p screens and save even more money?!

 

There is no benefit whatsoever of a 5k monitor over 2 4k ones. None. 4k movies will look the same (or worse if you go fullscreen on the 5k), two 4k monitors have more pixels to work with which is the whole point of a higher resolution, even the pixel density is about the same between a 24" 4k monitor and a 27" 5k one. 6x 1080p wouldn't be as good because of 4k movies being ruined by the bezels and the pixel density being usually lower. So yeah, the 2500$ 5k screen doesn't make any sense over 2 4k ones. Get over it. It's obvious, and the fact that apple didn't think it was goes a long way in showing how much they care for actual value over cool slogans such as "5k!". If they had offered a 1200$ cheaper 4k imac and then a 700$ 4k monitor to pair with it, it would have made a lot more sense pricewise.

[leodaniel]

Its quiet funny, the topic compares the 2 OS's and half of the comments are about hardware .

 

So I will stay by software. I simply like Mac OS X more than Windows. Especially if you use an iPhone/iPad the OS X 10.10 features are awesome (handsoff and continuity). I believe that you can do the same on windows (but I don't really know), but here is the big difference: on apple it does simply work! No long setup, it just works on the fly. This is in my Opinion the biggest difference.

About design: I like the apple design, It matches my likes. 

Also for working I just prefer the Software environment of Mac OS.

 

With that said, I also use windows 8.1, but mainly for Gaming. I am just not familiar with the OS. And this is the biggest problem in such discussions, most people don't know both OS's well enough to give an objective point of view. 

 

This also leads me to say: Apple Hardware is not overpriced for me, if you look at the hole in one package. And of course, as a tech enthusiast  you can also build your own Hackintosh, which is in may Opinion a lot of fun.

[leodaniel]

There is no benefit whatsoever of a 5k monitor over 2 4k ones. None. 4k movies will look the same (or worse if you go fullscreen on the 5k), two 4k monitors have more pixels to work with which is the whole point of a higher resolution, even the pixel density is about the same between a 24" 4k monitor and a 27" 5k one. 6x 1080p wouldn't be as good because of 4k movies being ruined by the bezels and the pixel density being usually lower. So yeah, the 2500$ 5k screen doesn't make any sense over 2 4k ones. Get over it. It's obvious, and the fact that apple didn't think it was goes a long way in showing how much they care for actual value over cool slogans such as "5k!". If they had offered a 1200$ cheaper 4k imac and then a 700$ 4k monitor to pair with it, it would have made a lot more sense pricewise.

I don't think that was apples point of view. I think it was more of a scaling issue otherwise. As you know, its 4x as much pixels as a 1440p screen, so it scales perfectly and it is simple for developer to upgrade their Apps for the new iMac!

And of course it is always good to say: We have the highest resolution display available!!!! 

With that said, of course it can be great to have an 5K display and honestly I would love having 2 5K displays for my Hackintosh .

[Sauron]

I don't think that was apples point of view. I think it was more of a scaling issue otherwise. As you know, its 4x as much pixels as a 1440p screen, so it scales perfectly and it is simple for developer to upgrade their Apps for the new iMac!

And of course it is always good to say: We have the highest resolution display available!!!! 

With that said, of course it can be great to have an 5K display and honestly I would love having 2 5K displays for my Hackintosh .

 

Apps? We aren't talking about tablets here I honestly doubt scaling is a problem, I think it has more to do with the idea of the all in one desktop that includes everything is a sleek package, and I get that, but the problem is with the pricing. Give it a few months and even non-oem 5k displays will be much cheaper, until then 2 4k monitors look like the best option to me (for the price of course).

 

 

Its quiet funny, the topic compares the 2 OS's and half of the comments are about hardware .

 

Well I just said I dislike their hardware more than their os implying that I found their os to be fine, then I was "engaged" by various people about that comment ^^

[leodaniel]

Apps? We aren't talking about tablets here I honestly doubt scaling is a problem, I think it has more to do with the idea of the all in one desktop that includes everything is a sleek package, and I get that, but the problem is with the pricing. Give it a few months and even non-oem 5k displays will be much cheaper, until then 2 4k monitors look like the best option to me (for the price of course).

Well yes Apps, or should I say Applications

And yes scaling is much simpler if you just need 4 pixels for one...

[Sauron]

And yes scaling is much simpler if you just need 4 pixels for one...

 

I wasn't disputing that, but the point is that desktop programs are already designed to support a very wide range of resolutions regardless of aspect ratios etc. Besides, the 21.5" models always had 1080p screens, so if those programs worked on that I don't see the difficulty (if it ever was a problem) in scaling those to 4k instead. I'm using a 4k display and honestly, I don't use scaling, at all. I find it negates the advantage of having more space on screen. If I were a content creator, I wouldn't buy a 5k screen just to have programs scale to have it be equivalent to 1440p, it wouldn't make any sense.

[leodaniel]

I wasn't disputing that, but the point is that desktop programs are already designed to support a very wide range of resolutions regardless of aspect ratios etc. Besides, the 21.5" models always had 1080p screens, so if those programs worked on that I don't see the difficulty (if it ever was a problem) in scaling those to 4k instead. I'm using a 4k display and honestly, I don't use scaling, at all. I find it negates the advantage of having more space on screen. If I were a content creator, I wouldn't buy a 5k screen just to have programs scale to have it be equivalent to 1440p, it wouldn't make any sense.

I get your point

[Redliub]

I'm pretty sure the 1.4ghz dual core i5 is ulp, yeah. It's the same cpu found in macbook airs. Not to mention most (if not all) of the imacs have laptop gpus such as the r9 m290x in the 5k one which is about equivalent to a 7870, not even close to the desktop 290x.  So how exactly is my claim that most imacs use laptop hardware wrong? (awwww it's not... so sad).

Laptop GPUs, perhaps, but only the lowest end one has a ULP processor. All the others use R-series and normal processors. The 5K has a 4970 for christ's sake. 

 

Even besides that, what's the problem with using laptop parts? Are you expecting them to fit a full GPU into an all in one? They aren't gaming machines. If you buy any all in one for gaming you're doing it wrong. MSI's gaming all in ones use laptop GPUs as well.

[Sauron]

Laptop GPUs, perhaps, but only the lowest end one has a ULP processor. All the others use R-series and normal processors. The 5K has a 4970 for christ's sake. 

 

Even besides that, what's the problem with using laptop parts? Are you expecting them to fit a full GPU into an all in one? They aren't gaming machines. If you buy any all in one for gaming you're doing it wrong. MSI's gaming all in ones use laptop GPUs as well.

 

There's no such thing as a 4970 I guess you meant 4790...

 

Laptop parts suck for the price compared to desktop parts, that's what's wrong with them. I don't expect them to slap a 295x2 in an all in one, I expect them to stop pretending like it's a valid alternative to a desktop workstation. Because it's not even close. "they're not gaming machines", true, but then I'd like to know why they have gaming gpus in them instead of firepros or quadros. All in ones in general don't make any sense in my opinion because they're slow, overpriced and unupgradable, which is just dumb for something you don't even have to carry around (msi's version included).

[kuddlesworth9419]

Why would anyone ever consider buying a mac over a windows machine for content creation. Macs are for people who don't have time to build a PC or just want a really basic PC. Or just go Linux. 

[Redliub]

Because it's not even close.

Well of course they don't make sense to you. If they did you'd buy one and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

I will however challenge that claim because you'd be hard pressed to find a workload that the Retina 5K iMac can't crush. If you're doing video editing it's unwise to do it on an all in one anyways. That's what the Mac Pro is for.

[Sauron]

Well of course they don't make sense to you. If they did you'd buy one and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

I will however challenge that claim because you'd be hard pressed to find a workload that the Retina 5K iMac can't crush. If you're doing video editing it's unwise to do it on an all in one anyways. That's what the Mac Pro is for.

 

Then tell me, which kind of work benefits from a 5k screen? It's either video editing, 3d rendering, CAD or photo editing. All of those require some serious firepower. And the baseline retina imac doesn't have that. Besides, why would you drop 2.5 grand on a desktop computer to do web browsing? it doesn't make any sense. And again, it's not even close to a similarly priced desktop workstation.

[SuperfastJellyfish]

Windows 10 Crushes Mac OSX. Every time Apple does something good, Microsoft turns around and bests that.

 

OSX is nice for image/media related things, from using it a little I found it rather useful for Media and Images. 

 

Buying a Mac is a waste of money, they overprice them and get people to spread rumors that they are somehow "better" than hackintosh.

 

Just build a decent Computer and make it a Hackintosh if you are really really interested in OSX. I personally dislike it simply because it has lack of some apps I use frequently on Windows, its more limited and I just don't like the User interface. (My personal preference, you might think otherwise)

 

That being said I hate Apple, but im not going to go saying "APPLE SUCKS LOLOLOLOL" because it might suit your needs, but not mine.

 

 

If you want my advice, try Ubuntu or Linux. If you dont like it then try OSX if youre really interested in it. But I would say go for PC if you have used it your entire life. Windows 10 looks promising so I would go down the PC path if I were you.

 

Oh man.

 

[Redliub]

Then tell me, which kind of work benefits from a 5k screen? It's either video editing, 3d rendering, CAD or photo editing. All of those require some serious firepower. And the baseline retina imac doesn't have that. Besides, why would you drop 2.5 grand on a desktop computer to do web browsing? it doesn't make any sense. And again, it's not even close to a similarly priced desktop workstation.

Are you fucking kidding me? So now a 4790 and a R9 M290 don't constitute "serious firepower?" Then how come you can edit 5K video with it and it runs at 60Hz? You have preconceptions of what that runs like on Windows with your drivers over an HDMI cable. The 5K Mac has a custom timing controller to allow 60Hz, and probably a bunch of other hacks internally to make it work.

 

The benefit is in font rendering and editing enormous pictures. The font rendering is just gorgeous on it.

[Sauron]

Are you fucking kidding me? So now a 4790 and a R9 M290 don't constitute "serious firepower?" Then how come you can edit 5K video with it and it runs at 60Hz? You have preconceptions of what that runs like on Windows with your drivers over an HDMI cable. The 5K Mac has a custom timing controller to allow 60Hz, and probably a bunch of other hacks internally to make it work.

 

The benefit is in font rendering and editing enormous pictures. The font rendering is just gorgeous on it.

What? First of all it's an i5, not an i7, in the base model, and I'm not even sure it's a 4690 and not a 4570 or less. Secondly, an m290x is ridiculously underpowered for anything 5k (it's basically a 7870). Third, I run a 4k monitor on displayport at 60hz, not sue why you even brought that up sinbce I never said anything about 60hz. 5k video doesn't exist, and even if it did you wouldn't be able to edit it without a huge ssd and at least a 6-core i7 OR a powerful computing gpu. Not with acceptable perfomance anyway. And the baseline retina imac has none of those. Yes, I know the everyday use benefits of a higher resolution monitor, but if all you're doing is web browsing then dropping 2.5k on a pc because of the 5k is just nonsensical. Especially considering for that kind of work a single 4k monitor would be just as good and you'd spare 1000 bucks.

You seemed to know what you were talking about a few comments ago, why this random nonsense all of a sudden?

[Valentyn]

5k video doesn't exist, and even if it did you wouldn't be able to edit it without a huge ssd and at least a 6-core i7 OR a powerful computing gpu. Not with acceptable perfomance anyway. And the baseline retina imac has none of those. Yes, I know the everyday use benefits of a higher resolution monitor, but if all you're doing is web browsing then dropping 2.5k on a pc because of the 5k is just nonsensical.

 

It's mostly aimed at the professional photographer. Now they can natively edit a 12-14MP image without any scaling, and have room left for Application menus.

 

I agree though, the base model is too weak for 4K video editing and it'll choke at RAW 4K footage. Allthough the upgraded one with 4790K, and m295x is much better. It matches, and beats the Base Mac Pro in everything bar OpenCL work. Since the Mac Pro has dual FirePros.

 

It can also easily handle 4K video work, and unlike the Mac Pro has Intel Quicksync for far superior h.264 video encoding. It's certainly not for professional large video projects that use RAW footage, or even ProRes 4444, I'll give you that. My Mac Pro can spend hours rendering, and exporting ProRes projects with CPU, GPU, and RAM taxed at 100%. Those projects would be neigh on impossible on even a fully specced out iMac.

Here's a good amount of 5K iMac benchmarks ranging from professional OS X video apps, to even some gaming at 5K.

 

5K iMac vs Previous top iMac, and Base Mac Pro

http://barefeats.com/imac5k.html

 

http://barefeats.com/imac5k3.html

 

Pro apps

http://barefeats.com/imac5k4.html

 

Base 5K iMac versus Upgraded 

http://barefeats.com/imac5k6.html

 

5K iMac gaming

http://barefeats.com/imac5k2.html

 

In regards to the OP, I find OS X far better for productivity and work. It's the little things that are nice. Windows 10 is implementing three of those, such as virtual desktops/spaces, and Missions Control/ App Window management,and finally copy pasting easily in the CMD; although they don't handle the same, and it still doesn't have a competing Application I prefer over FCPX's non-track based editing, and other applications.

 

 

It's all personal preference in the end. 

I only boot to Windows for a game I simply cannot run in OS X, but I prefer to spend my time in OS X as opposed to any other OX

 

I use to be entirely against the Idea of OS X until I sat down and used it for a month at least, now I use both OSs and appreciate their differences and what makes them unique.

[Sauron]

It's mostly aimed at the professional photographer. Now they can natively edit a 12-14MP image without any scaling, and have room left for Application menus.

 

I agree though, the base model is too weak for 4K video editing and it'll choke at RAW 4K footage. Allthough the upgraded one with 4790K, and m295x is much better. It matches, and beats the Base Mac Pro in everything bar OpenCL work. Since the Mac Pro has dual FirePros.

 

It can also easily handle 4K video work, and unlike the Mac Pro has Intel Quicksync for far superior h.264 video encoding. It's certainly not for professional large video projects that use RAW footage, or even ProRes 4444, I'll give you that. My Mac Pro can spend hours rendering, and exporting ProRes projects with CPU, GPU, and RAM taxed at 100%. Those projects would be neigh on impossible on even a fully specced out iMac.

Here's a good amount of 5K iMac benchmarks ranging from professional OS X video apps, to even some gaming at 5K.

 

5K iMac vs Previous top iMac, and Base Mac Pro

http://barefeats.com/imac5k.html

 

http://barefeats.com/imac5k3.html

 

Pro apps

http://barefeats.com/imac5k4.html

 

Base 5K iMac versus Upgraded 

http://barefeats.com/imac5k6.html

 

5K iMac gaming

http://barefeats.com/imac5k2.html

 

In regards to the OP, I find OS X far better for productivity and work. It's the little things that are nice. Windows 10 is implementing three of those, such as virtual desktops/spaces, and Missions Control/ App Window management,and finally copy pasting easily in the CMD; although they don't handle the same, and it still doesn't have a competing Application I prefer over FCPX's non-track based editing, and other applications.

 

 

It's all personal preference in the end. 

I only boot to Windows for a game I simply cannot run in OS X, but I prefer to spend my time in OS X as opposed to any other OX

 

I use to be entirely against the Idea of OS X until I sat down and used it for a month at least, now I use both OSs and appreciate their differences and what makes them unique.

I don't dispute the fact that the more powerful versions are good enough, but you can get better harware for that price.

[Valentyn]

I don't dispute the fact that the more powerful versions are good enough, but you can get better harware for that price.

 

It's never been just about the hardware though, it's the entire package, OS, software and ecosystems.

 

Also considering the Dell 5K monitor is $2500, you can't get a better 5K system for cheaper than the iMac. That'll change once 5K SST displays show up more.

[typographie]

Macs are better for content creation,

 

As a graphic designer I've been hearing this for years, and I've yet to see any particularly good reason why Mac OS X is in any way superior to Windows for this sort of work. I much prefer working with my Windows-based PC at home, aside from my crappy monitor.

[Sauron]

It's never been just about the hardware though, it's the entire package, OS, software and ecosystems.

 

Also considering the Dell 5K monitor is $2500, you can't get a better 5K system for cheaper than the iMac. That'll change once 5K SST displays show up more.

But then you're agreeing to pay a LOT more for just software (and linux is really similar qualitywise btw). As I said, you can get 2 4k monitors and still spare a significant amount of money (considering an i7 would cost you 500$ more if I recall correctly, maybe you can fit in a third one too and a better gpu like a 970). Even for a photographer the difference between the two solutions is really small and any toolbar he might need can be placed in the second monitor no problem. Even if that weren't the case though, we both know these are very specific use scenarios and only a small portion of those who'd be interested in the imac actually fit in these scenarios. For the vast majority of people (even if we agree that photographers need this, which I don't) it plain doesn't make any sense.

[IdeaStormer]

Content creation. 

 

I thought it was barista? :huh:

[mr moose]

As a graphic designer I've been hearing this for years, and I've yet to see any particularly good reason why Mac OS X is in any way superior to Windows for this sort of work. I much prefer working with my Windows-based PC at home, aside from my crappy monitor.

 

It started in back in the 80's/90's when macs came with graphic design/content creation software as standard.  This made them more appealing as customers didn't have to go out and buy a separate software package.  It was never because the software or computer was better, just more convenient and for some people cheaper.  

 

Unfortunately over time opinions like this one can become a universally accepted truth instead of adjusted as circumstances change.    I liken it to the common cold myth, you can't catch the cold from being cold, but the myth is perpetuated as a fact because that's what people were told and they usually don't question it.  Apple was a more appealing choice for content creation early on, but it was never "better" per se, that is a subjective opinion.

[Valentyn]

But then you're agreeing to pay a LOT more for just software (and linux is really similar qualitywise btw). As I said, you can get 2 4k monitors and still spare a significant amount of money (considering an i7 would cost you 500$ more if I recall correctly, maybe you can fit in a third one too and a better gpu like a 970). Even for a photographer the difference between the two solutions is really small and any toolbar he might need can be placed in the second monitor no problem. Even if that weren't the case though, we both know these are very specific use scenarios and only a small portion of those who'd be interested in the imac actually fit in these scenarios. For the vast majority of people (even if we agree that photographers need this, which I don't) it plain doesn't make any sense.

 

Linux barely has any competitive Content Creation software that can compete with the likes that is on OS X. The Closest NLE editor is Lightworks, and that's years away from competing with FCPX and Premiere Pro. In photo editing, they have Gimp, which doesn't come close, and Linux still lacks Aperture ( soon be be replaced by Photos ), or Adobe Lightroom.

Also two 4K displays? Please link those, as two IPS high quality 8-10bit panels alone will easily cost over $2K.

There's also the issue of colour calibration, where it's impossible to get 100% uniformity over multiple external displays due to the panels being different. Even slight shifts can be an issue for professional colour work. 

Which is the reason HP DreamColor and NEC monitors that aren't even 4K can cost the the same or more sometimes than others.

The old tech argument has never held any merit here, and you're not paying a lot more just for software. There is no competing system with a high quality SST 5K IPS display that can match the iMac. None. That might change, but by then the next iMac would be out.

Also the GTX 970 won't be much better, OpenCL is primarily what's used in OS X, not CUDA. You're currently advocating a bigger, more expensive setup that can't even run the Content Creative Suite the system is aimed at.

 

You say it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't fit the scenario, and I can see why if you're not in that field. The iMac is extremely strong in Content Creation, and especially the photo editing world.

 

As always the Mac VS Custom system boils down to " it doesn't make sense, or why would someone/I ever need that".

 

It comes down to needs and wants, along with use cases. For you, because you're not in that field it doesn't make sense, and it always makes more sense to custom built a system and tune it just right. 

For many professional and industry people they they want something that'll do the job very well, tick all their boxes and let them just take it out of the box and get to work right away. No hassle, time is money; especially if they're in the middle of projects and commissions.

It's simply a case of take iMac out of box, put on desk, plug in and turn on. If they had a previous Mac they simply connect it via Ethernet or Thunderbolt and click Transfer Files and Documents. Wait, and get to work, as everything they've ever worked on and with is now transferred and exactly the same, bar the improved performance of the new system.

For those people time is money, and they prize it. The 5K iMac is perfect for photography and small video project work and an extremely competitive price.

 

I personally have no need of an iMac, and probably never will. Like many here I custom build systems to fit my needs, and buy workstations when they fit it better. That does not mean I cannot look at it objectively, as I do work in some Content Creation and specifically video, among others.

 

[jayctech]

For an average user; reasons for a Mac:

• Simple
• Gestures on the trackpad to improve productivity
• Ecosystem with other Apple products
• In some offices everyone runs a Macs so it'd be good to go along with them

Reasons not for a Mac:

• Price - there are no "cheap" macs, so if you can get the job done on a cheaper computer and would like to save cash then do so
• While most, well known apps are available on on both PC/Mac Windows does have more (that said.. Don't think this'd be an issue for an average user)
• If your work uses O365 then what you get on a Mac may not be as good or up to date as the Windows counter part
• If you game on your computer you'll probably be better off with a Windows PC

Some of these points are circumstantial but I they should be objective.