Sorry your browser is not supported!

photoshop was originally for mac and several graphic designers and photgraphers i now, (all of them PC users) claim that mac version of photoshop generally works better/faster (on a mac) but they are all talking about older macs before they started building on Intel mashines, They say G processors that macs used were better optimized for 2d stuff in general

Maybe they thought it was better because they paid 2 grand more than the pc for the same specs basicly lol

Well considering macbooks and mac monitors are built using high quality IPS screens, and were among the forst to adapt the "display port" standard (which was developed to take advantage of new technologies that will be used in professional-grade monitors). I even heard that apple does very through color calibration on each of their screens (maybe a rumour) but apple computers are infact geared toward people working in graphics. It was like this for a long time and infact photoshop was originally designed for apple computers only and later ported to windows which might explain why it runs slower on windows PCs. Last time i used photoshop pn a mac was years ago and i didnt know any of this stuff back then, but people told me that even a Windows PC with superior hardware slows down photoshop during some of the more complex tasks, while mac version of photoshop with weaker hardware has much easier time with the same prosessor demanding tasks.

Also, the IPS monitors that are used in apple computers, are not even the cheap versions of IPS screens that you see a lot of latley. they use the very high quality ones. So that and the supposed value of the apple brand name for most people, is good enough reason to pay extra $2000.

I think an OS that is completely open source and uses one exclusive high level programming language (coded to use it's own compiler, of course) would be the ultimate experience for a coder (of said language).

Price comparison here for you.

Sony VAIO All-in-One 21.5" PC RRP: £799.99
Spec:
Intel Core i3, Windows 7 Home Premium, 4gb RAM 500gb HDD, Intel HD 3000 Graphics

Lowest iMac 21.5" RRP: £999.99
Spec:
Intel Core i5, MacOSX, 4gb RAM, 500gb HDD, AMD Radeon HD 6570M with 512mb


£200 difference between the two. Of course the different in processor in graphics probably isn't worth £200, but when you add it up, the Mac isn't significantly more expensive, you've just got to consider whether you're willing to pay that little bit extra to have a Mac or to save a little bit more money and buy the Sony. I know when choosing laptops I spent a little more to get a ThinkPad because I trusted them more than the alternatives that we were within my budget, so I'd suggest people will pay more if it's peace of mind for them.

But I don't think Macs are as overpriced as people make them out to be. People don't take a lot of factors into account, usually it's between a tower and an iMac, well an iMac is an all-in-one PC, which are generally a lot pricier. MacPros are more like Boxxtechs (the last time I saw them priced, they pretty much matched the MacPro) and not cheap Dell, Acer or HP towers.