# which macbook pro? or Win 7 laptop



## quantum (Nov 22, 2013)

I have a late 2006 macbook pro 15" which I find won;t run LR5 which needs mountain lion OS 10.7 or later and I'm on 10.6.8 Snow leopard.
I have found out that this machine will not be supported to run 10.7.
So I am in need of a new portable device. I am used to win7 as well as Mac.
My priority is 8gb or more ram and a decent screen for Lightroom and PS editing. My present matt screen is barely adequate, but not sure i like the modern shiny ones because of reflections.
I don;t want to spend a fortune and would consider a secondhand unit.
What would you recommend?
regards
John


----------



## clee01l (Nov 22, 2013)

If cost is a consideration, then the windows machine is the bargain.  I would also ask if you really need a laptop?  Compared to a desk model they are more expensive and usually have minimal power components and not very expandable.  If you do most of your computing in one location and are rarely mobile.  I'd opt for the desktop and keep the MBP for those few instances when you are mobile


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 23, 2013)

Technology's come on so far since 2006, anything you buy will be faster.  What are you usually using it for?  For example, in what scenario's does the glossy screen cause you a problem?  How much Lightroom work are you needing to do on it, eh?


----------



## quantum (Nov 23, 2013)

Tbh i really only need this for occasional use. In particular as a tethered machine to my Nikon D3s and D3x.  
Most of my work is done in a win 7 desktop. I bought a macbook pro in 2006 as it seemed to have the best specs/ reliability for the money. Oh and never needed antivirus. And it looks good and seemed really tough too.
A win laptop with a decent screen that can be calibrated and lots of ram would suffice. Or maybe a secondhand macbook pro.
Perhaps you could recommend something in the 15" range in either platform for around £700?
Maybe i should re look at glossy screens. Do you think they are better? They just seemed to be distracting to me a few years ago. Even my large NEC spectraview is matt. 
John


----------



## Selwin (Nov 24, 2013)

Hi John, I too am still using a matte large (Apple Cinema) display, now 5 years old, and it still works very well for my post processing. I bought a i1 profiler pro for it and that helped a lot. Still present external screen options are mostly - if not all - glossy. 
My 2006 17" macbook pro (should be similar to yours) had a matte display as well. For photography work, I really preferred my 2008 13" macbook because the screen is more accurate. However, I must say that most windows laptops I see don't have a very good display. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'd advise you to go to a store and check it out before you jump on one.
Windows laptops are of course way cheaper than Mac varieties. My friend and photographer John just got himself the latest rMBP 15" with 1TB SSD and maxed out RAM and he paid over 3500.
If you have a slight preference for Macs, which I think I've read above, I would simply spend a little more and get one. I'm not much aware of UK prices but for 700-1000 there should be some options in refurbished macbook pros.

will you only use the laptop for photography?


----------



## quantum (Nov 25, 2013)

*Your recent experience of laptop sought*

Thanks Selwin
I am only interested in a Macbook for the reason that when I bought my present one I thought it was the toughest most professional looking one and that most pros like myself had them. The screen also seemed good - though to be honest I've subsequently not thought that much of it.
Windows are more familiar to me and Win 7 I find very good so I am happy to be pursuaded by someone who has experience of a win laptop of decent build and screen.
There must be someone out there who has bought one lately...?
John


----------



## Henties (Jan 5, 2014)

Whenever I make a purchasing descision, cost of ownership always features prominently however not exclusively.
It is a known fact that Apple hardware has always been considerably more expensive when compared to what is available 
in the PC, or what used to be the ISA (Intel Standard Architecture), world.
This also applies to the current range of laptops on offer to the purchasing public.
It is my contention that over the long term, the cost of ownership of a Windows based machine, is significantly higher than
that of an equivalent Apple computing device.

Some or most of the reasons why this is the case are security vulnerabilities, and the costly measures the user has to
undertake to somehow try and protect himself against security catastrophies.

Some of the securuty vulnerabilities are listed below, however these items are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Windows registry.
This type of architecture has always been most vulnerable to attacks by malicious code. Maliciously "modify" the registry (Windows spinal cord) and your machine is not configured anymore the way you believe it is, often with long term dire consequences to the user.

Vulnerabilities during the boot process. One could even bypass MS's activation routines during the boot process. Clearly
this "door" opened up avenues for others with malicious intent.

Ongoing security problems with the "so called" Windows protected data store. Even now, with Win 8.1, I have already,
on at least 2 occasions found, "stuff" in my datastore, with sfc /scannow that, was not supposed to be there, makes me jittery to say the least.

MS.claims to have tightened and closed some security loopholes in Windows 8 and 8.1. However considering the large
number of security patches that MS. has already and seemingly continues to publish for Windows 8.1, I fail to see that
MS. has made any inroads in making Windows 8.1 a more secure environment. Perhaps those that generate malicious
code so industriously for the Windows platform have become more proficient in their evil activities. The reason why they
actually do it in the first place needs perhaps to be investigated. My theory is that MS. only has themselves to blame.

New versions of Windows continue to be published and sold in a half completed untested state. Vista and now Win 8.0
is a point in case.

Example:

From the day that I installed  Windows 8.0 I have dowloaded a large number of Windows updates of which the combined
codebase exceeds the codebase of the original distribution by at least a factor of three. The updates I am referring to
exclude the many security patches that MS. has already provided for the latest incarnation of their opsys.

The cost of updating Windows 8.0 to 8.1 is another aspect that sky rocketted the cost of ownership of my Windows 8.0
machines. This "free" upgrade of approximately 1.3 gigs in size, is MS. store based and can only be applied as an on line
live upgrade to a running eligible Windows incarnation. Altogether I went through 6 upgrade attempts over a period of at 
least 2 weeks before my Windows 8.0 machines were finally and successfully upgraded to 8.1. 

Where I am living internet access is  prohibitivrly expensive and adding to that 2 weeks of utter frustration combined with
loss of productivity makes owning a Windows based machine totally unattractive for me. In addition and to add insult to
injury I had to reactivate these two machines through a London based activation server. 

A cost effective alternative for those with some computer skills beyond that of a normal user, is building a Mac as powerful
as you choose and your wallet permits, using standard PC hardware. This is called "Hackintoshing" and has become quite
easy to accomplish by us normal mortals thanks to a handful of some very dedicated and capable individuals that are behind this technology. My first "hack" took much less time from start to finish than it took me to upgrade one Win 8.0 machine to Windows 8.1. Quite something to ponder about. Building a "Hackintosh" today has been further enhanced 
and simplified.  Excellent guides to help one accomplish this are available all over the internet, with most steps being
automated and bulletproof, and the best is it's all free, except of cause for ones leggit copy of ML or Mavericks
By the way ML costs US$ 19.95 in the appstore with the upgrade to Mavericks being free. Compare that with, you know what... 

Going  the "hackintosh" route, is currently the most cost effective route and unquestionably offers one the best of two 
worlds, what more can one ask. Most serious photographers have seemingly always preferred the OS X route and I have
often wandered why. Now that I am using Mavericks most of the time that I am behind a keyboard or on my Wacom I
begin to understand. Perhaps the most compelling reason why so many photographers prefered an OS X environment
was that, from the onset, Apple took extreme care to ensure that all their apps operated in an environment that was
properly color managed, secure, stable and functionally simplistic, and all this thanks to the late Steve Jobs.

Some good news on the horizon though for Microsoft fans. MS. has ostensibly placed Linus Thorwalds in charge of the development of their upcomming Windows 9 operating system. 
Wandering what will be the outcome of that one, provided that Linus can adapt and survive the MS corporate culture, which I somehow doubt he will. Perhaps Windows 9 will just be another incarnation of Linux  An appropriate name for that one, that even rymes, could be "LineWineNine" 

Greets Henties


----------

