Apple vs PC for Photo Editing

It’s time to upgrade my computer (a PC) to be able to run the latest version of Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom.  I am considering an Apple Mac Studio with M2 Max. Alternatively, I can go with a custom build PC, including an Intel Core i9-14900KF Processor, 32GB RAM and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti - 12GB video card.  The cost difference is not much.  My current display is suitable for photo editing, so I will not need to upgrade at this time.

The buzz is that the Mac Studio with M2 is blazingly fast in all photo editing aspects, while there are no accounts of the PC speed, which I presume would be no slouch as configured.

Should I take the plunge into Apple, or stick with PC.  The purported ease of Apple sounds inviting, but I like the option of being able to open the case and make upgrades myself.

What would you recommend and why.

Thank you.

Yes, you should. 👌

(Mac user since 1988)

15 hours ago, omar_fernandez said:

I like the option of being able to open the case and make upgrades myself.

 

I like that too.

Once you are in the software, the operating system makes no difference.

I've also read that the new Apple processors are faster, but I question whether it actually matters. My PC is moderately high end [Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700 CPU @ 2.90GHz   2.90 GHz, with an SSD and 16 GB RAM], and it is perfectly fine for photo editing. 

As someone who has used three operating systems (Windows, Linux, and to a very small degree, MacOS), I think there is a major factor that is often ignored: the cost of changing to one that you are not familiar with. If your use of the OS is rudimentary, it won't matter much. But if you have become reasonably expert at using the OS, switching to another is a real PITA. 

Thanks to all for the input.

@paddler4  The issue with the latest Photoshop and Lightroom is the requirement for a modern GPU, which I believe is needed for the latest and greatest AI imaging tasks.  A hot processor paired with gobs of RAM is no longer adequate.

Look at the many GPU issues on Windows** (the wild west) and you might consider that the “OS” and more is at stake here with LR and PS. Apple controls GPU drivers and few of them at the OS level. They control which GPUs are built into their hardware. Windows? Nope.

** do a search here and on the LR and Camera Raw forums:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem/ct-p/ct-photoshop?page=1&sort=latest_replies&lang=all&tabid=all

Quote

The issue with the latest Photoshop and Lightroom is the requirement for a modern GPU, which I believe is needed for the latest and greatest AI imaging tasks.  A hot processor paired with gobs of RAM is no longer adequate.

Yes. Adobe has on its website the GPU requirements to get things like the neural filters to work. I have an Nvidia GForce GTX 1660 Super, which is not super high end and works flawlessly with Adobe products. If you don't have a GPU that meets their requirements (my old computer didn't), then you will find, as I did, that some features won't work. You can find the requirements spelled out in detail at https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/system-requirements.html. I simply specified a Dell computer that met or exceeded the specs. 

Years ago, my wife brought home the first generation of MacBook Air. I was blown away--that is, until I tried using it for a while and started confronting all of the little odds and ends I rely on that I would have to re-learn and for some of which I would need different software. Simple things, most of them, but they take time. And solving problems when they arise are a whole additional thing to learn. E.g., when a print driver installation failed on my wife's Mac recently, I was helpless, even though I generally can solve these problems on Windows. I had to call a Mac expert friend, who explained why the default Mac installation wouldn't work in that case and how to fix it. Having spent the time learning my way around Linux and the Gnome GUI for statistical work, I decided that two OS's were more than enough for me.

I really think the issue is how much you stray from simple, plain-vanilla use of the OS. The more you rely on the details, the more pain there is in switching. I'm a real "power user", so the cost to me would be substantial. 

None of which is to say you shouldn't switch. I wouldn't presume to say one way or the other. I am just pointing out a real cost of switching IN EITHER DIRECTION that you ought to add to your calculations.

It's far, far more than just Neutral Filters. Hence, this is the reason Adobe provides a lot of settings (including OFF) for GPU in Photoshop, Adobe Camera Raw, and Lightroom Classic. It's been a big mess for lots of Windows users, as one can track just on their forums. And it's not just a GPU but the drivers too, again all handled by Apple within their OS updates.
GPU, in terms of performance, is super important for Adobe customers. It used to be total RAM, and that is still important. But GPU is a big one these days.  So buyers of hardware should examine the role of the CPU and GPU and how they interact, along with the software drivers that control them. IF the use of Adobe products is important, homework in terms of GPU spec's and support is super critical. 

Buying a brand-name GPU that meets their specs is all that is needed. 

Other than having to specify that, I have had exactly zero problems running Adobe software on three or four different windows machines. I have never had driver problems related to adobe.

1 minute ago, paddler4 said:

Buying a brand-name GPU that meets their specs is all that is needed. 

Until they (Adobe) update their software, which we know happens often (especially now with Adobe Camera Raw; they have a more aggressive update process due to camera support), then all hell can (and does) break loose. But Adobe tests not only current OSs while doing pre-releases but also betas and pre-releases of Apple's OS, which controls their GPUs. 
Look, I don't care if someone buys a new Mac or Windows. What I can tell folks here, as someone doing both Adobe support and Adobe beta testing, is that GPU is an ongoing issue for Windows users and almost never one for Mac users. But again, anyone who wants to check this can see it on the Adobe support forums. 

I don't care either, but search <adobe photoshop problems mac os> without quotes. Not a short list.

7 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

I don't care either, but search <adobe photoshop problems mac os> without quotes. Not a short list.

Yes, there are many older OSs and hardware that will not run or run wonky. This doesn't alter the facts about GPUs, the issues on far more Windows machines than Macs, and the fact that GPUs are now more critical and used more than ever before. And from someone who gets a heads up on what's coming, more and more routines will move to the GPU on Adobe apps. For anyone who is looking for speed and stability in a new machine running Adobe apps, the case has been made, go with whatever hardware you desire and let us know how it all goes. 

37 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

I don't care either, but search <adobe photoshop problems mac os> without quotes. Not a short list.

For GPU, true, not short:

@digitaldog Thank you. It’s great to hear advice from “someone doing both Adobe support and Adobe beta testing.”

I would go for standard PC parts computer, 14900KF seems to have about twice the computing power of M2, but Apple Mac likely has much better adaptation of CPU + GPU co-operation.

GPUs are only one issue. The web was full of people complaining about initial compatibility problems with at least 4 MacOS updates. The sole OS-related update problem I've had under Windows was the need to specify a better GPU when I bought my most recent computer.

But I think this is not really the core point. Most people using adobe products will be fine on either OS, with the occasional annoying hiccup. And inside the Adobe programs, there is essentially no difference, apart from things like print dialogs. So my advice is to consider the hiccups only one factor in making the decision. Others are the cost of an unfamiliar OS if one changes, the costs of the gear itself, and the availability of other software for each of the OSs. These will lead to different decisions for different people.

For me, given that I'm an OS power user, the issue of changing OSs looms large. If I were on a Mac now, I would be very resistant to changing to Windows, just as I am now very resistant to changing from Windows to the Mac. But different strokes for different folks.

54 minutes ago, paddler4 said:

GPUs are only one issue. The web was full of people complaining about initial compatibility problems with at least 4 MacOS updates.

People complain about all kinds of general OS issues. GPU, indeed, is only one issue. But for Adobe apps, it's a major area of complaint, as outlined and shown using one metric someone suggested: (but search <adobe photoshop problems). Or as outlined by Adobe users on their forums. As for either platform and perfection, with or without respect to Adobe applications as the OP asked about: "Have no fear of perfection-you'll never reach it." -Salvador Dali

For a very long time I had Windows at my office and MacOS at home and in my departmental office. While many things were pretty interchangeable (Windows Word and Mac Word, Excel, etc.) a major OS upgrade in either OS was usually painful and often expensive. Personally prefer the Mac environment, but Windows usually works well enough.

If you have lots of disposable income it really doesn't matter much any more.

They all beat the old IBM mainframe OS.

Re OS upgrades: Indeed, it used to be a pain with windows and much easier with Macs. However, things are changing. My university finally gave the green light to upgrade from Windows 10 to Windows 11, and it was almost entirely seamless. I had to do almost nothing. I think I had to reinstall one of my three printers, and there may have been one or two other tweaks, but almost everything worked just as it had before. I was surprised and delighted.

There are still things that are much easier with Macs, like changing to a new computer. 

Even if you aren't a power user, there are some differences in interface that are initially a PITA whichever way you change. For example, I had three GUIs to deal with: Windows, my wife's mac, and Linux Gnome. The windows work differently in all three of them. Not a big deal, but I spent some time fumbling when the actions that were automatic for me didn't work. A few weeks, however, and that problem vanishes.

There may be one thing about using Adobe products that is different for the two platforms, but a mac user would have to say. In windows, at least with Canon printers, you access the printer's firmware via the properties link in the Windows print dialog. For example, if you want to avoid double profiling, you have to turn off the printer's control of colors, and that's done via the print dialog. I don't know if that's the same on a Mac.

Impossible to double profile on a Mac with Adobe products. Some software products are using a private Apple (undocumented) SPI called kPMApplicationColorMatching which you see in Photoshop and Lightroom and the Adobe Color Print Utility. When you set Application Manages Color, the area of the driver that controls Colorsync will alter the radio buttons such they are grayed out. X-Rite’s i1Profiler has also implemented this SPI.

MacOS and Apple products = "Don't even think about going 'under the hood' or changing anything about me; for that matter, I won't even let you! You just keep feeding me $$$ and I will do the rest..........relax.......you don't have to know anything about how I work."

Window's OS and PCs = "I will provide you with a product that works pretty good for the $ you give me. I will let you upgrade my parts if you like for much less than my competitor. I will help you make things work."

Linux OS = "I will let you do anything you like to your PC's operation.........provided you're willing to learn something about what goes on 'under the hood'. I and our community will do what ever we can to help educate you along the way........and it will cost you nothing but your time."

If you only run Adobe software then I think the Mac is best. 

Can Lightroom Classic be run on Lunix? 

Quote

Impossible to double profile on a Mac with Adobe products.

That's a plus. it's easy enough to handle in Windows, but I've had to explain it to people many times.

Quote

Can Lightroom Classic be run on Lunix? 

I don't think so, but I never tried. I used Linux primarily for heavy-duty statistical work (it was the front end of a large compute server network) and related tasks, never for photo editing. 

20 hours ago, digitaldog said:

Can Lightroom Classic be run on Lunix? 

No, at least not that I know of. Writing code for its use on the Linux platform would not be profitable enough for Adobe. Money talks, free walks 🙂 Gimp and Darktable are free alternatives that would suffice for many photographers, albeit a bit of a learning curve. Both also work on Windows and OSx. The best thing about these two programs is: If you don't like them, or they are unable to meet your requirements, you are free to look elsewhere. They are like a free trial of a commercial program, but the free trial never ends 🙂