Quote:
Originally Posted by ScizzMoney
This used to be the case. Apparently now with Windows 7 it's a tie. That's what I was told, I have no clue what Windows 7 has to do with color etc. Just going off my photographer buddy's saying.
|
The iMac displays use 8-bit IPS panels, are calibrated from factory, and use a superior gamma for photo-editing ...
The vast majority of all-in-one desktop PCs use shitty 6-bit TN panels, little-to-no calibration (or calibrated for vibrancy, not for accuracy), and uses a different gamma, which generally isn't as good for photo editing (depends what you're doing, there are some cases where it's better).
If you do your research, get a good IPS or *VA panel LCD monitor, and get the proper calibration tools for Windows, then it's equal. Most people are too ignorant or lazy to do such a thing, though, especially when Apple actually does it cheaper in this case, at least on the 27" (though I'd still recommend getting calibration tools for the Mac to match your printer; no point in having a calibrated monitor without a calibrated printer if you're doing this stuff).
That said, I much prefer Windows over Mac, but I don't really do this type of stuff very much. I have 2 Macs and they barely get used by me. GF uses them the most, primarily for Facebook, Graphic Design, Website Design, and random artistic projects.
If you're comparing laptops, all laptop screens suck for photo editing, anyways (6-bit TN, terrible backlights, terrible colour gamut). You really need to get a good external monitor, anyways, in which case you may as well go w/ Windows 7 as you can get more power for a lot less unless you need the battery life, in which case the Macbook Pros are quite competitive.