Dell vs Apple for Pics/Video

jonboy74

I've always heard that Macs are better at photo/video processing and editing, but when I was in an Apple store in the US, no one could clearly articulate why that is the case. All I got from the guys in the store was "look how fast this picture came on the screen! Look at how fast you can make this video from the pre-recorded music/scenes!"

I've done some research and it seems that you can generally get the same specs for both machines (I'm looking only at laptops). But there were a few big differences in a couple key areas, mainly
- pricing - Mac seems to run 20-30% more expensive for the same processor/memory/HDD/monitor
- RAM - In some Dell models you can get up to 16GB of RAM in the laptop, while the Mac laptops only go up to 8GB
- Macs seemingly can't write to NTFS partitions, only FAT32 (which is relevant since I intend to back up to my NTFS external HDDs)

If I simply compare the specs of each, the Dell would win due to my familiarity with Windows, being able to have 16GB of RAM (which presumably would be a huge benefit for video editing), and not worrying about file format for backup purposes.

Are any of you using Mac's out there for photo/video editing? If so, it would be helpful to hear your thoughts on Mac vs PC. I'm hoping to order the new laptop in the next month or so.

.Longshanks.

Whatever about the tech end of things, the standard screen on a Mac is outstanding (based on my experience)

Dimy

Historically Apple was always in favour in the graphics/video processing industry. There are millions of Apple vs PC threads around the interwebs and I don't think there's a clear answer.

The performance will largely depend on what specs the machine has, be it Apple or PC. Fact is that an Apple machine of similar specs will be more expensive than a PC/laptop (Dell or other brand).

I just recently upgraded my PC and with my system the average processing time of my 15.1 Megapixel RAW files with DxO Optics Pro is about 30-40 seconds which is quite impressive compared to the 5 minutes it used to take me on my old laptop .

A lot of RAM is recommended, but beware that RAM above 4GB is useless if you don't have a 64-bit Operating System. I've seen Dell selling computers with >4 GB of RAM and a 32-bit OS... so something to be wary off.

eas

I think there used to be more truth in the performance advantages with macs, these days maybe not so much.

I can say that my current machine a 27inch i7 iMac has never crashed, I've owned it for over a year and it gets nailed hard nearly every day. Basically the same experience I've had with macs over the past 15 years.

As long as I can afford them, I'll always buy a Mac cause they make me feel better while working, and that's worth a 15-20% premium if you ask me.

magicbastarder

your experience of phot/video editing will be down more to the client software and screen quality than it will be to the underlying OS. photoshop behaves pretty similarly on either windows or macos.
i'd say a limiting factor would simply be down to program compatibility - whether your favoured program is available on the OS in question.

magicbastarder

eas wrote: »

has never crashed, I've owned it for over a year and it gets nailed hard nearly every day. Basically the same experience I've had with macs over the past 15 years.

you had a better experience than friends of mine did with OS 8 and 9 so.

jonboy74

Thanks for all the replies. Think I'll be going for the Dell with an SSD and the 16GB RAM (and save a few bob!)

eas

magicbastarder wrote: »

you had a better experience than friends of mine did with OS 8 and 9 so.

yeah? and how's OSX working out for them?

melekalikimaka

used to be windows til i had to get fcp and its only on mac, never looked back, similar spec pc's are just not as fast. tbh its a choice, but once you go mac its rare you ever go back which says it all really

magicbastarder

eas wrote: »

yeah? and how's OSX working out for them?

complete turnabout.

mrboswell

melekalikimaka wrote: »

used to be windows til i had to get fcp and its only on mac, never looked back, similar spec pc's are just not as fast. tbh its a choice, but once you go mac its rare you ever go back which says it all really

I agree.

When you fill a pc with stuff, pics etc they always get really slow.
Haven't noticed that with mac at all.

Also a friend of mine in IT said pc's fcuk up all the time. Mac's rarely do but when they do the really fcuk up.

I won't be going back to pc.

stcstc

I actually use both

as i find each have benefits for different things

I have a mac pro for running FCS video editing and colour stuff

I use a PC to print from, as i have a windows app I use to print from

magicbastarder

mrboswell wrote: »

Also a friend of mine in IT said pc's fcuk up all the time. Mac's rarely do but when they do the really fcuk up.

they're used for different things though. if you're trying to support an office of hundreds or thousands of people, and need control over the systems, macs aren't really an option.
plus, mac users tend to be somewhat more tech savvy than PC users (as PCs are less an informed choice as macs), so that accounts for a lot of the issues with PCs.

in the end, you use the applications, not the OS.

Freddie59

I've used (and use) both. I have a Dell Optiplex 745 with 3GB RAM and a standalone 7200 RPM Hard Drive for video. Used Pinnacle Studio 9 (a truly wonderful program, regardless of the bad reviews - inevitably posted by people operating on machines with poor specs, and who didn't know what they were at).

As another poster has said, the Mac display has to be seen to be believed. I was setting up a 27" iMac for someone last year. I was blown away by the display and ended up buying one.

But it isn't all sweetness and light. For example, Final Cut Express, while being a wonderful program, is not for the faint-hearted. It lacks the user-friendliness and the bounty of transitions that Studio has. On the other hand, it never - EVER - crashes.

Photography comes into its own on the Mac - no two ways about it. The Mac I have is now seven months old. 52 seconds to startup and 7 seconds to shut down - same as day 1.

I have Windows installed via Parallels and it's beginning to bump and grind already.

There is also the cost issue. The Macs are expensive. But you really get what you pay for (and I have been a PC user in some shape or form since 1996).

The Snipe

Well it all depends on what your used to really. I've experience with both, and for ease of use I PERSONALY prefer windows (I know a lot of Mac users will most likely flame me over saying that but still). If its start up and shutdown your worried about, just learn to keep your computer uncluttered and use partitions to keep everything seperate (Photos on its own drive). This is what I do on my PC which is what I use for editing, If I'm out and about I grab an Aser 5220 1GB RAM, 250GB HDD 2.2Ghz Single Core processor, and I shoot away and copy over, crop etc. normally, That starts up straight away because its running linux and kept clean, (I format my drives once every 3 months or so, to keep them running fresh, this is especially good with windows as it may remove any malware too). But as for my desktop then, running Win XP I have a small partition for the OS, another for software and a drive only partially formatted for photos, this then is being raid stripped onto another and copied onto 2 external HDD's, and a disk for each shoot. I then, every 2-3 months format the OS Partition, and re-install windows, keeping it running fresh and removing and crap I may have gathered (I do seem to get a lot all right :P) and I defrag all my other drives, moving the partition to a different sector of the drive so I can defrag the entire lot. Easy as pie when its a routine and you know what your doing, so overall I find no real technical differences, only availibilty of Malware but protect yourself and you wont get a virus (And not just on the computer )

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

in the end, you use the applications, not the OS.

I would broadly agree that there are a large number of factors that influence the effective use of a computer (not least among which are the applications and the user), but I think there are potentially very significant advantages to be wrought from having a UNIX-like OS.

NooSixty

Everyone has heard Mac users say, once you go mac you never go back!

I had ALWAYS used a PC and never believed it, was adamant PC's were the way to go.
Then my laptop was stolen and I was forced to use/borrow my bf's Mac. I found it SUPER confusing to use at first but once I got the hang of it, they are actually so simple/straightforward to use and oh so fast, even when filled to the brim. You can essentially navigate/operate a Mac with one hand and that deffo isnt possible with a PC. Needless to say, as soon as I could afford it I had my own

They are just simply better in so many ways: smaller, lighter, easier to use, faster, extremely rare they get viruses and are just generally sexier. :P

And I would never (much to said bf's amusement) go back

unreggd

Mac desktop, Windows laptop

Anyone with an iMac AND a Macbook is just a freak. fact.

The main benefits of a Mac are that the OS is more stable. On Windows, programs are all linked to the OS, and to eachother, hence if one crashes, they all do

Apparently the Mac OS is not linked the same way, so one crash will only effect that program

Also, theres an irrelevant amount of Mac viruses compared to Windows

But they cost a bomb, and as was mentioned, when they crash, they CRASH

eas

unreggd wrote: »

Mac desktop, Windows laptop

Anyone with an iMac AND a Macbook is just a freak. fact.

Call me a freak then.

why is it so mad to have 2 machines that compliment each other rather than two that don't?

NooSixty

unreggd wrote: »

Anyone with an iMac AND a Macbook is just a freak. fact.

Drool...... that would be the a dream come true!!

sink

If you're going to be editing HD video you should consider the new Intel Core i7 sandy bridge CPU's. They beat the snot out of all others when it comes to video processing. It's down to a new feature called quick sync that accelerates video processing way better than anything else on the market now including heafty discrete GPU's.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,review-32090-4.html

They're coming out early next month for desktop PC's but I can't imagine Macs will be too far away.

TinyExplosions

unreggd wrote: »

Anyone with an iMac AND a Macbook is just a freak. fact.

Oh well, I'm in with the freaks so.... (thank god he didn't mention iPhones etc!)

OP, Either will do the job you want, though as has been said before, 4GB will be the maximum amount of RAM used if you've a 32bit operating system regardless of how much you actually stuff in there.

I've quite a few systems at home, both Mac and PC, and for photography work, both will run Lightroom, and will run it ok, so it's down to which OS you prefer, and how much you have to spend...

stcstc

actually the one thing i would say i prefer Final cut studio to premier pro for the video side

having work in post production for over 15 years and played with a good few apps its one of the better and layed out for someone who actually understands video etc

Promac

Macs were better for graphic design about 20 years ago because they had better software options for it. Not true any more.

And there's a 3rd option here too, not just Dell and Apple - build your own PC from components. It's p1ss easy to do and a lot cheaper than buying a prebuilt PC/Mac.

I've used every operating system since the early 90s (excluding the various linux distros but I've used a good few of them too) and there's really no difference in user-friendliness between PCs and Macs - say what you want Mac-lovers, it's just not true.

The only real difference between Macs and PCs now is hardware and the choices you have with it. The screen on a Mac is nice, sure. But you buy whatever screen you want for your PC. If you think you need a bit more power - buy a new processor or graphics card - or buy a PC with a better one to start with instead of waiting for Apple to decide how good the new one should be. The PC gamer market keeps the price of components very competitive too.

And Windows PCs will not slow down if you keep your security software up to date and don't fill up your hard-drive. It's really that simple.

homerun_homer

I have to say as someone who prefers to use a PC - my experience with my iMac is far superior for photos and video than with my Dell laptop. Dell PC/Laptops that I know all become slow and annoying, extremely bad in some cases but the Mac is sleek and keeps up to speed for processing images and video.

TinyExplosions

Promac wrote: »

And there's a 3rd option here too, not just Dell and Apple - build your own PC from components. It's p1ss easy to do and a lot cheaper than buying a prebuilt PC/Mac.

I've used every operating system since the early 90s (excluding the various linux distros but I've used a good few of them too) and there's really no difference in user-friendliness between PCs and Macs - say what you want Mac-lovers, it's just not true.

The only real difference between Macs and PCs now is hardware and the choices you have with it. The screen on a Mac is nice, sure. But you buy whatever screen you want for your PC. If you think you need a bit more power - buy a new processor or graphics card - or buy a PC with a better one to start with instead of waiting for Apple to decide how good the new one should be. The PC gamer market keeps the price of components very competitive too.

And Windows PCs will not slow down if you keep your security software up to date and don't fill up your hard-drive. It's really that simple.

Not to drag it down into a flame war, mostly because I'm genuinely agnostic on the whole platform war, but there's a couple of points I disagree with here!

Building your own is not the easiest option unless you have some knowledge of what you're doing -compatibility issues can be a major pain in the neck when putting together different components (will X graphics card work nicely with Y motherboard, is there enough space to install it and it's massive/tiny/no existant cooling fan, and will that block access to other slots on the motherboard etc etc etc).

Upgrading is also something many people won't want to do -if they get to the point where they feel their computer isn't fast enough, the chance is that they won't know what to upgrade, and if they do, the chances are a new processor won't be compatible with the motherboard, or a new graphics card might need more power, meaning your heretofore struggling but coping powersupply starts misbehaving, causing random (to you) problems.

It's easier, and generally cheaper in the long run to just buy a Dell/HP/Toshiba/Lenovo/Apple etc etc and be done with it!

-As for user friendliness, I have just three words to say "User Account Control" -it ruins Windows for me!

-As for slowdown, well, you're just plain wrong there -as the registry fills up, and more and more dlls etc etc are generated and not removed correctly (through no fault of the user), and the HDD gets more fragmented, the system will become more and more unresponsive. This just doesn't happen on a UNIX based system

Promac

You can't complain about user-friendliness and then talk about a Unix system! I periodically try the latest linux distro and they're always a pain to install and use. On their own, fine maybe - but start looking for graphics drivers or linux-versions of software you actually need and it's a ballache. And besides, UAC is only a problem in Vista - in Windows 7 it's only a mild annoyance.

Compatibility of components isn't a real problem for anyone who knows how to google. No point in discussing it.

Basic maintenance is all a PC ever needs to keep running smoothly. I've been building and using them the best part of 20 years and the only time I've encounted problems with slow-down is on PCs with no security software and a browsing history full of dodgy websites or memory full of loads of unnecessary crapware installed by the user.

Keep your PC up to date and don't fill the hard-drive and it'll be fine as long as the components in it aren't garbage. You can have any number of DLLs and it won't affect a thing. Likewise with the registry, you're talking about a very small database - even after years of installing all manner of software and not removing it properly.

Alternatively, if you like pretty colours and things that aren't too complicated, spend the extra 500 quid and get a mac.

TinyExplosions

OSX is a Unix based operating system, and has great usability.

Compatibility can be a big problem, and by that I don't just mean "Will component X be recognized by component Y", but more "Will X fit into Y, and not block something else that I might need" - that's not always clear by googling, as there's so many combinations out there you can't be guaranteed someone else has chosen the same stuff you have.

As for registry issues -a corrupted or bloated registry WILL cause problems, there's no two ways around it!

If you know how to maintain and streamline a PC, it will work just fine, however most people don't know the best way to go about that and so will get slowdowns.

Note that I'm not saying Mac's are better than PC's, all I will say is that if you're a bog standard, basic computer user that doesn't know and isn't bothered about learning how to optimize your system, then a Mac generally will cause you less problems.

cnocbui

XiledSniper wrote: »

Well it all depends on what your used to really. I've experience with both, and for ease of use I PERSONALY prefer windows (I know a lot of Mac users will most likely flame me over saying that but still). If its start up and shutdown your worried about, just learn to keep your computer uncluttered and use partitions to keep everything seperate (Photos on its own drive). This is what I do on my PC which is what I use for editing, If I'm out and about I grab an Aser 5220 1GB RAM, 250GB HDD 2.2Ghz Single Core processor, and I shoot away and copy over, crop etc. normally, That starts up straight away because its running linux and kept clean, (I format my drives once every 3 months or so, to keep them running fresh, this is especially good with windows as it may remove any malware too). But as for my desktop then, running Win XP I have a small partition for the OS, another for software and a drive only partially formatted for photos, this then is being raid stripped onto another and copied onto 2 external HDD's, and a disk for each shoot. I then, every 2-3 months format the OS Partition, and re-install windows, keeping it running fresh and removing and crap I may have gathered (I do seem to get a lot all right :P) and I defrag all my other drives, moving the partition to a different sector of the drive so I can defrag the entire lot. Easy as pie when its a routine and you know what your doing, so overall I find no real technical differences, only availibilty of Malware but protect yourself and you wont get a virus (And not just on the computer )

What a great post highlighting the benefits of using a Mac and OSX, where the equivalent rigmarole is basically:

Buy.

Turn on.

Use.

magicbastarder

i'm using a six year old dell with 2GB ram, and it's still doing well. it's obviously not zippy, and i did notice a slight difference going from processing shots from an 8MP camera to a 12MP camera.

portal 2 will be the main impetus for me upgrading.

i should also point out that i work with computers, so am a bit more conscious than yer average home user on how to keep the system running, but that mainly boils down to using CCleaner, MyDegrag, and HijackThis periodically.

magicbastarder

XiledSniper wrote: »

I then, every 2-3 months format the OS Partition, and re-install windows

you're a glutton for punishment. that's a bit OTT.

5uspect

I use Windows, OS X and Linux.

Redhat, which I use in work is a royal pita, but Ubuntu is a great Linux distro which is worth considering as an alternative.

As a long term Mac hater I now quite like my shiny MacBook Pro though they're expensive buggers. I've a Windows Desktop since it's the only option for gaming.

OS X is a nicer user experience, Windows has broader support and better 3D performance not to mention gaming exclusivity.

For video and photos I would say either Windows or Mac. Apple typically have better screens. Both have Photoshop et al so there's no difference there.

With Linux you're stuck with the likes of the GIMP.

VLC runs on everything.

NooSixty

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm using a six year old dell with 2GB ram, and it's still doing well. it's obviously not zippy, and i did notice a slight difference going from processing shots from an 8MP camera to a 12MP camera.


i should also point out that i work with computers, so am a bit more conscious than yer average home user on how to keep the system running, but that mainly boils down to using CCleaner, MyDegrag, and HijackThis periodically.

When I was editing photos on my PC I noticed a huge difference in the speed when working on pics from D70 and pics from D3 and that coupled with an already slow running comp made it extremely frustrating. It is something that is WAY less noticeable on my MAC, almost to the point it isn't noticed.

I understand that someone who works with/understands computers wouldn't have issues but I would have no idea what/where/how to find these programs and would have to go out of my way to find someone to help me figure out what the problem is and even though I would have to do that if something happened to my MAC, with my PC it was happening all the time and that was just annoying and time consuming.

Macs are more expensive but as someone else has already you get what pay and for me the extra money I have to pay is worth it for the less stress and easy of use.

magicbastarder

NooSixty wrote: »

I understand that someone who works with/understands computers wouldn't have issues but I would have no idea what/where/how to find these programs

i know you don't need them anymore, but for people who might:
http://www.piriform.com/ - CCleaner
http://www.mydefrag.com/ - MyDefrag
http://free.antivirus.com/hijackthis/ - HijackThis

Ccleaner cleans up temp files, browser history, etc., which is good at keeping free disk space a bit better behaved. all configurable within the interface.
MyDefrag is a much better defragmenter than the one bundled with windows, and you can configure the 'aggressiveness' of the defrag options, and select ones tuned for data or OS drives.
both the above are fairly idiot proof, i'm quite happy to leave them on systems belonging to relatives, and tell them to run them every so often.

HijackThis is something for the less fainthearted - it shows you everything that is configured to run on your machine at startup so you can remove the ones you are happy are superfluous. e.g. adobe reader launcher, quick time launcher, etc.; these slow your boot time and take up system resources even when you're not using them.

5uspect

NooSixty wrote: »

When I was editing photos on my PC I noticed a huge difference in the speed when working on pics from D70 and pics from D3 and that coupled with an already slow running comp made it extremely frustrating. It is something that is WAY less noticeable on my MAC, almost to the point it isn't noticed.

I understand that someone who works with/understands computers wouldn't have issues but I would have no idea what/where/how to find these programs and would have to go out of my way to find someone to help me figure out what the problem is and even though I would have to do that if something happened to my MAC, with my PC it was happening all the time and that was just annoying and time consuming.

Macs are more expensive but as someone else has already you get what pay and for me the extra money I have to pay is worth it for the less stress and easy of use.

And this is pretty much the reason I recommended a MacBook to my mother when she killed her ageing Dell with a cup of tea. (And she loves everything white).

She also seems to be much more able to get things done with the mac since the interface is nice and easy to use.

magicbastarder

so much for macs being easy to use. i've a mac mini i haven't had a chance to plug in at home; the problem is i've a big old 22" trinitron monitor, and the little converter cable which comes with the mac is a HDMI to DVI one.
so i popped into the store at the bottom of grafton street. there are four different standards apple mix and match as output, and it's a pain in the ****ing hole to get what you want if you're not willing to play apple's way. in the end, i didn't get the converter.
they have mini VGA to VGA. i don't have mini-VGA output.
they have mini DVI to VGA. i don't have mini-DVI.
they have some other cable to VGA. only works on the macbook pro.
PITA.

Hugh_C

magicbastarder wrote: »

problem is i've a big old 22" trinitron monitor,

'Nuff said. I don't think Apple make any secret of the fact mac mini has limited display connectivity. Perhaps that's why they're so cheap.

magicbastarder

but the video outputs on the new mac mini differ from the old one. and the new mac mini has different outputs to the macbooks, even though they all designed to fit on portable devices.
why not stick to one standard? there are at least seven now they have to cater for. HDMI, mini DVI, DVI-A, DVI-B, mini VGA, VGA, and some proprietary one.

pwd

Almost all the arguments in favour of the mac are based on the OS/software -- You can install the same OS/software on a PC, at a significantly lower price!

5uspect

pwd wrote: »

Almost all the arguments in favour of the mac are based on the OS/software -- You can install the same OS/software on a PC, at a significantly lower price!

Sure but a hackintosh isn't exactly legal. But that's possibly a non issue for many.

pwd

depends on how you do it apparently

http://www.osnews.com/story/21564/Building_a_Hackintosh_Apple_Can_t_Sue_You_For

Didnt even know there was an issue in the first place tbh

5uspect

AFAIK installing OS X on non Apple hardware violates the EULA. But who reads those?!

johnmcdnl

5uspect wrote: »

AFAIK installing OS X on non Apple hardware violates the EULA. But who reads those?!

doesn't matter if you read it or not

you click that you "read and accept" the EULA

and yes it is against the EULA

5uspect

True.

From a hardware standpoint, MacBook Pros are very well build and their touchpads make me cry when I try to use a normal laptop again. A Dell would be a creaky plastic mess in comparison, but obviously cheaper.

TinyExplosions

magicbastarder wrote: »

but the video outputs on the new mac mini differ from the old one. and the new mac mini has different outputs to the macbooks, even though they all designed to fit on portable devices.
why not stick to one standard? there are at least seven now they have to cater for. HDMI, mini DVI, DVI-A, DVI-B, mini VGA, VGA, and some proprietary one.

They do have it consistent... all Current Macs now have a Mini DisplayPort, and there are adaptors to take you to DVi or VGA... it was a mess with some of the older models while they decided on a standard for themselves, but it's there now (it was the Mini DisplayPort because that can drive the 30" monitors, which the others can't

KylieWyley

jonboy74 wrote: »

I've always heard that Macs are better at photo/video processing and editing, but when I was in an Apple store in the US, no one could clearly articulate why that is the case.

At the end of the day, its not the OS that does the processing/editing, its the application software. Photoshop will always be photoshop. Whether its on a mac or windows.

If you mean better in the sense that it does it FASTER.. well then theres no black and white answer. Windows PCs come in all shapes and sizes from small netbooks to tailor-made gaming PCs. The speed will depend on the hardware under the hood.

5uspect

KylieWyley wrote: »

If you mean better in the sense that it does it FASTER.. well then theres no black and white answer. Windows PCs come in all shapes and sizes from small netbooks to tailor-made gaming PCs. The speed will depend on the hardware under the hood.

Not necessarily so. When Valve ported their Source Engine over to OS X they found it lacking in the 3D graphics department compared to Windows running on the same machine. This is understandable considering the lack of gaming on Macs and less regular GPU driver updates. With the likes of Adobe apps, with new GPU acceleration, I like to see some benchmarks. /goes googling...

FoxT

I used a mac for 10 years or so, and for the last ten years or so I have used a PC. In my view:

- Macs are more attractive & their displays in particular are better than the average PC display.

BUT

- Macs are expensive to buy, and to maintain/upgrade.

Euro for euro, there is no performance difference that I know of. (But I havent used a mac in a while) . ie if you spend 'Mac money' on a PC, you will end up with a system that is as good in every way, but probably a bit faster.


Macs are indeed less prone to virus attacks.

With PCs, you have many more choices in terms of hardware upgrades and free/shareware software, this is especially handy for photo editing & management. This is the primary reason I stay with PCs.

Finally, OP, you do NOT need 16GB RAM - In fact, you may find that your processor/operating system does not even support 16GB - check before you buy. I would recommend starting off with 4GB, but making sure you can upgrade at a later date to 8 or more, if you need to.

rgds,

-FoxT

Ciaran500

FoxT wrote: »

Finally, OP, you do NOT need 16GB RAM - In fact, you may find that your processor/operating system does not even support 16GB - check before you buy. I would recommend starting off with 4GB, but making sure you can upgrade at a later date to 8 or more, if you need to.

4GB is not enough any more, I easily filled this much running Photoshop or Premiere Pro.

FoxT

Ciaran500 wrote: »

4GB is not enough any more, I easily filled this much running Photoshop or Premiere Pro.

That is interesting. I hadnt realised that p'shop had gotten so RAM hungry.

Note that if you want to use >4GB memory, your mileage will vary significantly depending on the OS and processor that you use. Generally for desktop (as opposed to server) OS'es you will need a 64-bit processor+a 64-bit OS to get beyond 4GB, for example :

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

There are exceptions (look up PAE ) but my point is - I would not buy 16GB RAM for a new system unless I was sure that it was usable & also of benefit.

Rgds,

5uspect

Ah 4GB is grand for most people for image editing. PS as always been memory hungry but with ever increasing pixel counts and increasing dynamic range of modern cameras you can quickly use a lot of RAM in a layer intensive file or busy workflow.

Video editing has always used as much memory as it can get and HD isn't helping.

In work we recently got a new MacPro with 16 GB for numerical work too small to run on the HPC systems. I'll easily use all of it up since I've several TB of data to churn through!