PDA

View Full Version : Why Mac for design?




XT9116
Sep 1, 2010, 02:58 PM
I am getting a MacBook Pro in the next week for college, I will be majoring in Graphic Communications Management. I have taken 2 years of high school classes and we exclusively used Macs and my College (UW-Stout) has a huge Mac Lab.

My question is, why are Mac's desired for Artistic (Graphic Design, Photo, Video, etc.) Purposes? I can understand why for video, because Final Cut Pro is an exclusive and is pretty remarkable. However, I have used CS4 on my home PC and it works just fine on it, thus I am confused.



opeter
Sep 1, 2010, 03:01 PM
I used Macs in the past, from last year I am using a PC for the same purpose.

To be honest, you can do the same on both platform. It will not mark/describe you, on what type of computer/OS you are doing your work.
The only thing it matters, are the results. Here, where I live, before 25-30 years noone used a computer for graphic design or any type of art etc. The biggest change (especially in the video "section") was, when the AMIGAs arrived.

I mean, for me, the computer is just a tool.

Consultant
Sep 1, 2010, 03:13 PM
Try opening 50 large images on mac vs windows and multi-task. There is a huge difference.

Mike225
Sep 1, 2010, 03:14 PM
*Insert vague Pro-Mac comment* ^^^AHEM^^^

Truth is, theres not much reason except habit. Adobe's suite runs better on Windows anyways

Cabbit
Sep 1, 2010, 03:19 PM
*Insert vague Pro-Mac comment* ^^^AHEM^^^

Truth is, theres not much reason except habit. Adobe's suite runs better on Windows anyways

It runs better on Mac OS actually, depending on your workflow.

Windows = Single task executing faster.
Mac OS = Multiple tasks all running about as fast.

Blue Velvet
Sep 1, 2010, 03:24 PM
These days, the main reason for using them, is to work with other designers. If a deadline is pressing, and I'm sending work to a freelancer, I want to know that their machine can handle the fonts without text reflowing and that there will be no other cross-platform issues.

Preview is great for fast viewing of multiple files and more prosaically, I personally find the Finder far nicer to use than Explorer, especially in networked enviroments. Being able to label folders is a nice bonus too.

chrono1081
Sep 1, 2010, 05:00 PM
Try opening 50 large images on mac vs windows and multi-task. There is a huge difference.

+1

My whole workflow runs much smoother on Mac. I used to have a $7k HP workstation at work with better hardware specs by far then the macbook pro in my signature...

...however, since the HP workstation couldn't keep up I brought my macbook pro to work and worked off of it.

For people dabbling in design programs, either will do, but for serious work in my experience only a mac will do and I have had plenty of experience on both platforms.

Also ignore anything Mike says, he's obviously never used CS on anything but windows or he would realize his statement is false, especially when it comes to batching. He knows nothing about apple, never has anything good to say about them, and has been trolling the forums since the iPhone 4 came out.


Oh, and quicklook is a HUGE time saver when dealing with a lot of different files.

CW Jones
Sep 1, 2010, 05:28 PM
Better question... why not a Mac? ;)

I upgraded for a few reasons. (I am a design student) First, the HDD in my dell went, second I wanted a faster running, smoother OS. Great processing power and being able to upgrade to 8GB of RAM like I have now was also a big factor. Nice metal unibody, and a MUCH better trackpad then I have ever used on any other laptop. Battery life is pretty impressive too.

Overall its a BIG expense but in the end if your a design student like me, I think you'll see it "pay off" for you. Software on here is great as well, it runs very smooth and not jittery.

Added: Apples care plan is also great and there genius bar is usually pretty helpful.

O ya and a MAC will not be outdated in a year or less. My buddy ran a G4 for a VERY long time. Where as I couldn't even get a full year from my Dell without it dying.

XT9116
Sep 1, 2010, 06:31 PM
Okay well those were some great responses.

I've gotten some good info, specifically

opening multiple images does, from my experience using 17" core 2 duo macs, is faster and smoother (Consultant)

Multitasking is smoother (babyjenniferLB)

I have always had trouble taking my work from school (mac) back home (pc). Things just didn't always work very smoothly. So having other designers use the same type of computer makes a lot of sense. (Blue Velvet)

After reading all of this, it seems to make sense that the more difficult procedures will run smoother on a Mac. I have only been in 2 years of High School Graphics, so I could imagine as I enter College Graphics, the procedures will get much more complicated and thus run better on a mac (chrono1081)

My high school was even still running eMac's haha, no one ever perfered to use them but they got the job done.(CW Jones)

Thanks for the replies, it helped a lot.

What I am curious about is the history of this topic. I was told, that a major reason why design is so deep into mac is because in the late 80's and early 90's, the adobe programs were a mac exclusive. If someone could elaborate on the history of this topic I would greatly appreciate that :)

CW Jones
Sep 1, 2010, 06:35 PM
Hmm I wonder if that could be true or not. I am just a fan of Mac in general. Not a fanboy at all though, I could live without Mac... I don't want to but I could haha.

At my college all the design lab computers are MacPros and iMacs... so if I had a PC I would have to know my PC AND the Mac's. It sounds stupid because most people just think a computer is a computer. Not the case, sooo many little tricks to learn on a Mac to make it smooth and efficient.

manueld
Sep 1, 2010, 06:57 PM
It's not as prevalent as before but WAY back in the day, using a Mac was just the standard for creating anything for print designs. It's not anymore hence the disparity.

Most tools are available in either platform. Use what's works best for you and your workflow. If you're used to a Mac stick with it although it does help just to be familiar with PCs in general as when you're out of college and into the real world, companies don't care if you use mac or pc, you just need to be able to accomplish what they want regardless of OS.

lucidmedia
Sep 1, 2010, 08:49 PM
The reason is historical. In 1985 Apple's graphical interface + MacPublisher (and Pagemaker) + the Apple laserwriter postscript laser printer allowed the desktop publishing revolution to begin.

It took quite a while (10 years, maybe more?) for the PC world to get interested in this market and catch up. In the meantime, the mac became embedded as the computer that is used for visual communications.

As other posters have mentioned, PCs are these days mostly equivalent to the mac (font handling was, for me, the last real trouble spot) and designers can choose which platform they wish to work on.

So, tradition. I started on a mac (a IIfx) and have used them ever since. I have used SGIs and PCs as well, but have always had at least one mac in the studio. Today my studio is primarily PC based... I am the only mac user. Moving files back and forth is trivial, however.

Many design programs at college are mac based because, in the past decade, Apple has invested heavily in education and would donate both hardware and software to schools (Adobe does the same).

Sadly, as we watch Apple shift from being a computer company to a consumer electronics company, their interest in the creative community has waned. Support for their own software has been drying up, and the entire concept of their "walled garden" of content delivery has effectively squeezed out the type of small creatives that gave them their start.

mofunk
Sep 1, 2010, 10:24 PM
Adding to above post... The first music editor was designed for Mac too. Most people that I come across that use Macs for music/graphics/video like them because it works well in their work flow.

I started working with a Mac because of that same reason. Back in the 80s I hated both PC and Macs in college cause I was always loosing my papers. lol Now its become a part of my life. I don't mind spending $$ for MobileMe because I use it a lot. Especially for sending clients huge files.

For a budget its the best way to go. I've actually made money using iMovie & iDvd by editing video footage. I'm actually glad I kept my Powerbook G4. I forgot that I needed a smaller firewire cables for my MBP. I didn't have time to locate one so I uploaded all the footage on my PB G4 which I've had for 7yrs. It still works. I just need to get a new battery and replace some of the keys.

Definitely invest in what you want. If you take care of your gear, then get a MBP. What I like now about it is how easy it is to configure a wi-fi printer.

The Beatles
Sep 2, 2010, 01:30 AM
I use a mac because i dont want to learn how to maintain a computer. I really dont like computers very much at all. I find them tedious. If I were to get a PC, i'd have to learn how to keep that PC running, viruses, hardware compatability, software issues, trouble shooting...forget it.

I'd say a PC if you like computers and want to build your own and dont get annoyed if you have to do any trouble shooting.

I'd say a mac if you just want to forget about the computer as much as possible and get to work.

P.S. get as much ram as you can afford. I realized that most people will get by with the littlest amount of ram as possible. Then in three years they think they need to spend another $2000 for a faster computer when they never even got passed 1st gear with their old computer. I did that a couple times. Now, im running 12 gigs of ram and will upgrade to 16 when i get the chance. Its a much better computer experience.

covisio
Sep 2, 2010, 03:00 AM
I think certainly in years gone by, Macs represented a much better investment for small-to-medium graphic design/prepress outfits. Typically the average creative, artworker or prepress worker used a very wide range of applications. In my company we had pretty much every graphic package worth its salt installed on every machine: Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop (and then the CS packages when they came in), Quark XPress, Freehand and so on. Then we added the specialist prepress software. Probably if we were still going today we would have added the web-related packages as well. They truly were a workhorse and represented very good ROI, even though they were more expensive than the average PC at the time. Additionally they required very little in the way of maintainence. Our IT guys barely had to touch them. I think we had one hard drive failure in 10 years.

As other's have said, compatibility was the big issue. We had to be sure we could open any other designer or company's artwork without issue. Any conversion problems either led to A: huge time losses sorting it out or even worse, B: an unnoticed difference in the files causing several tons of print to go down the pan and all the associated losses. It wasn't worth considering.

I am the creator and end user of all my artwork now, so I don't have issues like this, but I bet those in the industry still have cross-platform problems, especially with 'live' artwork.

opeter
Sep 2, 2010, 03:09 AM
These days, the main reason for using them, is to work with other designers. If a deadline is pressing, and I'm sending work to a freelancer, I want to know that their machine can handle the fonts without text reflowing and that there will be no other cross-platform issues.

With OpenType and TrueType, there are no such problems anymore.
The Adobe Suite is the same on both platforms. The QuarkXpress is the same on both platforms.

jbyun04
Sep 2, 2010, 03:20 AM
I've used PC's all my life until January this year.

Since the switch:
- I haven't had to worry about maintenance nearly as much
- Adobe CS runs so much better especially since I'm usually finding myself with at least 2 of them open at the same time
- I'm in love with the MBP screen and the ease of being able to switch to dual screen mode at home by plugging in a Mini-DP, USB and my power adapter
- The fact that my 5.1 Logitech Z5300-E's work fully by just plugging the front channel plug into my headphone jack gets me everytime
- The workflow in OSX is so much better, much more efficient
- I can have large files open in two programs and my computer will not slow down nearly as much as a PC
- As a designer, I look at my laptop everyday and appreciate the awesome design of the MacBook Pro. It doubles as sexy eyecandy and my best work friend.

I still use PC's, just for games not design.

covisio
Sep 2, 2010, 03:40 AM
With OpenType and TrueType, there are no such problems anymore.
The Adobe Suite is the same on both platforms. The QuarkXpress is the same on both platforms.

It depends what industry you're in. We had to take whatever artwork the customer provided. That could have been created on any platform, any version of software and with any font type, be it Type 1 or 2 Postscript, TrueType, Opentype or whatever. We weren't in a position to send it back, we had to deal with it. The majority of suppliers at the time used Macs and often Mac-only fonts. It would have been insane of us to start trying to use PCs at that point in time.

I'm sure today that if I were to have the same version of software and the same OpenType fonts on a document everything would be fine going from Mac to PC or vice versa, but in reality how often does that happen?

The OP was asking why Macs for design. The answer is "history". Today, there is no real reason apart from ease of use and comfort. The more comfortable you are with a system, the more work you will get done and the more creative you can be. Whether that's Mac or PC is up to you, but I wouldn't want to switch now.

Blue Velvet
Sep 2, 2010, 03:43 AM
With OpenType and TrueType, there are no such problems anymore.

By far the large majority of places I've worked in, still have a substantial investment in a library of Mac Postscript Type 1 fonts. And I've dealt with enough cross-platform issues, particularly with libraries and books on publishing projects in both InDesign and Quark to know that things aren't necessarily as easy as painted.

design-is
Sep 2, 2010, 04:28 AM
All the above are valid points, but above all, the most important thing from my opinion is as follows:

If you work all day, every day, creating designs and layouts, then a Mac makes life easier and is quicker.

I don't mean necessarily in processor speed, but they are so much easier to use once you're 'in the groove' compared to windows. Exposé for example is just one of the features that makes working on a Mac with multiple files so much easier and faster. And so far, you don't have to worry about viruses. Backup is easy with Time Machine. Almost everything works well (as opposed to Windows where almost every works badly). All the seconds, minutes and hours that the better OS saves you will prove invaluable.

If you can afford to invest in a high end Mac, I recommend you do so. You won't be disappointed (well, it's very unlikely).

opeter
Sep 2, 2010, 06:23 AM
The OP was asking why Macs for design. The answer is "history". Today, there is no real reason apart from ease of use and comfort. The more comfortable you are with a system, the more work you will get done and the more creative you can be. Whether that's Mac or PC is up to you, but I wouldn't want to switch now.

Of course. I understand that. But what will you (and others) do if one day Apple will announce, that they will not make computers anymore?

That is why I am trying not to be dependent from one company.

iCole
Sep 2, 2010, 10:35 AM
If Apple stops making computers (which will never happen since no iPod, iPhone, ... can function without a mac and you need a mac to create apps, but ok, if) The transition from MacOS to Windows isn't that hard. The only thing you need is your applications. Almost everything exists on Windows or will exist. Your documents can easily be migrated. And your old macs still can serve until they're dead. It isn't a disaster for a designer, but it would suck for sure, since i believe that MacOS is just way more fun to use.

edit : besides, what makes you believe Windows will be around forever ;-)

eponym
Sep 2, 2010, 10:59 AM
Of course. I understand that. But what will you (and others) do if one day Apple will announce, that they will not make computers anymore?

That is why I am trying not to be dependent from one company.

That's an irrelevant issue for two main reasons:

1) It's absurd. Apple won't suddenly stop making computers anymore for a million and 1 reasons.

2) You're not being dependent on Apple (or MS) anyway. Your workflow is really dependent on the products from other parties. The fact that you're even considering more than one platform shows this. There is nothing to stop you from jumping back and forth unless you're using a really specific product. A PSD is a PSD. An OTF font file is an OTF font file.


To address your original question: as many have said it's about history and proven track record. For a LONG time, the Mac platform was far and beyond the best platform for creative production. Largely for technological reasons and innovations. Take a look at Apple and Adobe's history. Postscript development and Adobe Illustrator. Photoshop's history—it was originally invented on a Mac by a student and was Mac-only for the first 4 years. Quark Xpress, which was a revolutionary app for page design, started on the Mac (and I've yet to ever see it running on Windows machine, even though it exists).

It's easy to say "I can run XYZ on my PC..." now. But for the longest time, these premiere apps either didn't exist on windows or weren't as good as their Mac counterparts. Windows has been playing catch-up in this industry for two decades.

And the last thing to note is the cultural differences. Windows and Mac OS are very much reflective of their parent company's culture. People who want to work (and will succeed) in the creative industry tend to notice and appreciate the little things. Macs have a style, an attention to detail. It says "we cared enough to think about this." It resonates with like-minded people. They like having an OS with a million little touches because it motivates them to take as much care in the product they're producing.

Windows for the longest time has felt like a programmer's OS designed by a programmer (have you ever used Windows without ClearType?). Windows has historically focused on being able to go from point A to point B. And not giving a damn about how you get there.


...asleep yet?:D

chatfan
Sep 2, 2010, 11:13 AM
0o0o0oo0.. the Amiga!

That really started a lot of the things mac's are now famous for, including a multitasking multi threading multi user unix kernel with a GUI :)

Still got a 4000 but I agreee, computers are tools.

The main reason I own only mac's these days (ok and a few old Amiga's because they still RULE even with a 25mhz 68040!) is being compatible with my customers. Check possible client base, if they are Macheads, get a Mac, if not.. well still get one if you want a laptop :)

:cool:


Here, where I live, before 25-30 years noone used a computer for graphic design or any type of art etc. The biggest change (especially in the video "section") was, when the AMIGAs arrived.

I mean, for me, the computer is just a tool.


p.s.

There are more things I hate about mac's then I ever hated about my home build uber PC's but still would not want to go back. Finder sucks if you are used to Directory Opus. :eek:

robvas
Sep 2, 2010, 11:21 AM
One big thing in the past was that you had to have your work in a certain file format when you sent it off to the printer

Another big thing is Apple had things like color calibration that insured it looked the same on the screen as it did on paper

chatfan
Sep 2, 2010, 11:27 AM
Actually one big thing is: what do YOU like best because whatever you buy, you will be stuck with it for at least two years.

snickelfritz
Sep 2, 2010, 12:54 PM
I am getting a MacBook Pro in the next week for college, I will be majoring in Graphic Communications Management. I have taken 2 years of high school classes and we exclusively used Macs and my College (UW-Stout) has a huge Mac Lab.

My question is, why are Mac's desired for Artistic (Graphic Design, Photo, Video, etc.) Purposes? I can understand why for video, because Final Cut Pro is an exclusive and is pretty remarkable. However, I have used CS4 on my home PC and it works just fine on it, thus I am confused.
This goes back 10 years or more to the old MacOS and the PowerMac; PC's running Win98 literally sucked for DTP and creating work. (and WinXP was not a big improvement).
By way of contrast, MacOS 8.6 running on a PowerMac 9600 was excellent, even by today's standards.
The "Holy Trinity" of DTP was Mac Quark/Illustrator/Photoshop, and many publishing houses and service bureaus would not accept anything else.
Hence the Mac bias in the DTP industry.
There was also some debate about the virtues of RISC vs CISC processing. (Mac = RISC; PC = CISC)

Anymore, platform is mostly about personal preference; any decently endowed modern computer will work well for DTP/web design/animation.

DesignerOnMac
Sep 2, 2010, 02:39 PM
Okay well those were some great responses.

I've gotten some good info, specifically

opening multiple images does, from my experience using 17" core 2 duo macs, is faster and smoother (Consultant)

Multitasking is smoother (babyjenniferLB)

I have always had trouble taking my work from school (mac) back home (pc). Things just didn't always work very smoothly. So having other designers use the same type of computer makes a lot of sense. (Blue Velvet)

After reading all of this, it seems to make sense that the more difficult procedures will run smoother on a Mac. I have only been in 2 years of High School Graphics, so I could imagine as I enter College Graphics, the procedures will get much more complicated and thus run better on a mac (chrono1081)

My high school was even still running eMac's haha, no one ever perfered to use them but they got the job done.(CW Jones)

Thanks for the replies, it helped a lot.

What I am curious about is the history of this topic. I was told, that a major reason why design is so deep into mac is because in the late 80's and early 90's, the adobe programs were a mac exclusive. If someone could elaborate on the history of this topic I would greatly appreciate that :)

Also add to all the other info, Adobe created desktop publishing for the mac back in the day and they developed a rip for printers. Designers, artists, etc., could get their files printed better with this rip technology and most printers started using macs for their front end for separations, plate making etc. Printers also, as mentioned, invested heavily in Post Script Fonts, as well as most designers did and have. I purchased the complete Adobe Font Library as an example.

For me. a mac has just be easier to use, for some reason I can still not understand the Windoz OS and when I am on a PC I always get lost!

karmachrome
Sep 2, 2010, 03:06 PM
I have to admit, when it comes to performance, my PC build cranks compared to the Mac Pro used at work (I'm a designer). I hate using the PC because of the button configuration.

mBox
Sep 2, 2010, 07:05 PM
I have to admit, when it comes to performance, my PC build cranks compared to the Mac Pro used at work (I'm a designer). I hate using the PC because of the button configuration.
At one point in my career, Ive had the pleasure/displeasure of working with Windows, Mac and Unix but mostly 3D/Motion Design. I did however work with numerous Graphic Designers at different levels and 99% of them were pro-Mac due to the nature of the business.
From a different perspective, having Windows as an option opens doors to numerous app options but not necessarily productive ones.
Sadly it also opens up a larger bag of hurt the second your on the Internet :(

design-is
Sep 3, 2010, 03:17 AM
Oh, another major plus point:

Buy a Mac and you can easily and legally run Windows OR OSX (or others).
Buy a PC and you're legally not allowed to run OSX.

OSX is the main reason to buy a Mac, regardless of specs and hardware design.

On a personal note, I still use Windows sometimes. I used to love it because I had time to solve problems and play around with the OS (XP at the time). No days I have a job, a career, a passion. I've no time to fix Microsoft's crappy OS, XP or their newer, crappier versions.

definitive
Sep 3, 2010, 09:11 PM
for adobe suite, there's really no advantage in owning a mac. only thing you'd gain is bragging rights about owning the latest mbp with your hipster buddies at starbucks (if you have those kind of friends).

danjames99
Sep 4, 2010, 11:43 AM
I've worked as a production artist and (having recovered my soul/sanity) am now working in IT as desktop support for creative industries.

As far as PC goes ... the world runs PC. I know Mac die-hards hate that -- but the fact that Windows works well enough, and that Windows 7 is a very good OS is good news for Mac users, too, because as annoying as the PC world might be, you're inevitably going to deal with Microsoft computers at some point. Adobe stuff works fantastic and stable on PC and, frankly, I like having the ALT key to access menu shortcuts when working in Photoshop and Illustrator, specifically. Don't buy a Mac and expect it to be "frustration free" -- any computer dealing with large files will have hiccups. (I billed many, many an hour in total waiting for beachballs to spin.)

That being said, Macs are also used in design for many reasons, including the fact that there are many custom programs and plugins at the professional production level that not only necessitate Macs, but specific versions of the OS, etc.

As far as regular work, the MacBooks are signature Mac products for a reason, and I used to love working by dropping files on the necessary icon to open things and not worry about it. I don't have first-hand experience with the multi-tasking difference, but the Mac handles the interface elegantly enough to be your best partner when working on design stuff.

You shouldn't buy a Mac just to look cool at a coffeeshop surfing Facebook. Just get an iPad if you want to show off the logo. You should buy one because the integration of the OS and the software will get you what you need, seamlessly.

kevingaffney
Sep 4, 2010, 03:50 PM
I've used PC's all my life until January this year.

Since the switch:
- I haven't had to worry about maintenance nearly as much
- Adobe CS runs so much better especially since I'm usually finding myself with at least 2 of them open at the same time
- I'm in love with the MBP screen and the ease of being able to switch to dual screen mode at home by plugging in a Mini-DP, USB and my power adapter
- The fact that my 5.1 Logitech Z5300-E's work fully by just plugging the front channel plug into my headphone jack gets me everytime
- The workflow in OSX is so much better, much more efficient
- I can have large files open in two programs and my computer will not slow down nearly as much as a PC
- As a designer, I look at my laptop everyday and appreciate the awesome design of the MacBook Pro. It doubles as sexy eyecandy and my best work friend.

I still use PC's, just for games not design.
I've designed on pc's since 1996 but switched to mac last year. I have to agree with every point you've made. It was ridiculous how often my pc's would crash or hang when having multiple apps open or when working with complicated files. Never switch off my MBP, just close the lid leaving my office, open it up later at night and just carry on where I left off, never any issues

TheShinyMac
Sep 4, 2010, 08:48 PM
Try opening 50 large images on mac vs windows and multi-task. There is a huge difference.

I completly agree

MisterMe
Sep 4, 2010, 11:23 PM
...

As far as PC goes ... the world runs PC. ...This means absolutely nothing. Nobody denies that the world runs PC. There may very well be more PCs being used as smart terminals than all the Macs in the world. However, none of this group of PCs is used for design. The OP asked the question about why Macs are preferred for design. Let's stay focused on that.

danjames99
Sep 5, 2010, 10:24 AM
[QUOTE=MisterMe;10996816]This means absolutely nothing. Nobody denies that the world runs PC./QUOTE]

Relax, I was merely suggesting that as a Mac user, it's nothing unusual to go back and forth between PC and Mac. And even in the design world where Macs dominate, it's not necessary to be "exclusively" Mac, and you shouldn't buy a Mac thinking it's the only suitable choice to run graphics programs. You'll note I advised the poster that they would find the Mac to be particular suited to the needs of graphic designers.

Dagless
Sep 5, 2010, 11:49 AM
I've found my workflow to, um, flow better under Windows. XP in particular.

I also can't do graphic tablet work under OSX due to having dual monitors. In XP I can disable the iMac display (which is smaller than my main display), under OSX it tries to stretch the 2x displays over 1 tablet and that aint so good.
Prefer the mouse motion in XP as well. It's really raw and unprocessed.

OSX is much better at handling large files though and Finder can be a godsend at times (Spotlight!).

danjames99
Sep 5, 2010, 03:17 PM
I've found my workflow to, um, flow better under Windows. XP in particular.

My Mac friends were horrified that I purchased an XP machine back in the day. But at the time, when OSX had to boot back into "classic" in order to use Quark, performance was HORRIBLE on a Mac which cost more yet gave me less.

So Macs have not "always" been better. They were the default choice for graphics in the 90s, and in the early OSX/ XP days, XP was good and stable.

I wouldn't recommend Macs again if I didn't they learned from their low points, but I think they did. Leopard was far more useful for humans than Vista was.

Supa_Fly
Sep 6, 2010, 12:27 AM
Adding to above post... The first music editor was designed for Mac too. Most people that I come across that use Macs for music/graphics/video like them because it works well in their work flow.

I'd greatly say your WRONG here ... a proper music editor debuted on Atari and several other machines before being on Mac. Midi was even by today's standard usable on Atari some 15-20yrs ago. I know of no music editor program for Mac then, although I'd concede if better than Cubase on Atari in the timeline I mentioned.

Jim Campbell
Sep 6, 2010, 02:19 AM
I also can't do graphic tablet work under OSX due to having dual monitors. In XP I can disable the iMac display (which is smaller than my main display), under OSX it tries to stretch the 2x displays over 1 tablet and that aint so good.

This is a deficiency in your tablet drivers, not in the OS, which most definitely can map a tablet to one of two dual monitors.

Cheers

Jim

Winni
Sep 6, 2010, 08:14 AM
Try opening 50 large images on mac vs windows and multi-task. There is a huge difference.

Absolutely. Windows does a MUCH better job at multitasking than the Mach-kernel of Mac OS X. (This might be the wrong answer on a Mac forum, but it's the truth nevertheless.)

If you want the best of all worlds, install 64-Bit Windows 7 or 64-Bit Linux on your Apple hardware - it won't get any better than this.

covisio
Sep 6, 2010, 08:22 AM
If you want the best of all worlds, install 64-Bit Windows 7 or 64-Bit Linux on your Apple hardware - it won't get any better than this.

Yawn. You do that, meanwhile I'll get on with some work.

elppa
Sep 6, 2010, 09:39 AM
Absolutely. Windows does a MUCH better job at multitasking than the Mach-kernel of Mac OS X. (This might be the wrong answer on a Mac forum, but it's the truth nevertheless.)

If you want the best of all worlds, install 64-Bit Windows 7 or 64-Bit Linux on your Apple hardware - it won't get any better than this.

You come across as such a know-it-all, but fail to know OS X Kernel != Mach (http://vodpod.com/watch/1780646-inside-the-mac-os-x-kernel).

Fa7mac
Sep 6, 2010, 10:42 AM
Oh, and quicklook is a HUGE time saver when dealing with a lot of different files.

+1
quicklook saves me a lot of time when searching on my files.
+1 for finder +2 for Pathfinder, great ways to navigate your files if you're an organized person and your files are organized in folders and subfolders instead of thrown randomly on your desktop

+1 for Application Frame (Mac Only)

As a student, I study on Windows computers at home, but my projects I do on my base 21.5 iMac and I can say that Mac suites me better, being able to have iD, Ps, and Ai running at the same time smoothly is a pleasure

opeter
Sep 6, 2010, 02:01 PM
Try opening 50 large images on mac vs windows and multi-task. There is a huge difference.

There is no difference at all.

Poncho
Sep 6, 2010, 06:28 PM
STOP!!!!

The real reason why Macs are preferred for design goes back to when someone had to make a choice about how type would appear on a computer screen.

Designers and editors needed What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) so that what they saw was what would appear on the magazine page in the shop.

Apple adopted anti-aliasing, which meant letters like O would appear on the screen nice and rounded (the bitmapping would be greyed down).

Windows and PCs etc etc went for sharp text, ie, no anti aliasing, and following the bitmap squares. Great for clarity and scientific use but no guide to what would appear on the printed page.

That's why the text on Windows PCs look sharp to Mac users and Windows people say Mac text looks fuzzy.

Anyhow, that is why designers and editors started using Macs.

Well, thats' what I always thought...

stainlessliquid
Sep 6, 2010, 09:07 PM
STOP!!!!

The real reason why Macs are preferred for design goes back to when someone had to make a choice about how type would appear on a computer screen.

Designers and editors needed What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) so that what they saw was what would appear on the magazine page in the shop.

Apple adopted anti-aliasing, which meant letters like O would appear on the screen nice and rounded (the bitmapping would be greyed down).

Windows and PCs etc etc went for sharp text, ie, no anti aliasing, and following the bitmap squares. Great for clarity and scientific use but no guide to what would appear on the printed page.

That's why the text on Windows PCs look sharp to Mac users and Windows people say Mac text looks fuzzy.

Anyhow, that is why designers and editors started using Macs.

Well, thats' what I always thought...

Windows has been doing antialiasing since 2001 and Adobe has handled antialiasing in their programs since as long as I can remember.

chrono1081
Sep 7, 2010, 12:28 AM
Absolutely. Windows does a MUCH better job at multitasking than the Mach-kernel of Mac OS X. (This might be the wrong answer on a Mac forum, but it's the truth nevertheless.)


Definitely not the truth. Please try both before you post.

chaosbunny
Sep 7, 2010, 03:20 AM
I also can't do graphic tablet work under OSX due to having dual monitors. In XP I can disable the iMac display (which is smaller than my main display), under OSX it tries to stretch the 2x displays over 1 tablet and that aint so good.

Have you installed the wacom tablet driver under OSX? If so, just open system preferences and klick on the tablet, it should be in the bottom row. There you can choose which monitor should be mapped for the tablet. You can even choose to only map it to a single screen in a specific program, photoshop or scetchbook for example, and leave it mapped to dual screen for the rest. Hope this helps.

This has nothing to do with the OS ...

chrono1081
Sep 7, 2010, 01:52 PM
Have you installed the wacom tablet driver under OSX? If so, just open system preferences and klick on the tablet, it should be in the bottom row. There you can choose which monitor should be mapped for the tablet. You can even choose to only map it to a single screen in a specific program, photoshop or scetchbook for example, and leave it mapped to dual screen for the rest. Hope this helps.

This has nothing to do with the OS ...

+1 You need the driver for any OS you are using. I use dual displays and I am always doing graphical work.

Also make sure you set it in the wacom preferences.

lucidmedia
Sep 7, 2010, 04:16 PM
STOP!!!!

The real reason why Macs are preferred for design goes back to when someone had to make a choice about how type would appear on a computer screen.

Designers and editors needed What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) so that what they saw was what would appear on the magazine page in the shop.

Apple adopted anti-aliasing, which meant letters like O would appear on the screen nice and rounded (the bitmapping would be greyed down).

Windows and PCs etc etc went for sharp text, ie, no anti aliasing, and following the bitmap squares. Great for clarity and scientific use but no guide to what would appear on the printed page.

That's why the text on Windows PCs look sharp to Mac users and Windows people say Mac text looks fuzzy.

Anyhow, that is why designers and editors started using Macs.

Well, thats' what I always thought...

Actually, back in the day (the 1990s) Apple could care less about anti-aliasing type... Adobe took care of that for us with Adobe Type Manager (they also had software that grouped our fonts).

Postscript Type 1 fonts (on mac or PC) have both bitmap and vector files. ATM allowed us to view layout using renderings of the vector data instead of the bitmaps.

ATM existed for PCs as well. Both systems could do WYSIWYG. And, because of ATM, the antialiasing was generally the same across platforms.

ATM was discontinued for the Mac after we shifted to OSX (i.e. not that long ago). ATM light still exists for PCs.

What you mention, however, is not entirely wrong. Windows anti-aliasing is much "thinner" than the mac. Thats why you correctly note:


That's why the text on Windows PCs look sharp to Mac users and Windows people say Mac text looks fuzzy.

Its all a matter of preference... kind of like what computer designer's feel makes them most productive.

Emigre designer Zuzana Licko famously said "people read best what they read most" when people complained about the legibility of her typefaces in the early 90s. (John Baskerville also was criticized for poor legibility in the mid-1700s). To paraphase her:

"Designers use best what they use most".

At this stage in the game, it matters little what platform you are on.

MisterMe
Sep 7, 2010, 08:20 PM
Actually, back in the day (the 1990s) Apple could care less about anti-aliasing type... Adobe took care of that for us with Adobe Type Manager (they also had software that grouped our fonts).

Postscript Type 1 fonts (on mac or PC) have both bitmap and vector files. ATM allowed us to view layout using renderings of the vector data instead of the bitmaps.

ATM existed for PCs as well. Both systems could do WYSIWYG. And, because of ATM, the antialiasing was generally the same across platforms.

....This is a misrepresentation of ATM and what it did. ATM was a screen renderer for PostScript Type 1 fonts. It gave WYSIWYG view of type with only one or two type sizes of bitmaps in a single typestyle. The ATM renderer generated all other type sizes and styles from the printer [vector] fonts. However, ... text displayed on screen by ATM was not nearly as good as bitmapped versions of fonts in the proper typesizes and typestyles. Bitmaps' quality advantage onscreen was outweighed by the fact that they required valuable space on the limited-capacity hard drives of the day.

Your assertion about ATM ignores the real reason that it was developed in the first place. Apple had requested that Adobe make Type 1 hinting available for low-resolution devices. [In the parlance of the day, low-resolution devices were laser printers and Macintosh monitors.] Adobe refused, scolding Apple that Adobe's target market was professional typography [on professional phototypesetters]. This was the beginning of the Type Wars. In response to Adobe's hubris, Apple announced that it would develop TrueType. TrueType would work on both laserprinter and computer screen without bitmapped fonts. Adobe returned fire with the development of ATM as a System 6 INIT.

This Mac user used ATM from ATM 1.0 until it was rendered obsolete by MacOS X. This Mac user can state without fear of contradiction that ATM 1.0 sucked! Fonts looked reasonably OK on screen. However, ATM required several iterations to perfect the layout of text on documents printed by QuickDraw printers.

As for antialiasing, it is my understanding that all ATM did on the Mac was to render characters on the fly. The System handled ATM-generated fonts just like it handled bitmapped fonts and TrueType fonts when they became available. Antialiasing would have been done by the System, not ATM.

anriqueroy
Sep 8, 2010, 11:50 PM
Macs are easy to install, manage and maintain. There are no viruses for Mac OS X, you do not have antivirus software, as opposed to Windows users. Mac is the most advanced, stable operating system on the market, unlike Windows. Apple has the best customer service and support at the same level over the last three consecutive years, no PC manufacturers, even close to their classification.

daver11
Sep 12, 2010, 12:22 AM
Macs for design and PCs for business is an old cliché. All the industry standard design programs are available on both. Use what you want. For me, that's Mac.

btbrossard
Sep 20, 2010, 12:58 AM
As far as PC goes ... the world runs PC.
That may be the case, but working for a very large commercial print house, I can tell you that 95% of our work comes in on the Mac.

We only have 1 PC workstation. When a PC job comes in, everyone avoids it like the plague.

Edit: You should certainly, if new to the industry, know how to use both platforms. We have some people at work who don't even know how to use the PC.