Apple's graphical crown in PC peril
Sholto Macpherson
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
THERE was a time when a design studio wouldn't have a single PC, and they're still a rarity.
The graphics business is home to the Apple faithful who have remained committed to a platform ignored by more than 90 per cent of the world's computer users.
The split reflects a loyalty bred by Apple's commitment to visual aesthetics, as Apple was first with the graphical user interface based on the desktop metaphor that hid unsightly code.
A further strength of Macs was the ability to present colours onscreen, ensuring greater accuracy when the image was printed.
Colour accuracy is critical to the printing industry, and broken promises by less expensive, but inaccurate graphics cards for the PC turned many into Mac fanatics. This created a network effect, as Mac-using advertising agencies looked for pre-press and printing companies that also operated in a Mac environment, bolstering the brand's presence in the graphics niche.
Picking the right platform for graphics work was a simple task because the better hardware attracted professional-imaging packages, such as Photoshop, a benchmark for professional photo-editing.
But today there is not much difference to running imaging software on either platform.
Processor speeds are similar, if not directly comparable, colour reproduction is on par and the choice of an operating system is one of personal taste, rather than a business decision.
Photoshop and other specialist software runs easily on both platforms thanks to the mass-production of high-end graphics cards to meet the demands of gamers and the internet for video playback over PC.
Many printing companies also support both platforms, thanks to plummeting hardware prices and standardised programs, breaking open a once-secure market for Apple.
Although Apple is marginally ahead with a more stable and feature-rich operating system, the quality of output between the platforms is indistinguishable. "I challenge anyone to pick up a magazine and say whether it was made by a Mac or a PC," says Adobe's Nick Hodge.
He says it is easier to get accurate colours and tweak the operating system for better graphical performance on the Mac, but it is getting harder for Apple to stand out.
A Mac user for the past eight years, freelance photographer Adam Craven is shifting to digital photography and processes and prints most images himself. On balance PCs are cheaper but the Mac operating is simpler, he says, and carries a measure of status within his industry. But on running the software he admits "there's not much difference".
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6023256^15397^^nbv^,00.html
Sholto Macpherson
FEBRUARY 25, 2003
THERE was a time when a design studio wouldn't have a single PC, and they're still a rarity.
The graphics business is home to the Apple faithful who have remained committed to a platform ignored by more than 90 per cent of the world's computer users.
The split reflects a loyalty bred by Apple's commitment to visual aesthetics, as Apple was first with the graphical user interface based on the desktop metaphor that hid unsightly code.
A further strength of Macs was the ability to present colours onscreen, ensuring greater accuracy when the image was printed.
Colour accuracy is critical to the printing industry, and broken promises by less expensive, but inaccurate graphics cards for the PC turned many into Mac fanatics. This created a network effect, as Mac-using advertising agencies looked for pre-press and printing companies that also operated in a Mac environment, bolstering the brand's presence in the graphics niche.
Picking the right platform for graphics work was a simple task because the better hardware attracted professional-imaging packages, such as Photoshop, a benchmark for professional photo-editing.
But today there is not much difference to running imaging software on either platform.
Processor speeds are similar, if not directly comparable, colour reproduction is on par and the choice of an operating system is one of personal taste, rather than a business decision.
Photoshop and other specialist software runs easily on both platforms thanks to the mass-production of high-end graphics cards to meet the demands of gamers and the internet for video playback over PC.
Many printing companies also support both platforms, thanks to plummeting hardware prices and standardised programs, breaking open a once-secure market for Apple.
Although Apple is marginally ahead with a more stable and feature-rich operating system, the quality of output between the platforms is indistinguishable. "I challenge anyone to pick up a magazine and say whether it was made by a Mac or a PC," says Adobe's Nick Hodge.
He says it is easier to get accurate colours and tweak the operating system for better graphical performance on the Mac, but it is getting harder for Apple to stand out.
A Mac user for the past eight years, freelance photographer Adam Craven is shifting to digital photography and processes and prints most images himself. On balance PCs are cheaper but the Mac operating is simpler, he says, and carries a measure of status within his industry. But on running the software he admits "there's not much difference".
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6023256^15397^^nbv^,00.html
