question about mac vs windows (or linux), question, not debate.

[iceblade]

Hey guys, I hope this won't turn into a huge argument or anything of 'which is better,' more I'm just looking for a few answers.

I've heard that Macs are better for graphic design, music and video work... And my question kind of is, why? This question kind of started with 'why are macs supposedly better for graphic design' and soon spread to me wondering about the other stuff, so thats why there is a redundant post in the graphic design forum about this.

I guess I understand why macs aren't as good for the 'regular person' just 'web surfing and email' edit:because of various reasons back and fourth for suitability. That isn't to say 'regular' people shouldn't use them. Just that they're a better fit for some then others /edit.

Thanks for the answers, everyone. Just something I wondered about (and couldn't figure out where to post it all in one place, so decided I'd try here).

[iGuardian]

Personally, I use both Mac and Windows (although I've made my Windows look like a Mac) and my opinion is this.

There's almost no difference anymore.

The only thing that's really different to the user at least is just the UI and the programs it can run. And the UI can be changed, so, the only difference is the programs available to it.

[oli2140]

Hey guys, I hope this won't turn into a huge argument or anything of 'which is better,' more I'm just looking for a few answers.

I've heard that Macs are better for graphic design, music and video work... And my question kind of is, why? This question kind of started with 'why are macs supposedly better for graphic design' and soon spread to me wondering about the other stuff, so thats why there is a redundant post in the graphic design forum about this.

They're not, just a bit more reliable

I guess I understand why macs aren't as good for the 'regular person' just 'web surfing and email' (although that is perhaps debatable) because of the higher cost.

^That bit will cause a debate

[iceblade]

They're not, just a bit more reliable



^That bit will cause a debate

Yeah, I changed it to maybe decrease some of the debate. I just know how some threads get taken off topic and cluttered by debates.

[K3mp]

There's almost no difference anymore.

The only thing that's really different to the user at least is just the UI and the programs it can run. And the UI can be changed, so, the only difference is the programs available to it.
Those things make a big difference but stability and speed are very important too. Design/Video/Photography pros tend to prefer the macs because not only do they have a professional look and feel, but they also have the stability and performance that professionals need.

[SnowLeopard2008]

Macs have a better design, superior quality and a better, more optimized OS. It's not just great for graphic design. I own Macs (iBook G4 + MacBook, see signature) and I'm a 15 year old programmer half fluent in C++, Java and HTML. None of those are in the "graphic design" category.

However, it is true that many recording studios use Macs for editing and such. A couple of well known movies this year were made using Macs. I think hardware wise, there is no difference. There is a difference in terms of the type of components you get for your money. For example, HP/Dell/Sony's AIO computers have sucky GPUs vs. the dedicated GPUs of iMacs. OS wise, Mac trounces PCs. Vista/XP is still task based and not multi-process.

[yoyo5280]

I've heard that Macs are better for graphic design, music and video work... And my question kind of is, why?


I think its all about software and user interface.
Macs also appeal more to arty people I think.
I guess I understand why macs aren't as good for the 'regular person' just 'web surfing and email' edit:because of various reasons back and fourth for suitability. /edit.

I have to disagree. I'm almost positive macs where designed around the idea of the user being a complete idiot. So macs are made easy to learn.

[VoR]

I think the OP has it the wrong way round. I think macs are better for the 'regular user' because in general they're more resilient to bad software and driver installs while a windows pc has a larger software base and less limitations.

Unsure of the 'or linux' in the topic title. There's a vast array of good and bad oss for all of these os'. There are many desktop distros that are easy to use as osx/windows, but kernel (and lack/diversity of ui/etcetc) development does seem to be directed towards server app benchmarks.

[wrldwzrd89]

I'd say that, of the 3 (Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux), each one is used in different contexts.

Mac OS X is used in graphic design so much because Apple made a big effort to support color profile matching/calibration in the Mac OS from the System 7 days onward. This is a big deal to graphic designers, as they rely on accurate color.

Windows is used in business an awful lot, probably because of the huge variety of software to meet business needs available for it.

Linux is used mostly in the server room, though there are some desktop users as well. Linux makes a great server OS because it performs well on typical server tasks.

[K3mp]

OS X was built around simplicity but being powerful at the same time. So it could appeal to both an idiot and a professional. Also they did make a big push for color and graphics.

[skubish]

I'd say that, of the 3 (Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux), each one is used in different contexts.

Mac OS X is used in graphic design so much because Apple made a big effort to support color profile matching/calibration in the Mac OS from the System 7 days onward. This is a big deal to graphic designers, as they rely on accurate color.

Windows is used in business an awful lot, probably because of the huge variety of software to meet business needs available for it.

Linux is used mostly in the server room, though there are some desktop users as well. Linux makes a great server OS because it performs well on typical server tasks.
Also Final Cut is only available for OSX and that has some influence on people's decision.

[miles01110]

Macs have a better design, superior quality and a better, more optimized OS. It's not just great for graphic design. I own Macs (iBook G4 + MacBook, see signature) and I'm a 15 year old programmer half fluent in C++, Java and HTML. None of those are in the "graphic design" category.

Why on Earth would you need a powerful machine to program in any of these languages? You can get them to compile on Pentium IIs with virtually no performance loss. Any machine built in the last 10 years will be able to compile C++.

"Superior quality"- You find mostly the same parts in Apple machines as any other.

"Better design" and "more optimized OS" hopefully refers to the chip architecture and the way that the OS takes advantage of system resources. Again, this is debatable.

I think hardware wise, there is no difference. There is a difference in terms of the type of components you get for your money. For example, HP/Dell/Sony's AIO computers have sucky GPUs vs. the dedicated GPUs of iMacs. OS wise, Mac trounces PCs. Vista/XP is still task based and not multi-process.

This is only true in BTO machines. Anyone competent enough to build their own computer will be able to get specs far beyond Apple's honestly underwhelming Radeons. And those machines aren't going to be running OS X.

Anyway; advantages are that most Mac applications arent designed to take up the entire screen regardless of how much screen they actually use. Dragging things to the desktop is really handy, and especially when you're working with a lot of different programs. Font management is a lot easier and performs better. Multiple color profiles are simple to set up and use. OS X anti-aliases fonts and uses OpenGL. Built-in Automator and the ability to write your own scripts and execute them (AppleScripts) is really handy to create workflows. And being familiar with OS X is handy since most ad agencies/graphic design agencies use it.