Graphic Design - Mac or PC? [Archive]

definitive

Mar 15, 2009, 04:04 PM

So as a designer, which would you recommend going with for print graphic design?

For web design it's obvious that Windows would be a no-brainer, since over 70% of the computers used on the web (according to W3Schools) run some kind of version of Windows, and you have a wider range of browsers to test on.

This is where I'm a bit confused - What advantages does a Mac have over a PC when it comes to print design? Can't an Apple screen be connected to a Windows computer? What about fonts? Is there a way to load PostScript fonts on to a Windows machine? I've tried before, but they came out as 0byte files. All I was able to load were PFM, TTF and OTF on Windows XP.

Reason I'm asking all this is because I'm shopping around for a new computer, and will be working in a professional environment soon where Mac's are dominant, but I can't justify spending money on a $1-2k system where I could spend half that on a PC which would work just as fast.

mcavjame

Mar 15, 2009, 04:15 PM

snickelfritz

Mar 15, 2009, 04:22 PM

Mac is a no-brainer for print and web development work, and multimedia development in general.

You also need a Windows PC for testing web apps though, since a large majority of internet users are running Windows.
You can install Windows in your Mac (Bootcamp) for this purpose, which allows for testing Mac and PC browsers on a single machine.
You can't test actually Mac browsers on a Windows PC.

Windows PC is probably a better choice if you already own expensive Windows software, or your work requires Windows-only software that uses a hardware dongle.
Designers and Artists are almost universally better served with a Mac running Adobe CS4.

Blue Velvet

Mar 15, 2009, 04:24 PM

The technical advantages of using a Mac have mostly disappeared. However, the main advantages of using a Mac for print design these days rest solely on being in an environment where compatibility issues are not a problem and this is worth the Mac cost premium.

The biggest problems are with fonts. PC postscript fonts exist but are rare, Windows can not work with Mac postscript fonts. If you're working with a group of people "in a professional environment soon where Mac's are dominant" as you put it, then they're going to be using Mac postscript fonts, most likely, unless they've got a relatively recent library full of OpenType fonts. And even if you get a reasonable conversion, an additional cost in itself, they still tend to reflow because kerning pairs and the like tend not to translate too well.

Sure, you connect an Apple Cinema Display to PC. But you can connect a Dell display (for instance) to a Mac.

To cut a long story short, you're not taking the total cost of ownership into account. The Mac will pay for itself in the longer run. What you might save in money is nothing compared to the potential problems down the line. For instance, we never used to use freelancers who worked on PCs... too much hassle.

Edit:

I can't justify spending money on a $1-2k system where I could spend half that on a PC which would work just as fast.

Tell us what you're comparing like to like with, and maybe we can help. If I was entering the print design market for the first time, I'd look at a refurb or secondhand machine, or maybe even one of the new Mac Minis stuffed full of RAM if I knew I wasn't going to be working on 500Mb+ Photoshop files all day.

Tesselator

Mar 15, 2009, 04:49 PM

So as a designer, which would you recommend going with for print graphic design?

Both are about the same these days. If there's one or two special apps specifically exclusive to a particular platform that you're in love with then follow the OS for those.

For web design it's obvious that Windows would be a no-brainer, since over 70% of the computers used on the web (according to W3Schools) run some kind of version of Windows, and you have a wider range of browsers to test on.

I don't agree. It's about the browsers not the OS. All are available on OS X. But if you feel better using Browser X on a particular platform then virtualize. Either virtual OS X on windows or virtual windows on OS X.

This is where I'm a bit confused - What advantages does a Mac have over a PC when it comes to print design?
Can't an Apple screen be connected to a Windows computer?
What about fonts? Is there a way to load PostScript fonts on to a Windows machine?
I've tried before, but they came out as 0-byte files. All I was able to load were PFM, TTF and OTF on Windows XP.

None really. The OS is more simplified and streamlined so it's a more stable and the user spends far less time setting things up or changing things around.
I think so yes. But Screens are NOT what makes Apple "good". Simplification, Unification, and Consolidation are. I think the best screens right now are probably NEC and EIZO but I haven't checked since LED backlighting tech has come out.
Yes sure.
Get a conversion application like Fontographer or another (http://www.fontlab.com/font-converter/). That'll do it! :)

Reason I'm asking all this is because I'm shopping around for a new computer, and will be working in a professional environment soon where Mac's are dominant, but I can't justify spending money on a $1-2k system where I could spend half that on a PC which would work just as fast.

Data exchange is a big part of successfully working in a pool. Get whatever most of them have. Prior to 2009 and contrary to popular belief Macs are NOT more expensive than a machine with the same specifications in a wintel flavor. You should be able to get the same spec on mac or PC for the same price. The difference is that Apple doesn't sell total crap (err, weak and not suitable for expansion) like some no-name systems and lower end DELL and HPs are. Up until 2009 the "you get what you pay for" rule seems to apply across the board. In 2009 the Mac Pros are over the top silly and ridiculous though. Also I think Apple dropped the ball on the lower end systems by not using Corei7 components.

But never mind the hardware... There's hackintosh that's just perfect for situations like yours! See http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?language=english and search around for other similar systems that allow you to run OS X on anything you like basically. There. That's the best of both current worlds. :)

.

SwiftLives

Mar 15, 2009, 07:07 PM

Having done graphic design work on a Windows computer for a few months, I can tell you the advantage of working on a Mac is the OS.

Lets assume you're going to be using Adobe Creative Suite Design edition. It's not uncommon to have InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, a few browser windows, email client, and even Acrobat open at the same time - as well as a few different file folders.

On Windows, Every file you have open stays within its program window. Minimizing each of the open files in an InDesign window results in tiny little rectangles at the bottom of the application window - with no clear way to differentiate between them. If you were to minimize the entire InDesign window, and the three files you happen to have open, you'll wind up with one InDesign window minimized in the taskbar. Same with file folders you may have opened and minimized. They all will appear as little yellow folders at the bottom of the screen with only the first part of their title or path showing. It's not uncommon to have to open up each one to figure out which is which.

On the Mac, applications do not have a root window (although in Adobe CS4, that is an option now). Minimizing file folders or application windows shrinks the window into the dock. You can get the full name of the file or app simply by hovering over the minimized window. Then there's Exposé - simply click a button or move you mouse to the corner of your screen, and every window will shrink so you can see all open files and windows. Deciphering them is as simple as hovering your mouse over one of them.

Long story short - the biggest advantage of the Mac OS over Windows is the ease at which you can switch between open programs and files. That alone is going to significantly increase your productivity.

LeviG

Mar 15, 2009, 07:53 PM

Lets assume you're going to be using Adobe Creative Suite Design edition. It's not uncommon to have InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, a few browser windows, email client, and even Acrobat open at the same time - as well as a few different file folders.

On Windows, Every file you have open stays within its program window. Minimizing each of the open files in an InDesign window results in tiny little rectangles at the bottom of the application window - with no clear way to differentiate between them. If you were to minimize the entire InDesign window, and the three files you happen to have open, you'll wind up with one InDesign window minimized in the taskbar. Same with file folders you may have opened and minimized. They all will appear as little yellow folders at the bottom of the screen with only the first part of their title or path showing. It's not uncommon to have to open up each one to figure out which is which.

On the Mac, applications do not have a root window (although in Adobe CS4, that is an option now). Minimizing file folders or application windows shrinks the window into the dock. You can get the full name of the file or app simply by hovering over the minimized window. Then there's Exposé - simply click a button or move you mouse to the corner of your screen, and every window will shrink so you can see all open files and windows. Deciphering them is as simple as hovering your mouse over one of them.

Long story short - the biggest advantage of the Mac OS over Windows is the ease at which you can switch between open programs and files. That alone is going to significantly increase your productivity.
In my opinion the issues you raised are no different to the os-x dock in that you get a small 'icon' representing a program etc. You do get the full details of the program if you hold your mouse over the button (on start bar) along with the picture to help - this is assuming you haven't got the stacking feature enabled. And Don't forget that windows 7 is going to change things again to a slightly more mac way of working :)

CS4 has changed the way that adobe software is working, they now use a tabbed approach so the layout is pretty much the same on mac and pc.

You have alt-tab/ctrl-tab on windows which for me personally is more effective that expose (I've never liked it).

Some people may also prefer the 'windowed' approach to the os that windows has over mac os-x.

Another thing to consider that if a user has been windows centric for most of their life working on os-x (and windows) is in places unfamiliar.

However as the op is going into a mac dominant environment then its a bit of a no brainer to go for a mac over a windows machine, they can if they wish run bootcamp.

shady825

Mar 15, 2009, 07:53 PM

Awhile back I remember some buzz about Windows commercials were made on a Mac... That should answer your question! ;)

Phormic

Mar 16, 2009, 12:30 AM

What about ColorSync? Macs found their way into publishing and design houses during the 90's because of ColorSync and now with MacOSX, it's built into the system, instead of an optional add-on.

Windows now also has their own color matching system and the gap has narrowed, but for a long tim there Macs handled color better and with more accuracy.

remmy

Mar 16, 2009, 09:03 AM

If Macs are the dominant system then it is probably best to go with this. Although they both can work together now days, I guess it would be useful getting advice or help from those you work with.

I also find the OS X GUI more easy to navigate than XP or Vista, which is why I chose a Mac. In the end its personal choice of what you feel the most comfortable using.

Melrose

Mar 16, 2009, 10:10 AM

I remember several year ago you'd hear that Macs were better for graphics, but in this day and age it really doesn't matter.

as said ^^ it depends on what application you need to use - if there's a PC app you can't live without then the decision has already been made for you - you must use Windows. The only thing I need Windows for is IE and FF for testing - which I use Fusion for anyway. Even if you need Windows, buy a Macintosh refurb online - you can run both systems on it if you need to in either Boot Camp or Fusion.

You'll find, as did I moving from print to web design using a Mac, that the Mac system is more stable, and really easier to use once you get used to it. And about the price point: Macs are still cheaper (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/03/13/macs-still-cheaper-when-you-look-at-tco/)...

Blue Velvet

Mar 16, 2009, 10:15 AM

Get a conversion application like Fontographer or another (http://www.fontlab.com/font-converter/). That'll do it! :) [/list]

Until I send you a file to work on that has two dozen or so style sheets, I want absolutely nothing to reflow, and I'd like it back in a few hours or the next day without having to then fix the style sheets again after you've adapted them to work with your converted and renamed fonts.

michael.lauden

Mar 16, 2009, 10:16 AM

Mac by far.

i don't know anyone in the industry from all my friends (studioakt.com, merchspin.com, benmendelewicz.com, etc) who have once used a PC for their design work

Tesselator

Mar 16, 2009, 11:37 AM

Until I send you a file to work on that has two dozen or so style sheets, I want absolutely nothing to reflow, and I'd like it back in a few hours or the next day without having to then fix the style sheets again after you've adapted them to work with your converted and renamed fonts.

Yup, no problem at all! I did page layout. I managed an office pool here in Japan some years back - well everyone in the office was on a Mac ][ci

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Macintosh_IIci.png/250px-Macintosh_IIci.png
and I had just gotten a brand new IIfx (after being there a year) if that dates it.

http://www.lowendmac.com/ii/art/mac-ii-with-rgb-256.jpg

We did all the owners manuals for Toyota (small cars and trucks), Epson printers and scanners, Brother laser printers, Yamaha electronic instruments, and ummm... ________, as our staple. Toyota was indeed just like you said here; demanding and ultra picky!

So, as long as the data is being read into the same application (like Quark) on the PC and the Mac then it's no problem. Let's say the PC based layout guy used a font not available on the Mac, 1st slap him, then load fontofrapher, read in the PC outline font, tell it to save as a Mac readable TT font. Install the font on the mac, load the document, if you're asked to choose while loading then do that - if not select by style and assign the font. Check the document. It should be perfect.

whitemacbook

Mar 16, 2009, 12:42 PM

Reason I'm asking all this is because I'm shopping around for a new computer, and will be working in a professional environment soon where Mac's are dominant,
there's a reason for that
but I can't justify spending money on a $1-2k system where I could spend half that on a PC which would work just as fast.
get a better job?

EmperorDarius

Mar 16, 2009, 01:36 PM

but I can't justify spending money on a $1-2k system where I could spend half that on a PC which would work just as fast.

It would be slower (and get even more with time), would freeze/crash more often and you'd have to deal with malware and system maintenance. Normally people who want to do work don't want to bother with those stupid things.

LeviG

Mar 16, 2009, 01:53 PM

It would be slower (and get even more with time), would freeze/crash more often and you'd have to deal with malware and system maintenance. Normally people who want to do work don't want to bother with those stupid things.

Oh not this junk again.
This is my exact approach with my windows machines. Install os, install antivirus, do updates and then install programs - thats it. Vista has a pre set defrag schedule (although I have used alternatives in the past) and built in spyware blocker. The AV auto updates on boot and os_x has updates just like windows. The status of those machines - no virus or malware infections, no freezeing or crashing and its just as fast as when it was first installed.

The reason a windows machine freezes and stalls is down to all the demo/trial/freeware and warez that a home user would install.

Kwill

Mar 16, 2009, 02:05 PM

MMM=Macs Make Money
Every Mac I've purchased has paid for itself in job assignments within a year -- sometimes within a week!

$1-2K is a lot of money for your livelihood? My first Mac system was over $10K and my second was over $20K. Even the Mac Pros are now a relative bargain. Don't be deceived because something else is cheaper.

If you want to impress a date by taking her to a nice restaurant for lobster, are you put off by the fact that Filet-O-Fish is cheaper across the street?

(I keep forgetting most of the posters on these forums are still "kids" to whom that analogy won't make sense.) :o

Melrose

Mar 16, 2009, 02:07 PM

The reason a windows machine freezes and stalls is down to all the demo/trial/freeware and warez that a home user would install.

This is hardly the thread to start this debate, but that's inaccurate...

-

The bottom line is if you need to run Windows more than a Macintosh, get a PC. If you've got a few apps that need Windows and mostly you can use Mac, get a Mac. The debate over which OS is better is neverending and you get fanboys from both sides of the story. In my experience, from years of using Windows (several versions at that) I got sick of having the OS (which I maintained religiously and treated very well) crash in the midst of an unsaved Photoshop design. That has not happened once on my Macintosh - but then again, I don't have any software that requires so it's worked out alright.

You'll get endless recommendations, but the bottom line is you have to figure out what you need to do on a day-to-day basis, see whether it can work on which system, which features you can go without/duplicate elsewhere/run in BootCamp or Fusion, and then make an informed decision based on your own work requirements.

LeviG

Mar 16, 2009, 02:26 PM

This is hardly the thread to start this debate, but that's inaccurate...

Agree that this hardly the place for a debate but my post is coming from my own experiences (and I work on both os's) so how can it be inaccurate. My windows machines are used for work (Windows only CAD) so have none of the junk mentioned installed. My friends who use their pc for home use and download all the junk have the slowdowns mentioned. I have not seen a demo/trial program that cleanly removes itself from windows hence my post.

It's not like os-x is perfect either - the issues with adobe software during the upgrade to leopard for example, but as you will see earlier I suggested os-x here due to the rest of the work environment.

shady825

Mar 16, 2009, 02:35 PM

Melrose

Mar 16, 2009, 06:41 PM

Agree that this hardly the place for a debate but my post is coming from my own experiences (and I work on both os's) so how can it be inaccurate.

From the experience standpoint I can argue it solidly from the other perspective. I agree that any computer will hold up much better if you mind your Ps and Qs with it and take care of it.

ChicoWeb

Mar 16, 2009, 07:25 PM

opeter

Mar 17, 2009, 04:32 AM

How would you like to drive to New York from California? Would you rather drive a Ford Taurus or Cadillac? Both will get you there, but one will get you there in style, much more comfortably, and smoother.

Neither. I would drive a french car ... :p

pit29

Mar 17, 2009, 01:45 PM

In my opinion the issues you raised are no different to the os-x dock in that you get a small 'icon' representing a program etc.

In OS X, you have one icon for the application and one each if you minimize an open document of that application. The icon will show what the document looked like and not have only it's name.

CS4 has changed the way that adobe software is working, they now use a tabbed approach so the layout is pretty much the same on mac and pc.

You can change that back on a Mac to get it to work as in above...

You have alt-tab/ctrl-tab on windows which for me personally is more effective that expose (I've never liked it).

Ever tried command-tab / command-shift-tab on a Mac?

Prekesh

Mar 17, 2009, 02:02 PM

I'd say get a mac, for CS3/CS4, I prefer my Mac over my PC, mainly because of the shortcuts on my mac (cmd instead of ctrl), exposé, and the mac menu-bar.

I like how on OS X when you click 'out' of a (lets say photoshop) document, it hides all the tools etc, and when you click into a flash document, it brings up all the tools for flash, and i can switch between apps really quickly.

Then again, I'm only 17, what do i know. I've only made £50 so far from my 'design' work since i got my MacBook (my first mac, which was last year in october).

So I'd suggest getting a mac, plus if your workplace is 'dominated' by Macs then you should get one just to be integrated into the system.

also, lets say you get a PC, can you run OS X on it without doing all this Hackintosh BS?

if you get a mac, and you DO need to use some windows software later on, you can, boot camp/VM's w/e.

ezekielrage_99

Mar 17, 2009, 07:18 PM

63dot

Mar 17, 2009, 07:46 PM

LeeTom

Mar 17, 2009, 07:51 PM

63dot

Mar 17, 2009, 08:08 PM

I disagree that PCs are better for web development.

...kinda splitting hairs at this point, don't you think?

Anyway, I like my Macs and don't see it as a liability in this genre.

Simplesimon101

Mar 18, 2009, 08:40 AM

I am a graphic designer and I can't think of a single graphic designer who uses a PC ;)

opeter

Mar 19, 2009, 07:41 AM

I am a graphic designer and I can't think of a single graphic designer who uses a PC ;)

Maybe you don't know that much ...

Here where I live are Macs very rare. Simply, because they are very expensive.

Consultant

Mar 19, 2009, 12:03 PM

OSX
Better memory management
Better multi-tasking
Lower cost of ownership

Open a hundred 5mb JPEG in windows and see what happens. Not the same.

I disagree that PCs are better for web development. With Macs, you have access to not only Safari and Firefox for Mac, but IE6/IE7/Firefox/Chrome for Windows, all in one environment with VMWare/Parallels.

Also, you have access to the terminal with standard unix commands for accessing a web server, most of which run some variant of linux. Great for working on scripts, etc.

Finally, Coda ( http://www.panic.com/coda/ ), arbuably the best HTML editor, is available for Macs only.

Yup. Also Mac users are affluent, so not targeting mac users is a mistake.

FYI Apple iPhone app store is a billion dollar business.

adameels

Mar 19, 2009, 12:21 PM

For Graphic Design, a Mac is highly recommended, but if you said 3D modelling or Architecture then my answer would be different, just to show I'm not baised on this topic.

I actually have a really old 400MHz PowerMac G4 running Tiger and CS2. The performance is suprisingly good, only because that's all I'm running and has a lot of RAM. I also have an Intel Mac Mini that does the same job, but is more packed out. Best bit is, both these options, buying an old machine for one job or a relatively newer one as your main machine are cheap.

vohdoun

Mar 19, 2009, 01:51 PM

OSX
Better memory management
Better multi-tasking
Lower cost of ownership

Open a hundred 5mb JPEG in windows and see what happens. Not the same.

Yup. Also Mac users are affluent, so not targeting mac users is a mistake.

FYI Apple iPhone app store is a billion dollar business.

...and not having to faff about with Windows stupid drivers!

SimD

Mar 20, 2009, 11:07 AM

Try each for a bit...

You've come to the wrong place for an unbiased answer mate.

But my answer is drop both and pick up Linux and be badass :cool:

spiritlevel

Mar 20, 2009, 01:30 PM

I am a graphic designer and I can't think of a single graphic designer who uses a PC ;)

what he said

I run a graphic design company and I wouldn't employ a designer who didn't use macs.

we used to have a lonely looking PC for testing websites - but since macs went intel/bootcamp even thats gone.

Re macs for web development - Q. how do PC users test their sites for mac browser compatibility? A. Buy a mac.

chaosbunny

Mar 20, 2009, 03:23 PM

But my answer is drop both and pick up Linux and be badass :cool:

With what? Gimp? :rolleyes:

The question was about serious design tools & compatibility, unfortunately neither are offered under Linux.

SwiftLives

Mar 20, 2009, 04:46 PM

what he said

I run a graphic design company and I wouldn't employ a designer who didn't use macs.

we used to have a lonely looking PC for testing websites - but since macs went intel/bootcamp even thats gone.

Re macs for web development - Q. how do PC users test their sites for mac browser compatibility? A. Buy a mac.

We had the same problem. We are/were PC based. And we couldn't find a candidate who was willing to work on Windows.

(I sneak my Mac in so I can get actual work done. The 4 months I used Windows was hellish).

Tesselator

Mar 20, 2009, 06:23 PM

We had the same problem. We are/were PC based. And we couldn't find a candidate who was willing to work on Windows.

(I sneak my Mac in so I can get actual work done. The 4 months I used Windows was hellish).

If that wasn't so insane it might be funny.

A paid employee refusing to use Windows or saying so during an interview? LOL Bahahaha...

Sneaking your mac into a work-place?? LOL!! Bahahaaaaaa

Windows being almost exactly the same as OS X, is "hellish" to use??? Bahahahaaaaaa Tee Hee Hee...

Those are some good jokes mate.

elppa

Mar 20, 2009, 06:51 PM

I disagree that PCs are better for web development. With Macs, you have access to not only Safari and Firefox for Mac, but IE6/IE7/Firefox/Chrome for Windows, all in one environment with VMWare/Parallels.

Also, you have access to the terminal with standard unix commands for accessing a web server, most of which run some variant of linux. Great for working on scripts, etc.

Finally, Coda ( http://www.panic.com/coda/ ), arbuably the best HTML editor, is available for Macs only.

I couldn't believe the OP assumes Windows is better for Web Design and Development.

On the Mac we have (* indicates exclusives)
Basic Development
Sandvox (http://www.karelia.com/sandvox/)*
RapidWeaver (http://www.realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver/)*
iWeb '09 (http://www.apple.com/ilife/iweb/)*
Freeway (http://www.softpress.com/)*

Web Orientated Text Editors and IDEs
Coda (http://www.panic.com/coda/)*
Espresso (http://macrabbit.com/espresso/)*
TextMate (with plugins) (http://macromates.com/)*
Dreamweaver (http://www.adobe.com/products/dreamweaver/)
NetBeans (http://www.netbeans.org/)
Eclipse (http://www.eclipse.org/)

File Transfer
Flow (http://www.extendmac.com/flow/)*
Transmit (http://www.panic.com/transmit/)*

Database
SQL Grinder (http://www.sqlgrinder.com/)*
Querious (http://www.araelium.com/querious/)*
SQLEditor (http://www.malcolmhardie.com/sqleditor/)*

Tools and Testing
CSSEdit (http://macrabbit.com/cssedit/)
HTTP Client (http://ditchnet.org/httpclient/)*
Silverback (http://silverbackapp.com/)*
Little Snapper (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/imaging_3d/littlesnapper.html)*
Paparazzi! (http://derailer.org/paparazzi/)* or Web Snapper (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_utilities/websnapper.html)*
Versions (http://versionsapp.com/)*
VirtualHostX (http://clickontyler.com/virtualhostx/)*
XScope (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_utilities/xscope.html)*
Xyle (http://culturedcode.com/xyle/)*
Highbrow (http://www.heliumfoot.com/highbrow)*
Domain Brain (http://domainbrainapp.com/)*
Skitch (http://skitch.com/)*
Ecto (http://illuminex.com/ecto/) or Blogo (http://www.drinkbrainjuice.com/blogo)

Browsers
Cruz (http://cruzapp.com/)*
Fluid (http://fluidapp.com/)*
Camino (http://caminobrowser.org/)*
OmniWeb (http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/)*
Shiira (http://shiira.jp/en.php)*

Plus Mac OS X comes bundled with:
Apache (http://httpd.apache.org/)
php (http://php.net/)
perl (http://cpan.perl.org/)
SQLite (http://www.sqlite.org/)
ruby on rails (http://rubyonrails.org/)

Using VMWare, parallels or virtual box you can test any browser on the planet.

chaosbunny

Mar 20, 2009, 07:06 PM

Windows being almost exactly the same as OS X, ...

One could believe you don't have a lot of experience with either.

decksnap

Mar 20, 2009, 07:14 PM

If that wasn't so insane it might be funny.

A paid employee refusing to use Windows or saying so during an interview? LOL Bahahaha...

Sneaking your mac into a work-place?? LOL!! Bahahaaaaaa

Windows being almost exactly the same as OS X, is "hellish" to use??? Bahahahaaaaaa Tee Hee Hee...

Those are some good jokes mate.

I personally wouldn't take a job where I had to design on a PC. Are you kidding me? That's what I'm going to be using for 10 hours a day five days a week?

Would you take a job where the boss gets to come by every five minutes and flick you on the back of the ear?

Tesselator

Mar 20, 2009, 07:33 PM

One could believe you don't have a lot of experience with either.

Both since version one. :)

I guess one's beliefs are not founded in reality. :)

Tesselator

Mar 20, 2009, 07:40 PM

I personally wouldn't take a job where I had to design on a PC. Are you kidding me? That's what I'm going to be using for 10 hours a day five days a week?

Would you take a job where the boss gets to come by every five minutes and flick you on the back of the ear?

LOL. Nope I would draw the line there. But there really isn't that much difference between designing web pages on a Mac vs. Wintel PC.

All the browsers are available in both of them. And it's not like you design much of anything in a program called "Windows". Once designing in the application we're fairly isolated from the OS. And what's not; has a tool and feature correlation of 1:1. For every OS feature, tool, or helpful utility you can name on one platform the equivalent can be named on the other.

The difference between OS X and Widows these days in terms of the user interface, is negligible. Windows is a less stable but OS X is more closed and restrictive - and that's about all we can honestly say. The rest is a personal problem or politically based.

EDIT: Cool post BTW, elppa!

Eyedn

Mar 20, 2009, 07:48 PM

MMM=Macs Make Money
If you want to impress a date by taking her to a nice restaurant for lobster, are you put off by the fact that Filet-O-Fish is cheaper across the street?

(I keep forgetting most of the posters on these forums are still "kids" to whom that analogy won't make sense.) :o

*Raises Glass.*

decksnap

Mar 20, 2009, 07:49 PM

LOL. Nope I would draw the line there. But there really isn't that much difference between designing web pages on a Mac vs. Wintel PC.

All the browsers are available in both of them. And it's not like you design much of anything in a program called "Windows". Once designing in the application we're fairly isolated from the OS. And what's not; has a tool and feature correlation of 1:1. For every OS feature, tool, or helpful utility you can name on one platform the equivalent can be named on the other.

The difference between OS X and Widows these days in terms of the user interface, is negligible. Windows is a less stable but OS X is more closed and restrictive - and that's about all we can honestly say. The rest is a personal problem or politically based.

For some reason I was expecting a less rational response. Thanks for that. However, As a bootcamper, I can't agree that the user experience is similar. For me trying to get anything done on Windows is just aggravating.

Edit: Elppa, you're missing my favorite app of all! CSS Edit by MacRabbit.

Tesselator

Mar 20, 2009, 08:05 PM

For some reason I was expecting a less rational response. Thanks for that. However, As a bootcamper, I can't agree that the user experience is similar. For me trying to get anything done on Windows is just aggravating.

Me? irrational? Heh! Never... LOL :D

Anyway I can understand your aggravation but if we really narrow that down it's probably mostly a personal-preference/personal-problem thing and based on what you're used to. Number of keystrokes, button clicks, and mouse travel to get Task X accomplished on either platform is going to average out to about the same across the board.

I hate and boycott MicroSoft products on a purely political rational! I know that whenever I spend my money on an MS product there is a percentage of it that goes directly to aborting the lives of black children in Africa and other economically troubled countries. The Gates Foundation is a nasty Nazi eugenics promoting organization I personally want no part of!

elppa

Mar 20, 2009, 09:20 PM

For some reason I was expecting a less rational response. Thanks for that. However, As a bootcamper, I can't agree that the user experience is similar. For me trying to get anything done on Windows is just aggravating.

Edit: Elppa, you're missing my favorite app of all! CSS Edit by MacRabbit.

And one of mine. It was going on the list. I will edit immediately.

CyrusOz

Mar 21, 2009, 06:48 AM

My 2 cents worth. A few years back i did part of a degree in graphic design and multimedia technology. Although I have always been a PC user until recently I personally found the Macs at Uni to be far superior to the Pc's (which were no slouches) and especially as far as rendering video went. The stability of the Mac far outweighed the PC and i found myself gravitating towards the Mac every time i needed to use any kind of image or video processing software.

The PC will handle Photoshop just fine... the right click mouse is a necessity but if you can throw a PC mouse on the Mac and make the transition you'll be happier in the long run.

I'd love to run photoshop on my Mac but the CS2 i purchased for PC can't be installed on Leopard and I can't find a (dare i say it cracked?) serial anywhere that will allow me to install it on the Mac without having to run duel operating systems so i can run it on windows... which is my next job over the next few days.

that's my input, hope it's useful

elppa

Mar 21, 2009, 07:15 AM

Anuba

Mar 21, 2009, 01:10 PM

For some reason I was expecting a less rational response. Thanks for that. However, As a bootcamper, I can't agree that the user experience is similar. For me trying to get anything done on Windows is just aggravating.
For me it's the other way around. It all comes down to how entrenched you are on either platform. I've used PCs since 1992 and Macs occasionally since 1996 and daily since about 2003 (i.e. all my relevant Mac experience is from the OS X era). And I'm just so much faster on a Windows PC. With the Mac it kind of feels like trying to run waist deep in maple syrup. All the little Mac quirks like the fact that only the bottom right corner has a resize handle, or that application menus live in a bar at the top of the screen, or that you don't have full Finder functionality within the boundaries of a load or save dialog, or the window clutter that comes with SDI (Windows is still predominantly MDI)... it all makes me lose seconds every minute and minutes every hour, even after 6 years... and ever so often you're interrupted by a stupid jumping globe in the Dock, when Program Updates finds something and wants to share its unbridled enthusiasm about some useless "Camera Raw" update which will require a reboot for no apparent reason.

But I know it's not the Mac's fault as such, it's just a dog person/cat person type thing. For some, the Mac switch is an epiphany, and for others like myself it's a wee fart in the wind.

There are two areas where the Mac serves me better, though. The first is font management, it's really nifty on Mac and sucks miserably on Windows -- it's from the stone age, and actually got worse in Vista because all font utilities (such as the ancient ATM, which I kept using because it was still better than Windows) stopped working thanks to UAC. They've finally revamped it in Windows 7, though, for the first time since... oh... Windows 3.11. Now you can manage fonts in families, enable/disable them and so forth.

The second thing is QuickLook that was introduced with Leopard. I just love being able to hit space to preview pretty much anything, including PSD files that don't even get basic thumbnails on Windows.

So if you ask me, it's a tossup... the relevant applications all have identical cross-platform functionality, it all comes down to which system keeps you more productive, and that's where the dog person/cat person thing comes in. Neither platform is universally "better", neither is tailor made for you, but one is guaranteed to suit you better than the other.

SwiftLives

Mar 21, 2009, 03:20 PM

...or that you don't have full Finder functionality within the boundaries of a load or save dialog...

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I can create new folders, drag folders into the sidebar (which I can't do on Windows)...I can even drag a finder window icon or program icon into the dialog box and, rather than copy the file or folder, it moves me to that folder - something that saves me loads of time while attempting to traverse our über-nested file hierarchy at work.

How many of you knew that in most program windows and in Finder windows, you can click and drag the icon in the title bar as though it were an actual file or folder? I find that very handy.

I do, however, agree with you on personal preference. If you've been using Windows since the days of DOS, you're going to be faster on Windows.

Anuba

Mar 21, 2009, 03:56 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I can create new folders, drag folders into the sidebar (which I can't do on Windows)...I can even drag a finder window icon or program icon into the dialog box and, rather than copy the file or folder, it moves me to that folder - something that saves me loads of time while attempting to traverse our über-nested file hierarchy at work.

How many of you knew that in most program windows and in Finder windows, you can click and drag the icon in the title bar as though it were an actual file or folder? I find that very handy.

I do, however, agree with you on personal preference. If you've been using Windows since the days of DOS, you're going to be faster on Windows.
I honestly haven't checked if they've improved Finder functionality in Save & Load dialogs in Leopard, but what I mean is this...

Say I start working on a project and want to save my first file that I've completed in Photoshop, and then as I'm in the Save dialog I think hey, let's organize this project right from the beginning. So right there in the dialog I create folders, rename them, drag files in and out of folders etc, and then I save the file I was working on. A Save dialog is certainly not the ideal place to organize files, but the omnipresence of Windows Explorer allows for it, so why not...

The last time I tried the same on a Mac was probably in Tiger, and everything in the dialog was 'locked'. The only remotely funky thing I could do was create a new folder, but if I accidentally named it wrong I couldn't correct the problem in the dialog, I had to open a separate Finder window, navigate to the folder in question and organize it there.

Hopefully they'll beef up the Finder in Snow Leopard, it has a few shortcomings that makes it look kind of dated next to Vista. I remember one time when I moved a huge amount of files (well, 50 gigs or so) from one location to another, and when Vista stumbled upon a file that was open, it paused the copy process and asked me how I wanted to proceed - overwrite or save the separate copy - basically it pauses the process and lets me fix the issue with the culprit file so it can continue doing whatever it was doing. When I did a similar thing on Mac and it hit an open file, it just threw me some cryptic error message ("Error -13" or whatever) and stopped moving files halfway through the process, so I ended up with a jumbled mess of files, half of which had been copied but not moved per se, because the Finder copies all files and deletes them from the source location later, rather than actually move them.

Don't misunderstand me, I *want* the Mac to be better in every way, if for nothing else than to give Microsoft something to aspire to. But amidst the cutting edge aspects of OS X there are some residual parts that reek of the Cretaceous era, like the overly intrusive and clunky Software Update applet. Where Windows Update generally installs things silently in the background, and all I notice is a tray icon that pops up and then disappears, Apple Software Update goes HELLO! HELLO! HELLO! I FOUND AN UPDATE!!!!, and then it always wants to reboot the system for even the most miniscule of updates, and usually I have to click through some infernal license agreement crap, as if I would suddenly have stopped agreeing between QuickTime 7.0 and QuickTime 7.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1... and I hate how the Mac talks to my NAS drive. In Windows it just pops up and you use Map Network Drive, and voilá, the NAS drive is treated like a local drive until I say otherwise. In Leopard, the NAS drive didn't appear automatically at all, I had to either disable the firewall entirely to make it show up, or mount it and have it show up not by its name but as smb://192.168.0.X... or I could drag the share to Startup Objects so it would mount automatically, but then I'd get a stupid Finder window thrown in my face on every bootup. OS X is a weird mix of 2010 and 1997. Please make it 2010 across the board...

RebootD

Mar 21, 2009, 04:13 PM

Mac OS
+ OSX is still the most stable platform and easiest to use
+ Not having to mess with conversions (it is a good point)
+ When apps crash (and they do) your entire system isn't FOBAR
+ Not being shunned by snooty designers (we are be honest)
+ Can run windows via virual or bootcamp.
- Lack of hardware choices forcing you to spend minimum $3,200 for their only real design machine. (running photoshop, illustrator, inDesign, lightroom with 4GB on an iMac sucks)
- Lack of 3rd party apps (especially free ones)
- Forced kool-aid drinking creates reality-distortion field around you making it impossible to fault apple for any decision they make. =)

VS

Windows
+/- Vista x64 isn't bad, don't listen to people but still OSX is better.
+ Save $1,500+ on hardware for same/faster computer (You only need xeon/ECC ram/4 HD bays/8 Cores for Video and 3D work)
+ Access more ram in x64 version of CS4
+ 11ty billion more free apps/online support forums/communities
- Learn to surf net/download smarter
- Mandatory firewall
- Potentially system killing Antivirus crapware (if you don't have a firewall and if you don't shame on you.)
- Build thick skin as fellow designers point, laugh and shun you as they blind you with their glossy macbook pros. =)

Anuba

Mar 21, 2009, 04:49 PM

Mac OS
+ OSX is still the most stable platform and easiest to use
Is it, though?

Let's be completely honest here.

I've used Windows foverer. Well, since 1992. Up until Windows 2000, which was released in 1999 I think, Windows was ludicrously unstable and either the apps, or Windows Explorer, or both, would crash/hang/freeze several times daily. But all subsequent versions built on the NT platform, i.e. Win2K, XP, Vista and Win7, are much, much more stable, and they also have a lot of fallback technology built in, in terms of error handling and reporting. If you do get a crash, Windows is fairly informative about it and gives you the option to keep an eye out for fixes relating to this particular crash, even if the culprit is a third party.

OS X on the other hand is sort of in denial about crashes, because the system that "just works" is too aloof for that kind of stuff. Once you do get them, "informative" isn't the word I would use. Rather, it resorts to pre-OS X style error handling like throwing you cryptic codes that you have to look up with Google. We've all laughed at classic Windows error messages, but really, is "Error 102" any better? (it means "System is too old for this ROM", supposedly.)

And let's be honest, Macs do crash. Perhaps no more than Windows, but shall we say more primordially, without any sophisticated error handling. The upshot of Microsoft's screwups in the 90's is that their pants are still down, and they're constantly working on improving everything that relates to errors, crashes, security holes and all the things that gave them a bad rep in the 90's.

The introduction of Vista was quite the ordeal, due to the fact that Microsoft changed the driver model completely so that all drivers run in user mode rather than kernel mode. It took a while for hardware manufacturers to migrate to Vista style drivers. I was an early Vista adopter (2 days after the public release, specifically), and it took about 3 months before all hardware drivers I needed were sufficiently, and yet another 3 months before the system was stable. That's bad, but not too bad considering the substantial changes to the core technology.

I bought an iMac just after Leopard was released, and I gotta say it was pretty much FUBAR initially. There were grave issues, like the fact that if you saved CS3 documents (PSD etc) to a network share, the files were literally destroyed. There were tons of people who had a "BSOD" thing with Leopard where you'd get a light blue screen for ages before the the desktop showed up, if it ever did.

Perhaps the initial release of Leopard was no more trouble ridden than Vista, but then again, look at the odds. Apple has complete control of both the hardware, the OS and a fair chunk of the most popular software for the platform. Leopard only had to work on a very limited range of hardware configurations that had been done according to Apple's exact specifications. Microsoft had zero control over the hardware configurations that Vista had to deal with, there are millions of combinations of internal and external components. Microsoft's job was a billion times more difficult, unpredictable and arbitrary. So which system is tougher and more stable? Which one can take more crap thrown at it? If Leopard would hang due to some miniscule third-party add-on like DivX for Tiger not having been updated for Leopard, was that a more stable system than Vista was?

Just sayin'.

EmperorDarius

Mar 21, 2009, 05:24 PM

(running photoshop, illustrator, inDesign, lightroom with 4GB on an iMac sucks)

At the same time, yes, otherwise they run perfectly.

RebootD

Mar 21, 2009, 06:15 PM

At the same time, yes, otherwise they run perfectly.

Well that is what I meant ;)

If you are doing design 8hr/day on it you are more than likely going to want at least 3-4 apps open at the same time. I find myself with mail, photoshop, illustrator, word, cybderduck, firefox and itunes open 90% of the time so yeah 4GB starts to go quickly.

RebootD

Mar 21, 2009, 06:18 PM

OS X on the other hand is sort of in denial about crashes, because the system that "just works" is too aloof for that kind of stuff.

Whoa I didn't mean to get your riled up! (I had to say something like that or I would have been flame-bait!) My 2007 iMac crashes/hangs etc too, and trust me read some of my other posts and you will know I'm far from an apple apologist. :D

Plus I did note "+ When apps crash (and they do) your entire system isn't FOBAR" which is true, the crash but I can force quit them. Even in Vista if something crashes it can lock up the entire computer. Man I wish they would fix that.

Anuba

Mar 21, 2009, 07:01 PM

Whoa I didn't mean to get your riled up! (I had to say something like that or I would have been flame-bait!) My 2007 iMac crashes/hangs etc too, and trust me read some of my other posts and you will know I'm far from an apple apologist. :D

Plus I did note "+ When apps crash (and they do) your entire system isn't FOBAR" which is true, the crash but I can force quit them. Even in Vista if something crashes it can lock up the entire computer. Man I wish they would fix that.
Oh, I'm not riled up at all! All I care about is getting the best possible workflow, regardless of whatever platform it's on. I just try to keep the discussion honest because I know a few hardcore Mac fanbois who can't be reasoned with in an honest fashion. One of them literally cried when Apple announced they were switching to Intel a couple of years ago, and he maintained with frightening ferocity that a Mac Mini G4 was faster than the fastest Intel-based Windows desktop machine at the time. When we did a shootout where my old Centrino laptop (1.6 GHz) ran circles around the Mac Mini G4, he insisted that the applications we were using weren't properly optimized for Mac. It gets really hard to have an honest and informative discussion when people are so biased that they lie without meaning to be dishonest. I get especially annoyed when it's blatantly apparent that they haven't used Windows in ages, if ever, and use stereotypical arguments along the lines of "oh but don't you know it gets swamped with viruses and malware as soon as you switch it on, and it crashes constantly". That wasn't even true for Windows ME, which was the worst version ever.

I've stuck with the PC in a field where it's subjected to even more scorn than in the graphics biz -- namely music and audio production -- and it's served me really well over the years. But I'm not a Mac hater by any stretch of the imagination; I do have some serious reservation about Apple and their practices, but not enough to keep me from using their products. I have an iMac, an iPhone, two Mac Minis, half a dozen iPods... I just steer clear of the "church of Apple" type community because it gets a little too narcissistic and creepy, Scientology-style.

Anyway, I've had a few bad Vista crashes but I've never encountered one that locks up the entire computer in the 2+ years that I've used it daily. That's sort of the point of Vista. In XP, if something that used Kernel level drivers (such as the video vard) crashed, you'd get a blue screen of death and all data was irrevocably lost; in Vista, it's in user mode so the machine simply recovers if the video card driver crashes. I really don't understand why people are having such problems with Vista. It sucks in many ways -- in particular, it tortures the hard disk incessantly with a myriad of background processes like Windows Defender, Defrag, SuperFetch and all that, but in terms of stability, I've had zero issues after the initial 3-month bumpy ride, which is less than in XP.

Techguy172

Mar 21, 2009, 08:16 PM

Well that is what I meant ;)

If you are doing design 8hr/day on it you are more than likely going to want at least 3-4 apps open at the same time. I find myself with mail, photoshop, illustrator, word, cybderduck, firefox and itunes open 90% of the time so yeah 4GB starts to go quickly.

Yeah, 4GB is no longer enough anymore. I usually run Photoshop, iTunes, Mail, Coda, Safari and some other small ones and ram fills up very quickly.

As for the question. I don't think it really makes a difference. I have been using Photoshop CS4 in Windows 7 for a while now and it seems just fine to me. I have not had any crashes. It gets hung up at times but that is to be expected as I run many things at once.

I think it's really up to you some things mac does better some things Windows does better. Neither of them crash often, and when they do it's only the program. The good thing about buying windows is you have many choices when buying a computer not just a few. There are also many more configurations.

If you want 64 bit then windows is your choice especially with adobe CS4 because it allow more ram to be used by the application.

IgnatiusTheKing

Mar 21, 2009, 08:20 PM

Rather than cracking, if you haven't already tried then speak with Adobe. It is not unheard of for them to allow “cross-grades” as it were.

It's not just "allowed," it's common practice. Call Adobe at 1-800-833-6687 and ask them to set you up. It's no secret.

Anuba

Mar 21, 2009, 08:42 PM

Crossgrade is all fine and well, but Adobe are such cheapskates for not including the Windows and Mac versions on the same DVD. In my business (audio software) it's common practice to do that. We'd be jerks to force people to buy two separate licenses if they have one PC and one Mac, when the license agreement allows for installation on two computers provided that you don't use them simultaneously. And now with Bootcamp the agreement technically allows for installation on two platforms on the same computer, or 4 in total.

RebootD

Mar 21, 2009, 08:59 PM

I think it's really up to you some things mac does better some things Windows does better. Neither of them crash often, and when they do it's only the program. The good thing about buying windows is you have many choices when buying a computer not just a few. There are also many more configurations.

Right if they offered me what I know I can build myself for $1,500 that would spank even the 8core MP for everything but serious video compositing ( 2.93 i7, 12GB DDR3 1333, 2x 1 TB Hard drives, 4850 1GB card, SB XFI 7.1 etc) on the mac platform every complaint I have would go away and I would be like the other happy-go-lucky mac users, but the reality is that product doesn't exist and won't by the looks of things.

I'd even buy one if they took my $1,500 rig and marked it up to $2k I would still buy it because that would be 50% the cost of a MP with the same amount of ram/video card upgrade/2nd HD!

CyrusOz

Mar 22, 2009, 02:24 AM

Rather than cracking, if you haven't already tried then speak with Adobe. It is not unheard of for them to allow “cross-grades” as it were.
Yep tried and go the big rasberry.... they were surprisingly uninterested.... I'd heard about the cross overs before but I had no luck with it. Cracks etc are an absolute last resort for me as I'd rather not have to worry about getting caught out with updates etc.

IgnatiusTheKing

Mar 22, 2009, 11:48 AM

Yep tried and go the big rasberry.... they were surprisingly uninterested.... I'd heard about the cross overs before but I had no luck with it. Cracks etc are an absolute last resort for me as I'd rather not have to worry about getting caught out with updates etc.

Sounds fishy. The crossgrade is standard practice for Adobe. Was your original copy paid for or was it also cracked?

RebootD

Mar 22, 2009, 12:27 PM

Oh, I'm not riled up at all! All I care about is getting the best possible workflow, regardless of whatever platform it's on. I just try to keep the discussion honest because I know a few hardcore Mac fanbois who can't be reasoned with in an honest fashion.

Sometimes I hate the internet because I was being sarcastic. :(

I actually agree with you on most of your points and I can't stand a die-hard apologist in either the windows or apple camp. I was just pointing out my feelings on the matter that overall OSX has been better (mostly because XP crashes in my previous corporate world on low-end Dells, and Vista pre-SP1 wasn't so nice) and my thoughts for a graphic designer and gave my two cents on what I see as good/bad aspects. And I commend you for going against the grain and taking a few punches, it isn't easy! :D

The biggest issue was pointed out by someone else and you do run into font/conversion/style sheet issues between programs, especially quark and indesign, that could cause a headache if everyone you are working with uses a mac and you are on a pc. In that situation you should be using the same platform to save time/money. (The reverse is also true, get a pc then)

opeter

Mar 22, 2009, 01:12 PM

I honestly haven't checked if they've improved Finder functionality in Save & Load dialogs in Leopard, but what I mean is this...

Now, they haven't. And the same goes for the upcomming Snow Leopard.
For Finder functions inside Open/Save dialogs, you need additional applications/utils like Default Folder X (http://www.stclairsoft.com/DefaultFolderX/).

In that point, Windows (especially Vista/7) is far superior than MacOS.

The biggest issue was pointed out by someone else and you do run into font/conversion/style sheet issues between programs, especially quark and indesign, that could cause a headache if everyone you are working with uses a mac and you are on a pc. In that situation you should be using the same platform to save time/money. (The reverse is also true, get a pc then)

For a long time now, there exist great tools, like FontLab's TransType (http://www.fontlab.com/font-converter/transtype/) and Asy's CrossFont (http://www.asy.com/), that can convert your fonts from Mac to Win and vice versa with 100% success (outline info, kerning etc.) ...

I'm using Acute Systems Crossfont and converted all my old Type1 fonts to OTF, that works great on both platforms. The same goes for Type1 fonts. These font conversion tools are mature now, it's just a personal matter, what platform you wan't to use.

Melrose

Mar 22, 2009, 02:01 PM

Once you do get them, "informative" isn't the word I would use. Rather, it resorts to pre-OS X style error handling like throwing you cryptic codes that you have to look up with Google.

Yes, we all know Windows never throws you cryptic error messages :p :D

Anuba

Mar 22, 2009, 05:09 PM

Yes, we all know Windows never throws you cryptic error messages :p :D
Verbose, sure. Cryptic? Could you give an example of a cryptic error message that Vista or Win7 throws you? Not funny internet classics from strange alerts in third party apps under Windows 3.11, we've all seen those.

Cryptic as in blatantly non-descript, random or utterly confusing...? I mean, "Error -13", Mac style, is pretty hard to beat. How hard is it to map these error codes to text strings that describe them in some detail?

CyrusOz

Mar 23, 2009, 01:29 AM

Sounds fishy. The crossgrade is standard practice for Adobe. Was your original copy paid for or was it also cracked?

It was paid for as well but not by me. I bought it off my ex-brother-in-law who purchased it himself, i think that played a big part in it.

Fishy or not, that's the facts Jack!

chaosbunny

Mar 23, 2009, 06:39 AM

Yeah, 4GB is no longer enough anymore. I usually run Photoshop, iTunes, Mail, Coda, Safari and some other small ones and ram fills up very quickly.

That's just so plain wrong. I know more graphic designers both freelancers and employed ones that work with iMacs or MacBook pros than Mac Pros. Many even still use G5s with around 2 gb ram & CS3/4. You simply DO NOT NEED a Mac Pro for graphic design anymore. For animation & video editing yes, but not for graphic design.

I have more stuff opened like you on my iMac with no problems – right now Mail, Firefox, Adium, iCal, iTunes, Acrobat Pro, Illustrator CS4, InDesign CS4, Photoshop CS4 & Handbrake.

You don't have to do everything in Photoshop, vector programs are there for a reason. ;)

stainlessliquid

Mar 23, 2009, 01:29 PM

adameels

Mar 23, 2009, 02:04 PM

Why are people still using the old "Windows is unstable" argument? What exactly is unstable about Windows? It hasnt been prone to crashes since Windows 98, I cant even remember the last time it crashed on me. Modern OS's do not have stability issues anymore, get some new material. Its not the OS's fault if your network at school or work is unstable and breaks everything since the techs thought it was a good idea to tie all the software and login information to the network.

Yeah that's true, finally good to here someone is informed, but it has to be said mac users, especially those who hang around on forums, have become more accepting of the fact that windows is decently made as opposed to 5 years ago, though Vista upon launch might have refuelled some debate.

I'm currently using Windows 7 in its beta stage on the mac mini and is performing very stable. It's crashed once, but it's a beta. Vista hasn't to my suprise crashed yet on my VAIO.

sn00pie

Mar 23, 2009, 02:08 PM

It's really a matter of preference now. I've got alot of friends who use home-built rigs for their graphic design work, but I've got just as many friends who are loyal to their Macs for all there graphic work.

It's not really a battle of which is more stable or better anymore, because there both pretty equal in that regard.

Windows 7 is easily the best software to come out of Microsofts studios :)

RebootD

Mar 23, 2009, 02:09 PM

That's just so plain wrong. I know more graphic designers both freelancers and employed ones that work with iMacs or MacBook pros than Mac Pros.

I love how people always use the "I'm fine with only 4GB and you should be too!"

Yes you can 'run' everything on an iMac but it won't be near anything as fast as a Mac Pro (or a much cheaper PC) loaded with ram. (Try batch processing 200 12MP photos while working on a logo and having 4 other apps open, not pretty.)

If time = money then an iMac is a waste of my money because 4GB is not enough anymore. If Photoshop Lightroom, Illustrator can all access 3.8GB of ram to run optimally then that tells me I should have at least 12GB installed to get as much done, as fast as possible, in order to make as much profit as I can. If I can save myself 10hrs/week in computing time I just made myself available for a potential $500 worth of additional work.

EmperorDarius

Mar 23, 2009, 03:11 PM

Why are people still using the old "Windows is unstable" argument? What exactly is unstable about Windows? It hasnt been prone to crashes since Windows 98, I cant even remember the last time it crashed on me. Modern OS's do not have stability issues anymore, get some new material. Its not the OS's fault if your network at school or work is unstable and breaks everything since the techs thought it was a good idea to tie all the software and login information to the network.

Maybe because it's not old and still true?
Windows IS unstable, especially Vista.
Of course, Modern OS's don't have stability issues, and that's why Windows is NOT a modern OS.
It IS the OS fault if you're working with perfectly working, powerful hardware and common software and you still get affected by Windows's instability.

chaosbunny

Mar 23, 2009, 03:44 PM

I love how people always use the "I'm fine with only 4GB and you should be too!"

Yes you can 'run' everything on an iMac but it won't be near anything as fast as a Mac Pro (or a much cheaper PC) loaded with ram. (Try batch processing 200 12MP photos while working on a logo and having 4 other apps open, not pretty.)

If time = money then an iMac is a waste of my money because 4GB is not enough anymore. If Photoshop Lightroom, Illustrator can all access 3.8GB of ram to run optimally then that tells me I should have at least 12GB installed to get as much done, as fast as possible, in order to make as much profit as I can. If I can save myself 10hrs/week in computing time I just made myself available for a potential $500 worth of additional work.

And I love the "a 2008 computer in 2009 won't do it anymore" crowd. (exaggeration) :)

Of course there are exceptions, if you are "batch processing 200 12MP photos while working on a logo and having 4 other apps open" all the time by all means get a Mac Pro.

You won't need 3.8 gb of ram to create a logo in Illustrator though, apart from that I was talking about pure graphic design, not photography.

And these "potential $500 worth of additional work" need to be found in these times of recession, I hope your business runs better than mine does right now. :o

Techguy172

Mar 23, 2009, 04:22 PM

Anuba

Mar 23, 2009, 05:13 PM

Maybe because it's not old and still true?
Windows IS unstable, especially Vista.
Of course, Modern OS's don't have stability issues, and that's why Windows is NOT a modern OS.
It IS the OS fault if you're working with perfectly working, powerful hardware and common software and you still get affected by Windows's instability.
BS. A well maintained Windows machine with Vista or XP and proper hardware drivers is not unstable in any way. I've used Vista for several hours daily since January 2007, and whatever stability issues there were initially got sorted within a 3-month window once hardware manufacturers got the hang of Vista's new driver model. Had it been unstable I simply wouldn't have used it, these are my work machines that have to bring in $$$ for me 24-7 and I can't be arsed to waste time troubleshooting.

OS X can feign stability pretty well thanks to the fact that the hardware, the OS and much of the popular software all comes from a single manufacturer. It lives inside the Apple bubble. But this bubble is very easy to pop, and then the boy in the bubble dies because he has no skin. Some innocent third party add-on like DivX or Logitech Control Center whatever can grind a Mac to a halt. How many people did not get the Mac rendition of Blue Screen of Death when they installed Leopard? What was it this time, DivX, RAID, LCC, Kaleidoscope...? Aww, one little germ sneaks into the bubble and whammo, instant death. Try killing a Windows PC with a weapon as feeble as DivX and see what happens. Hint: Nothing that'll make it freeze on bootup...

As for "modern OS", I wonder when OS X will get network capabilities from this side of the year 2000?

Let's consider this case scenario. You're two people in a home, you have one computer each, one portable mp3 player each, and a NAS drive with gigs of music files on it.

If both computers are Vista or Win7 machines, the setup is a breeze. Both machines will detect the NAS drive automatically, and you can use "Map to network drive" so that the computers will mount the NAS drive permanently. For all intents and purposes the NAS will be treated like a local drive. Right, so then you point Windows Media Player to the folder on the NAS drive where your music files are. WMP will consider this part of its music library and will constantly monitor the NAS folder for changes. When you rip a music CD on your machine, it will show up in the other person's music WMP library a few minutes later, and that person can then sync the new music to his or her portable player.

Now let's replace the two PCs with Macs. First you'll notice they have trouble detecting the NAS drive, it doesn't show up in Finder. In order for network discovery to work, you will have to disable Leopard's firewall entirely, or mount the drive with a home made script. So you disable the firewall (feels really secure, doesn't it?), and voilá, the NAS drive pops up in Finder's left-hand pane. But you have to log in manually to the NAS drive, or again, write a script that does it for you. Or you can drag an alias to the Start Objects under your user account, then it will map to the NAS drive automatically on startup. Unfortunately it will also open a Finder window on every startup, but whatever. Right, now onto making the music files part of the iTunes libary. You'll find that iTunes can't monitor folders at all, you have to add files or folders manually. So every time you rip a CD on one computer, you have to go to the other computer, fire up iTunes and add the new files manually. You could of course share the library from one computer, but then the other computer can't copy those files to the portable mp3 player because the shared library is off limits to iPods. And eventually you'll discover that iTunes doesn't really like having its library on a NAS drive; sometimes it will default back to your local (empty) music folder when you update iTunes. Sometimes it will say the files don't exist and mark them with exclamation points, even though the NAS drive is clearly online because you're browsing it in a Finder window. It all feels so... whatever the opposite of modern is.

EmperorDarius

Mar 23, 2009, 06:18 PM

Windows is not Unstable at all, I've had just as many application crashes on mac as I have on windows and I have been using Windows for a very long time. Also it's not always the OS's fault for crashing, Adobe programs are far from perfect and they crash on both systems. Powerful hardware does not stop crashes at the most it could delay them.

Windows IS unstable. I've used Windows for almost all my life, and the same programs have always run better on Mac OS X. It has always been more stable, under every aspect.

I also don't understand what you mean when you say it's not modern, you do realize Mac OS X is based on UNIX which is old too. Considering all windows has to be compatible for it's incredibly stable. Really when you think about it Leopard should be far more stable than it is because it only runs on specific hardware apple chooses.

I don't really mean that the OS is more modern, it's just that according to stainlessliquid modern OS-es don't have stability problems, and since Windows has quite a lot of them, it's not a modern OS.

Really when you think about it Leopard should be far more stable than it is because it only runs on specific hardware apple chooses.

Doesn't change the fact that it's more stable.

BS. A well maintained Windows machine with Vista or XP and proper hardware drivers is not unstable in any way. I've used Vista for several hours daily since January 2007, and whatever stability issues there were initially got sorted within a 3-month window once hardware manufacturers got the hang of Vista's new driver model. Had it been unstable I simply wouldn't have used it, these are my work machines that have to bring in $$$ for me 24-7 and I can't be arsed to waste time troubleshooting.

It has nothing to do with hardware. Of course, bad hardware and unstable drivers do cause problems, but that's just a small part of the problems. Other problems are caused by Windows itself (it's unstable). Things like the registry just make things worse.

OS X can feign stability pretty well thanks to the fact that the hardware, the OS and much of the popular software all comes from a single manufacturer. It lives inside the Apple bubble. But this bubble is very easy to pop, and then the boy in the bubble dies because he has no skin. Some innocent third party add-on like DivX or Logitech Control Center whatever can grind a Mac to a halt. How many people did not get the Mac rendition of Blue Screen of Death when they installed Leopard? What was it this time, DivX, RAID, LCC, Kaleidoscope...? Aww, one little germ sneaks into the bubble and whammo, instant death. Try killing a Windows PC with a weapon as feeble as DivX and see what happens. Hint: Nothing that'll make it freeze on bootup...

So what? There are a lot of programs which will break Windows just as easily. Hint: Malware?

As for "modern OS", I wonder when OS X will get network capabilities from this side of the year 2000?

Again, read my reply to the previous poster.

Techguy172

Mar 23, 2009, 06:28 PM

Windows IS unstable. I've used Windows for almost all my life, and the same programs have always run better on Mac OS X. It has always been more stable, under every aspect.

I don't really mean that the OS is more modern, it's just that according to stainlessliquid modern OS-es don't have stability problems, and since Windows has quite a lot of them, it's not a modern OS.

Doesn't change the fact that it's more stable.

I'm sorry but not one person can attest instability. If Mac is so much more stable why don't more businesses use them? They obviously would if they were that much more stable, and companies would start making many products for them if businesses switched. They're not more stable at all. Name some stability issues please and don't be using apple applications either. The only way to tell if one is more stable than the other is to be running the exact same processes which is impossible. Applications run differently on windows than they do on mac. I've been using Adobe Photoshop CS4 on Windows 7 for a solid week and it's didn't crash once! I used the same application on Mac for about a week and it did crash.

Oh and do I need to explain what a "Fact" is to you? because there's no way that you can just create one without solid evidence.

Anuba

Mar 23, 2009, 07:06 PM

Windows IS unstable. I've used Windows for almost all my life, and the same programs have always run better on Mac OS X. It has always been more stable, under every aspect.
That's what I thought when I bought an iMac and started using it for graphics back in December of 2007. A couple of days later, Adobe Photoshop CS3 had corrupted several PSD documents on the server. It turned out that the combination of Leopard and CS3 resulted in file corruption when saving to a server. This was one of a gazillion early problems with Leopard -- it took 3 or 4 10.5.X releases to sort them out. After 17 years with Windows I'm trying to think up any problem I've ever had that comes close to the severity of actual destruction of the files you're working on, but I can't really think of anything. I think a song file I was working on in Cubase on Windows 3.11 was corrupted back in 1994 or 1995, but that's about it.

It has nothing to do with hardware. Of course, bad hardware and unstable drivers do cause problems, but that's just a small part of the problems. Other problems are caused by Windows itself (it's unstable). Things like the registry just make things worse.
Do you have any actual examples of how this supposed instability manifests itself? You keep saying it's "unstable", which is about as helpful as leaving your car at a workshop and describing the problem as "it feels broken somehow". Windows 98 was universally unstable. Windows NT 4.0, 2000, XP, Vista and Windows 7 are not.

So what? There are a lot of programs which will break Windows just as easily. Hint: Malware?
You're comparing the damage that malware (as in explicitly malicious software whose only purpose is destruction) can do to Windows, with the damage that benign, harmless application enhancers such as a video codec can do to OS X? I rest my case...

Really when you think about it Leopard should be far more stable than it is because it only runs on specific hardware apple chooses.
Precisely. One systems only runs on a very small selection of machines with combinations of hardware components that were hand picked by the OS manufacturer. The other system was written to run on millions of hardware combinations, the OS manufacturer has zero control over whether you try to install it on a homebuilt computer, a Mac(!) or an effing bicycle. In other words, it's a marvel that Windows even starts, and it's an epic fail that OS X isn't 100% rock solid.

decksnap

Mar 23, 2009, 07:07 PM

That's just so plain wrong. I know more graphic designers both freelancers and employed ones that work with iMacs or MacBook pros than Mac Pros. Many even still use G5s with around 2 gb ram & CS3/4. You simply DO NOT NEED a Mac Pro for graphic design anymore. For animation & video editing yes, but not for graphic design.

I have more stuff opened like you on my iMac with no problems – right now Mail, Firefox, Adium, iCal, iTunes, Acrobat Pro, Illustrator CS4, InDesign CS4, Photoshop CS4 & Handbrake.

You don't have to do everything in Photoshop, vector programs are there for a reason. ;)

This is very true, but throw in Photoshop as well because it'll still run fine. My home system has 1Gb, my work has 2. I keep at least ten apps running at all times (http://images.macrumors.com/im/contest200611/decksnap.html)(not the most intensive of apps in that example, but you get the idea). What's funny is the same thing could be said back in OS9 with 256mb! of RAM. Adobe, wtf?

RebootD

Mar 23, 2009, 08:16 PM

Windows IS unstable. I've used Windows for almost all my life, and the same programs have always run better on Mac OS X. It has always been more stable, under every aspect.

Right because YOU continue to say so makes it true, right? I've also used windows (and macs) "all almost all my life" and I've just as many crashes, bombs of doom, hardware failures etc as I did on windows. For every blue screen or random reboot I had black apple bomb or total computer freeze.

Ever work in a design lab before OSX? There was a rule "Save every 5 minutes" and not to be a good student but to stop kids from going into a blind rage and destroying their PowerMac / G3 because it corrupted their file again.

Doesn't change the fact that it's more stable.

Sorry to be the first to tell you this but OPINION does not equal FACT. Facts are backed up with data, if you care to provide your long established list of data I'd be happy to look through it. ;)

Now everyone take a breath and realize some real OPINIONS:

1. Macs aren't attacked because there aren't enough of us yet to make it worth a 13yr old kids time. In several challenges the Mac was first to be taken down with a simple Safari hack. Read it here (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10199652-83.html)

2. OSX first few versions were terrible and weren't remedied until 10.3. READ ABOUT 10.1 (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2001/10/macosx-10-1.ars) Vista also was terrible until SP1. Does it still have issues YES but that is where Windows 7 comes in. If Apple got 3 sub-releases to fix major issues windows should be allowed the same.

3. Everyone is entitled to an OPINION. But lets not confuse them with FACTS. My opinion is that OS X is king but Vista (especially 64bit) is very capable and not far behind in stability and speed.

Now lets arm wrestle to see who is right.. old fashion style! :D

Anuba

Mar 23, 2009, 09:00 PM

Ever work in a design lab before OSX? There was a rule "Save every 5 minutes" and not to be a good student but to stop kids from going into a blind rage and destroying their PowerMac / G3 because it corrupted their file again.
1999-2002 (MacOS 9 days for the most part) I worked at a web design company with 50 employees all in one big open room (no cubicles)... I worked on sound design and graphics on PC, and all except one of the graphic designers around me were on Macs. The nearest other group were the coders (Lingo, ASP etc) and a little less than half of them were on Macs, the rest on PCs.

After a few weeks at the company it dawned on me that most of the computer troubles in the room had to do with Macs, which was weird since I'd always heard of it as the machine that "just works"... it was the Macs that the IT dude was scurrying around and fixing, and it was mostly the Mac users who broke out in tirades of 4-letter words due to crashes in Director, Flash etc. Of course these were issues with Macromedia's and Adobe's buggy software rather than the Mac as such, but it also had to do with RAM issues. Back then Macs couldn't allocate RAM dynamically, you had to set a fixed amount of RAM for each application, and if you blew the limit strange things started happening. The IT dudes hated Macs because they networked so poorly with PCs... Macs for some odd reason couldn't handle dynamic IP allocation at the time, and I remember one weird phenomenon where the IT dude after some nagging allowed us to use ICQ... Mac users were getting ICQ messages intended for other people every time the IP numbers were shifted around. My girlfriend who worked there was on a Mac, and I barely ever dared send her private ICQs again fearing that it would end up on some whole other Mac in the house...

Apple should thank the maker that Windows 95, 98 and ME were so crappy because that's the only conceivable reason why some people still held on to their Macs before OSX came out. OS9 was pathetic and Apple had no software whatsoever. No browser (for a short while there OS9 actually shipped with MSIE and Outlook Express...!), not even a basic mp3 player (Mac users had to pay for some buggy shareware junk called "SoundJam"). Only the hardcore Mac professionals like designers and musicians kept Apple afloat through those dark days...

doug in albq

Mar 24, 2009, 04:11 AM

Fonts!

chaosbunny

Mar 24, 2009, 04:15 AM

I don't think this has been mentioned before, if I'm wrong please forgive me.

As far as I know OS X has far better font smoothing for smaller fonts, if I'm using 8 pt Helvetica condensed for copy text in InDesign and look at the whole page the typo will still look like 8 pt Helvetica condensed in OS X, but in Windows it will look like some pixel font.

Are there workarounds for this in Windows I don't know of?

I've only used Windows for games in the last couple of years & I'm really curious for the answer. :)

opeter

Mar 24, 2009, 05:20 AM

Have to fully agree with Anuba.

I didn't have so many corrupt .psd files before and after the time we had that silly G3 server. Oh man, very bad memorys.

For the outsider, OS9 was funny, when you get the bomb message. Yes, but not for the user.

And I never did understand, why Apple did remove the reset button from their later machines (the PowerMac MDDs didn't have a reset button, the same goes for G5s and newer).

If the Mac freezes, you have to shut it down - but in most case this doesn't work, you have to pull out the power cord/cable from the wall/conector.

chaosbunny

Mar 24, 2009, 05:51 AM

And I never did understand, why Apple did remove the reset button from their later machines (the PowerMac MDDs didn't have a reset button, the same goes for G5s and newer).

If the Mac freezes, you have to shut it down - but in most case this doesn't work, you have to pull out the power cord/cable from the wall/conector.

Just hold the power button for a couple of seconds. ;)

And you may call me weird - I switched back in the OS 9 days, got to know it in graphic design college and liked it far more than Windows 95/98. For me personally it was more stable, more logical and more user friendly than Winows ever was.

decksnap

Mar 24, 2009, 08:43 AM

OS 9 had it's issues with extensions and such, but it was awesome compared to windows at the time.

RebootD

Mar 24, 2009, 11:18 AM

Just hold the power button for a couple of seconds. ;)

And you may call me weird - I switched back in the OS 9 days, got to know it in graphic design college and liked it far more than Windows 95/98. For me personally it was more stable, more logical and more user friendly than Winows ever was.

Oh Windows 95/98 were terrible and I have lots of horror stories so I feel your pain in switching back! I think my problem is I got re-introduced to Macs in school during the late OS8 and then OS9 days and the new G3s in the lab seriously crashed/hanged/lost files etc on a daily basis.. it was dark times for me haha.

stainlessliquid

Mar 24, 2009, 01:28 PM

It IS the OS fault if you're working with perfectly working, powerful hardware and common software and you still get affected by Windows's instability.
It would be the OS's fault if that happens, luckily it doesnt.

thejadedmonkey

Mar 24, 2009, 01:42 PM

Windows IS unstable. I've used Windows for almost all my life, and the same programs have always run better on Mac OS X. It has always been more stable, under every aspect.

The difference is that when Windows breaks (because you installed malware, actually Windows is pretty good against viruses and stuff these days, unless you download it yourself and hit OK a few times, thanks vista!) you can still run the OS, log in, save all your stuff, or maybe even keep working.

I have never had a mac break where it was still usable. Whenever OS X has a problem, it's a re-install and re-image from Time machine. OS X either works or it doesn't, there's no way to coax it to keep going.

So how exactly is that better then Windows?

I'm not gonna lie, my next PC is going to be a Latitude, not a Macbook, just because of the OS and support that comes with the computer.

Anuba

Mar 24, 2009, 03:55 PM

I have never had a mac break where it was still usable. Whenever OS X has a problem, it's a re-install and re-image from Time machine. OS X either works or it doesn't, there's no way to coax it to keep going.
Yes...! What's up with that?

Back when I used Windows PC's exclusively, one of the many variations on the "Mac just works, Windows just breaks" taunts I always heard from Mac users was that we, the Windows users, constantly have to reinstall Windows to keep the machine running. While this was a wild exaggeration, I could see the point buried under the excess of FUD, because after a year or so the registry would be filled up with loads of residual crap from all the installations and uninstallations.

So then when I got my first Mac, I expected no less than being able to solve problems and keep the system fresh without ever having to reinstall it. As soon as problems did occur and I started asking for advice on Mac forums and such, the answer to every single problem no matter how insignificant was "do an archive/reinstall".
- But it's just the...
- Archive/reinstall.
- Are you sure I can't...
- Archive/reinstall.
- Really?
- Archive/reinstall.

If you're lucky, they'll grace you with the "repair disk permissions" suggestion before they hit you with the big archive/reinstall sledgehammer. That's another funny Mac thing, I'm not sure how it manages but these fabled 'disk permissions' seem to become screwed up on a daily basis, always dozens of errors in there.

Another thing that was supposedly so great about the Mac was that you never had to reboot the system after installing stuff. Oh those silly Windows users, they spend all their days rebooting after installs. After a couple of years with OS X machines I gotta say... is there anything that doesn't require a reboot on a Mac? Every little puny X.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 update of iCrap-this or QuickFart-that wants me to sign some goddamn license agreement (identical to the umpteen previous ones I already signed and haven't stopped agreeing with) and then reboot the system. How this is somehow smoother than the silent installs that Windows Update does in Vista without rebooting, I have yet to figure out.

Oh, and another taunt - UAC. Apple even made a commercial, and a funny one at that, about Vista's UAC and the constant nagging. And sure, it's a pain in the rear, at least in the beginning before it settles down. But I fail to see how clicking past an alert is more bothersome than entering your damn password every time you install updates or move something in or out of the Applications folder, like in Leopard. Both Vista and Leopard treat the user like an intruder, just in different ways.

decksnap

Mar 24, 2009, 06:59 PM

LeviG

Mar 24, 2009, 08:38 PM

snip
Vista ultimate (and business iirc) has imaging software (on top of roll back) and theres always acronis true image for other versions. Install all your apps, setup windows to save files on a separate drive/partition then make a snapshot/image of the boot/program drive.
Personally I do two, one with all the drivers installed and one with all my apps installed :)

Basically the same role/principle as archive/reinstall on a mac etc. Saves no end of time when you do actually reinstall on windows.

UAC is a pita for people who know what they're doing but theres apps which can make it 'silent' and only bug you on important things :)

Anuba

Mar 24, 2009, 11:08 PM

Vista ultimate (and business iirc) has imaging software (on top of roll back) and theres always acronis true image for other versions. Install all your apps, setup windows to save files on a separate drive/partition then make a snapshot/image of the boot/program drive.
Personally I do two, one with all the drivers installed and one with all my apps installed :)
Yeah, it's nice... but I prefer a clean install and then letting Windows do its thing and download the myriad of security updates, service packs etc, and then I go about installing the latest software and drivers. I've documented every little step I make and follow those instructions to the letter. I actually find the whole procedure enjoyable, though I haven't done it in about a year... I was thinking of just replacing Vista Ultimate with Win7 beta, I'll be replacing this computer before the Win7 beta expires in September(?) anyway, so...

UAC is a pita for people who know what they're doing but theres apps which can make it 'silent' and only bug you on important things :)
UAC is considerably more quiet in Win7, so I'll put up with it. The only thing about it that's still annoying is the black flash you see when it switches to secure desktop mode. I've tweaked it in Vista so that I get the UAC prompt on the regular desktop... I know it makes the machine slightly less secure, but the black flash was the visual equivalent of rusty nails scraping a blackboard and it just had to go.

EmperorDarius

Mar 25, 2009, 01:36 AM

Yes...! What's up with that?

Back when I used Windows PC's exclusively, one of the many variations on the "Mac just works, Windows just breaks" taunts I always heard from Mac users was that we, the Windows users, constantly have to reinstall Windows to keep the machine running. While this was a wild exaggeration, I could see the point buried under the excess of FUD, because after a year or so the registry would be filled up with loads of residual crap from all the installations and uninstallations.

So then when I got my first Mac, I expected no less than being able to solve problems and keep the system fresh without ever having to reinstall it. As soon as problems did occur and I started asking for advice on Mac forums and such, the answer to every single problem no matter how insignificant was "do an archive/reinstall".
- But it's just the...
- Archive/reinstall.
- Are you sure I can't...
- Archive/reinstall.
- Really?
- Archive/reinstall.

If you're lucky, they'll grace you with the "repair disk permissions" suggestion before they hit you with the big archive/reinstall sledgehammer. That's another funny Mac thing, I'm not sure how it manages but these fabled 'disk permissions' seem to become screwed up on a daily basis, always dozens of errors in there.

Of course that the replies will be less technical, since the number of mac users experiencing problems is nothing to compared to the Windows ones, so they just use the shortcut: reinstall, and don't want to learn how to fix something. On the other hand, Windows users encounter so many problems that, want it or not, they learn how to fix a lot of them, so there are less people who'll just tell you to reinstall. If you want more specialized support, you'll have to speak with experienced users or qualified Apple support guys.

Oh, and another taunt - UAC. Apple even made a commercial, and a funny one at that, about Vista's UAC and the constant nagging. And sure, it's a pain in the rear, at least in the beginning before it settles down. But I fail to see how clicking past an alert is more bothersome than entering your damn password every time you install updates or move something in or out of the Applications folder, like in Leopard. Both Vista and Leopard treat the user like an intruder, just in different ways.

Sure, so if anyone comes at your home and touches your Vista PC, if the person wants to install malware, he/she just needs to press "Yes" a couple of times and that's it. On Mac OS X, no password, he/she can't do anything.

LeviG

Mar 25, 2009, 05:16 AM

On Mac OS X, no password, he/she can't do anything.
thats easy on windows too - just don't let other users have an admin account, you can restrict them to whats on the pc :D

Techguy172

Mar 25, 2009, 07:31 AM

Sure, so if anyone comes at your home and touches your Vista PC, if the person wants to install malware, he/she just needs to press "Yes" a couple of times and that's it. On Mac OS X, no password, he/she can't do anything.

You have to be logged in to Administrator first, which usually requires a password. They can only get in if they have your password.

RebootD

Mar 25, 2009, 12:31 PM

I don't understand what people would be doing that requires the reinstall... Anecdotal, I know, by I've been managing about 15 systems since OS 9 and I have never reinstalled a Mac OS.

Tried it once on my parent's computer, but that wasn't what the problem was so that was unnecessary anyway.

Windows registry, on the other hand....

I got my alum iMac in 2007 with Tiger. I bought Leopard when it was released and did a clean install. Two days later it kept getting to the grey loading screen, reboot, grey screen, reboot etc. I had to manually tell it to boot from the Leopard disc and reinstall.

RebootD

Mar 25, 2009, 12:34 PM

Of course that the replies will be less technical, since the number of mac users experiencing problems is nothing to compared to the Windows ones,

I think I am on EmperorDarius ignore list so he never replies to my replies but I will do it anyway.

Yes you are right there are a lot more windows reports of technical issues.. BECAUSE THEY HAVE 91% OF THE MARKETSHARE TO APPLE'S 6%!!!!

Even if every Mac exploded right now there would still be less apple issues because less of them are in existence than windows pcs!

Anuba

Mar 25, 2009, 06:40 PM

Sure, so if anyone comes at your home and touches your Vista PC, if the person wants to install malware, he/she just needs to press "Yes" a couple of times and that's it. On Mac OS X, no password, he/she can't do anything.
Yeah sure, 'cause I invite lots of random people on the street to my home and encourage them to install malware on my computer. As for hacking from the outside, they'd have better luck with my iMac or my Mac Mini because they both have the firewall off, as the blockheaded firewall in Leopard won't let you autodetect a local NAS drive unless you disable the firewall.

Come on, after 17 years with PCs I've never had any virus/trojan/spyware on any of the 20 or so computers I've owned or used in various workplaces. Not on Win 3.11, not on Win95, 98, ME, 2000, XP or Vista. I stopped using antivirus software altogether after XP. I've seen infected computers and helped clean them up, but -- and no offense to my friends or family -- they've been used by computer illiterates who have contaminated the machines with tons of crap and never performed any maintenance whatsoever. For people like that, I always recommend Mac, not because Macs are necessarily for the retarded but because they're not being targeted by malware. A power user on the other hand can keep any Windows PC or Mac in good order.

jons

Apr 6, 2009, 02:02 AM

definitive

Apr 14, 2009, 07:11 PM

hm interesting

a cat *miaow*

Apr 15, 2009, 12:18 PM

I would say there are a few reasons to use a mac rather than a Win PC for design.

One would be the OS itself. The mac OS is simply much clearer and easier to use when working with multiple files for a single project – where Windows will get in the way and make it work it's way rather than the way you need. It's only a small point but when working with lots of files all day it makes a massive difference.
This OS also feeds into the way the windowing system works, Windows, with it's 'windows in windows' approach isn't as flexible when quickly comping ideas and using a number of different softwares at a time. This is becoming a less pronounced difference as Adobe slowly take other any computer that has CS loaded up though as they are ultimately aiming for the Adobe OS.

Another thing to take into account when comparing costs is reliability and lifetime of the machine. (so far) no one with a mac has spent days getting their system back from a virus, even an hour doing this when you have a deadline could cost you much more than the perceived savings of going the PC route.

Number one reason would have to be that it's the system which most people use though. Yes PC's are making inroads where this is concerned but the mac platform is still very strong and you never should have a problem getting a printer to take your files or load your typefaces for example.