Why are Macs so dominate in the media creation industry today?

[gunraidan]

Why? I know that in the past all media software was developed solely on Mac OS, but today not entirely. With PC's being cheaper than Macs why haven't media companies switched? Is it because Mac Pro's are more powerful than most high end components? Is it because Macs are more stable?

Sorry I'm just curious.

[clevin]

Im curious too, about your data. any source or links?

[gunraidan]

Im curious too, about your data. any source or links?


Aren't Macs widely known to be the standard in the media creation industry (I.E. Graphic Design, Music Creation, etc.)?

[MisterMe]

Aren't Macs widely known to be the standard in the media creation industry (I.E. Graphic Design, Music Creation, etc.)?Yes. The OP wants to know why.

[akm3]

"because they always have been"

While Windows stole away all the other business functions, the Mac's early dominance of desktop publishing, and other media creation, let it stay as a viable candidate in those fields. So, just like people keep buying Windows because they've always bought Windows . . . .

It is inertia in that industry, the only industry that stayed with Apple through thick and thin.

[FX120]

For the longest time, all the good software was only available on the Macintosh, combined with post script support, color managment, ect, the platform got a good hold on the market in the early-mid 90's, and many people never switched back, even though now many of the tools and features available on different platforms are as powerful, if not more so than they are on the Mac.

Photoshop is a great example. Back in the PPC days, PS flew compared to x86 systems, but when Apple switched to x86, that advantage went away, and is now actually the reverse. Photoshop CS4 runs faster under a Vista x64 machine than it does on OS X, on the same hardware.

And this of course has lead some people away from the platform. Some of this has to do with the availability of software on competing platforms, some of it has to do with many people feeling abandoned by Apple because of their recient hardware and software decisions (glossy displays, dropping firewire for a while, really long periods between software updates, dropping out of NAB, hardware becoming more consumer-focused, ect), and because often times the hardware is less expensive, and the support is better on the "other side".

I'm not saying that Apple doesn't still have a large share in the "creative professional" market, but it is definitly shrinking.

[gunraidan]

Thanks. I also saw this article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1) that struck my interest.

Which I find strange. Maybe Mac's maybe slightly better than pre-built PC's but custom built can be superior is what you guys are saying? Or is this article all wrong?

For the longest time, all the good software was only available on the Macintosh, combined with post script support, color managment, ect, the platform got a good hold on the market in the early-mid 90's, and many people never switched back, even though now many of the tools and features available on different platforms are as powerful, if not more so than they are on the Mac.

Photoshop is a great example. Back in the PPC days, PS flew compared to x86 systems, but when Apple switched to x86, that advantage went away, and is now actually the reverse. Photoshop CS4 runs faster under a Vista x64 machine than it does on OS X, on the same hardware.

And this of course has lead some people away from the platform. Some of this has to do with the availability of software on competing platforms, some of it has to do with many people feeling abandoned by Apple because of their recient hardware and software decisions (glossy displays, dropping firewire for a while, really long periods between software updates, dropping out of NAB, hardware becoming more consumer-focused, ect), and because often times the hardware is less expensive, and the support is better on the "other side".

I'm not saying that Apple doesn't still have a large share in the "creative professional" market, but it is definitly shrinking.

Awesome post thanks.

Yes. The OP wants to know why.

I am the OP...

[xIGmanIx]

i would say software, which recently has not been so one sided in my opinion, basically a Mac is built from the same hardware that is available to PC makers, so its not the hardware.

[thegoldenmackid]

Sheep effect multiplies what has been said above. The software helps. Also, people when they start are more inclined to go to the Mac for a variety of reasons: stability, track record, ease of use, etc... That only helps.

[gunraidan]

i would say software, which recently has not been so one sided in my opinion, basically a Mac is built from the same hardware that is available to PC makers, so its not the hardware.

Sheep effect multiplies what has been said above. The software helps. Also, people when they start are more inclined to go to the Mac for a variety of reasons: stability, track record, ease of use, etc... That only helps.

So it could also be because OS X is designed for using media creation which usually results in a slight edge?

[clevin]

Aren't Macs widely known to be the standard in the media creation industry (I.E. Graphic Design, Music Creation, etc.)?

Yes. The OP wants to know why.

widely known? no, i dont think so. I dont think macs is dominant in media creation industry. so there is no reason to ask why.

[EssentialParado]

Macs have traditionally represented colors a lot differently from PCs that makes them specifically good for print design (if you go to a website on your PC then visit it on a Mac, you'll see a big difference in the vibrance of the colors.)

PCs can change their color gamma now too, but a lot of designers just want to go with Macs because of the reliability to reproduce colors in this way. Mac displays have also always been of a high quality.

These are the reasons I understand design companies still use Macs, but I've heard that independent artists also find the design of Mac OS X and the Macs as inspirational.

Though there is nothing technically stopping PCs performing the same tasks as you can on a Mac.

[MisterMe]

Thanks. I also saw this article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1) that struck my interest.

Which I find strange. Maybe Mac's maybe slightly better than pre-built PC's but custom built can be superior is what you guys are saying? Or is this article all wrong?

...I would say that the Popular Mechanics review has nothing to do with the Mac or why Mac users would not surrender our systems at gunpoint. We all want our computer hardware to complete its tasks as quickly as possible. The benchmarks in the review attempts to measure the performance on a few representative tasks. We can discuss the relevance of each benchmarked task in the overall scheme of things. What is not open to discussion is that fact that the review does not even attempt to benchmark the computer/user system.

It is one thing to burn a DVD. It is another thing to tape the action, edit the video, create the DVD, and then burn a high-quality DVD. The Windows user will argue that his favorite platform can do individual tasks quickly and cheaply. The Mac user will argue that his favorite platform allows him to produce a high-quality product with a minimum of hassle.

I am a Mac user. I hate hassle. My Macs are extensions of me. I produce quality work that boggle the minds of my Windows-using colleagues. They think it is magic. It is just my Mac and I.

[EssentialParado]

widely known? no, i dont think so. I dont think macs is dominant in media creation industry. so there is no reason to ask why.
Hehe, every single graphic design company I've walked into have been 90-100% Macs. Same with video production (with the exception of one studio I visited.) Journalism is usually PCs though.

[LeviG]

In my experience
graphic and print are mainly done on mac, although in my opinion it makes no difference if you use windows, as the main software is cross platform and both really need calibrating before being colour accurate.

Video - probably 50/50, really does depend on the software you use.

3D CAD - 90% windows (mostly dedicated hardware not bootcamp) as the major software is windows only.

Music - probably 50/50 again.

Writing - take your pick but as said journalism is mainly windows

[mysterytramp]

In some respects, I don't think the two platforms are equals, not yet. About 18 months ago, we switched from OS 9 Macs with Quark (upgrading the OS would have meant a costly Quark upgrade) to PCs running XP and Quark.

Feature for feature, the two platforms are very similar but you can tell from the Quark jockeys that life still isn't roses and buttercups. (I say that and I seem to recall there was a vicious bug in our version of Quark that would corrupt large files; if office gossip is any indicator, we don't seem to have THAT problem.)

Although the plan was to ditch all the Macs so our IT guys could be monolingual, we still have several Macs running OS X in other departments because of photo and video processing. They would have made the switch if the PCs were their equal.

mt

[djellison]

Aren't Macs widely known to be the standard in the media creation industry (I.E. Graphic Design, Music Creation, etc.)?

I don't think they are anymore to be honest.

[clevin]

Hehe, every single graphic design company I've walked into have been 90-100% Macs. Same with video production (with the exception of one studio I visited.) Journalism is usually PCs though.

I just simply want a report of some sort, obvious you can't expect me to draw conclusion on limited number of personal experiences.

If I were to do that, I would say macs has 40% overall marketshare then..... which is obviously false

[EmperorDarius]

I think it's because of the success that Macs had in those fields in the past, however, I also think it's because of the ease of use of Macs, less hassles (not having to deal with security, more stability etc.) and perhaps even the user interface (designers like good design after all). Oh, and let's not forget software (Final Cut, Logic, Aperture).

Some quotes from the Apple pro pages (Different users):


*The tools are easily accessible, which allows us to focus on being creative. That's why we use the Mac."

*“When you have tight deadlines, you need a stable hardware system with a stable operating system,” Marty says. “We need a high-performance system that’s easy to set up and manage, with no viruses, and simple ways to share data between all the systems in the company. And the Mac gives us exactly that!"

*“We have very complex stuff that needs to be done very fast and we need to know that we can trust the machines to handle whatever we throw at them without crumbling,” says JJ Franzen, technical director at South Park Studios. “That’s why we use Macs.”

*“It’s really the same thing my Mac gives me: the ability to be spontaneous. I came into each interview free to experience these people in the present, because I could see all the pieces of the work in progress and be confident that I was getting the story. The Mac empowered me to be here, now.”

*“The Mac is at the core of our creative process,” says Robinson. “The majority of our creative and development teams use Macs, and we use Final Cut Studio to cut all our footage. iChat allows us to exchange ideas between offices on opposite sides of the globe. Our iPhones keep us connected wherever we are. Macs are reliable, flexible, and powerful. They give us the creative freedom we need to stand out in this field.”

*“I never have any problems. With Macs, when you want to do something, you do it—and everything happens just the way you expect it to.”



I just picked the few firsts interviews on the pro page.




Video - probably 50/50, really does depend on the software you use.

3D CAD - 90% windows (mostly dedicated hardware not bootcamp) as the major software is windows only.

Music - probably 50/50 again.

Writing - take your pick but as said journalism is mainly windows

Video, Music and Graphic design are mainly done on Macs. Business, 3D animation etc. are usually done on PCs.

widely known? no, i dont think so. I dont think macs is dominant in media creation industry. so there is no reason to ask why.

It is widely known. And entirely true.

[miles01110]

widely known? no, i dont think so. I dont think macs is dominant in media creation industry. so there is no reason to ask why.

I went to the Rochester Jazz Festival recently, and out of the several dozens of artists using a computer for their craft, none of them used Windows.

Biased sample? Sure. But it's telling.

[akm3]

I always love showing my 'Macs SUCK' friends simple consumer media creation to help them out - it blows there mind and changes perceptions.

Example, a 'Macs SUCK' friend had a child's birthday coming up, I offered 'hey! Want to take some of those pictures and make a quick DVD?'

He admitted: "Oh WOW! We've been wanting to do something like that, but just couldn't figure out how to do it!"

I had him bring all the pictures he wanted to use on a USB drive and we stayed after work: iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, iDVD and ~3 hours later, and he has a 20 minute music video of his four year old. It *blew* *his* *mind*. (He was particularly impressed with the iMovie 09 'travel' feature that shows an Indiana Jones style line from where you are to where you're going on a map)

I haven't heard 'Macs SUCK' from him since then.

-Allen

[clevin]

everybody is repeating a statement, and two person come up with two personal experiences, and nobody provide any data?

Sorry, to convince me, thats really not enough. but since obviously nobody has any data (you would imagine for such a glorious "fact", there is at least some articles somewhere....lol ). I shall exit by now. Not really interested discussion a reason for an empty statement that may or may not be real. ;)
I always love showing my 'Macs SUCK' friends simple consumer media creation to help them out - it blows there mind and changes perceptions.

Example, a 'Macs SUCK' friend had a child's birthday coming up, I offered 'hey! Want to take some of those pictures and make a quick DVD?'

He admitted: "Oh WOW! We've been wanting to do something like that, but just couldn't figure out how to do it!"

I had him bring all the pictures he wanted to use on a USB drive and we stayed after work: iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, iDVD and ~3 hours later, and he has a 20 minute music video of his four year old. It *blew* *his* *mind*. (He was particularly impressed with the iMovie 09 'travel' feature that shows an Indiana Jones style line from where you are to where you're going on a map)

I haven't heard 'Macs SUCK' from him since then.

-Allen

I have a feeling the reason is not windows, that your friends don't know how to make a DVD movie of all the pics. If thats what you were suggesting?

[EmperorDarius]

everybody is repeating a statement, and two person come up with two personal experiences, and nobody provide any data?
Sorry, to convince me, thats really not enough. but since obviously nobody has any data (you would imagine for such a glorious "fact", there is at least some articles somewhere....lol ). I shall exit by now. Not really interested discussion a reason for an empty statement that may or may not be real. ;)


If you ask the designers/video editors/musicians in this forum, they most probably will tell you that it is true. Actually it is a known fact for most Mac users. No one really cares if you believe that the moon exists or not :rolleyes:

[instaxgirl]

If you ask the designers/video editors/musicians in this forum, they most probably will tell you that it is true.

Well, you're asking designers etc on a mac forum. Not the most unbiased sample.

[EmperorDarius]

Well, you're asking designers etc on a mac forum. Not the most unbiased sample.

Well then what, if you will ask designers etc. on a Windows forum, they will not know/accept it. Besides, not everyone here is a Mac user, and we're talking about something everyone should know.

[MisterMe]

Well, you're asking designers etc on a mac forum. Not the most unbiased sample.It is not about getting an unbiased sample. It is about sample opinion that accurately represents the overall views of designers.

[gunraidan]

I think it's because of the success that Macs had in those fields in the past, however, I also think it's because of the ease of use of Macs, less hassles (not having to deal with security, more stability etc.) and perhaps even the user interface (designers like good design after all). Oh, and let's not forget software (Final Cut, Logic, Aperture).

Some quotes from the Apple pro pages (Different users):



I just picked the few firsts interviews on the pro page.




Video, Music and Graphic design are mainly done on Macs. Business, 3D animation etc. are usually done on PCs.




Thanks. So essentially people go with Macs because they are far more stable and interface friendly than PC's? And thinking of it this does make sense, as someone who has used all of these programs.

Video Editing, Music Creation, and Graphic Design doesn't require highend hardware. So even if you buy a Radeon HD or Intel i7 it really won't make much of a difference. It would make much more sense to go with a stable software.

Businesses use Windows because well that's what Window's interface is based on. And animators go with Window's because of the need of the highest end hardware as well as Direct X.

On paper Macs offer stability and a more intuitive interface while Windows offers high-end performance and price.

I think I get it now.

[EmperorDarius]

Thanks. So essentially people go with Macs because they are far more stable and interface friendly than PC's? And thinking of it this does make sense, as someone who has used all of these programs.

Video Editing, Music Creation, and Graphic Design doesn't require highend hardware. So even if you buy a Radeon HD or Intel i7 it really won't make much of a difference. It would make much more sense to go with a stable software.

Businesses use Windows because well that's what Window's interface is based on. And animators go with Window's because of the need of the highest end hardware as well as Direct X.

On paper Macs offer stability and a more intuitive interface while Windows offers high-end performance and price.

I think I get it now.

3D animation and modelling is mainly done on PCs because the software needed for that is mainly Windows-only (ex. 3D Studio Max, AutoCAD), or there is a Mac version but is inferior to the Windows part (ex Maya, Zbrush). The price may be a factor too, especially if there's no Linux version of the 3D app. If there isn't, it's normally more intelligent to use a Windows render farm then a Mac one, while if there is, you could (if the needed programs are available) work on Macs and render on Linux machines.
Finally, usually professional GPUs are available first for PCs, and then for Macs (and when they are, they're not always available from the Mac Pro configuration page, like the current Quadro)

[djellison]

Video Editing.....doesn't require highend hardware.

Good luck editing 1080p on a G3 iMac then, or rendering 20 x 10k displacement maps on anything with less than 4 cores.

[EmperorDarius]

Good luck editing 1080p on a G3 iMac then

Yes, because video editors are gonna buy a G3. :rolleyes:

[Chwisch87]

I myself am a "serious amateur" photographer and for the past 6 months now I have flirted with the idea of building a PC desktop to handle the kind of speed requirements I need to load 14.6 megapixal 23 meg raw files in real time. A laptop platform is simply too slow for this. While a mac pro is great its really too expensive for what I need and plus, i don't really need to spend the money and get a Xeon with ECC support (an expensive and mostly useless option for consumers). Apple doesn't really make a platform that supports what I need. So in reality, they are not helping themselves by accommodating the changing times. Not everyone is going to or can afford a mac pro ...

10.6 could also seriously speed up applications on mac and give it some of graphics power it used to have thanks to grand central and greater multithread support and really just better code in Snow Leopard. That being said Adobe has to write their programs to take advantage of this.

[djellison]

Yes, because video editors are gonna buy a G3. :rolleyes:

Hey - I'm not the one claiming that Video Editing doesn't need high end hardware. You're making my point for me.

[EmperorDarius]

Hey - I'm not the one claiming that Video Editing doesn't need high end hardware. You're making my point for me.

Not high end hardware != old hardware

A current generation iMac can be considered middle-end hardware, yet you can do a fair amount of video editing with it.

[FX120]

Not high end hardware != old hardware

A current generation iMac can be considered middle-end hardware, yet you can do a fair amount of video editing with it.

I am pretty sure that the OP isn't talking about the kind of "media creation" that takes place involving iMovie, and editing the crap that comes off your average low-bitrate AVCHD Canon handycam that is suitable for the hardware found in the iMac.

[EmperorDarius]

I am pretty sure that the OP isn't talking about the kind of "media creation" that takes place involving iMovie, and editing the crap that comes off your average low-bitrate AVCHD Canon handycam that is suitable for the hardware found in the iMac.

You are highly underestimating what an iMac can do. Of course for heavy editing you will need lots of power, however you can do quite a lot of stuff with an iMac, it may not take minutes but hours to render (and that's normal if you're compaing a 4(8) or 8(16) core machine with a dual core) , but you can work with HD video without many problems and no, without using iMovie but using Premiere/After Effects or Final Cut etc.

[gunraidan]

Hey - I'm not the one claiming that Video Editing doesn't need high end hardware. You're making my point for me.

Something not needing to be highend doesn't equal something can do the job by being a dinosaur.

[EssentialParado]

everybody is repeating a statement, and two person come up with two personal experiences, and nobody provide any data
Is there any data? All there really is is personal experiences. Thought I know for a fact that my personal experience ranges through a massive number of video editing studios, graphic design companies, and music producers, both here in Europe and in the USA. I guess it's just down to you and whether you want to believe that or not.


Video Editing, Music Creation, and Graphic Design doesn't require highend hardware. So even if you buy a Radeon HD or Intel i7 it really won't make much of a difference. It would make much more sense to go with a stable software.
You'd be surprised how much power can be needed for music production. I think all professionals in those areas would need Mac Pro sort of power, but lower-end work won't.

You are highly underestimating what an iMac can do. Of course for heavy editing you will need lots of power, however you can do quite a lot of stuff with an iMac, it may not take minutes but hours to render (and that's normal if you're compaing a 4(8) or 8(16) core machine with a dual core) , but you can work with HD video without many problems and no, without using iMovie but using Premiere/After Effects or Final Cut etc.
I think there should be a distinction between professional videographers and amateurs. Professionals will need a high-end machine, simply because they can't afford to wait longer for rendering times. But for non-heavy work, you're absolutely right that things can easily be edited quickly on an iMac or MacBook Pro.

[gunraidan]

You'd be surprised how much power can be needed for music production. I think all professionals in those areas would need Mac Pro sor.

Really? I've used programs such as Reason and didn't find much power to be necessary.

[EssentialParado]

Really? I've used programs such as Reason and didn't find much power to be necessary.
Not all musicians are the same, some can work on pretty small setups depending on their music style, but I've known some to use a combination of so many audio samples, instruments, and effects it maxes out their CPUs. Reason is a pretty lite app, but when you get into things like Logic, Cubase, and Pro Tools, they can be very different beasts.

[MorphingDragon]

3 words...

Final Cut Studio.

[Dagless]

At college (studying media) every machine was a Mac.
At university (design) every machine was a mac.
At my 2nd university (design again) there were 2 labs, one for Windows one for Mac. But every student had some form of portable Mac.

Maybe it stems from there? People just get used to Macs because its what they were brought up with. I guess the ease of use and hardware quality helps too.

And for a college project once I edited a 1080p video on a G4 PowerBook (the 12" one no less, but using an external monitor). It ran well, but the final render took a long time. 12 hours I believe. But it's entirely possible for a G4 to do it.

[EssentialParado]

At college (studying media) every machine was a Mac.
At university (design) every machine was a mac.
At my 2nd university (design again) there were 2 labs, one for Windows one for Mac. But every student had some form of portable Mac.

Maybe it stems from there? People just get used to Macs because its what they were brought up with.
Actually, you saying that reminded me the reason I bought my first Mac (and changed me from an anti-Mac PC-fanboy) was because I got to experience them at college. The only computers in the music department were Macs. So I think to a degree you're right. Although most of those teachers actually say they get students to use Macs because they're standard in that industry, so I guess it's circular.

[The Reverend]

I'm thinking that Apple has pushed the Artist aspect of it's products for 20 years.

People look at Mac's and think of Artists and the like.

Yeah, loads of programs for animation editing and so on, have performed better on PC's for many years. But, now after all these years of selling the product as a consumer ready art station .. you got what you got.
:)

Thank about it... All current computers(PC or Mac or other) have the ability do do 95% of all consumer needs. Hardware and OS wise the features are also the same.

So what makes the Mac's seem like they are better at making multi-media files.

Marketing and consistent delivery of consumer ready artistic like products.

It's all about Image.
:o

[nuckinfutz]

Apple "is" dominant in media. When you take a look at the relative percentage of the platform that is employed in DCC work on PC and Mac you'll find that a higher percentage of Macs are doing Digital Media.

The best reason I can give you is that Apple's design ethos is a part of their DNA. Microsoft's DNA isn't creative it's busines and their cash cow is Windows and Office.

Sure you can buy Adobe on both platforms but Apple has always been strong at supporting core technologies for making excellent creative apps.

Many companies force their designers to move to PC so they have a more homogenous network and not necessarily because PC have some sort of creative or speed advantage.

[Abstract]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think there's any good technical reason at the moment. The reasons for choosing a Mac over a PC in the creative field is the same reason why I'd choose one for using iTunes, writing emails, surfing porn, and updating my FaceBook status. I think of it all in the same way, and that reason is, "Why the feck not?" :p I feel comfortable using it, and I like how Macs look.

2. Pedigree. There was likely a real advantage once upon a time due to some inherent difference in the software and hardware, but I don't believe those benefits are valid today.

3. Creative people may have some sort of natural affinity towards pretty things that are designed well (aesthetically).



That's it.

[boast]

maybe steve jobs influenced the industry as being the CEO of apple and pixar?

[romanaz]

Well then what, if you will ask designers etc. on a Windows forum, they will not know/accept it. Besides, not everyone here is a Mac user, and we're talking about something everyone should know.

exactly. Its not a well-known stereotype for no reason. Most stereotypes are based on some sort of fact. I'm a film major and a budding photographer, and only once in both fields have I run into 'professionals' not running a mac system. And in that video production office, they were churning out sub-par material. Now that could also be the fact of the camera's and the other people working there aren't up to par, but it doesn't help that Adobe Premier doesn't hold a candle to an Avid or Final Cut system.


Lets think of it like this. A computer is a tool for a job. You want the best tool for your job. Now, if I want to be a car mechanic, would I rather a car lift, or a car jack? Both get the job done, but one gets the car out of the way better.

Same thing applies to this. Sure, I can run Avid and Lightroom on a PC. I can run Final Cut and Aperture on a Mac. On the Mac I don't get registry errors and blue screens and shoddy drivers (one can argue that I know) and I don't need a subscription to the anti-virus of your choice to make sure my work files don't get corrupted, as well as I don't need to reformat once or twice a year to keep the machine running as good as the day I turned her on. Which would you choose given that?

And that lies in the answer for why that particular industry runs on Macs.

also : doesn't it tell you something that the advertising company that does a lot of Microsoft ads runs all Macs? If Microsoft can't convince them to switch to Vista, then they probably can't convince the rest of the industry.

[romanaz]

Thanks. So essentially people go with Macs because they are far more stable and interface friendly than PC's? And thinking of it this does make sense, as someone who has used all of these programs.

Video Editing, Music Creation, and Graphic Design doesn't require highend hardware. So even if you buy a Radeon HD or Intel i7 it really won't make much of a difference. It would make much more sense to go with a stable software.

Businesses use Windows because well that's what Window's interface is based on. And animators go with Window's because of the need of the highest end hardware as well as Direct X.

On paper Macs offer stability and a more intuitive interface while Windows offers high-end performance and price.

I think I get it now.

editing video doesn't take much, but rendering it does. Try stacking plug-ins on Logic or Pro-Tools and you'll need a ton of CPU. And you try doing graphic design with tons of little files open and rendering out images and the like, and you'll see the need for high end hardware. Whats the difference between my macbook pro and a mac pro for video editing? Hours of rendering time and the ability to do 1:1 editing for HD. Whats it for my aperture library? Wait time loading 14-16mb raw images as well as batch exporting 1000+ jpegs.

do you like waiting? I sure as hell don't and when it comes down to time is money, I best not be waiting.

and for animation, yeah having direct x is a godsend from what I hear. Although I keep seeing a lot of my friends in animation ditching windows for some variant of Linux.

[gunraidan]

Apple "is" dominant in media. When you take a look at the relative percentage of the platform that is employed in DCC work on PC and Mac you'll find that a higher percentage of Macs are doing Digital Media.

The best reason I can give you is that Apple's design ethos is a part of their DNA. Microsoft's DNA isn't creative it's busines and their cash cow is Windows and Office.

Sure you can buy Adobe on both platforms but Apple has always been strong at supporting core technologies for making excellent creative apps.

Many companies force their designers to move to PC so they have a more homogenous network and not necessarily because PC have some sort of creative or speed advantage.

Please explain in more detail. I don't quite get this.

Although I keep seeing a lot of my friends in animation ditching windows for some variant of Linux.

Why is that?

editing video doesn't take much, but rendering it does. Try stacking plug-ins on Logic or Pro-Tools and you'll need a ton of CPU. And you try doing graphic design with tons of little files open and rendering out images and the like, and you'll see the need for high end hardware. Whats the difference between my macbook pro and a mac pro for video editing? Hours of rendering time and the ability to do 1:1 editing for HD. Whats it for my aperture library? Wait time loading 14-16mb raw images as well as batch exporting 1000+ jpegs.

do you like waiting? I sure as hell don't and when it comes down to time is money, I best not be waiting.

and for animation, yeah having direct x is a godsend from what I hear. Although I keep seeing a lot of my friends in animation ditching windows for some variant of Linux.

Not to sound like a troll (I'm really not) but why not go PC than since its the exact same components but far cheaper? Is it stability?

[nuckinfutz]

Please explain in more detail. I don't quite get this.



Apple has always been at the forefront of design. From teaming with Adobe to usher in Desktop Publishing to delivering MacDraw and MacPaint as some of the earliest apps.

Today people believe that simply slapping Adobe apps on a computer makes for an equivalent experience but that's not really the truth though you find many IT admins pushing for replacing Macs with PC so that their management jobs are easier.

Right now no one is investing in print publishing and the battle is still there. You have Adobe flogging Flash and Apple flogging open standards based on Javascript and HTML5 features.

Microsoft has never "understood" the creative user. They purchased Softimage as some showcase of what Direct X could do and it went nowhere until they sold it off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softimage_(company)

The company became public in 1992 and was acquired by Microsoft in 1994. In 1998, after helping to port the products to Windows and financing the development Softimage|XSI and Softimage|DS, Microsoft sold the Softimage unit to Avid Technology, Inc. who was looking to expand its visual effect capabilities[4].



"helping to port" is a euphemism for stripping out the more common OpenGL and inserting crappy Microsoft tech.

[gunraidan]

I understand most of it.


Though I am a bit confused by this could you please further explain if you don't mind.

Today people believe that simply slapping Adobe apps on a computer makes for an equivalent experience but that's not really the truth though you find many IT admins pushing for replacing Macs with PC so that their management jobs are easier.

Right now no one is investing in print publishing and the battle is still there. You have Adobe flogging Flash and Apple flogging open standards based on Javascript and HTML5 featuresIz

[OutThere]

One of many factors: to visual people an appealingly designed computer can also be an important factor. There's really not much out there that stacks up to the industrial design of Apple products.

More important, however, is that at the beginning all design and graphics tools were mac-based. The original iterations of Photoshop and Quark Xpress were Mac applications, so the first people to do digital prepress started on Macs, and when their friends and coworkers asked for help finding a computer, they got Macs as well. It has been a long cycle of this...people learn on Macs in school, continue using them and find no reason to switch to a Windows platform.

[Abstract]

Apple has always been at the forefront of design. From teaming with Adobe to usher in Desktop Publishing to delivering MacDraw and MacPaint as some of the earliest apps.

Today people believe that simply slapping Adobe apps on a computer makes for an equivalent experience but that's not really the truth though you find many IT admins pushing for replacing Macs with PC so that their management jobs are easier.

Right now no one is investing in print publishing and the battle is still there. You have Adobe flogging Flash and Apple flogging open standards based on Javascript and HTML5 features.


Please explain in more detail. I don't quite get this.


Apple "is" dominant in media. When you take a look at the relative percentage of the platform that is employed in DCC work on PC and Mac you'll find that a higher percentage of Macs are doing Digital Media.

The best reason I can give you is that Apple's design ethos is a part of their DNA. Microsoft's DNA isn't creative it's busines and their cash cow is Windows and Office.

Sure you can buy Adobe on both platforms but Apple has always been strong at supporting core technologies for making excellent creative apps.

Many companies force their designers to move to PC so they have a more homogenous network and not necessarily because PC have some sort of creative or speed advantage.

I don't know if you misunderstood the question, but what you just did was what you just did was dodge the question. :o You're trying to say that there's a good reason why Macs are dominant in (some) creative fields, and rather than explaining why, you put together some incongruent marketing speak. It was like reading a politician's reply.

Judging by gunraidan's reaction, I don't think he understands what you're saying, and quite frankly, I don't understand either. :confused:

[nuckinfutz]

In the most simplistic terms. Apple and more specifically the Macintosh was born for creative types. Design is Apple's core competency. They know it well which is why they find success in media creation fields.

[romanaz]

Please explain in more detail. I don't quite get this.



Why is that?



Not to sound like a troll (I'm really not) but why not go PC than since its the exact same components but far cheaper? Is it stability?


lets think of it like this :

I buy a Dell. Dell picks the parts and puts it together and then slaps Microsofts OS on it. They gotta find drivers or make them and hope it works.

I buy an Apple. Apple puts the hardware together and writes the drivers and software for it, making sure, in painstaking Steve Jobs fashion that it works.

Basically, barring a poorly written piece of software, I have nothing to worry about software wise on the Mac. All I have to worry about is the hardware not failing.

In Windows, I find myself dealing with driver issues, registry problems and poorly written apps more so then in Mac.

last time my Mac kernel panic'd was trying to open up my thesis report in Microsoft word. It was only a 200 page document, made in Word...

I would go PC if Windows, or some brand of Linux provided me the stability, the software and overall user experience I need to get my work done.

And as someone who might be staring at my computer for hours a day, I want it to look good to. There are very few, if any PC's I would want to work on all day for fear of being dulled to death by their lack of aesthetic appeal.

Also, what looks better to a client, pulling out a macbook pro to showcase your work on, or that laptop giampalo from the Laptop hunter commercials got?

for my friends switching to Linux, 3DS Max can run on linux. So why deal with the driver issues and possibility of virus's when you can run Linux and be mostly ok with it.

Also, Linux can look nicer then Vista when you turn Aero and all the nice fluffy animations off. Easier on the eyes = more productivity in my mind. Thats why I can't work on XP.

[windywoo]

Romanov its your choice to use Macs but stop spreading the usual Mac FUD about registry and driver issues in Windows. The last time I had a registry or driver issue was in Windows 98. Macs are made from the same parts as PCs, why do you trust Apple to write drivers more than the people who manufacture the parts? Thats assuming Apple do write all the drivers and don't ask the manufacturers to write them for them e.g. nVidia.

If you want your PC to look good you have a far wider range of options on a PC than you do on a Mac too.

What it comes down to is this, media people are a pretentious, cliquey bunch. Macs suit them.

[EmperorDarius]

Romanov its your choice to use Macs but stop spreading the usual Mac FUD about registry and driver issues in Windows.

The registry is one of the biggest causes of problems.

[MorphingDragon]

The registry is one of the biggest causes of problems.

The Registry and DLLs are the perfect system ever invented!!!

http://www.mattresspolice.com/images/sarcasm.jpg

Even Microsoft want to dump the registry for XML like UNIX... :D

[gunraidan]

lets think of it like this :

I buy a Dell. Dell picks the parts and puts it together and then slaps Microsofts OS on it. They gotta find drivers or make them and hope it works.

I buy an Apple. Apple puts the hardware together and writes the drivers and software for it, making sure, in painstaking Steve Jobs fashion that it works.

Basically, barring a poorly written piece of software, I have nothing to worry about software wise on the Mac. All I have to worry about is the hardware not failing.

In Windows, I find myself dealing with driver issues, registry problems and poorly written apps more so then in Mac.

last time my Mac kernel panic'd was trying to open up my thesis report in Microsoft word. It was only a 200 page document, made in Word...

I would go PC if Windows, or some brand of Linux provided me the stability, the software and overall user experience I need to get my work done.

And as someone who might be staring at my computer for hours a day, I want it to look good to. There are very few, if any PC's I would want to work on all day for fear of being dulled to death by their lack of aesthetic appeal.

Also, what looks better to a client, pulling out a macbook pro to showcase your work on, or that laptop giampalo from the Laptop hunter commercials got?

for my friends switching to Linux, 3DS Max can run on linux. So why deal with the driver issues and possibility of virus's when you can run Linux and be mostly ok with it.

Also, Linux can look nicer then Vista when you turn Aero and all the nice fluffy animations off. Easier on the eyes = more productivity in my mind. Thats why I can't work on XP.

I see what you mean. Earlier this year I was working on XP and was creating a cartoon in Adobe Flash CS4. It always crashed when I really pushed it and I ended up getting a nasty virus that was so bad I had to use DBAN to delete all my files on my primary hard-drive.

Even today there are problems with my build. It seems like once in a while my PC won't recognize my sound card or what not.

I hope Windows 7 fixes these issues.


EDIT - One quick question. Was there a big difference between Power PC architecture and other PC components back in the day? Did Mac use to have a huge edge on other PC's when working with media and it disappeared when they switched to intel?

[EmperorDarius]

I hope Windows 7 fixes these issues.


Regardless of what Windows fanboys may say, I wouldn't bet on it.



EDIT - One quick question. Was there a big difference between Power PC architecture and other PC components back in the day? Did Mac use to have a huge edge on other PC's when working with media and it disappeared when they switched to intel?

PPC pwned Intel at the time.

[JohnnyInk]

Found this a while back on informationweek.com


Apple's Logo Makes You More Creative Than IBM's

Researchers with Duke University and Canada's University of Waterloo claim a mere 30-millisecond exposure to famous brand logos can influence view behavior.
By Thomas Claburn, InformationWeek
March 19, 2008
URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206904786


Apple's logo can make people think more creatively than IBM's logo, according to researchers at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and Canada's University of Waterloo.

Professors Gavan Fitzsimons and Tanya Chartrand of Duke, and Grainne Fitzsimons of Waterloo, in an article scheduled for publication in the April issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, claim that a mere 30-millisecond exposure to famous brand logos can influence view behavior.

Their findings are sure to stir up controversy because they suggest that subliminal advertising, until recently regarded as a hoax, may actually have something to it.

In 1957, a market researcher named James Vicary claimed to have boosted sales of Coca-Cola and popcorn in a movie theater by flashing the messages "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Eat popcorn" so fast that the audience was unaware of the ads. Vicary's reported findings have been largely dismissed, but recent research suggests he might have been on to something.

A 2006 paper by researchers in the Netherlands, "Beyond Vicary's fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice," claims that the subliminal priming of a brand-name drink can influence consumer drink choice, provided the consumer is thirsty to begin with.

"The work we're doing is really studying what we call incidental brand exposure," said Gavan Fitzsimons in a video presentation. "What that means is very short exposure to brand logos."

"Certain brands are associated with different personality traits," said Chartrand. "So for instance, the Apple brand has really cultivated an image of creativity and innovativeness. So we thought being exposed to the Apple brand might lead individuals to become more creative or to have a goal to be more creative."

The professors Fitzsimons and Chartrand asked test subjects to come up with creative uses for a brick while showing them images of Apple's logo and IBM's logo.

"What we found is that people who were subliminally primed to the Apple logo were more creative than people who had been subliminally primed to the IBM logo," said Chartrand. (It's worth noting that the Apple logo in the explanatory video was Apple's old rainbow logo, not its current chewed-fruit silhouette.)

Imagine for a moment the scenario: Shown IBM's logo, test subjects stare at a brick and think, "If I only had another, I could build something." Those exposed to Apple's logo, however, saw a myriad of possibilities for said brick: "It's a jail-broken iPhone after an official Apple update, or a door stop, or maybe I could use it to break Microsoft's monopoly. Why, ground up and seasoned properly, it would make a tasty, mineral-rich meal!"

That, more or less, is how the test involving 341 university students went. And the findings are sure to spark a resurgence of interest in subliminal marketing because a follow-up test showed that imperceptible exposure to other well-known brands also produced a response in subjects. When shown the Disney Channel logo, for example, participants behaved more honestly than those shown the E! Channel logo.

In the video, Gavan Fitzsimons observes that while TV ads aren't always effective because people put up mental defenses, extremely brief exposures to brand images bypass such barriers. TV networks, however, may be less than enthusiastic about figuring out how to market and bill hundredths of a second in air time. And that's to say nothing about the possibility that covert manipulation might prompt consumer ire.

For companies like Apple with strong brands, Fitzsimons suggests that product placement and other forms of marketing that emphasize brief brand exposures may be more effective than traditional print and TV ads. It would not be surprising, however, for print and TV outlets to fund follow-up studies that show the opposite.

Perhaps most interesting are the questions the research leaves unanswered: How do Microsoft employees react when exposed to the Apple logo? Will testimony on Capitol Hill be conducted beneath a Disney logo to encourage truthfulness? Could the IBM logo be plastered on cell walls to prevent prisoners from conceiving clever escape schemes?

And does this technique work in reverse? Could Wendy's cause a decrease in sales at McDonald's by flashing the imperceptible image of the biohazard symbol in a video clip showing the Big Mac?

Further research clearly needs to be done.

[LethalWolfe]

As others have said, Mac hardware lead the way in the 'desktop revolutions' of publishing/gfx arts, music production, film/tv editing, and DVD authoring. And as others have said the Mac presence isn't as strong as it used to be as many of the same tools are cross platform but its still an industry leader in the creative fields. Another advantage the Mac has is how similar all the hardware is. There are very few things that separate a one 2.26ghz 8-core Mac Pro from another which means if you are developing, or shopping for, higher end components like A/V capture cards you have fewer variables to potentially cause problems on Macs than on PCs.

W/regards to the level of hardware professionals need, speed is a wonderful thing but predictability is better which is why most places aren't running the latest and greatest. Once you get the computer running smoothly w/the right combo of versions for the OS, QT, software, 3rd party hardware, etc., you are reluctant to retool things especially if buying a new computer means you need new versions of of your software and hardware. As they say, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. A couple of years ago I still knew of a few places in Los Angeles using G4's running OS 9 (and a similarly old version of Avid) to edit prime time cable or network TV shows. Why? Because the equipment can still do what it needs to do, it's paid for, and the workflow is bombproof.

EDIT - One quick question. Was there a big difference between Power PC architecture and other PC components back in the day? Did Mac use to have a huge edge on other PC's when working with media and it disappeared when they switched to intel?
PPC during it's heyday was more powerful but when Motorola, the company supplying CPUs to Apple, basically stopped further development of the G4 CPU that's when trouble really came calling (and this is why Apple switched to IBM and finally to Intel). Before Steve took over the reigns again Apple looked like it was headed for certain doom so Apple-centric hardware and software companies obviously went "Oh crap" and started work on Windows/x86 versions of there products. When Apple's speed stagnated w/the G4 that was yet another reason companies started losing faith in Apple. The silver lining in this is that because so many companies jumped ship Apple was forced to develop it's own software (I mean, who is going to buy a computer that has no apps) and this is a big reason why Apple has such a strong line up of consumer and professional first party apps.


Lethal

[romanaz]

Romanov its your choice to use Macs but stop spreading the usual Mac FUD about registry and driver issues in Windows. The last time I had a registry or driver issue was in Windows 98. Macs are made from the same parts as PCs, why do you trust Apple to write drivers more than the people who manufacture the parts? Thats assuming Apple do write all the drivers and don't ask the manufacturers to write them for them e.g. nVidia.

If you want your PC to look good you have a far wider range of options on a PC than you do on a Mac too.

What it comes down to is this, media people are a pretentious, cliquey bunch. Macs suit them.


You might not have had registry and driver issues since Windows 98, but I sure have had it with ME, 2000, XP, and so far, In 7 as well. I skipped Vista, thank god. Why do I trust Apple more? Because Apple makes sure that this driver works with the other drivers. If I buy a MSI motherboard, and MSI makes the drivers, and I buy a PNY nvidia card and PNY makes the drivers and they conflict with each other... well theres one bluescreen there.

If I want my PC to look good, I probably could find it. But there is a difference between looking good, and looking professional. I had a meeting with a client a few weeks back. They came in with a write up of what they wanted, and had it on a HP netbook. That screamed cheap and willing to settle for sub-par results for a bit less money. Guess what they turned out to be? Not the client who was willing to pay whatever it took to get the job done.

For me, my mac not only gets the job done consistently everytime and does it the way I want it to, but also looks good to the people I work with. Shows that I care about my outward appearance.

So yeah, macs are made from the same parts as PC's, but its not about the parts. Its about the package, the experience that the Mac provides. Your missing the forests for the trees.

[Kelon]

Hi. Perhaps... something that contributes is the nature of the creative industry. We're not talking many big 50+ employee corporations. Creative companies tend to be small studios or individuals. Pretty much all of the design work I've done has been with these set-ups. So.. the plug-n-play aspect of Macs means these individuals and small studios can generally figure stuff out without the need for "IT Support personnel". Most small studios I work for do not employ/contract anyone in a 'support' capacity. Some do, but they're in the minority. It was quite a smart move when Apple shifted the OS onto a UNIX base which is pretty bulletproof and I'll not forget the novelty of being able to crash a bit of software while still printing out a deadline imperative artwork... previous to that the whole thing would have collapsed.

Not to mention the whole ergonomic thing with the keyboard layout. Though I've not come across any designers who articulate it when asked the difference - perhaps it's something instinctive.

[leekohler]

I'm in the ad biz, and I can tell you this from my perspective- thank GOD we use Macs. I can't imagine having to use Windows for work. It would make me crazy. Macs have such a good rep for being reliable and relatively trouble-free. I can't tell you the last time I had to call IT- maybe once in the last year, and that was to request a new mouse.

[gunraidan]

PPC during it's heyday was more powerful but when Motorola, the company supplying CPUs to Apple, basically stopped further development of the G4 CPU that's when trouble really came calling (and this is why Apple switched to IBM and finally to Intel). Before Steve took over the reigns again Apple looked like it was headed for certain doom so Apple-centric hardware and software companies obviously went "Oh crap" and started work on Windows/x86 versions of there products. When Apple's speed stagnated w/the G4 that was yet another reason companies started losing faith in Apple. The silver lining in this is that because so many companies jumped ship Apple was forced to develop it's own software (I mean, who is going to buy a computer that has no apps) and this is a big reason why Apple has such a strong line up of consumer and professional first party apps.


Lethal

I see, thanks. So is there any chance that Apple will switch to a processor company that will give them an edge over x86 hardware in terms of media programing?

[nuckinfutz]

I see, thanks. So is there any chance that Apple will switch to a processor company that will give them an edge over x86 hardware in terms of media programing?

None

Media Processing will eventually be accelerated primarily by the GPU. Though Intel has some nice advancements coming to their next generation SIMD architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)

Intel has said that Sandy Bridge will have new instructions called Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX).[11] These instructions are an advanced form of SSE. The data path is widened from 128 bits to 256 bits, the two-operand instruction limit is increased to four operands, and advanced data rearrangement functions are included.

AVX is suited for floating-point-intensive applications.[12] Features of AVX include mask loads, data permutes, increased register efficiency and use of parallel loads, as well as smaller code size. The improvements of AVX will allow it to deliver up to double the peak FLOPS compared to before. Sandy Bridge will also have a VEX extensible new opcode.


http://softwareprojects.intel.com/avx/

[gunraidan]

None

Media Processing will eventually be accelerated primarily by the GPU. Though Intel has some nice advancements coming to their next generation SIMD architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)




http://softwareprojects.intel.com/avx/

So in short in the near future, with the exception of 3D animation, media processing will go the way of word processing and internet surfing as in power won't matter?

[LethalWolfe]

So in short in the near future, with the exception of 3D animation, media processing will go the way of word processing and internet surfing as in power won't matter?
Yes and no. By that I mean when it seems like computers are 'fast enough' a new format seems comes out that requires more computer power. For example, the cost of editing SD video had been falling like a rock for years but then HD video came out and all of a sudden it was like someone rolled back the clock. HD required more powerful computers. It required bigger, faster storage. It required new, expensive monitors, video routers, A/V I/O cards, etc.,. We have HD formats like AVCHD that are so CPU intensive to use that the common practice is to transcode them into another codec. Now that HD is becoming more manageable what do we have on the horizon. 4k editing. 3D stereoscopic editing.


Lethal

[gunraidan]

Yes and no. By that I mean when it seems like computers are 'fast enough' a new format seems comes out that requires more computer power. For example, the cost of editing SD video had been falling like a rock for years but then HD video came out and all of a sudden it was like someone rolled back the clock. HD required more powerful computers. It required bigger, faster storage. It required new, expensive monitors, video routers, A/V I/O cards, etc.,. We have HD formats like AVCHD that are so CPU intensive to use that the common practice is to transcode them into another codec. Now that HD is becoming more manageable what do we have on the horizon. 4k editing. 3D stereoscopic editing.


Lethal


Ahh I see. Wait "4K"? IMO that's pretty far away. 720/1080p hasn't taken consumer hold yet. And 3D may very well not catch on.

I do agree with what you are saying though that there will always be something bigger and better for quite some time.

Saying this do you guys think Mac should ditch NVIDIA and have someone make media specific video cards?

[EssentialParado]

Saying this do you guys think Mac should ditch NVIDIA and have someone make media specific video cards?

I think that's actually a really good idea. Or it would've been a few years ago. Now Apple have now invested so much of the future into Grand Central Station and Open CL and splitting of computer processes between the CPU and GPU, it probably won't happen.

[nuckinfutz]

Apple would only ditch Nvidia and "roll their own" if they saw that the features and performance they need were not being developed. GPU design is expensive and it's easier to let someone else handle that financial burden.

[LethalWolfe]

Ahh I see. Wait "4K"? IMO that's pretty far away. 720/1080p hasn't taken consumer hold yet. And 3D may very well not catch on.
I was talking about both the pro and consumer markets.


Saying this do you guys think Mac should ditch NVIDIA and have someone make media specific video cards?
That's kinda how things used to be but as CPUs and GPUs continued to get faster and cheaper dedicated hardware became too expensive and too old too quick.


Lethal

[gunraidan]

I was talking about both the pro and consumer markets.

I see but why would most pro's be worried about 4K or 3D if they have such little ground to stand on? Future proof of "just in case" I assume? Even than so, call me ignorant, but from my observations going "3D" isn't too expensive as all you need is a GTX card and a TV with glasses bundles. Than again 3D is such an undeveloped early technology there is no telling what the future will hold if it truly gets its foot in the door.


That's kinda how things used to be but as CPUs and GPUs continued to get faster and cheaper dedicated hardware became too expensive and too old too quick.
Lethal

So in short the tech arms race has become so cheap, fast, and developed that even if Apple decided to create their own hardware anyway it wouldn't have that much of a leg up over x86 architecture? So it would have been much better to swallow their pride and go with x86 to save millions?

Is this why Mac was so eager to drop the "G" line after G5 because the performance difference between G5 architecture and x86 was thin and getting thinner by every new edition?

I think that's actually a really good idea. Or it would've been a few years ago. Now Apple have now invested so much of the future into Grand Central Station and Open CL and splitting of computer processes between the CPU and GPU, it probably won't happen.

"Grand Central Station"?

Apple would only ditch Nvidia and "roll their own" if they saw that the features and performance they need were not being developed. GPU design is expensive and it's easier to let someone else handle that financial burden.

Aren't there talks of Apple ditching NVidia and switching to someone else? (most likely intel)

[romanaz]

I see but why would most pro's be worried about 4K or 3D if they have such little ground to stand on? Future proof of "just in case" I assume? Even than so, call me ignorant, but from my observations going "3D" isn't too expensive as all you need is a GTX card and a TV with glasses bundles. Than again 3D is such an undeveloped early technology there is no telling what the future will hold if it truly gets its foot in the door.



So in short the tech arms race has become so cheap, fast, and developed that even if Apple decided to create their own hardware anyway it wouldn't have that much of a leg up over x86 architecture? So it would have been much better to swallow their pride and go with x86 to save millions?

Is this why Mac was so eager to drop the "G" line after G5 because the performance difference between G5 architecture and x86 was thin and getting thinner by every new edition?



"Grand Central Station"?



Aren't there talks of Apple ditching NVidia and switching to someone else? (most likely intel)

3D is not an underdeveloped and new technology. Alfed Hitchcock did it decades ago. Disney 3D though seems to be getting it right this time around though, in my not so professional opinion. Going 3D is not expensive in the consumer aspect. For a professional, think again. Laptops can't work on 3D movies, and most workstations don't work that well from my experience with it.

4k will soon become a problem because of camera's like the Red One. From what I've seen its near impossible to do 1:1 editing with it unless you throw all your money into your machine. And then you need a 4k monitor to check focus etc... $$$

Apple would only ditch nVidia chipsets (aka nvidia designed motherboards) because of a current lawsuit between Intel and nvidia and nvidia most likely won't be able to produce chipsets of the nehalem lineup of processors. Also intel is said to have a graphics chipset coming out that will be as good as the 9400M in the current lineup.

Apple dropped the PowerPC lineup for more then a few reasons. One, the G5 chips were on par or worse then the Intel offerings at the time, and IBM refused, or didn't work on engineering on chip for laptops. Hence why there is a iMac G5, PowerMac G5, but no PowerBook G5. IBM wasn't offering what Apple wanted or needed. Apple might create its own hardware for the iPhone/iPod lines but that might be it.

[gunraidan]

3D is not an underdeveloped and new technology. Alfed Hitchcock did it decades ago. Disney 3D though seems to be getting it right this time around though, in my not so professional opinion. Going 3D is not expensive in the consumer aspect. For a professional, think again. Laptops can't work on 3D movies, and most workstations don't work that well from my experience with it.

I realize that but you can just buy Nvidia's special graphics cards (which aren't too pricey) and get the TV with 3D glasses bundle which will cost <$1000.

will soon become a problem because of camera's like the Red One. From what I've seen its near impossible to do 1:1 editing with it unless you throw all your money into your machine. And then you need a 4k monitor to check focus etc... $$$


I didn't intend to claim that going 4K was expensive, just that it may not become the standard.

[LethalWolfe]

I see but why would most pro's be worried about 4K or 3D if they have such little ground to stand on? Future proof of "just in case" I assume? Even than so, call me ignorant, but from my observations going "3D" isn't too expensive as all you need is a GTX card and a TV with glasses bundles. Than again 3D is such an undeveloped early technology there is no telling what the future will hold if it truly gets its foot in the door.
Movies shot on film are many times scanned into the computer at 4k for editing and sometimes even higher for FX work and cameras like the Red One shoot natively at 4k (and higher res cameras are in the pipeline). Shooting a live action 3D movie basically doubles the amount of footage you are working with because you are shooting w/two cameras side-by-side (one recording for each eye).


So in short the tech arms race has become so cheap, fast, and developed that even if Apple decided to create their own hardware anyway it wouldn't have that much of a leg up over x86 architecture?
Basically, yes. For example, it used to be common place for people to need hardware accelerator cards to work w/DV footage or to playback DVDs on their computers but obviously those types of devices aren't needed anymore.


Lethal

[EssentialParado]

Is this why Mac was so eager to drop the "G" line after G5 because the performance difference between G5 architecture and x86 was thin and getting thinner by every new edition?
Basically, yes. But it's also a lot to do with Motorola refusing to create chips power efficient enough for laptops.

"Grand Central Station"?
Oops, Grand Central Dispatch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch


You have a lot of questions, don't you? :P

[gunraidan]

Movies shot on film are many times scanned into the computer at 4k for editing and sometimes even higher for FX work and cameras like the Red One shoot natively at 4k (and higher res cameras are in the pipeline). Shooting a live action 3D movie basically doubles the amount of footage you are working with because you are shooting w/two cameras side-by-side (one recording for each eye).

I see. 3D doesn't sound that intensive but if 4k becomes standard I can see that being a problem.


Basically, yes. For example, it used to be common place for people to need hardware accelerator cards to work w/DV footage or to playback DVDs on their computers but obviously those types of devices aren't needed anymore.


Lethal

I agree. I mean it's like someone said, CPU won't be needed that much and it will all be done through video cards. This makes it sound like CPU's will go the way of RAM. RAM use to be highly important and going through much updates (from my knowledge) but as of now? RAM is rarely needed to be updated. Hell even in gaming there is yet a game that requires 4GB DDR2 RAM of any kind to be of recommended spec and we've just seen the first game that has a quad core processor in its recommended specs, and it isn't even necessary according to the developer (I use gaming because they have much higher baseline specs than other programs). Really the only thing that seems to be going up are video cards.

IMO in the future Mac should just make a far cheaper Mac Pro line (not actual Mac Pro's but of a different extension) that will allow the user to just upgrade the video card and RAM.

You have a lot of questions, don't you? :P

Yeah sorry I'm just curious. :)

If it's annoying you guys I promise that I'll stop if you tell me to.

EDIT - Sorry to ask another question (I looked this one up on Google I swear!) but why wouldn't Motorola make power efficient CPU's for laptops? Why would they cut their ties with such a strong force?

[szark]

EDIT - Sorry to ask another question (I looked this one up on Google I swear!) but why wouldn't Motorola make power efficient CPU's for laptops?

Motorola, who made the G4 processors, didn't have any incentive to create faster versions of the low power chips they had. Their main CPU business consisted of selling lower-speed, low-power CPUs for use in large embedded devices such as high-end network routers and automated manufacturing machines.

IBM, who made the G5 processors, didn't have any incentive to create lower-powered versions of the fast chips that they had. Their main CPU business consisted of selling high-speed, high-power CPUs for use in higher-end business servers.

Either company would have been willing to develop appropriate processors if Apple had been willing to cover the entire development cost, but Apple wouldn't spend the money.


Why would they cut their ties with such a strong force?
Apple's computers were not a large portion of the semiconductor business of either company. Losing Apple as a customer did not make much of a dent in either company's bottom line.

[gunraidan]

Motorola, who made the G4 processors, didn't have any incentive to create faster versions of the low power chips they had. Their main CPU business consisted of selling lower-speed, low-power CPUs for use in large embedded devices such as high-end network routers and automated manufacturing machines.

IBM, who made the G5 processors, didn't have any incentive to create lower-powered versions of the fast chips that they had. Their main CPU business consisted of selling high-speed, high-power CPUs for use in higher-end business servers.

Either company would have been willing to develop appropriate processors if Apple had been willing to cover the entire development cost, but Apple wouldn't spend the money.



Apple's computers were not a large portion of the semiconductor business of either company. Losing Apple as a customer did not make much of a dent in either company's bottom line.

Wow thanks.

[LethalWolfe]

I see. 3D doesn't sound that intensive but if 4k becomes standard I can see that being a problem.
3D is intensive in that it's twice the amount of footage to process and you have to constantly be aware of how the 'left eye' and 'right eye' are interacting w/each other so that you achieve the 3D effect that you want w/o giving the audience migraines or vertigo.


I agree. I mean it's like someone said, CPU won't be needed that much and it will all be done through video cards. This makes it sound like CPU's will go the way of RAM. RAM use to be highly important and going through much updates (from my knowledge) but as of now? RAM is rarely needed to be updated. Hell even in gaming there is yet a game that requires 4GB DDR2 RAM of any kind to be of recommended spec and we've just seen the first game that has a quad core processor in its recommended specs, and it isn't even necessary according to the developer (I use gaming because they have much higher baseline specs than other programs). Really the only thing that seems to be going up are video cards.
RAM is still very, very important. The 4gig limit that 32-bit apps have is actually a barrier professionals are waiting to be lifted and apps like AE and Compressor currently have workarounds to get around that limit. Heavy rendering in AE or Compressor can easily eat up 16gigs of RAM. Also, having more RAM means you can run more programs at the same time w/o bringing the machine to a crawl. The more powerful computers become the more powerful things people use them for.


Lethal

[gunraidan]

The more powerful computers become the more powerful things people use them for.

I agree with this. But I think in terms of "getting things done" some things will plateau. (that multi-tasking thing is a good example, yes it is very nice but is it really a necessity?)

[LethalWolfe]

I agree with this. But I think in terms of "getting things done" some things will plateau. (that multi-tasking thing is a good example, yes it is very nice but is it really a necessity?)
It is if your are a professional and time is money. Heck, I remember how overjoyed I was a few years ago when I got on a Mac Pro and was able to render out an animation in AE, create an MPEG2 file for DVD in Compressor and keep editing in FCP w/o FCP feeling slow or laggy.


Lethal

[gunraidan]

It is if your are a professional and time is money. Heck, I remember how overjoyed I was a few years ago when I got on a Mac Pro and was able to render out an animation in AE, create an MPEG2 file for DVD in Compressor and keep editing in FCP w/o FCP feeling slow or laggy.


Lethal

That is a VERY good point. Oh well at least RAM is getting cheaper than it previous was. I just wish Mac would make far cheaper Mac Pro's. Like one's for the "inbetween" consumer and professional market. I really want to use a Mac for media creating after literally going through hell using Windows, but they are just too expensive. :(

Anyway thanks for all of your posts Lethal they have all been very helpful. :)

[romanaz]

I realize that but you can just buy Nvidia's special graphics cards (which aren't too pricey) and get the TV with 3D glasses bundle which will cost <$1000.


.


I think you missed what I said. I said for a consumer turning their computer into a 3D machine is easy. For a professional, as someone has also stated, will take more power and the likes. Its basically doubling the image and movie data. Doing that at HD right now will slow down all but the highest of the high-end machines.

[gunraidan]

I think you missed what I said. I said for a consumer turning their computer into a 3D machine is easy. For a professional, as someone has also stated, will take more power and the likes. Its basically doubling the image and movie data. Doing that at HD right now will slow down all but the highest of the high-end machines.

Ahh I see. So you're talking about people who don't shop at Newegg but very specific places designed to supply new advanced technology for businesses? Thanks for clearing that up sorry for my foolish reply. :(

[gunraidan]

So this is what I got from this thread:

- Macs primarily have such a strong hold in the media creation market because for the longest time they were THE computers to own if your in that field. Now after Macs are the same as PC's in architecture they are still dominant as they've cemented themselves in that market. I see this similar to how Adobe dominates so many media software markets, it doesn't matter if some of their software is FAR inferior to their competitors (I.E. Flash CS4 in 2D animation) it's what most people use and thus is a standard for that industry.

- OS X is more stable than Windows. This may sound very minor, but during hectic situations and strict due dates having something safe and stable is even more important than merely having power under the hood.

- While power is very dire in media creation it isn't like gaming where if you wait 2 years or so and upgrade your processor and video card you will get a significant boost in your software, in media creation it won't do much good. The only way to get a noticeable boost in performance with the majority of software would be to go through significantly major upgrades which is why Apple hardware use to evolve by "generations" and not the "little by little" margin. So people will most likely go toward what they are comfortable with as well as what looks more professional which is usually a Mac.


In short it seems that Apple is focusing on improving performance through software more so than hardware to try to get back the "superiority" of Macs. If I recall isn't Snow Leopard suppose to be a main attraction toward developers instead of consumers hence the "minimal" updates?