PC vs. Mac in terms of graphic design

[kefeso]

First of all, I did not create this thread to provoke arguments about which one is better, nor do I express an opinion here. It's just a fact, that most people tends to say that Mac is better for graphic design. I don't really know if this is true, of course this is always opinionated, but when a lot of people say it, there has to be a reason. So I am just wondering why do most people (mostly professional developers) say that Mac outperforms PC in terms of graphic design

[yourhostnow]

Yea, its true the Mac is better for graphic designing. I don't know why though

[brandaggio]

I own and use both.

The Mac is superior for finer level work for a number of reasons:
1. The best pro apps are tailored for it like TextMate, BBEdit, Final Cut Pro, After Affects, Logic, Reason etc. So if you are a serious creative you require it because the apps you like to use were always on it (Windows was only a draw for gaming) and some were only on the Mac platform, made by Apple or Mac lovers.

2. Mac color calibration and display is more accurate, and more configurable, so when moving from RGB to CMYK for print, you have a more accurate idea of what you are really getting. Getting "brand" colors for a big client exactly right is supremely important.

3. Macs are just prettier, more elegant and more productive day in and day out.

4. Creating both the hardware and most of the software makes everything very tight. You can drag and drop and pass work amongst most apps with ease. The audio and video output is generally very good.

5. No viruses. No constant spyware removal. On the fly defragging. Bottom line OS X is better than Vista will be - only Ubuntu gives OS X a run for the money for general stability, security and ease of use.

[Shaun(OfTheDead)]

For print graphics, where you might be working on 6 foot by 10 foot billboards at 1200 dpi, most PC's tend to gripe.

I also find that Having Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop running at the same time has less effect on a Mac's performance than on a PC's.

I much prefer PC's for web graphics, though, because I can get a more accurate representation of what most users will see.

[vgarcia]

Now's a bad time to use a new mac for graphic design since Adobe and Macromedia apps run like crap on the Intel macs. Wait until CS3 comes out, unless you're willing to put up with the performance hit or don't care about the .01 seconds extra it takes to render something.

[brandaggio]

Originally Posted by vgarcia

Now's a bad time to use a new mac for graphic design since Adobe and Macromedia apps run like crap on the Intel macs. Wait until CS3 comes out, unless you're willing to put up with the performance hit or don't care about the .01 seconds extra it takes to render something.

Macrodobe will get up to speed soon enough though this is a good point as to why not to buy one "today" - I was trying to outline general reasons why the Mac is a tighter box IMHO.

Speed has historically not been a reason to use a Mac (save for the highest end G5's) - perhaps some day it will be. However, generally the hardware is a cut above especially with it's integration with OSX, helping it generate crystal clear, uninterrupted audio and power more than one display. Musicians and print designers generally use Macs - your point about them being less ideal for web design is more about market share - no way you can deny you gotta know how your stuff looks to most of your visitors if your doing web work.

To clarify, I was thinking more about creative work in general as opposed to just web design.

[vgarcia]

Originally Posted by wozbk

your point about them being less ideal for web design is more about market share

No, I never made a point about them being less ideal for web design at all. I like Macs, but if you're going to buy one now don't expect great things out of current versions of Adobe CS or Macromedia Studio.

[brandaggio]

Originally Posted by vgarcia

No, I never made a point about them being less ideal for web design at all. I like Macs, but if you're going to buy one now don't expect great things out of current versions of Adobe CS or Macromedia Studio.

If the biggest web design and dev apps are running slower I would certainly consider that "less ideal" - I did not mean to stretch what you said.

[DewChugr]

I've used both for years. The thing I like the most about the Mac is that, for me at least, it's just plain faster to get things done. Not that the computer is faster, but that controls, commands, features of the OS and apps make working with a Mac less thought and more production. For example compare creating a new folder. Windows, right click, wait, go to nre then folder. Mac, cmnd shift N. To me I can get more done quicker witht the Mac.

Oh, and if you use a Mac for web design and have a large monitor there is a cool utility, name escapes me now, but I could look it up whe I get home, that shows an outline of whatever pixel size you want. If you want to design a site for 800x600 you size the line to that and put it over your browser window and size your browser window to that.

[kefeso]

Hmm, now I finally understand, thanks all for your answers! Just one more question though, what do you exactly mean by the colors are more true? Colors are simply defined by human, if we give the term "red" a darker shade then that would be what "red" is. To me, it just doesn't make sense to say that the MAC colors are truer than windows when windows has a much greater user base, and thus the colors could be as well said to be defined by MS, or more so the hardware part would define what color appears to be what. And thus the Windows colors should be "truer" since the majority (users) rules in this case. I guess the part that I really don't understand the is standard definition of colors...can someone help me out a bit please. thx

[John_DP]

I use both Mac and PC, I find that Mac is better for development overall due to the ease of use and lack of crashes. Also programs like Motion 2, Aperture, and Final Cut Pro are made for Mac.

[Tyssen]

Originally Posted by kefeso

what do you exactly mean by the colors are more true?

Truer to printed output. You're right, it doesn't matter so much for online work because everyone's screen displays colours slightly differently but it's important for printed material.

[bbolte]

I've used both and can get the same output from both platforms. i've done print, web, multimedia. If you want calibration, it can be done on both. I'll give that the mac boxes look better. other than that, just use what you want.

[brandaggio]

Engineers tend like Windows (those that don't hate it of course ). Artists tend to like Macs. Apple has grown their share but known their market is heavily comprised of graphics professionals - as such their hardware and software is configured accordingly. Windows has always been designed to do all things and is a jack of all trades but not as good a specialist.

Windows can hum and get just about anything accomplished but it does so with more fuss today than in 2001 - yes it is a malware target because it has market share, but MS does a poor job at managing security. Frankly, I just got tired of having to install another Windows spyware removal tool (it strikes me as beyond "Dilbert" absurd all these "tools" that remove each other's files) so I find myself on the Mac about 90% of the time these days - its a bonus it is elegant and easy to use.

Whatever gets the job done with a minumum of fuss.

I would add that that the openness of the Windows API and use of a/the Registry, while creating an ease of use in some regards, may ultimately be Windows' Achilles heel - it makes it easy for developers to "grab your machine by the b%lls", so to speak. Mac has libraries and other "Registryesque" conventions, but everything is still much more "cordoned" off - so when it goes bad it ain't quite so bad.

[Dark Tranquility]

I wanted to see how Photoshop and illustrator worked on MacBook Pro so I borrowed my friend's machine and installed them! even the installation step was a pain! as the installer froze twice!!
After installation I wanted to test them
they were really slow especially photoshop! and I am a patient kind of person!! Things that should take someting like 3 minutes take up to 5-6 minutes! so if you are gonna work for hours just imagine...
So Don't get a MacBook Pro if you are a 'Photoshoper' until CS3 is here!
Photoshop runs in emulation using the Rosetta emulator technology and Adobe mentioned that intel native version of their CS will wait till the next version: CS3.
Photoshop CS3 will be probably released in the second quarter of 2007.

[brandaggio]

Originally Posted by Dark Tranquility

I wanted to see how Photoshop and illustrator worked on MacBook Pro so I borrowed my friend's machine and installed them! even the installation step was a pain! as the installer froze twice!!
After installation I wanted to test them
they were really slow especially photoshop! and I am a patient kind of person!! Things that should take someting like 3 minutes take up to 5-6 minutes! so if you are gonna work for hours just imagine...
So Don't get a MacBook Pro if you are a 'Photoshoper' until CS3 is here!
Photoshop runs in emulation using the Rosetta emulator technology and Adobe mentioned that intel native version of their CS will wait till the next version: CS3.
Photoshop CS3 will be probably released in the second quarter of 2007.

I totally agree with the significant point of a performance hit using Rosetta being a major issue, especially for larger apps.

As a stopgap until there is a Mactel CS3 I would suggest trying to run your Windows version of CS with Parallels for Mac and seeing if it is less sluggish than Rosetta.

I don't know as I have all PowerPC Macs for now - I am going to exercise some caution and wait for the second generation "Darth Vader book" and let some of these little kinks get ironed out first. Virtualization coupled with performance will make most of our gripes far less pronounced, if noticeable at all (not that Windows won't offer virtualization soon - and well, but they will still have an inferior OS).

[ablaye]

Originally Posted by wozbk

Engineers tend like Windows (those that don't hate it of course ). Artists tend to like Macs. Apple has grown their share but known their market is heavily comprised of graphics professionals - as such their hardware and software is configured accordingly. Windows has always been designed to do all things and is a jack of all trades but not as good a specialist.

It is not only for Graphic Design that people tend to choose Macs over PCs. People who do music programming, editing, mixing and synthesis also prefer Macs over PCs.

[kefeso]

Originally Posted by ablaye

It is not only for Graphic Design that people tend to choose Macs over PCs. People who do music programming, editing, mixing and synthesis also prefer Macs over PCs.

Hmm, I guess that's true also. It seems like Mac does specialize in certain areas (music, graphics...) better than windows. Whereas windows is for multipurpose. Thx all for your explanations, appreciate it.

[kohoutek]

Originally Posted by Shaun(OfTheDead)

I much prefer PC's for web graphics, though, because I can get a more accurate representation of what most users will see.

You can pretty much get a good idea of what your design looks like in Windows when viewing it in Windows RGB mode (View > Proof Setup > Windows RGB).

[brandaggio]

Originally Posted by Dark Tranquility

I wanted to see how Photoshop and illustrator worked on MacBook Pro so I borrowed my friend's machine and installed them! even the installation step was a pain! as the installer froze twice!!
After installation I wanted to test them
they were really slow especially photoshop! and I am a patient kind of person!! Things that should take someting like 3 minutes take up to 5-6 minutes! so if you are gonna work for hours just imagine...
So Don't get a MacBook Pro if you are a 'Photoshoper' until CS3 is here!
Photoshop runs in emulation using the Rosetta emulator technology and Adobe mentioned that intel native version of their CS will wait till the next version: CS3.
Photoshop CS3 will be probably released in the second quarter of 2007.

So did you try Parallels? I have some friends who use it and swear by it for testing their apps.

[aranworld]

You can also install Windows on your Mac and for Adobe products use the Windows version.

Maxium PC magazine recently did a test and found that Photoshop for Windows running on an Apple running WinXP ran about 2x faster than Photoshop OSX running on an Apple computer running OSX.

[brandaggio]

Originally Posted by aranworld

You can also install Windows on your Mac and for Adobe products use the Windows version.

Maxium PC magazine recently did a test and found that Photoshop for Windows running on an Apple running WinXP ran about 2x faster than Photoshop OSX running on an Apple computer running OSX.

I would have suggested using Boot Camp, but not being able to share files back and forth between the OS'es seems really impractical for a web developer, but if necessity calls for it is great to know it performs well.

I have been pleasanly surprised at how well WINE (I use it on my Ubuntu P3 laptop to run KoolMoves) and DarWINE perform but have not yet tried Parallels.

[rjm1982]

There is less of a Gap between the 2 now more than ever...

Ignore the "better than vista will be" comment, as its absurd considering that vista is still closed beta...

Ignore the "macs have no viruses" because they just picked one up...and im sure more will follow, its a matter of market share, it always has been, no OS is completely secure.

Alot of the arguments are more fanboy and less fact. So you have to weed through that as well.

In the end, it comes down to preference. There are shortcuts for everything in windows, as well as mac, its just a matter of knowing them...for the new folder example, alt-f enter enter will get you there, not as graceful as a single group command, but just as quick really...

For a web designer, the real catch comes in not being able to run IE6 (without hacks), and whether you like IE or not, you'd be a fool to ignore it as a developer.

In the end, the easiest answer is to use it. I have a PC at work, A PC laptop and new Macbook Pro at home...I like both...you dont have to hate one to like another...i use linux as well, all of the OS's have their place in my heart and my mind...i really dont think that any of them is truely better than the other...

[brandaggio]

Originally Posted by rjm1982

There is less of a Gap between the 2 now more than ever...

Ignore the "better than vista will be" comment, as its absurd considering that vista is still closed beta...

Ignore the "macs have no viruses" because they just picked one up...and im sure more will follow, its a matter of market share, it always has been, no OS is completely secure.

Alot of the arguments are more fanboy and less fact. So you have to weed through that as well.

In the end, it comes down to preference. There are shortcuts for everything in windows, as well as mac, its just a matter of knowing them...for the new folder example, alt-f enter enter will get you there, not as graceful as a single group command, but just as quick really...

For a web designer, the real catch comes in not being able to run IE6 (without hacks), and whether you like IE or not, you'd be a fool to ignore it as a developer.

In the end, the easiest answer is to use it. I have a PC at work, A PC laptop and new Macbook Pro at home...I like both...you dont have to hate one to like another...i use linux as well, all of the OS's have their place in my heart and my mind...i really dont think that any of them is truely better than the other...

Is so agree with most of what you said. You can do pretty much anything you need to on either OS. However, no fanboy here - the reality is that the *nix based architecture of OSX makes it inherently more stable and harder to execute baddies (think of everytime you need to authenticate for an update or install) - admittedly *nix has had a little head start as it is an "old man" of the OS world, though far from the oldest (in addition to the better social engineering of the OS).

I have too much experience with permissions (from my old webhosting days) and MS never really seemed to fully get it - know how to lock it down out of the gate. I hope they do - I hope Vista is the best OS out there - I won't be betting on it.

[rjm1982]

The fundamental difference between MS OSes and *NIX OSes was from the beginning. MS wasnt geared for networking or internet environments from the start. Bad call on their part, but thats how it was. Even the early versions of NT, they werent much more than windows as it was plus the networking afterthought, and a little security in ntfs...

The decision to keep ntfs in windows xp was a tough one for microsoft, they new fs (which will be in vista) was almost ready..but not quite, they could have delayed XP even more and waited for it to mature a little, but XP was already under serious pressure to release...so now the new filesystem that will be in Vista will not only be permissions aware, but application aware...which will make it much more safe.

Its easy to bash MS for security issues, but considering the target on their back...i think they actually do an acceptable job. I think even the *nix OSs would have alot more viruses/malware if they were at the level of windows in terms of penetration.