oki i know this is incredibly dumb...

[_11th_FOOL]

oki i did knew the answer to this a long time ago but i have forgotten it, so i just had to ask ive used both mac s and pc s in my life, im currently on a pc even tho i find macs to be more logical and user friendly atleast i had that impression when i used one.

but heres the question why is macs considerd to be lightyears ahead of pc s when it comes to work with graphics??

 

[AraVitz]

Good question there 11th_fool (or should we still say 7th_guest?? )

I'd really like to know the answer to!!

Cos I just can't think of any normal reason to rather use a Mac instead of a PC...

Laterz...

AraVitz

 

[Sanby]

I have often wonder this myself also. It seems that for the artisitc community the mac is the choice for users. I know one guy that is into both music recording and web design and would never give his mac up for anything else. As well, all my music teacher will use nothing but macs.

I really don't know the answer. But it does seem that the difference between mac users are more loyal than pc users. As soon as something better comes along a PC user will switch without thinking but the mac users stay loyal and work it out on the mac.

Sanby

 

[MindBender]

Macs used to be lightyears ahead of pc's in terms of graphics. The gap is narrowing. There are certain things about macs that are still more convenient than pc's. The main thing about macs is that they were designed from the beginning to BE graphics and DTP machines, so getting at a lot of the features to work through those processes are easier.

Color ? this is a big one. Macs in my experience are still better at handling color and getting them to sync their color between applications and calibration/characterization is just easier. Adobe has been nice enough to create a fairly good application for making color calibration of your monitor easier (looks just like colorsync on a mac actually) but windows is still more of a pain to deal with from what I've seen. Not impossible like it used to be, but still harder.

Ease of use and compatability ? well... because macs have been the defacto standard for graphics for a long time, they've continued to center on making the graphics process as efficient as possible. Also, lots of people you deal with in the graphics industry are going to be using macs, so sharing files and such is going to be easier. While it's not the great divide that it used to be, I still find it easier to deal with file platform differences on a mac. Macs open pretty much any platform's files AND formatted disks by default, until recently, this wasn't even a feasible option on windows. My friend just got back from the NAB (national association of broadcasters) convention. He said he didn't see ANY windows machines... everyone had mac laptops over their shoulders.

Price ? yeah, this is one that everyone likes to point out. Macs are more expensive than a base model pc. So if you are just getting started working on computers, pc's are probably a good choice. But if you're talking about value for your money, macs still come out on top. If you were to build a pc that was of COMPARABLE power to a mac, the mac is going to be lower priced. It's all about where you are and what your needs are. I also hear a lot of "but you can't upgrade a mac" or "I like to build it myself" etc. etc. Blah. Computers are computers. Apple has come a long way from the old days when they were using bizzare proprietary hardware. They use standard expansion cars, standard harddrives, standard ram, standard periferals, etc. The ONLY part that is proprietary mac is the motherboard/cpu. The nice thing about the closed architechture of the apple platform is that you KNOW the OS has been tested on your hardware. You aren't going to really get hardware driver conflicts like you do on clone based machines like windows. You can make a windows machine work, but you know OUT OF THE BOX that a mac is configured to work with it's hardware.

Platform ? you can argue back and forth on the platform war all you want, but it's really just a preference at the end of the day. If you don't like one platform or another for whatever reason... you're never going to be happy if you convert, or it will take so long that you won't appreciate it. Get what works. Most computers are so far beyond what the average user needs these days, it doesn't make much difference. Only in gaming and graphics does it even make a difference. Computers are supposed to make things moe efficient and easier. If it causes you undue problems, then you are probably trying to make something work that isn't meant to work. Rethink what you're doing. In this case... if you're trying to force yourself to work on mac and you are a diehard pc user, it may not be worth the effort. If you just need to get stuff done, you'll work on whatever you're presented with. I work on both windows and mac (among other things). They both do some things well, pick what works for you in your personal and business settings and what you can afford.

$0.02

 

[Lee]

Well put, Mindbender. I was goint to add my two cents but after reading your explanation I think I'll sit this one out. Couldn't have said it any better or more completely. 8)

 

[Shaun]

I have often wonder this myself also. It seems that for the artisitc community the mac is the choice for users. I know one guy that is into both music recording and web design and would never give his mac up for anything else. As well, all my music teacher will use nothing but macs.

My brother works in graphic design - all Macs in his place. Another friend in printing uses all Macs but has a couple of PCs so he can run programs that are PC only. My son is into music and has a Mac; and I've got a PC at work and a Mac (by choice) at home. All my stuff's done on the Mac.

But it does seem that the difference between mac users are more loyal than pc users. As soon as something better comes along a PC user will switch without thinking but the mac users stay loyal and work it out on the mac.

True. Without wanting to do battle with the Mac v PC arguments... Mac owners tend to be very loyal. And keep the computer longer. In my brother's case he has some very early Macs and when I asked why he said they just sit in the corner and get on quietly with a job. I bought my own Mac in 1997 and it still runs quite happily - bit more memory added etc. I think the Mac is easier to fix when things go wrong; but that may also be because I am no expert on the PC and how to fix that!

 

[hedsteve]

From what I've seen its not all mac in graphics anymore I think its closer to 50/50 now... and the programs work pretty much the same on mac or pc (with the exception of things like right clicking and pressing that apple key)

one thing I have noticed on PC that I think is much better than on macs though is that when printing macs tend to print darker than the screen.

 

[theKeeper]

Hey nice to see you people being civil about this subject.

But it does seem that the difference between mac users are more loyal than pc users. As soon as something better comes along a PC user will switch without thinking but the mac users stay loyal and work it out on the mac.

I just wanted to state my view on this statement. I think it's bunk, and makes little sense in the real world. As a PC user, always have been, i can say yes, i prefer a PC to a Mac. But that has no bearing what-so-ever on whether a Mac is better or worse, or vice versa.
PC users don't SWITCH computers... they UPGRADE. And because there are so many makers of components to choose from, we have a lot of options, and things are less expensive because of that. The Mac?... no options dudes. Steve Jobs has you by the balls as i see it. hehee Now i'm being blunt, sorry. ;\ Just because something COSTS a lot... doesn't mean it's necessarily WORTH that amount. And that's just a case in point, not a stab at the Mac OS.

As for music?... I've used a PC for that since the early 90s.
My brother took engineering in school... used Macs & PCs... said the Macs crashed more often than the PCs. Back then i didn't know squat about em, but that gave me some education on em to take note of. Nowadays?... i think software is responsible for crashes more than the OS. Lousy 'rush' coding being done too much these days. MoneyMoneyMoney...

I hear people crying all the time about how MS is a monopoly in this field, yet people fail to see that Steven Jobs has NO competition at all where his Macs are concerned. And i feel this allows him free reign over his users. MS doesn't make computers, they make an OS. And that is THE ONLY real issue i have with buying/using a Mac.
Other than that, as far as how each functions... couldn't care less... whatever helps me pay the bills, i'll use it. No skin off my nose.

It's merely a preference these days, as was stated earlier. There's no absolutes in this arena. Not anymore. For the record though... i use WinXP and i must say, being a Win 3.1 user, i can safely state that this is by far MS's best work in OSes. Very stable, and very 'workable' for us power-users. :B

Wheeew! I haven't cried THAT much in a long time! hahaha Thanks for the release!

Anywho... this topic is always regurgitated every so often, so enjoy it now while it's hot. It'll fade out again for another long while.

 

[MindBender]

Only comment I have to that sirMark leads back to my earlier post. The only proprietary portion of the mac in the last few years has been the chip and because of that, the motherboard. But as far as upgrading, you have just as many options as an "IBM compatible". In fact, they use the same parts.

These days, computer hardware isn't much different as far as mac vs. pc. It's not that macs are inheriently more expensive or inherently better. It's that apple puts higher end stuff in their machines... they don't make a "low end model" so everything is more expensive. Like I said, the good thing about closed architecture is that you KNOW your OS will run your hardware, but these aren't the win3.1/win95/NT4 days anymore... it's not a black magical art making windows work anymore like it was, they've caught up to mac in usability for the most part.

You hit the nail on the head as it were though... and that is what I always tell people. USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU. If you are new to computers, that is a great time to experiement and try different platforms. If you've always used mac or always used pc... you've got a lot of learning and expense tied up in the platform, unless you have a compelling reason to switch, it's probably not worth it. Of course, the original question was "is there a compelling reason to switch" heh. Basically? Not if you're happy with what you're using now, no.

 

[Erik]

Every year there are Chinese students coming to the Academy (artschool) of Antwerp because it has such a great reputation in China. It was amongst the world's best. In the second and third quarter of the nineteenth century.
Get the pic?

The moral of this story: the Apple two was at that time the best selling puter ever. So why did Apple lose gradually its leader position with the mac? Because of one person: Steve Jobs. He wanted no cooling nor expansion slots as the macintosh was, in his eyes, perfect. He seems to have a tendency to destroy whatever he built up. Apple never allowed the good ol' American struggle to be dabest: they decide themselves what is needed, and no third party manufacturer is accepted. This slows down evolution. (there are indeed different options for graphics cards, monitors etc, but for example not for new chipsets, mainboards, different brands of CPU's etc.)
Before OSX, we used to call the mac "crashintosh" as it froze several times a day. With OSX, another version of Linux (based on Unix) (Jobs did ask Linus Thorwalds to join the production team but the latter declined because he wanted something fully new, not another one based on Unix), things did change. Butmac still doesn't have full support for OpenType, you still can't run DreamweaverMX with its MX interface, and many progs (speaking of graphics: also Adobe's!) are simply not adapted to OSX.

Don't forget that the popularity in the graphic world was not only based on the mac, but on the team mac+Adobe. And that marriage is about to end in a divorce. Rumours go that Apple (Jobs?) wants to buy the sinking Corel ship to make Photopaint into his own Photoshop. Most rumours are, of course, false, but OpenType did end the closed mac-world in the graphics industry, and I suppose that it was considered a WMD (weapon of mass distraction, err...destruction) in the hand of the ennemy. On the other hand: Adobe, and all other software companies has to invest loads of time and money in adapting their apps to the unix-based OSX. So there is certainly some bad blood in the relationship.

The real problem I foresee with the new upcoming G5 with the IBM CPU's, most probably on 64 bits, is that the parts are probably already in production, but meanwhile AMD already offers 64bits technique, and Intel just got its FSB up to 800MHz. Apple follows a stairway, Win/UnixPC a slope. The G5 will be a giant leap forward, no doubt about that. But will it help? Due to the smaller market share, and the high developement cost, these systems will probably be of a "superior" price level. It will stay on that level with minor changes, like faster CPU's etc etc. But the "ennemy" is in constant developement and just doesn't care 'bout Apple. Sad, but true. Intel wants to be better than AMD, Asus wants to be better than Gigabyte or MSI or Tyan, ATI wants to be better than NVidia, etc etc...

In the end, it's all just personal preference: I've never seen any printed work or website or movie or whatever that was visibly better because it was done on the mac or on a Win or Linux PC. Besides: most people never see a professional offset printer in their whole life. They're happy with their non-calibrated monitors and only get annoyed when they get a freezer, or when their Internet connection is too slow.

But I do wish Apple lots of luck with the new, exciting G5. I hope they will be able to manage financially without having to accept a loan from Bill Gates like they had to a few years back.

For all the money in the world, I couldn't make a decent painting with Talens' Rembrandt oils: they contain more filling agents than pigments, are too oily etc. But a good firiend of mine make incredible paintings with them. I consider this an enrichment of my world too because i prefer to make good paintings, and see good paintings being made regardless of the brand of oils the painter uses.

my 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 Euros. :B

 

[MindBender]

Commodore Forever!!

 

[AraVitz]

I Kid you not....

I used a commodore!! 64.. the First of my long line of Desktop computers...

Anyway.. I can't really enrich any of you with new info.. so I'll just spit out what's driftin in my mind...

First of all.. I used Mac's and PC's I prefer PC's because I can easily open them up (hardware) and fix or change what needs repairing or replacing. Second Although Windows is far from perfect and though Linux is (overall) more stable only for more advanced users I just like the thought that I
can choose myself which OS I want. As Maestro Mark said.. Win XP is the best Windows up till now.. Before XP I had a lot of crashes because I asked a lot of my pc's.. XP has brought my crashe amount down for certain.. of restricts a crash to one program making sure not the whole OS freezes...

As for Linux.. it's just cool how much you can do with it as your advancing.. OpenSource is a great thing is you ask me! Not just on itself.. but also for other OS's and software. For example Win XP has a lot of stuff inside it which was 'kind of' taken from OpenSource like Linux.. it has been assimilated and (sometimes even Mutilated) engineered so MS doesn't get there asses hoaled before some judge. Still though it enriched the MS OS. So Like Mark said.. the freedom a normal PC offers in retrospect to a Mac gives it the power to evolve in a more smooth (remember the 'slope-stairway' theory) and sometimes faster way. (as far as software is concerned)
Though I think the same goes for hardware.

I used mac's but I just can's say a great deal about them..
I didn't like them.. I felt really confined.. but that might also be a lack of experience with them...
I presume that's what Mindbender means by go with what works for you..

Well.. somehow I can't think straight today.. so this is it.. I'll try to state things more clearly next time...



AraVitz

(Ps: Stanby: When you aren't sure.. always follow your nose!!)

 

[Erik]

What I like a lot on macs is the fact that you can have different colors for your folders. Incredibly handy for chaos-creator like me.
What I like most on Windows is that you have to go to Start to turn the puter off. (Bill Gates' logic I suppose).
What I always have trouble with on macs is the fact that you can't double click on the desktop/workspace to open a new file in Photoshop as clicking there simply catapults the app back into the Finder.
I find it easier to switch from mac to PC and vv than to switch from PS7 to PS5 for example.

Although I use PC here at home, I do like mac's architecture as it is more my way of thinking (I HATE Office as it reminds me of administration, and Win always has this office smell...). But me too I love to assemble puters myself. Ahhh...the fun of spending hours on tomshardware, considering the pro's and cons of this mobo, etc etc... Many brands are good for the quality, and for the price.
Also, at this moment (it will change with the upcoming G5), PC has better render times for 3D.

 

[AraVitz]

One thing I want to add... is that although I am using win XP I changed the layout to Classical Windows.. I just can't help myself.. But I hate all the different colors and shit on my desktop.. I don't want things to look to smooth.. I want them to work and look logical..

as to the complaint about Shut down being on the Start button...

Start stands for Starting a Process.. and since Shutting down is a process on it's own it's pretty logical that you have to go to start first to do this!

I don't like billy.. don't get me wrong.. and I don't like Office either.. cos it's far from logical.. nor is it easy...

But I don't think everything on a mac is that much better...
And with Office there are lots of easy substitutes.. although not to commonly used.. and besides.. Anyone can make a program to replace MS Word.. if it's good enough it will find it's way to the public.. in my opion.. and if not.. Billy will see that it has some useful HINTS for him.. which will result in a better version of Office...

People still have little tail bones (what are the called in english??) we don't use em.. but they are a remnant of our the evolutionary road we walked...
Software is walking a road like that just the same.. and at some points it might not be in top shape.. but that will change.. if good people like us Keep Critizing all the shit others make!!

Laterz...

AraVitz

 

[Erik]

Right...tail bones...then why do men have nipples? :B

I can follow you: my desktop is completely neutral, and everything is as soft as possible for my eyes. No distraction.
On my new PC I also have XPPro now. I uninstalled all those silly games, Outlook Express, MSN, Messenger, Media Player etc etc...But I set it to silvery grey because Photoshop is so beautiful in it... (I also disabled the parallel and the serial ports in the bios as I don't use them, freeing IRQ's)
On this puter, which will be reserved for the Internet and some apps, I have Win2K. I always preferred it because of its legendary stability (I run it more than eightteen months without ever one freeze or crash that it didn't survive without even a restart) but there are some options in XPPro that are really fascinating improvements. No need to replace the ,hide to get the full list of what one can uninstall,...

Yet, I have lots of new fonts that Photoshop can't work with as they simply don't show up. And this is remarkable...

On the mac, fonts are treated more logically: system fonts are clearly separated from the ones one uses in applications.
What I like on PC is that people much more openly say what they don't like. Mac users tend to keep silent so that most PC users suppose that mac must be perfect. I was really baffled when I had the first of the mac lessons I followed, because four out of five G4's had to be restarted before even opening an app. (OS9, not OSX!). Yet, when one opens a mag like macUser, one gets a more realistic point of view. It was also not honest to ask the full price for an upgrade to Jaguar.
But there is one thing mac has that PC will never have: a romantic aura, something that touches our dreams and imagination. Just like other things like Ferrari or Harley Davidson, whisky from Islay and wine from Ch?teau P?trus, Cheval Blanc or Roman?e-Conti, or the Egyptian civilisation and Atlantis.
PC does the job, and does it usually faster and at least as good as mac, but it has no soul.
ahhh...we artists...

 

[AraVitz]

Yeah well sometimes I loose it... Let's say the tailbones were a result of such a drift.... :\


besides that.. nicely put...

s'pose you're right...
Everybody knows Ferarri.... it's fast.. it's cool...
but not everybody knows that you can buy a subaru that easily out performs the Ferarri...

But it's not the same... even though it can go faster...

But the same goes the other way around... as long as you don't get caught up in it's mystic.. you can still be faster!!

I would choose Speed instead of feel in this case...

but in most cases people just follow there gut.. and choose differently...

Aragorn

 

[Erik]

Me too, because it is a tool. That's why I have a PC. I wouldn't even have upgraded it if it weren't for the 3D stuff (not including Poser as that cannot make use of anything: no HT, no dual planes, no OpenGL,...you even need a memory fix when you go over 1G of RAM...)

Did you ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintainance" by Robert Pirsig? Besides it being a very good book on Greek philosophy, it's also a book that clearly show the difference in approach by Romantics (his friends have bought a BMW motorcycle because it is very reliable and they don't have to tweak anything ever) and Classicists (Robert himself, who daily looks at every part of his motor to keep it it optimum condition, changing settings when in the mountains et etc). Yet, what unites the is the central theme of the book: Quality.

I easily see the mac/PC user differences in this. I know mac users that never ever have calibrated their monitor (it was done before I bought it. Mac users don't have to calibrate. Hahaa), and that they can't understand why a HDD ever can crash because that is typical for PC. They talk about Level3 cache without even knowing that it does a good job for data that are already calculated, but that is useless for new data. They talk about RISK processors without knowing the differences. They suppose that the extreme reliability of OSX is because it is based on Unix (many even deny that Linux also is based on Unix), and don't care about the fact that it is rather the protected memory that adds the stability, so that even if one application crashes, the system and other applications are unaffected. And that the MacIntosh, a project by Jeff Raskin, only came into being because Jobs wasn't given the leadership in the LISA project.
Apple to them is Jobs, but in fact, it was Wozniak. Jobs was, and is, a commercial genius: unpredictable and certainly someone I would compare with The Doors' Jim Morrisson. I predict that he will force Apple through many changes the upcoming years, or quit the firm, or will be fired once again, only to start some new project.

 

[AraVitz]

Well thanxz for the Tip on the Book!! I'll definitly read it!!

As to the rest... Cristal Clear.. couldn't add even half a cent!

Aragorn

(on his way to see X-men 2!!!)