Mac vs PC's - Not a poll

[zehydra]

Macs are great for creative work, such as photo-editing, creating computer artwork, music/sound mixing, film editing, etc.

Please explain this. Every time there's a Mac Vs PC topic, this comes up. No-one ever justifies it. It's just "Macs is better at the photos, lol", and that's the end of it. Why? What makes them better?

Also, Mac Vs PC topic, lolololololololololololololol

First and foremost, the display of colors on a Mac is better, and closer to what you'll see when you print.

Second, is that Mac used a variety of psychologists in the development of features to make working with a mac more intuitive for non-techies to use, particularly for artists.

Adobe and Apple have a love/hate relationship, but the simple matter is that their products (which are at the forefront of the various arts industries) run much better on a Mac.

There is a lot of very good hardware compatibilities and tools not widely available on PC.

These and more are why Apple is the standard for the art industry, and when working at home, it's best to have the same devices as your work uses for compatibility. And if it's the industry standard, a freelancer, or someone working on their own would do well to use it.

1) How can you make a statement that Macs have superior printing quality over PCs? There is a GREAT diversity amongst printers for non-mac computers, unless the mac printer has been tested against ALL of them and been shown to have better than ALL of them, you can't make a statement like that.

2)Artists != non-techies. I fail to see how bubbles on a bar at the bottom of the screen is more intuitive for a particular profession. (I do like that bar, btw. I downloaded it for my Vista)

3)I've used Adobe Premiere Elements and Photoshop Elements on both machines, and I really have noticed no difference in my experience with it.

4)Explain

To be honest, I have several artistic programs on my laptop that are just as good as Apple's products. I'm not trying to say that Windows or Linux/Ubuntu are in any way better for artistic use than Mac OS, but I've never seen reasonable evidence that suggests that Mac is superior for artistic use.

 

[Sebenko]

Color display has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the monitor. It has to do with how color is processed and the code used to display it. They don't use the same color palettes, and Mac's palette is far superior to PC when you're working at the level of detail as an artist.

Really? Evidence? And a screenshot of a Mac with "Millions of colours" selected in them thar settings won't do.

For the psychology, check out Apple Human Interface Guidelines. It details how Apple used the psychology behind human-computer interactions to build their interfaces. There's more to it than just ejecting stuff. A lot of the features really are better designed around how humans think. For a lot of us, who are avid PC users, we don't see it as much because we've been using PCs all our life.

That's... interesting.

Just having a more powerful PC doesn't help. It's how the programs are allowed to interact with the OS and communicate with the hardware. It's the same reason why the port of MS Office runs so poorly on a Mac, they can't utilize the computer in an optimized way as it can on a PC.

I seriously doubt that photoshop will run better on a similarly priced Mac than on my PC.

As for tools, I've rarely had to install hardware to a Mac the way you do a PC. Most hardware devices (that are designed for Mac, not just generic products) are completely plug-and-use. No installation, no drivers, none of that. For artists and musicians and the like, this is important due to the large amount of hardware they exchange between. Would suck having to install and/or update drivers for each and every one of them.

That might have been true not so long ago, but Windows 7 is bitchin' for installing drivers and the like automatically.

These qualities make Mac better for artists. It doesn't mean it's a better computer. Just a better tool for a job.

I still don't trust Macs. They don't come in black.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

1) How can you make a statement that Macs have superior printing quality over PCs? There is a GREAT diversity amongst printers for non-mac computers, unless the mac printer has been tested against ALL of them and been shown to have better than ALL of them, you can't make a statement like that.

I believe Jaded Scribe it talking about Print as in the Print Industry not a bog-standard office printer... and Macs are way easier to colour calibrate to actual printing inks... which is why they're still industry standard in the printing industry... which is also why most people designing for print use macs... which is why Macs have a massive share of the graphic designing market... which is why most graphic design degrees will teach you on Macs (or at least if you major in designing for print).

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Color display has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the monitor. It has to do with how color is processed and the code used to display it. They don't use the same color palettes, and Mac's palette is far superior to PC when you're working at the level of detail as an artist.

Really? Evidence? And a screenshot of a Mac with "Millions of colours" selected in them thar settings won't do.

For the psychology, check out Apple Human Interface Guidelines. It details how Apple used the psychology behind human-computer interactions to build their interfaces. There's more to it than just ejecting stuff. A lot of the features really are better designed around how humans think. For a lot of us, who are avid PC users, we don't see it as much because we've been using PCs all our life.

That's... interesting.

Just having a more powerful PC doesn't help. It's how the programs are allowed to interact with the OS and communicate with the hardware. It's the same reason why the port of MS Office runs so poorly on a Mac, they can't utilize the computer in an optimized way as it can on a PC.

I seriously doubt that photoshop will run better on a similarly priced Mac than on my PC.

As for tools, I've rarely had to install hardware to a Mac the way you do a PC. Most hardware devices (that are designed for Mac, not just generic products) are completely plug-and-use. No installation, no drivers, none of that. For artists and musicians and the like, this is important due to the large amount of hardware they exchange between. Would suck having to install and/or update drivers for each and every one of them.

That might have been true not so long ago, but Windows 7 is bitchin' for installing drivers and the like automatically.

These qualities make Mac better for artists. It doesn't mean it's a better computer. Just a better tool for a job.

I still don't trust Macs. They don't come in black.

Palettes: Windows and Mac both use 256 colors as the basis of all colors that they can display. 216 of these are standards (also known as "safe" because they are compatible with browsers and cross-platforms). Mac and Windows do not use the same colors for the last 40 colors. The Mac palette is usually preferred by artists. Mac also allows for the remapping of the color palette, which makes changes to how colors interact. Windows does not allow this functionality.

My personal experience is that Photoshop does run better. It's not about how fast it runs, but in how you can maneuver and control the environment. Things like how the OS allows it to interact with other programs etc etc.

Yes, Windows 7 is bitchin. But Windows is only just now making headway in these areas, when Mac has been doing it all along.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

1) How can you make a statement that Macs have superior printing quality over PCs? There is a GREAT diversity amongst printers for non-mac computers, unless the mac printer has been tested against ALL of them and been shown to have better than ALL of them, you can't make a statement like that.

I believe Jaded Scribe it talking about Print as in the Print Industry not a bog-standard office printer... and Macs are way easier to colour calibrate to actual printing inks... which is why they're still industry standard in the printing industry... which is also why most people designing for print use macs... which is why Macs have a massive share of the graphic designing market... which is why most graphic design degrees will teach you on Macs (or at least if you major in designing for print).

^^This.

The color quality and differences have nothing to do with the output hardware (printers, monitors). It has to do with how the operating system defines these colors, and manipulates them.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

These qualities make Mac better for artists. It doesn't mean it's a better computer. Just a better tool for a job.

That depends on the artist and their chosen medium. Finding a 3D modeller who prefers Macs would be about as uncommon as finding a print artist who prefers PCs.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

These qualities make Mac better for artists. It doesn't mean it's a better computer. Just a better tool for a job.

That depends on the artist and their chosen medium. Finding a 3D modeller who prefers Macs would be about as uncommon as finding a print artist who prefers PCs.

True. I was just using "artist" as a very general term. I really don't want to deal with breaking it down to the exact mediums and varieties.

All this arguing, and all I was saying was that Macs and PCs are equally good. Neither is generally better, it all just depends on what you're doing, and how you intend to utilize it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

All this arguing, and all I was saying was that Macs and PCs are equally good. Neither is generally better, it all just depends on what you're doing, and how you intend to utilize it.

The Mac's real strength is that it straddles the Industry Standard in several creative industries... and in some of those it's purely because the accepted industry standard software is Mac exclusive. Hell, even when the IS software changes to another, non-exclusive program most of that industry will stay with mac because by that time the entire pipeline from education to industry service to output is all geared towards the mac.

 

[Wicky_42]

First and foremost, the display of colors on a Mac is better, and closer to what you'll see when you print.

Second, is that Mac used a variety of psychologists in the development of features to make working with a mac more intuitive for non-techies to use, particularly for artists.

Adobe and Apple have a love/hate relationship, but the simple matter is that their products (which are at the forefront of the various arts industries) run much better on a Mac.

There is a lot of very good hardware compatibilities and tools not widely available on PC.

That all seems wrong and unsubstantiated.

Colour: http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2007/02/14/this-is-your-mac-on-drugs/
"Turns out the right sRGB profile isn?t included by default on the Mac"
lol...

"The PC is a soldier. When Direktor Gates demands color #e3823c, PC responds ?Sir, Yes Sir!!? Color #e3823c looks identical on the PC whether it?s in a JPEG, GIF, PNG, CSS, or HTML.

The Mac Thinks Different. Color #e3823c is different on Macs. Except sometimes"
Sounds really reliable and useful for everything...

I think psychologists were more involved in the marketing campaign and product design than interface design and use - I mean, you have a single bar to hold all your program icons otherwise you have to browse through the file structure, and when you mouse over one it goes all big n stuff. Minimised windows go onto the same bar, crammed onto the end beside the bin - Mum couldn't find them whilst she can use a PC just fine. Gogo psychologists.

Photoshop and flash run crap on Macs compared to PCs, I can say from personal experience. I've had state-of-the-art Macs crash repeatedly trying to handle flash videos I've been making whilst my four-year-old desktop had no issues with the same files. And no, the files were started on the Mac, so there's no compatibility issues there. I've found photoshop to run slower, have more crashes and to be unable to handle as large files - that last count probably because I put enough ram into my computer when I built it.

Hardware-wise, I'd direct you to my rant halfway down page 2 about Apples successful attempts to stop me putting a CD onto an iPod. Windows 7 plug and plays with... well, everything. I doubt very much you could plug half as much hardware into a Mac and have it work straight up as you could on my PC.

What hardware tools are you talking about? Screwdrivers? Fan control units?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

What hardware tools are you talking about? Screwdrivers? Fan control units?

Hip-o-meters.. for measuring the background levels of Hipness in your house using a poseurtron particle detector.

 

[n00beffect]

I've never actually used a Mac in my life(never had to). But from what I hear it's not that bad. I am using a PC, with a standart Windows XP Professional OS. Nothing special, but the speed I work with on it is quite impressive(at least to my always-changing-their-OS friends). And, indeed, what does it matter? It's an extremelly individual opinion on whether you use Mac or Pc. It depends entirely on the user, not the system. So whatever YOU feel more comfortable with. I personally don't give a damn. My OS may be old, but it certainly gets everything done and when I have a problem with it, I can usually solve it myself, because I've gotten so used to it. I couldn't imagine if I still had my W'98 XD I would've been teh master! And my personal opinion - Linux is just looks, nothing more. Thank you (bows)

 

[oktalist]

I never liked the Mac OS interface, but that's just me. I was using MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 at age 4, and Linux at age 13. (Don't mean to boast

But under the hood, OS/X is much closer to Linux than it is to Windows, and that's a win in my book. Plus you can install Linux on a Mac, though why you would buy a Mac just to install Linux on it when a PC will do fine is anyone's guess. Now, about

vi

vs.

emacs

...

[edit] Also, Apple insist on programming everything in Objective-C, which hurts my eyes. [/edit]

Also, this:
Three Dead Trolls FTW!

 

[twasdfzxcv]

There's no such thing as mac vs pc, since they're both pc. What you're going for is Mac OS vs Microsoft windows, which is for most average user is simply personal preference. Since I don't know the detail behind both operating system, I'm not fit to comment on the implementation and ideas behind both operating system. But I've been using windows and it works fine for me. Mac OS on the other hand just seems too, how you say, unfamiliar.

 

[awesomebillfromdawsonville]

I use both a PC and Mac. I like them both. I'm a simple man, with simple needs, so they both do what I need to get done (though the Mac does load a lot less to do it). At the end of it all, when chicks come over, they like the Macbook Pro sitting on the kitchen counter rather than that strange HP thing I bought a year or so ago. Silly selling point? Maybe, but when it's this close the trivialities become the bullet points.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

First and foremost, the display of colors on a Mac is better, and closer to what you'll see when you print.

Second, is that Mac used a variety of psychologists in the development of features to make working with a mac more intuitive for non-techies to use, particularly for artists.

Adobe and Apple have a love/hate relationship, but the simple matter is that their products (which are at the forefront of the various arts industries) run much better on a Mac.

There is a lot of very good hardware compatibilities and tools not widely available on PC.

That all seems wrong and unsubstantiated.

Colour: http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2007/02/14/this-is-your-mac-on-drugs/
"Turns out the right sRGB profile isn?t included by default on the Mac"
lol...

"The PC is a soldier. When Direktor Gates demands color #e3823c, PC responds ?Sir, Yes Sir!!? Color #e3823c looks identical on the PC whether it?s in a JPEG, GIF, PNG, CSS, or HTML.

The Mac Thinks Different. Color #e3823c is different on Macs. Except sometimes"
Sounds really reliable and useful for everything...

I think psychologists were more involved in the marketing campaign and product design than interface design and use - I mean, you have a single bar to hold all your program icons otherwise you have to browse through the file structure, and when you mouse over one it goes all big n stuff. Minimised windows go onto the same bar, crammed onto the end beside the bin - Mum couldn't find them whilst she can use a PC just fine. Gogo psychologists.

Photoshop and flash run crap on Macs compared to PCs, I can say from personal experience. I've had state-of-the-art Macs crash repeatedly trying to handle flash videos I've been making whilst my four-year-old desktop had no issues with the same files. And no, the files were started on the Mac, so there's no compatibility issues there. I've found photoshop to run slower, have more crashes and to be unable to handle as large files - that last count probably because I put enough ram into my computer when I built it.

Hardware-wise, I'd direct you to my rant halfway down page 2 about Apples successful attempts to stop me putting a CD onto an iPod. Windows 7 plug and plays with... well, everything. I doubt very much you could plug half as much hardware into a Mac and have it work straight up as you could on my PC.

What hardware tools are you talking about? Screwdrivers? Fan control units?

I've already addressed all of these in my previous posts.

And as for Photoshop and Flash not running, I've done extensive work on both platforms (note: this was about 5 years ago. I was studying Graphic Design, and worked with several active designers) and Mac blew the PC out of the water.(Windows XP, new computer, nothing fancy, but a pretty good model).

And talking about Windows 7 (which is a newly released product) is asinine when you're talking about why the Mac is the standard for many industries, and has been for a long time. Just because Windows finally figured it out doesn't cheapen the Macs dominance in this area.

No, psychologists were involved with the design of the product. I even provided the title of a book in a different post. Just because your mom (who likely has more experience using a PC than a Mac) had difficulties, doesn't negate the benefits to how they are designed.

I use my iPod all the time, and I have never (whether using my iPod with my laptop, or using my husband's iPod on his Mac) had any difficulty grabbing a CD and putting it on the iPod. Yes, iTunes is necessary as an intermediary, but it's what I use anyways because I love the program. I've never had a problem importing CDs, or finding my music, or ANY of the problems you encountered. Same with many of my friends. Sounds to me like you had an isolated issue.

The hardware I was referring to is basic peripherals. I never had an issue changing scanners, printers, mice, keyboards, etc etc on the fly, and out of the box, without having to do massive installations and updates.

 

[oktalist]

And my personal opinion - Linux is just looks, nothing more.

Oh no you di'nt!

(I assume you mean people only use Linux to look cool.) Maybe some people are like that, but I've not knowingly met them. I'm a programmer and so are my Linux-using friends; I use Linux primarily because it's so much easier to program on. But also because it's possible for a mortal to understand what it's doing to my precious data. And because when it breaks it's possible to fix without a complete reinstall. And because it's developed by people who actually care about how good it is as a piece of software, not as a product, and not just because they're being paid to develop it (although many of them are). And because it's possible to read every single line of code that went into making it, even though I would not want to do so, I know many people independently have done so, and I am therefore confident that it's not spying on me for the CIA or targetted advertisement firms (because you never know; see also Facebook). Depending on one single company to run all the computers in the world is not a sound strategy in the long term.

However, I'm writing this on Windows 7, which works fine for day-to-day stuff like web browsing and emails. And games, of course. Although I'm still hoping for Steam on native Linux; Valve have said they're working on it.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Lol.... vs threads....

 

[oktalist]

Palettes: Windows and Mac both use 256 colors as the basis of all colors that they can display. 216 of these are standards (also known as "safe" because they are compatible with browsers and cross-platforms). Mac and Windows do not use the same colors for the last 40 colors. The Mac palette is usually preferred by artists. Mac also allows for the remapping of the color palette, which makes changes to how colors interact. Windows does not allow this functionality.

If you're still using 8-bit colour, then you have more problems than just a Mac vs. PC debate.

 

[Edorf]

Apple products have become a status symbol.

So was owning slaves, back in the day...
Not a good idea then or now.
Just saying.
Also, only people who own Macs will look at you as anything other then a tool, thus defeating the whole point of a status symbol
And, owning a Mac doesn't get you laid any more than owning a PC.
Buy a PC and spend the rest of the cash on women of ill repute and illegal substances. You'll be much happier overall

I think you slightly misunderstood why I'm getting a mac (I guess I didnt really go into detail ) I'm getting the mac because it was a very, VERY good deal (1100 GBP for a macbookPro with i5 processor, including adobe CS5 pack ++++). So I figured I'd might aswell give mac a go, since I'll never get such a bargain again