hey guys ive been wondering if macs are actually built to better run artsy programs or if that is just a stereo type.
does anyone know??
does anyone know??
Mac = art??
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Mac = art?? It was true many years ago, this is not the case today.
There may be a good number of applications that are Mac-only or optimized first for the Mac, but hardware-wise they're no better off.
There may be a good number of applications that are Mac-only or optimized first for the Mac, but hardware-wise they're no better off.
The myth comes from the background that artists are said to be less technologically skilled/interested and that the Mac in comparison to a Windows PC hides more computer management from you. In certain disciplines that's still true but this also comes with the disadvantage that OSX is more limited and the gap also isn't as wide as marketing makes it sound like. I would say it's more a matter of personal taste, both aren't perfect.
What's more important is a) do your needs fit into the Apple lineup or not? The Apple computers aren't as flexible as PCs but look nicer b) is the software you want to use available on a certain platform and how well does it work there. For instance if found Photshop to work with slightly nicer on OSX but Flash or Director were better on Windows and c) can you or do you want to afford the Mac.
A lot more software is available on Windows than on OSX and again i would really think about if the computer you want is in the lineup or if it just comes close to what you want because if not it later on will most likely get on your nerves otherwise. For instance gaming on a Mac is possible due to virtualisation or booting Windows but unless you aren't primary interested in casual games it won't be a lot of fun as most of their systems lack a serious uptodate gfx card.
So make clear what you want and which platform supports this the best.
Art = Mac = PC
What's more important is a) do your needs fit into the Apple lineup or not? The Apple computers aren't as flexible as PCs but look nicer b) is the software you want to use available on a certain platform and how well does it work there. For instance if found Photshop to work with slightly nicer on OSX but Flash or Director were better on Windows and c) can you or do you want to afford the Mac.
A lot more software is available on Windows than on OSX and again i would really think about if the computer you want is in the lineup or if it just comes close to what you want because if not it later on will most likely get on your nerves otherwise. For instance gaming on a Mac is possible due to virtualisation or booting Windows but unless you aren't primary interested in casual games it won't be a lot of fun as most of their systems lack a serious uptodate gfx card.
So make clear what you want and which platform supports this the best.
Art = Mac = PC
hey guys ive been wondering if macs are actually built to better run artsy programs or if that is just a stereo type.
There are many artists using a Mac, but they are not inherently better at doing that kind of stuff than a PC is.
Especially nowaways where a Mac essentially is a PC, the basic hardware architecture is functionally identical. The OS itself doesn't really contribute much other than managing your hardware and applications, so any real differences are up to the application developers themselves.
The #1 photo editing package these days is Adobe Photoshop. It has both a Mac and a PC version, but at the moment the PC version is actually ahead than the Mac one because for Windows there is also a 64 bit version available that can take advantage of a bunch of speedsups and can allocate more memory than the Mac version can. (Apparently there is no 64 bit compiler available for the Mac branch of the sourcecode, and Adobe is still in the middle of porting it over... Perhaps the next version will also contain a 64-bit Mac edition)
Most of the 'Macs are better for art' is more marketing and perception than reality.
One advantage that a Mac has is that they can be more stable, since Apple has such tight reigns over the hardware configurations -- that way it's easier to ensure proper drivers, and easier to maintain system stability. Windows can (and has to) handle every fly-by-night no-name chinese whitelabel piece of hardware people can (and will) slap into their computers. A lot of Windows' perceived instability is a direct result of ub-par hardware components. If you have quality hardware, Windows is very solid as well.
In terms of hardware? No, for the most part (but not completely) they're just regular PCs beneath their bonnets.
However, Macs are generally a pleasure to use in ways that other PCs tend not to be. This is due to their aesthetic style, their build quality, and the look and feel of OSX, all of which work together to promote an atmosphere conducive to creativity. Of course, this is all highly subjective.
However, Macs are generally a pleasure to use in ways that other PCs tend not to be. This is due to their aesthetic style, their build quality, and the look and feel of OSX, all of which work together to promote an atmosphere conducive to creativity. Of course, this is all highly subjective.
I have a mac and a PC and find the mac has a lot more polish to it, in terms of design and OS.
Also MacOS tends to be a lot more visual than windows.
Also MacOS tends to be a lot more visual than windows.
You mean like in terms of second class harddrives, outdated gfx cards, glossy displays, mostly immediately replaced mighty mice, non existing extensability or if we look at OSX the everlasting non consistent UI, lack of a reasonable finder, missing windows like folder preview, updates which are more just full releases, buggy openGL drivers (but whos aren't), ... ;O)
Contrary to the more dissapointing Leopard i expect Snow Leopard beeing a right step forward but what i saw from Windows 7 also looked nice to me. I use both and in the end i really don't care this much about which one i use anymore. It's much more about were does the software i want to run, works the best and which hardware system enables me that and that's more often a Windows PC. What's nice about the Mac platform is that they do care about power consumption and silent systems. To get the same in the PC world you'll have to decide carefully which model to buy or build one together on your own.
Contrary to the more dissapointing Leopard i expect Snow Leopard beeing a right step forward but what i saw from Windows 7 also looked nice to me. I use both and in the end i really don't care this much about which one i use anymore. It's much more about were does the software i want to run, works the best and which hardware system enables me that and that's more often a Windows PC. What's nice about the Mac platform is that they do care about power consumption and silent systems. To get the same in the PC world you'll have to decide carefully which model to buy or build one together on your own.
You mean like in terms of second class harddrives, outdated gfx cards, glossy displays, mostly immediately replaced mighty mice, non existing extensability or if we look at OSX the everlasting non consistent UI, lack of a reasonable finder, missing windows like folder preview, updates which aren't just only full releases, buggy openGL drivers (but whos aren't), ... ;O)
I have a 15" aluminium Macbook Pro. It's lovely - a real joy to use. Are there faster, more technologically advanced laptops out there? Sure, and they might be cheaper, too, but if I had the money, I'd choose to purchase a Macbook Pro over all of them every time.
I don't really care much about technical specifications. It's the user experience that matters most. For me, the experience of using a Mac running OSX is vastly superior to using some fuggly, clunky, noisy, non-Apple PC running Windows.
To put it more simply: what's the appeal of Apple products? Their aesthetic sensibilities.
..i have both..PC and MAC...and appart from fact that MAC does look better and more 'touchy'..I never actually crashed OS while on PC i was able to do so few times(not that often to be honest)..regarding processing power...I just dont think so that there is anymore significant difference, if any..
Stereotype.
Was true once when PCs were dos/win 3.1 and had little wysiwyg. These days its all about the software, not the box. Remember, these days a mac -is- essentially a PC and there are few industry leading art/media/creativity apps that dont run on both OS if you exclude 3d.
I think the reason many artists & photographers gravitate towards OSX is simply because they have the software to do what they need and dont have to put up with windows, nothing to do with what they can or cant do.
Even leading open source apps are usually just a few seldom used tools behind their leaders in terms of capability, and these tend to run on almost any major platform.
Was true once when PCs were dos/win 3.1 and had little wysiwyg. These days its all about the software, not the box. Remember, these days a mac -is- essentially a PC and there are few industry leading art/media/creativity apps that dont run on both OS if you exclude 3d.
I think the reason many artists & photographers gravitate towards OSX is simply because they have the software to do what they need and dont have to put up with windows, nothing to do with what they can or cant do.
Even leading open source apps are usually just a few seldom used tools behind their leaders in terms of capability, and these tend to run on almost any major platform.
@JustLuke
Whilst i agree that it's nice if a computer has a appealing design i also have to say that i mainly look at what my computer renders on the screen and there is quite a difference between what a Mac and a PC can handle due to the outdated gfx hardware Apple uses. No problem if you're writing txt files but if you're doing more 3d work it simply matters.
@NauthyAlien
You do have Unity, right?! Load more textures than your gfx card can handle and enjoy a system freeze on OSX. :O)
Whilst i agree that it's nice if a computer has a appealing design i also have to say that i mainly look at what my computer renders on the screen and there is quite a difference between what a Mac and a PC can handle due to the outdated gfx hardware Apple uses. No problem if you're writing txt files but if you're doing more 3d work it simply matters.
@NauthyAlien
You do have Unity, right?! Load more textures than your gfx card can handle and enjoy a system freeze on OSX. :O)
Years ago this was the case - windows 3.1/dos era - back when the amiga,atari and mac represented a better buy for creative peoples... even
then "macs are for artists" was a sweeping statement.. the amiga was probably as good, if not better than the mac for graphics heavy work.
Windows has evolved a lot since - pre-emptive multi-tasking...directX..
..networking...blah... cheap hardware.. blah blah...
nowadays its down to personal preference - all you can really say is that
in many arty industries - web dev, publishing.. apple is the preferred
kit + probably a good choice if your in this industry or thinking about
entering it..
..oh..and and the apple OS looks kinda pretty :) - um..yeh
then "macs are for artists" was a sweeping statement.. the amiga was probably as good, if not better than the mac for graphics heavy work.
Windows has evolved a lot since - pre-emptive multi-tasking...directX..
..networking...blah... cheap hardware.. blah blah...
nowadays its down to personal preference - all you can really say is that
in many arty industries - web dev, publishing.. apple is the preferred
kit + probably a good choice if your in this industry or thinking about
entering it..
..oh..and and the apple OS looks kinda pretty :) - um..yeh
If we aren't just speaking visual arts, Macs do seem to be better at music recording. They come with better software/hardware out of the box than a PC.
But I'm doing fine with a PC, just had to spend a hundred bucks or so... yet when a Mac can cost thousands more, I'd say its worth the extra step.
But I'm doing fine with a PC, just had to spend a hundred bucks or so... yet when a Mac can cost thousands more, I'd say its worth the extra step.
I think it mostly depends is what program you prefer to use to do your graphics stuff.
In my case that will be a Windows computer cause of Paint Shop Pro, I didn't find something else yet I can handle that good for my stuff on any other platform yet.
Macs are just Intel computers using Intel/Nvidia graphics chipsets and the only unique thing about it is it's firmware when I only would look at the hardware. I can build a Windows computer with the same specs for a lot less. But the best choice is made when you look to the software first and what is available on each different OS.
I also personally don't like Macs too much cause they switch OS versions too often compared to Windows and you cannot upgrade your hardware easily to make it compatible again, unless you buy the very overpriced Mac Pro.
In my case that will be a Windows computer cause of Paint Shop Pro, I didn't find something else yet I can handle that good for my stuff on any other platform yet.
Macs are just Intel computers using Intel/Nvidia graphics chipsets and the only unique thing about it is it's firmware when I only would look at the hardware. I can build a Windows computer with the same specs for a lot less. But the best choice is made when you look to the software first and what is available on each different OS.
I also personally don't like Macs too much cause they switch OS versions too often compared to Windows and you cannot upgrade your hardware easily to make it compatible again, unless you buy the very overpriced Mac Pro.
If it's worth anything, I use Mac OS because some of the software I enjoy using daily is available only on Mac OS. Things like iCal, TextMate, the terminal (good luck with that one on Windows- msys and cygwin both make it a huge pain), Spaces (can be emulated on Windows, but it's poorly done), and even things like GitX that don't cost me a penny keep me using it.
I personally enjoy working with Cocoa and Objective-C/C++ more than the Windows API. It feels much more cohesive, well-designed, and better documented than the Windows API where you have twenty thousand lone functions to sift through by category only. I feel I can get more done in less time, especially when it comes to applications that have user interfaces (Interface Builder is awesome). Granted, I'm not a big fan of Xcode's UI, but I use TextMate for all of the coding, so it's not terribly relevant.
Comes down to preference in the end- you might try to argue objectively about which one is better, but I don't think you'll get anywhere without personal opinion. Just my 2¢.
I personally enjoy working with Cocoa and Objective-C/C++ more than the Windows API. It feels much more cohesive, well-designed, and better documented than the Windows API where you have twenty thousand lone functions to sift through by category only. I feel I can get more done in less time, especially when it comes to applications that have user interfaces (Interface Builder is awesome). Granted, I'm not a big fan of Xcode's UI, but I use TextMate for all of the coding, so it's not terribly relevant.
Comes down to preference in the end- you might try to argue objectively about which one is better, but I don't think you'll get anywhere without personal opinion. Just my 2¢.
They both have outstanding software that the other doesn't have:
Mac
Unity (for now at least)
Final Cut Pro
PC
Blitz3D :)
3d Studio Max
Probably others.
I mostly use PCs, but don't mind working on Macs. I agree with the comments about Mac C dev being more pleasent than PC. PCs go a lot smaller than Macs, and Flash is pretty annoying on a Mac.
Mac
Unity (for now at least)
Final Cut Pro
PC
Blitz3D :)
3d Studio Max
Probably others.
I mostly use PCs, but don't mind working on Macs. I agree with the comments about Mac C dev being more pleasent than PC. PCs go a lot smaller than Macs, and Flash is pretty annoying on a Mac.
I found that the biggest culprit spreading the mac for art is the education establishment. When I did my illustration degree I had to suffer the mac for 2d work, they were ok and back then Photoshop 3.5 had only just been released for the PC. So the mac was better for 2D work prior to about 1995
3D was another story, the mac sucked, Softimage and 3dsmax were the only real 3d apps out there, softimage being pc and SGI, 3ds being PC only. Lightwave 5.3 was a bit of a joke. There were no 3d apps or 3d accelerator cards for the mac.
University lecturers outside of architecture and product design were ignorant of that fact, Interior design insisted on using some crappy 3d app for the mac that rendered in ridiculously low res. In history of art and design lectures, and CG work at all was labeled as being done on the mac. Back then most students didn't use email or type up their papers, few had computers and if they did use them they were almost always the macs in the school of graphic design.
I blame the unintentional misinformation by ignorant lecturers for a lot of the nonsense that still prevails today. Back in the early 90's just as the Amiga was dying the PC was not all that great at graphics, but by 1995 it had shot past the mac which largely survived on reputation, styling and later a nice OS that actually did multitask properly unlike OS9 which was quite retarded.
3D was another story, the mac sucked, Softimage and 3dsmax were the only real 3d apps out there, softimage being pc and SGI, 3ds being PC only. Lightwave 5.3 was a bit of a joke. There were no 3d apps or 3d accelerator cards for the mac.
University lecturers outside of architecture and product design were ignorant of that fact, Interior design insisted on using some crappy 3d app for the mac that rendered in ridiculously low res. In history of art and design lectures, and CG work at all was labeled as being done on the mac. Back then most students didn't use email or type up their papers, few had computers and if they did use them they were almost always the macs in the school of graphic design.
I blame the unintentional misinformation by ignorant lecturers for a lot of the nonsense that still prevails today. Back in the early 90's just as the Amiga was dying the PC was not all that great at graphics, but by 1995 it had shot past the mac which largely survived on reputation, styling and later a nice OS that actually did multitask properly unlike OS9 which was quite retarded.
Hey everyone, thanks a bunch for all the comments.
ok, so what ive gathered from here is that PC and Mac are basically equivalent as far as what they can do. Mac is pretty much only superior because of its 'prettiness'. This is basically what i already thought. The only thing i think might be effecting all of your comments,(and i dont say this in a stereo type way, cause im the same as you all), is that as far as i know, most of you are programmers who are very familiar with the internal workings of your computer. One of my teachers at school is very involved with the music/ film/ artsy fartsy environment. A asked him what he thought about the dichotomy. He flat out said that "Macs run art related programs better." I thought about that statement for a minute and realized, isnt every program just a bunch of logical Ands, ors, Xors, Nots, and a bunch of other binary math related things?( i may be wrong about that but...) Continuing with that logic(whether it is right or wrong..), wouldnt the speed of the program depend on how fast the computer's hardware can process all that logic and math?
Id really like to hear you guys' opinions on this, especially those of you whor are more experienced with the workings of both mac and pc.
thanks again.
P.S. that has to be the most ive written on any post in this forum :D.
ok, so what ive gathered from here is that PC and Mac are basically equivalent as far as what they can do. Mac is pretty much only superior because of its 'prettiness'. This is basically what i already thought. The only thing i think might be effecting all of your comments,(and i dont say this in a stereo type way, cause im the same as you all), is that as far as i know, most of you are programmers who are very familiar with the internal workings of your computer. One of my teachers at school is very involved with the music/ film/ artsy fartsy environment. A asked him what he thought about the dichotomy. He flat out said that "Macs run art related programs better." I thought about that statement for a minute and realized, isnt every program just a bunch of logical Ands, ors, Xors, Nots, and a bunch of other binary math related things?( i may be wrong about that but...) Continuing with that logic(whether it is right or wrong..), wouldnt the speed of the program depend on how fast the computer's hardware can process all that logic and math?
Id really like to hear you guys' opinions on this, especially those of you whor are more experienced with the workings of both mac and pc.
thanks again.
P.S. that has to be the most ive written on any post in this forum :D.
Well if you buy a graphics workstation mac, they cost a fortune and have top of the range CPU's so they might run better than your average PC. I don't think any serious art department at college would settle for anything than a mac pro.
They start at $2700 and come with 4 or 8 core Xeon processors teamed up with bargain basement budget video card.
A reasonable system for gaming costs
$3,199.00
One 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon
4GB (4x1GB)
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard + User's Guide
Seems a bit expensive when you can buy a mostly better specced PC without the fancy xeon processors but vanilla quad cores for $1000 - $1500 and a pretty outstanding system with a BIG monitor for less than the Mac price without a display.
I studied art and design and am well familiar with the bias towards macs in academia, it has nothing to do with computing, and a lot more to do with mindset too much money and ignorance. At least that has been the case at my schools I went to over the years. Typically teachers know nothing about computers and basically repeat what they are told by their peers. There are the odd exceptions, but very few.
They start at $2700 and come with 4 or 8 core Xeon processors teamed up with bargain basement budget video card.
A reasonable system for gaming costs
$3,199.00
One 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon
4GB (4x1GB)
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard + User's Guide
Seems a bit expensive when you can buy a mostly better specced PC without the fancy xeon processors but vanilla quad cores for $1000 - $1500 and a pretty outstanding system with a BIG monitor for less than the Mac price without a display.
I studied art and design and am well familiar with the bias towards macs in academia, it has nothing to do with computing, and a lot more to do with mindset too much money and ignorance. At least that has been the case at my schools I went to over the years. Typically teachers know nothing about computers and basically repeat what they are told by their peers. There are the odd exceptions, but very few.
@Jerome Squalor
Be assured it's nonsense, programs which you use for art don't generally run better on OSX. It more comes down to the individual case. For most i would say it doesn't matter whilst some run better on that and some on the other platform but the line isn't just drawn between "art programs". Seperate the programs depending on different art disciplines and you'll find out that there are better programs on Windows for this and better alternatives on OSX for another purpose, this is especially true for major software.
And as xlsior has written it's not seldom that the Windows version of a program is technologically more advanced than the OSX version due to that the developer cares more about this platforms version because the larger part of their userbase is on that system. This sucks but it's reality. On the other side you could argue that you're just so much used to a certain workflow, system specific handling/features that this doesn't matter because it outmatches the technological shortcomings for you.
What i often found true in practice is this: Out of the box OSX is more useable for the end user than Windows but once you care about looking up certain shortcomings you have a more powerful and pleasing system on Windows. An example: If you want to screenshot something then OSX's built in possibility is better than the one in Windows but as soon as you install some freeware/shareware tool you have the better solution on Windows again.
Now for the shareware sector you can say that the ususal developer on Mac cares more about it's visual appearance and an easy to use user interface than the ususal developer on Windows but as there are far more developers and tools available on Windows chances are good that you also get a nicely done application there, the repertory is just so much larger.
Icons generally look nicer on OSX but then on the other side i pretty much prefer the clean and simple design of Chrome than what Safari has to offer. There are ups and downs for each system. Personal preference, most people suggest what they simply just know without the need of beeing objective but that's also okay you just have to keep it in mind.
One thing i always found dissapointing is as soon as you have to deal with Macs and it's community you are also better advised partly giving up thinking and join the religious club. Of course there are also reasonable persons in there but it's true for a large part of the community.
Oh and i don't only use computers for programming as well. :O)
Be assured it's nonsense, programs which you use for art don't generally run better on OSX. It more comes down to the individual case. For most i would say it doesn't matter whilst some run better on that and some on the other platform but the line isn't just drawn between "art programs". Seperate the programs depending on different art disciplines and you'll find out that there are better programs on Windows for this and better alternatives on OSX for another purpose, this is especially true for major software.
And as xlsior has written it's not seldom that the Windows version of a program is technologically more advanced than the OSX version due to that the developer cares more about this platforms version because the larger part of their userbase is on that system. This sucks but it's reality. On the other side you could argue that you're just so much used to a certain workflow, system specific handling/features that this doesn't matter because it outmatches the technological shortcomings for you.
What i often found true in practice is this: Out of the box OSX is more useable for the end user than Windows but once you care about looking up certain shortcomings you have a more powerful and pleasing system on Windows. An example: If you want to screenshot something then OSX's built in possibility is better than the one in Windows but as soon as you install some freeware/shareware tool you have the better solution on Windows again.
Now for the shareware sector you can say that the ususal developer on Mac cares more about it's visual appearance and an easy to use user interface than the ususal developer on Windows but as there are far more developers and tools available on Windows chances are good that you also get a nicely done application there, the repertory is just so much larger.
Icons generally look nicer on OSX but then on the other side i pretty much prefer the clean and simple design of Chrome than what Safari has to offer. There are ups and downs for each system. Personal preference, most people suggest what they simply just know without the need of beeing objective but that's also okay you just have to keep it in mind.
One thing i always found dissapointing is as soon as you have to deal with Macs and it's community you are also better advised partly giving up thinking and join the religious club. Of course there are also reasonable persons in there but it's true for a large part of the community.
Oh and i don't only use computers for programming as well. :O)
One thing i always found dissapointing is as soon as you have to deal with Macs and it's community you are also better advised partly giving up thinking and join the religious club. Of course there are also reasonable persons in there but it's true for a large part of the community.
I don't know why, but it seems like this thread has begun to paint a huge group of people with the same brush... Yep, it's a cliche but nevertheless it's often true.
Not really, what you're proposing is flat-out rude. It's like saying all but a few Mexicans are lazy, or that only a handful of Linux users aren't girlfriend-less nerds.
Look, i wrote this because my long year experience with Mac communities is exactly about this, if you have a different view then it's also okay and your opinion.
Ah, so being a Mac and Linux zealot would make me...
:-p
I'm always curious why such a simple question, as posted originally, moves the thread gradually from platform bashing to people bashing. Alas...
:-p
I'm always curious why such a simple question, as posted originally, moves the thread gradually from platform bashing to people bashing. Alas...
That doesn't change the fact that you're rudely calling them all (myself included, seeing as how I use a Mac) the equivalent of religious zealots.
I use Linux, Windows, and Mac OS, and I prefer to do my work under Mac OS because it's like Windows and Linux combined for me.
I'm always curious why such a simple question, as posted originally, moves the thread gradually from platform bashing to people bashing. Alas...
Because most people don't know how to get by without picking sides.I use Linux, Windows, and Mac OS, and I prefer to do my work under Mac OS because it's like Windows and Linux combined for me.
When worlds collide... :O9
Btw as we were talking about this a nice example popped up my mind from the last time i visisted a Mac store and when i was asking about why there aren't and if we could expect non glossy displays for the MacBooks ad the iMacs (this was before they announced the option for the MacBookPro). Whilst the salesman was blablaing about this and that another Mac user chimed in from behind and said that glossy displays are great and they aren't reflection problems at all. Whilst he was arguing he was also trying to adjust the display in order to get a satisfying position so that the lights from the store don't dazzle all over the screen. I never got an direct answert to how you adjust your display when moving in a train for instance but anyway at one point he stopped trying to adjust the display, which still wasn't properly lit, still arguing how great those displays are. That's a typical Apple user experience.
The tendency talking things good whilst they aren't objective is something you'll find very often in the Mac world.
Btw as we were talking about this a nice example popped up my mind from the last time i visisted a Mac store and when i was asking about why there aren't and if we could expect non glossy displays for the MacBooks ad the iMacs (this was before they announced the option for the MacBookPro). Whilst the salesman was blablaing about this and that another Mac user chimed in from behind and said that glossy displays are great and they aren't reflection problems at all. Whilst he was arguing he was also trying to adjust the display in order to get a satisfying position so that the lights from the store don't dazzle all over the screen. I never got an direct answert to how you adjust your display when moving in a train for instance but anyway at one point he stopped trying to adjust the display, which still wasn't properly lit, still arguing how great those displays are. That's a typical Apple user experience.
The tendency talking things good whilst they aren't objective is something you'll find very often in the Mac world.
Congratulations, you met a regular computer user. You'd get the same out of your average Windows user as well.
No, as i said this tendency is much more common in Mac communities.
And you can back this up using hard facts, or your confirmation bias?
I back this up by the experiences i've made over the years.
I see, so the latter.
I'd give up if I were you.
Taumel seems to be believe that anyone who doesn't share his own extreme beliefs must therefore hold opposing but equally extreme points of view. I wouldn't waste any more of your time trying to highlight the fallacies in his line of reasoning.
Taumel seems to be believe that anyone who doesn't share his own extreme beliefs must therefore hold opposing but equally extreme points of view. I wouldn't waste any more of your time trying to highlight the fallacies in his line of reasoning.
It's up to you misinterpreting whatever you want.
I would say Mac owners `typically` focus on quality over quantity, whereas Windows users focus on quantity over quality. You could say a focus on quality can more likely be a focus on the subtler qualities of art, and that a focus on quantity tends to disregard art in favor of numbers, but it's not by any means clear cut. It's a wide wild world out there. There are definitely high quality `art` applications out there for Windows and Mac both.
I just went through a lot of pain with macs over the years when I was forced to use them at college. Something which formed my initial opinion. As far as hardware goes you have quality on both sides of the fence, you just get more choice with windows. You can buy better quiality and cheaper for the PC. And your not stuck with fixed form factors and crummy video cards as standard.
Just look at the base $2700 mac pro that comes with a sub $100 HD2600 XT!!! can get one of those for $80 comparable to a 7600gs in a premium priced system. Mac's are nothing more than PC's underneath, which is why you can run ogre in OSX on a old sony vaio notebook with some bios tweaks.
Just look at the base $2700 mac pro that comes with a sub $100 HD2600 XT!!! can get one of those for $80 comparable to a 7600gs in a premium priced system. Mac's are nothing more than PC's underneath, which is why you can run ogre in OSX on a old sony vaio notebook with some bios tweaks.
You can run osx86 on pretty much any recent intel setup.
I would say Mac owners `typically` focus on quality over quantity, whereas Windows users focus on quantity over quality. You could say a focus on quality can more likely be a focus on the subtler qualities of art, and that a focus on quantity tends to disregard art in favor of numbers, but it's not by any means clear cut. It's a wide wild world out there. There are definitely high quality `art` applications out there for Windows and Mac both.
Well said. I agree.
Many people use PCs cos they have to, and many more cos they couldn't care less as long as it does the job. Mac users choose to use them. Similar to how many Sony VAIO users choose to use them (or IBM, or any other premium brand). Comparing PCs to Macs isn't really comparing like to like - you are better off comparing Macs to Vaios etc. It's something like a lifestyle choice. Some people choose Sainsburys over LIDL, Habitat over Ikea or vice-versa. The result is pretty much the same in the end.
There's Mac at one of the places I work, and it mostly gets used for playing music. The designer there fancied a Mac, cos it suited his way of thinking and the image of the company, but they soon discovered they were better off using PCs for most of the stuff they do: web design, flash etc.
There's Mac at one of the places I work, and it mostly gets used for playing music. The designer there fancied a Mac, cos it suited his way of thinking and the image of the company, but they soon discovered they were better off using PCs for most of the stuff they do: web design, flash etc.
I use a PC because i want to, although i use Ubuntu for 99% of stuff both work and personal. Have got pretty much everything i need creative tool wise. Otherwise i would be using OSX i suspect. I have worked 15 years with Windows server/client support and several programming/graphics roles, and these days I can honestly say; while i have the patience of a saint supporting it (and those that use it), i can literally feel my bloodpressure rise rapidly when using it regardless of weather its XP or Vista.
I have a couple of Mac-only software that is without competition - in other words, there are no applications available for Windows (or Linux for that matter) that (can) match what Scrivener, StoryMill and the like do or the simple way how they do it.
Furthermore, when I am working on creative - non technical - stuff, OS X never gets in my way. Windows forces you to think in detours and always take detours, nothing, literally: NOTHING, on the Windows platform is straightforward.
Windows and the software for Windows usually perform faster than OS X and apps written for OS X, but the trade-off is that the system slows down the most expensive resource in the equation: ME. (Or any other human being using the computer.)
The Mac platform was designed to get non-technical stuff done quickly and efficiently. And, in all fairness, since it has a FreeBSD foundation it's also a good platform for UNIX geeks.
But I still don't like the Mac as a software development platform. BlitzMax is awesome on the Mac, and maybe even REALbasic is a good product, but that's about it for me. Apple's Java implementation good be improved, Objective-C is a last millennium programming language of no relevance once you leave Apple behind and that's almost it. There's no Visual Studio and there's not the richness of available programming languages that the Windows platform has going for it that allows you to build NATIVE programs for your platform of choice.
And then, of course, there's Apple itself and their control-freak attitude of 1984-like dimensions.
Still, here's a very short and incomplete list of software that in my opinion is superior to either their Windows/Linux counterparts or completely without competition:
- Cyberduck
- ecto
- Journler
- Scrivener
- StoryMill
- Montage
- Mellel
- iWork 09 (I like it -much- better than Microsoft or Open Office for everyday tasks)
- OmniGraffle (although I also like Visio very much)
- VLC (the Windows version sucks)
- Handbrake (the Windows version sucks really bad)
- Toast
- Aperture (--THE-- Killer App)
- iLife
- Final Cut Studio
- Amadeus Pro
- Audio HiJack Pro
- Logic
Propellerhead Reason, Adobe PhotoShop Extended and Adobe Flash Pro are pretty much the same on each platform, but nevertheless I prefer using them on OS X.
BlitzMax rocks on OS X. But in all honesty, I don't see any reason for using it on Windows except for going multi-platform. If I was only interested in Windows, I'd use C# and/or Xbase++, where Xbase++ is -the- kick-ass programming language for business apps. (But I'm biased, I've worked for the company behind it.)
Hardware: Macs are just beautifully designed PCs. They usually have better power consumption and produce less noise than a comparable PC, but they always look much better. On the downside, their graphics power is always behind and you're usually never able to use the most current generation of graphics cards in OS X. (You can plug them into your Mac Pro and use them in Windows, okay.)
I've invested too much in Apple hardware and software over the last three years, so rationally I'm past the point of considering switching my computing platform again. However, I don't really like Apple the company and their proprietary attitude is... suffocating. So maybe I will go back to the PC world one day - unless Apple opens OS X to other hardware vendors. (Maybe in Germany they won't have a choice: I don't think they have any chances of winning a lawsuit agains the PearC guys, because Apple's EULA probably is not even valid by German laws.)
Anyway. This was a long post with the basic message that there is no general answer and that it always depends on yourself, your needs, your personal preferences and to a certain degree even to your ideological beliefs.
Furthermore, when I am working on creative - non technical - stuff, OS X never gets in my way. Windows forces you to think in detours and always take detours, nothing, literally: NOTHING, on the Windows platform is straightforward.
Windows and the software for Windows usually perform faster than OS X and apps written for OS X, but the trade-off is that the system slows down the most expensive resource in the equation: ME. (Or any other human being using the computer.)
The Mac platform was designed to get non-technical stuff done quickly and efficiently. And, in all fairness, since it has a FreeBSD foundation it's also a good platform for UNIX geeks.
But I still don't like the Mac as a software development platform. BlitzMax is awesome on the Mac, and maybe even REALbasic is a good product, but that's about it for me. Apple's Java implementation good be improved, Objective-C is a last millennium programming language of no relevance once you leave Apple behind and that's almost it. There's no Visual Studio and there's not the richness of available programming languages that the Windows platform has going for it that allows you to build NATIVE programs for your platform of choice.
And then, of course, there's Apple itself and their control-freak attitude of 1984-like dimensions.
Still, here's a very short and incomplete list of software that in my opinion is superior to either their Windows/Linux counterparts or completely without competition:
- Cyberduck
- ecto
- Journler
- Scrivener
- StoryMill
- Montage
- Mellel
- iWork 09 (I like it -much- better than Microsoft or Open Office for everyday tasks)
- OmniGraffle (although I also like Visio very much)
- VLC (the Windows version sucks)
- Handbrake (the Windows version sucks really bad)
- Toast
- Aperture (--THE-- Killer App)
- iLife
- Final Cut Studio
- Amadeus Pro
- Audio HiJack Pro
- Logic
Propellerhead Reason, Adobe PhotoShop Extended and Adobe Flash Pro are pretty much the same on each platform, but nevertheless I prefer using them on OS X.
BlitzMax rocks on OS X. But in all honesty, I don't see any reason for using it on Windows except for going multi-platform. If I was only interested in Windows, I'd use C# and/or Xbase++, where Xbase++ is -the- kick-ass programming language for business apps. (But I'm biased, I've worked for the company behind it.)
Hardware: Macs are just beautifully designed PCs. They usually have better power consumption and produce less noise than a comparable PC, but they always look much better. On the downside, their graphics power is always behind and you're usually never able to use the most current generation of graphics cards in OS X. (You can plug them into your Mac Pro and use them in Windows, okay.)
I've invested too much in Apple hardware and software over the last three years, so rationally I'm past the point of considering switching my computing platform again. However, I don't really like Apple the company and their proprietary attitude is... suffocating. So maybe I will go back to the PC world one day - unless Apple opens OS X to other hardware vendors. (Maybe in Germany they won't have a choice: I don't think they have any chances of winning a lawsuit agains the PearC guys, because Apple's EULA probably is not even valid by German laws.)
Anyway. This was a long post with the basic message that there is no general answer and that it always depends on yourself, your needs, your personal preferences and to a certain degree even to your ideological beliefs.
Hi everyone, thanks again for all the answers.
what i think i really want to know though is, not which one i should buy, because i have no intention of buying a new computer( im kinda broke :D).
Which Operating system runs the majority of apps better?
I understand that some apps are designed specifically for a certain os, and the ported version tends to suck badly on the other os, but for the programs that are designed for both, which one runs better?
what i think i really want to know though is, not which one i should buy, because i have no intention of buying a new computer( im kinda broke :D).
Which Operating system runs the majority of apps better?
I understand that some apps are designed specifically for a certain os, and the ported version tends to suck badly on the other os, but for the programs that are designed for both, which one runs better?
Which Operating system runs the majority of apps better?
'nuff said. If you want a majority of apps to run, don't go with a Mac. And I don't think MacOS runs Photoshop "better" than Windows.
Furthermore, when I am working on creative - non technical - stuff, OS X never gets in my way. Windows forces you to think in detours and always take detours, nothing, literally: NOTHING, on the Windows platform is straightforward.
You must really not know how to use a computer, or the applications you're running. I run a ton of apps, from 3D ones to compositors, and they're typically as easy to run as any application on OSX. The vast majority of the time I forget Windows is even there- everything works just fine.
@Winni
Cyberduck, Amadeus Pro, ... are top notch programs for you? You must be kidding as there are far better apps than those available for Windows (even for the Mac).
Cyberduck, Amadeus Pro, ... are top notch programs for you? You must be kidding as there are far better apps than those available for Windows (even for the Mac).
This is almost like an argument about musical taste.
No it's not, i could go through that whole list and point out pros and cons about each one and for quite some you'll find better alternatives. But as you've mentioned music, whoever has to do with music and needs to do accurate loops for instance or get other things done won't choose Amadeus Pro because it can be much more easily done in other apps. Even the since years outdated Cool Edit (Pro or not) has more to offer.
AND WIN98 WAS BETTER AND WHY ARE YOU USING VISUAL STUDIO YOU SHOULD USE EMACS
You don't get the whole 'preference' thing, do you? This isn't just about function, it has to do with simply liking one way of doing things over another.
(If by now you don't see yourself behaving like your stereotypical Mac user, you should re-examine all of your posts. It's pretty obvious that you're the one behaving like a religious zealot.)
You don't get the whole 'preference' thing, do you? This isn't just about function, it has to do with simply liking one way of doing things over another.
(If by now you don't see yourself behaving like your stereotypical Mac user, you should re-examine all of your posts. It's pretty obvious that you're the one behaving like a religious zealot.)
I see that you aren't able to argue based on facts. Maye you're also just younger and simply miss some software experience. Never mind.
I see that you aren't able to argue based on facts.
Nevermind that you didn't use facts in the first place. You used 'experience,' which is worthless when it comes to something that is based on preference. All you have is your stereotypes and confirmation bias. I neither have the time nor the desire to get further into this with you. Let me just quote FlameDuck (was him, right?): "You're entitled to your opinion but you're wrong".
You haven't the time? That's a lie. The desire? Clearly you do, considering you continue to respond. Are you just running out of tired baseless opinions to throw at me?
:) hellooooo :)
People buy macs for all kinds or reasons. traditionally they were favoured in 2D printing graphics because they had better/easier colour matching and better support at the printers. Thanks to a lot of printers being old school die hard mac users this is often still the case today.
You also have the snob and cool brigade that like macs because its a 'designer' brand, even if these days it largely comes down to a well designed case, dodgy mice and keyboards of an aquired taste.
You also have your technophobes that just want something with simplistic UI design that requires no thought and has big friendly animated fisher price icons for all your commonly used programs. My wife works in the department of mental health and most of the psychologists and psychiatrists use macs, as does our snooty auntie, and one of our friends from the department of drugs and alcohol. All of them are somewhat elderly and don't like computers but prefer macs to PC's. they also like to argue that being a artist I should be using the far superior mac like everyone else does.
And then you have your normal people that just used it because it suits them or has some unique niche software they really like to use.
You also have the snob and cool brigade that like macs because its a 'designer' brand, even if these days it largely comes down to a well designed case, dodgy mice and keyboards of an aquired taste.
You also have your technophobes that just want something with simplistic UI design that requires no thought and has big friendly animated fisher price icons for all your commonly used programs. My wife works in the department of mental health and most of the psychologists and psychiatrists use macs, as does our snooty auntie, and one of our friends from the department of drugs and alcohol. All of them are somewhat elderly and don't like computers but prefer macs to PC's. they also like to argue that being a artist I should be using the far superior mac like everyone else does.
And then you have your normal people that just used it because it suits them or has some unique niche software they really like to use.
Actually Nilium, as bad as taumel's combacks were, you originally misunderstood his first post.
they also like to argue that being a artist I should be using the far superior mac like everyone else does.
That reminds me of this...
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant
Actually Nilium, as bad as taumel's combacks were, you originally misunderstood his first post.
I was mostly aiming to get him to respond even more, really. Didn't actually care about the content of his posts, since a friend and I had this bet that I couldn't get him to reply 10 times. Well guess what, Eric, he replied exactly 10 times! Cough up my $5. If that's true, that's... quite lame. If it's not, that's the worst excuse for being an idiot I've seen for some time.
I thought the original reason for Mac's being more popular for graphics came from problems with how Windows handled post script and fonts. Spacing would be wrong and so on. This made most print and design workers loyal Apple fans, and that has kind of stuck.
I regularly use Ubuntu, WinXP and OSX for graphics. As an OS, I prefer Ubuntu, but that's not what the question is about. It's which one is best for graphics? And that pretty much comes down to what software you want to run on it.
For 2D I would definately lean towards Windows, mainly because of the amount of good 2D software available on that platform. Windows only software that's good for 2D graphics includes, PaintShop Pro, openCanvas, ArtWeaver, Mircosoft Expression (used to have a Mac version before MS bought it) and more. While Photoshop is great, many of these work fine at a fraction of the cost. GIMP of course, runs on all three (and more), but tends to run best on Linux, second best on Windows and worst on OS X.
For 3D it's a bit different. For brute force rendering, Linux generally gives better performance, and many highend packages run fine on it. But here you'll also find that you have the widest sofware selection on Windows. Maya (win,lin,osx), XSI (win,lin), Max (win), Mudbox (win), Zbrush (osx,win) and so on. Blender again runs on pretty much anything.
With Windows you tend to have a wider selection of software available, and many lower cost or free alternatives to the expensive pro applications (e.g. PaintShop Pro instead of Photoshop).
So purely for 2D graphics I would say that Windows is best choice, with OS X second and Linux third. While for 3D graphics, I would shift OS X to the bottom of the list, mainly because of the lack of descent 3D cards at a reasonable price in their machines.
Of course, most of us won't be buying a machine to do only one thing with, so you have to balance that against your other needs and your budget.
Personaly, my main os is Ubuntu, with WinXP as a close second (mainly for a number of drawing programs I own use regularly like openCanvas, ToonBoom, Manga Studio, ArtRage and more). I use OS X every now and then, but it's been less and less lately. I used to really like it, but got kind of fed up with the Apple way of doing things (it's their-way-or-no-way and all the lock in stuff). It's kind of a pain if you want to go under the hood every now and then. :)
So, to answer the original question. NO, macs are not built better to do art. They just have an historical reputation for it (which was based on fact years ago) and have a big following with graphic artists that maintains that reputation.
I regularly use Ubuntu, WinXP and OSX for graphics. As an OS, I prefer Ubuntu, but that's not what the question is about. It's which one is best for graphics? And that pretty much comes down to what software you want to run on it.
For 2D I would definately lean towards Windows, mainly because of the amount of good 2D software available on that platform. Windows only software that's good for 2D graphics includes, PaintShop Pro, openCanvas, ArtWeaver, Mircosoft Expression (used to have a Mac version before MS bought it) and more. While Photoshop is great, many of these work fine at a fraction of the cost. GIMP of course, runs on all three (and more), but tends to run best on Linux, second best on Windows and worst on OS X.
For 3D it's a bit different. For brute force rendering, Linux generally gives better performance, and many highend packages run fine on it. But here you'll also find that you have the widest sofware selection on Windows. Maya (win,lin,osx), XSI (win,lin), Max (win), Mudbox (win), Zbrush (osx,win) and so on. Blender again runs on pretty much anything.
With Windows you tend to have a wider selection of software available, and many lower cost or free alternatives to the expensive pro applications (e.g. PaintShop Pro instead of Photoshop).
So purely for 2D graphics I would say that Windows is best choice, with OS X second and Linux third. While for 3D graphics, I would shift OS X to the bottom of the list, mainly because of the lack of descent 3D cards at a reasonable price in their machines.
Of course, most of us won't be buying a machine to do only one thing with, so you have to balance that against your other needs and your budget.
Personaly, my main os is Ubuntu, with WinXP as a close second (mainly for a number of drawing programs I own use regularly like openCanvas, ToonBoom, Manga Studio, ArtRage and more). I use OS X every now and then, but it's been less and less lately. I used to really like it, but got kind of fed up with the Apple way of doing things (it's their-way-or-no-way and all the lock in stuff). It's kind of a pain if you want to go under the hood every now and then. :)
So, to answer the original question. NO, macs are not built better to do art. They just have an historical reputation for it (which was based on fact years ago) and have a big following with graphic artists that maintains that reputation.
lol I like the EULA for itunes.. Is that for real or just having a laugh?
as its been said time and again up there
its a matter of taste
in the old days of dos/windows, the apps just wernt there
now (even more so with intel chips and pc gfx cards under the hood) a mac is just apples ibm clone running osX instead of XP/vista
if photoshop and other 'mac' programs didnt get ported to 95/98 and stayed mac bias, most of these programs would be more expencive than they are now, cloned for the wintel market and loose market share
but as they saw profit over 'brand loyalty' the product should work the same over both platorms (baring the mice that is)
if you are hired as a photoshop artist and the company uses pc's and you trained on mac's dont comoplain or ask for a mac, its photoshop, you know it already, shut up and use it, the same goes the other way.
if the ps3 and 360 were 99% identical then a game written for one would be indistinguishable from the other, as it is they work off the lowest common demominator a practice dating back from the st/amiga days (more than the 8bit market)
and years ago the wintel/apple set ups were similar yet vastly different, perhaps creating some hardware dependancies on programs
video toaster and an amiga used to be a pre requisit for lightwave, but once they saw pc's getting better at displaying gfx they found they could change their market with or without amigas demise in order to get into a growing niche market
pc's cheapness killed off SGI workstations even if they wernt as quick as they were for real time previews, when the final effect is rendered frame by frame for cinema film who cares? its cheaper to have 10 slower pcs render-allotmenting (sounds better than render-farming ;) ) than one work station that is faster
its a matter of taste
in the old days of dos/windows, the apps just wernt there
now (even more so with intel chips and pc gfx cards under the hood) a mac is just apples ibm clone running osX instead of XP/vista
if photoshop and other 'mac' programs didnt get ported to 95/98 and stayed mac bias, most of these programs would be more expencive than they are now, cloned for the wintel market and loose market share
but as they saw profit over 'brand loyalty' the product should work the same over both platorms (baring the mice that is)
if you are hired as a photoshop artist and the company uses pc's and you trained on mac's dont comoplain or ask for a mac, its photoshop, you know it already, shut up and use it, the same goes the other way.
if the ps3 and 360 were 99% identical then a game written for one would be indistinguishable from the other, as it is they work off the lowest common demominator a practice dating back from the st/amiga days (more than the 8bit market)
and years ago the wintel/apple set ups were similar yet vastly different, perhaps creating some hardware dependancies on programs
video toaster and an amiga used to be a pre requisit for lightwave, but once they saw pc's getting better at displaying gfx they found they could change their market with or without amigas demise in order to get into a growing niche market
pc's cheapness killed off SGI workstations even if they wernt as quick as they were for real time previews, when the final effect is rendered frame by frame for cinema film who cares? its cheaper to have 10 slower pcs render-allotmenting (sounds better than render-farming ;) ) than one work station that is faster
This is like Atari versus Commodore! A discussion with no end in sight!
P.S. Commodore is the best.
P.S. Commodore is the best.
they always are ;)
but if i can afford a pc ...
but if i can afford a pc ...
I always thought it was just that macs were used in the desktop
publishing industry and so developed in that area, whilst 3d was always
the domain of workstation and then pc's.
oh yeah macs are for snobs whilst pc's are for the working man:)
publishing industry and so developed in that area, whilst 3d was always
the domain of workstation and then pc's.
oh yeah macs are for snobs whilst pc's are for the working man:)
amen to that Ruz !! :D
And I don't think MacOS runs Photoshop "better" than Windows.
Most major modern OSses (OSX,Ubuntu,BSD etc..) runs commonly available apps better than windows, possibly because the others have unix heritage so are more stable and solid by design. I get more "non-responding" apps with windows than any other OS i use or have used. Could be the programming of course, but when its the OSs own components like 'explorer' and native-house software like 'office' you start to wonder. Just thought i would add, one of our web content designers at work uses a Mac, but has Ubuntu on it!, He doesnt seem to have problems producing all kinds of web content from 3D/2D art to animations and videos. Oh and he is also the company photographer person.
..Which throws a another angle of point of view into it all. :D
So i still think stereotype. Nowadays you can pretty much produce quality anything on everything given the software.
-Its whatever makes YOU most comfortable/productive.
Years ago I was going to a local printshop with school documents, there was a guy using a Mac to read/print my file. The first thing the Mac did was c r a s h (it really had to reboot!).
Another myth 'busted' I guess.. :P
Anyway, to (pr)each his own.
Another myth 'busted' I guess.. :P
Anyway, to (pr)each his own.