Designers & Macs

[Ashley]

Was talking to my art teacher and she suggested getting a Mac if I wanted to do Photoshopping more professionally (not that I do, just random suggestion of hers). Im guessing cause they're industry standard, but I wanna know why. Enlighten me.

[dukkadukka]

i've been told the same too, but i have no idea why either. i've found that photoshop works loads faster and more smoothly on mac than pc though, and maybe there are more design programs available for mac?

[Blackfox]

I think the way a MAC operates, it also high intensity graphic porgrams to work faster than their windows counterpart.

 

Im sure Schpick will explain properly later :P

[Calza]

I don't really know why but i think you should look at this. It says it the most powerfull image processing in the world. Won't argue with that

[RoadKill]

There's no real reason, designers just seem to prefer Macs because the design of a Mac itself is elegant?

 

This is more design software available for Windows, and I've read about Macfags who had to use a PC for a certain video editing tool because Adobe didn't make it for the Mac.

[Aimless]

I'm no expert, but I imagine her suggestion was due to OS X. In my experience, Macs are a better bet for people who like to have several programs open at the same time, both for performance reasons and the varied uses of Exposé.

 

As far as I'm aware OS X makes more rudimentary use of a machine's graphics card than Windows does, hence the more shiny presentation. Perhaps this means that graphics programs can be better optimised?

[Colin]

I use Photoshop on Mac's at college, and you can notice how much more stable it runs when dealing with big images.

 

As for buying a Mac purely for design, then I would say go ahead and do so. If you don't bother playing games on your PC, then you really aren't going to miss Windows.

 

Another advantage that the Mac's have over a Windows based PC is their multitasking capabilities........and this would be extremely useful if you often use a combination of design programs at once.

 

If you use Adobe Premiere on a PC, then when you start using a Mac you'll have to jump over to FinalCut Pro, which in my opinion is alot better than Adobe's video editing software.

[#1cubeplayer]

My friend took a Photoshop course and all of the computers at that uni were Macs, so I assume it runs better. He said that whenever someone managed to freeze one of the computers, everyone would applaud.

[Oli1983uk]

2 of my friends are both graphic designers and have been snice leaving school and for all the companies they have orked for they all use Mac's, i think they have one normal PC in there office!

[dabookerman]

macs are terrible at rendering from my own experience

[Charlie]

I think the way a MAC operates, it also high intensity graphic porgrams to work faster than their windows counterpart.

 

Im sure Schpick will explain properly later :P

 

a "MAC" is a networking address. A "Mac" is a computer, totally different things

 

I've found, since using my Mac Mini that it's been a lot easier to do everything. I can have Photoshop and Dreamweaver open at the same time with no slow down at all. You can just leave programs running and it doesn't matter.

[Colin]

macs are terrible at rendering from my own experience

 

Rendering what exactly?

 

The on screen display and just general updating in general, or rendering as in calculations with Premiere/FinalCut for example?

[Lammie]

You'll find that using a combination of design apps at once is alot smoother and better suited to OSX than Windows. I find that using InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop all at once on Windows is nowhere as fluid as on OSX.

 

Designers have been using Mac's for a long time now, Photoshop first came out on Apple computers so I guess designers have grown accustomed to Macs.

[Shorty]

Weell... I think Macs are highly overrated, and simply used for design, highly overpriced. Just because you don't want to wait 15 seconds to flip between PS and Illy or because your 3D landscapes don't render instantaneously does not, personally, justify buying a mac. However, if you're a designer, you might be swayed to buy one simply because the hardware and OS in a Mac itself, is well designed and cool looking.

 

Personally I would only ever buy something that is as versatile as my needs are, that is I want to run as many different compatible applications as possible. Unless I was rich and already owned a top of the range PC running Windows, I would not buy a Mac, no matter how smoothly I want Adobe's Creative Suites to run (which, incidentally, I would have to be extremely rich to own in the first place).

[ipaul]

Macs aren't that godamn expensive. So is Mac OSX much better than windows? Does OSX get viruses? I heard somewhere it doesn't.

[Charlie]

Macs aren't that godamn expensive. So is Mac OSX much better than windows? Does OSX get viruses? I heard somewhere it doesn't.

 

There are no known viruses for it. Operating systems are a matter of choice. I'm going to leave the 5 year olds to argue it out.

[Shorty]

Macs aren't that godamn expensive. So is Mac OSX much better than windows? Does OSX get viruses? I heard somewhere it doesn't.

 

I didn't necessarily say they were particularly expensive, just overpriced. Not the same thing, since I'm being relative. I think a mac is too expensive for what you get. A shiney well designed box but with half the capabilities of a PC.

[nicolasmasset]

Some bold statements you got there Shorty

 

1. The main advantage OSX has is that it's based on Unix and not the age old NT technology windows uses. OSX is constantly aware of what it's doing, whereas windows acts like a helpless kid who doesn't really now what's hitting him. So when problems occur, OSX immediately knows what's hit it, whereas windows freezes and tells you it encountered an unknown error :s

 

2. The mac hardware and OS are made internally by one company. When making the hardware, the guys say: "Oh shit, we can't do that cause the OS doesn't do this" and when making the OS or the software, it's just the other way around: "We can't do this cause the hardware would do better if we do it like this ..."

My point is they listen to one and other to fully squeeze each capability out of each of the components compatability.

With windows, it's like this: MS makes windows and HOPES the hardware manufacturors will make hardware that is compatible, but then the hardware guys make hardware and hope windows will be compatible. So you've got oooodles of choice in hardware in a windows based pc, but you never really now if it will be fully compatible to deliver an optimal performance.

 

It's a bit like Nintendo: They work closely together with both hardware and software and come up with a cohesive product, so they deliver few crappy games. And then you got sony with their thousands of games...