[asodamiac]

I'm not here to bash on Macs.

That's my first statement just in case everyone decided to fry me to nothing but ashes. I'm quite fond of Macs actually

But my questions is: Why have Macs become industry standards (well, within the film, photography, art, graphic, media, etc. industries). I understand that the software is great. Is that the selling point? The software and OS?

Again, I LOVE Macs! I was just curious, thats all.

FWIW, my roommate edits his films on both a Mac G5 and a top notch PC. According to him, he doesn't notice a difference in the speeds. I guess this is why I was compelled to ask.

Thanks for your insights and inputs!

[phantomdragonz]

Jeez... reeks of troll bait in here...

Zach

[macintologist]

Macs are better at creative things, end of story. Easier to use, no virus/security headaches, availablity of Apple software like FInal Cut Pro, Aperture, etc. Appe is geared towards that niche market.

Also, precedence helps too.

[peeb]

Lots of people find that they are cool for that?

[Big Mac]

The OS, its superior user interface, its superior workflow, its superior system level tools (such as ColorSync), its superior multitasking, its superior stability, its superior security, its greater ease of use, its integration with hardware. . . all those things are aspects of Mac superiority. And in the creative field, Macs have always led, creative types may also prefer them for less substantive reasons, and there is little incentive to switch to Windows.

[macintologist]

But then of course the problem with Macs is expandability.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

But then of course the problem with Macs is expandability.

Yeah, that's entirely Apple's fault and choice for forcing people who want upgradable machines to buy Quad cores that are far more powerful than what they need.

[asodamiac]

phantomdragonz, I thought I stated that I wasn't in here to bash Macs? Really, I asked more out of curiosity than anything else.

Big Mac, thanks for explaining a bit more. One of the key selling points to me was the fact that I wouldn't have to worry about viruses! Other than that, most people just "said" that it was great for photography (which is another hobby of mine) so I took it for what it was.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

precedence helps too.

Precedence is a major factor in a lot of industries. When the graphic arts and printing industry moved from mechanical methods to digital, Macintosh was the platform to be on. There has never been a good reason to switch since.

However, the film industry started out with Avid, and to this day, a vast majority of films are cut in an Avid Xpress/ ProTools workflow, despite the fact that an FCP/ Soundtrack Pro workflow is worth switching to.

Ask an editor why more films aren't being cut in FCP, and the answer usually is: "everyone uses Avid and no-one wants to learn FCP".

[Big Mac]

No problem, asodamiac. You really cannot go wrong a new Mac because, if necessary, you can also install and run Windows on it.

[His Dudeness]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

But then of course the problem with Macs is expandability.

And that one-button mouse! You can't do anything with a one-button mouse!

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, that's entirely Apple's fault and choice for forcing people who want upgradable machines to buy Quad cores that are far more powerful than what they need.

I'm sorry are you being sarcastic? My sarcastic detector sucks

[mac128k-1984]

asodamiac,
I think you have a valid question with the roll out of vista I was pondering the same thing.
Macs are now on intel, Macs can run Vista instead of OSX. Why would I want to run OSX instead of Vista.

I need windows to connect to my work network so I loaded vista on bootcamp. I could at this point switch over, I mean I need to upgrade to CS3 when it comes out, I'll just do a cross grade to windows, I can get even more software for vista then I can for OSX.

But then I'd not be able to work the way I want too. I noticed that M$ took the file explorer and made it worse, nearly unusable at this point. If I try to do anything I get prompted for cancel/allow. The search is slower and slows my machine down. The OS is more bloated (though the gui does feel more responsive) and the worst part of vista is that its a bad ripoff of OSX. Why not get the genuine article.

For me (in osx), I get to choose how I want to work and keep my files, windows tries to shoe horn me into its way of doing things and yes there are ways around it but I'd rather work then try to figure out how to work.

One exceptions and its not even apple's fault but surprise surprise its M$'s fault. I hate office for the mac. MS Office (for windows) is faster, has a better implementation of VBA (M$ drops it for office mac) and generally smoother in its operation. I spend a lot of time in excel and its frustrating that I can do things on my pc at work that I cannot at home.

Overall all I have the rock solid stability of unix, the freedom to work and organize my work the way I choose and lack of virsues and spyware provide a nice peace of mind

[shifuimam]

There are things that people have mentioned here that just don't fit anymore - "superior workflow" and "superior tools" and whatnot. Back in the days of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95/98, Macs were indeed superior machines for certain tasks. I wouldn't be surprised if Toy Story, which came out in 1995, was done exclusively on Macs.

Since Windows XP, however, the software that professionals use is largely available for both Windows and OS X, the usability is the same, and the processor speeds are identical. Now it's just a matter of preference. If you started using Macs for graphic design in 1993, it's unlikely that now, in 2007, you're going to be much interested in switching back. Same goes for those who started in Windows in 1998.

I'm a "creative type" and have done plenty of work in graphic design and web design, but I have little interest in switching to a Mac for those purposes. I'm highly productive in Windows XP, and I've learned how to make it and the applications I use behave exactly how I want.

It's just a matter of preference, and since Macs were superior for "creative" things 15 years ago, that precedence has stuck.

[zro]

Well, creative types do seem to gravitate toward Macs. Maybe it's the "I'm different" mentality. Maybe it's the OS/Apple software.

Think of it this way: Whatever the reason, most creative individuals can decide which machine to buy and use to work on. Most business individuals can't.

[mitchell_pgh]

For me... OS X feels transparent when I'm designing. It permits me to focus on the work at hand, and not viruses, spyware, or a poorly designed OS.

I will trade raw speed for reliability ANY DAY.

[olePigeon]

These are the reasons I've found why Macintosh is the best for media/arts in general:

1. Workflow: File management, intuitiveness of the GUI and OS, and less overhead of operation lets users get their work done. OS level integrated support with the most popular software titles from Adobe.
2. Software: Apple has received two Grammys and two Yellow Pencil awards (a very prestigious multimedia & design award) for their software and design philosophy. That is a testament to the quality and design of their software. You don't need a panel of judges to see this. Try Final Cut Express, and then go try Pinnacle Studio. Final Cut Express is heaven compared to almost anything offered on Windows.
3. History: Macintosh was designed from the ground up to be a multimedia machine. Before cheap PCs became "useable" with Windows 95, Apple garnered over 90% of the multimedia and publishing markets. One the thing that hasn't changed with Apple from the very first Macintosh to the latest Core Duo Mac Pro is their philosophy behind simplicity. You get your work done, plain and simple. The complxity is there if you need it, but it's out of the way when you don't. Apple has embedded itself in the multimedia market and they're not going anywhere.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Since Windows XP, however, the software that professionals use is largely available for both Windows and OS X, the usability is the same, and the processor speeds are identical. Now it's just a matter of preference.

No, it's not just a matter of preference. The difference is not a gigantic as it was when Windows was at 3.11, but that does not mean the two platform are equivalent. They aren't.

[::maroma::]

Macs are better for creatives because when you use a Mac you don't have to worry about how to make something work, whether or not you're getting a virus, etc. The Mac allows you to think about your work and not about how to keep your computer running or learning how different programs work with one another. The OS (and in turn its software) are intuitive and easy to use, Windows is not. It has nothing to do with speed.

[Chuckit]

Apple is the only company in this business that knows its head from its ass. That's why.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Apple is the only company in this business that knows its head from its ass. That's why.

[imitchellg5]

I've always used Macs for most of my life. I really don't like using PCs. I'm not comfortable with them. And with spyware and crap like that I have the feeling that I'm being watched. I would never do anything confidential on a PC.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

Why have Macs become industry standards (well, within the film, photography, art, graphic, media, etc. industries).

Has anyone seen recent (last 5 years) studies that confirm this is true? I realize it's a popular rumor/myth/urban legend in the Mac community, and it was probably true at one point in the past, but is it still true today?

I'm looking for something from Gartner, IDC, or the like; not MacDigest polling it's readers and finding that 99.9% in the creative field use Macs. My Google-fu has turned up nothing sofar.

[Big Mac]

Why are you trying to be argumentative, mduell? It's obviously not 99% of the creative industry held by Apple, but a substantial portion of it is.

[::maroma::]

I have a better question:

Why not a Mac?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I have a better question:

Why not a Mac?

There's really no good reason for most people not to get a Mactel. One reason may be Apple hardware choice, however. Ironically, Apple's refusal to put a GPU in the MacBook probably sends a lot of people to PCs, as it did when I needed a new laptop (to run key pieces of Windows software).

[el chupacabra]

part of it may be a historical thing. Windows was usless until 1995, and even then win95 was still half backed garbage. It was time prior to this age that macs became popular with 'artists'. It has carried over... Many graphics students learned on macs back in the day because that was its niche. I remember taking classes on LCII.

Now days there probably wouldn't have to be that much differnce between PC and Mac.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why are you trying to be argumentative, mduell? It's obviously not 99% of the creative industry held by Apple, but a substantial portion of it is.

I'm not arguing and I'm not saying that the belief isn't true. I'm wondering if there is any real data to support the belief, or if it is just taken on blind faith and/or personal experience.

[Chuckit]

It's the personal experience of every designer I've ever met, for sure.

[asodamiac]

Mduell, you bring up a fair argument. To be completely honest, I just assumed (and we all know what that does!) that most of these industries used Macs. Many photographers on another forum that I browse use Macs as well. I guess thats why I believed it to be true.

Someone had mentioned on this photography forum that most of these industries use ACD's. According to that claim, ACD's have become the industry standard so that as files are bounced around from department to department or company to company, the image should be viewed as it was originally made. I guess other factors play a huge role in this as well, such as which calibration hardware each company uses and such, but it was just something that was brought up.

Thanks for sharing folks. I plan on picking up a Mac Pro some time after the next revision. My old 4G Powerbook is getting a bit slow for me

[hart]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

I could at this point switch over, I mean I need to upgrade to CS3 when it comes out, I'll just do a cross grade to windows

off topic but when IS CS3 due/rumored to come out? I was finally getting around to CS2 but if it's soon I may as well hold off.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Has anyone seen recent (last 5 years) studies that confirm this is true? I realize it's a popular rumor/myth/urban legend in the Mac community, and it was probably true at one point in the past, but is it still true today?

I'm looking for something from Gartner, IDC, or the like; not MacDigest polling it's readers and finding that 99.9% in the creative field use Macs. My Google-fu has turned up nothing sofar.

Interestingly enough, I was watching the special features on the Cars 2-disc DVD set, and the 3D rendering for the entire movie was done in a custom application written for Linux!

Kind of OT, but I found it interesting that the one place where Macs have dominated for more than a decade - animation - is starting to show inklings that there are alternatives.

[MindFad]

I was under the impression that Macs were never a dominating force in 3-D animation. Video, 2-D, and the rest, maybe, but not in the 3-D/animation arena. And especially not in the render farm (which is not animation) universe.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Has anyone seen recent (last 5 years) studies that confirm this is true? I realize it's a popular rumor/myth/urban legend in the Mac community, and it was probably true at one point in the past, but is it still true today?

I'm looking for something from Gartner, IDC, or the like; not MacDigest polling it's readers and finding that 99.9% in the creative field use Macs. My Google-fu has turned up nothing sofar.

The film industry is starting to move towards PCs. Star Wars Episode III was almost exclusively edited on PCs. The only part of Episode III that used Macs was music and digital paintings that make up the backgrounds of Coruscant and Mustafar etc.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The film industry is starting to move towards PCs. Star Wars Episode III was almost exclusively edited on PCs. The only part of Episode III that used Macs was music and digital paintings that make up the backgrounds of Coruscant and Mustafar etc.

Are you talking about the 3D rendering? Then, yes, but the DVD extras showed something completely different when it came to the film editing and sound. I don't work at Skywalker, but a buddy of mine who's a sound engineer said they're about 50% Macs over there. Most of the PCs are used for 3D rendering and a little bit of compositing.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Since Windows XP, however, the software that professionals use is largely available for both Windows and OS X, the usability is the same, and the processor speeds are identical. Now it's just a matter of preference. If you started using Macs for graphic design in 1993, it's unlikely that now, in 2007, you're going to be much interested in switching back. Same goes for those who started in Windows in 1998.

Apple owns quite a few of the big creative tools, such as Final Cut Pro. As such, you can only get Macintosh versions of these tools.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Are you talking about the 3D rendering? Then, yes, but the DVD extras showed something completely different when it came to the film editing and sound. I don't work at Skywalker, but a buddy of mine who's a sound engineer said they're about 50% Macs over there. Most of the PCs are used for 3D rendering and a little bit of compositing.

ILM also has their own in-house compositing software, from what I understand.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Apple owns quite a few of the big creative tools, such as Final Cut Pro. As such, you can only get Macintosh versions of these tools.

Shake is now Mac-only as well, no, ever since Apple bought it?

But anyway, for me, the intuitiveness of the Mac OS, file management, multitasking (especially ever since OS X), and overall headache-free experience keep me using it. I don't have to wonder why something isn't working properly, some strange error message, or the fear of a file system eaten by malware/viruses/what-have-you. If there is an issue, it's usually easily solvable, and quickly. I've had to do the same work I do on my Mac on Windows, and it's just not nearly as tight or as swift an experience for me. Gimme a Mac any day, for any computing experience or design work.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

ILM also has their own in-house compositing software, from what I understand.
Shake is now Mac-only as well, no, ever since Apple bought it?

Shake is made for Linux as well. If you watch the special features on Episode III you'll notice that there is not one editor who uses a Mac. They are all PCs. They had quite a few Macs on the sets though. The 2 plasma TVs that Lucas kept on the sets were powered by a PowerBook G4 and you can see an Airport Extreme Base Station on the carts often. Ben Burt who does sound for Lucas has an iBook and a Power Mac G5 in the special features.