MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   MacNN Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/macnn-lounge/)
-   -   Why are Macs better for Graphic Design than WinPC's? (http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lounge/317317/why-macs-better-graphic-design-than/)

 
dndog Nov 14, 2006 04:12 AM
Why are Macs better for Graphic Design than WinPC's?
I know that Macs are the computer of choice for graphics designers, but aren't programs like Photoshop readily avalible on PCs as well? What advantages do the Macs have over PCs when using Photoshop?

Thanks.
 
phantomdragonz Nov 14, 2006 05:18 AM
preference....

or you could argue that macs are more intuitive... more like an artists mind...


Zach
 
OwlBoy Nov 14, 2006 05:26 AM
They stay out of your way, and let you get down to your work. More intuitive allowing for more time on the art and less on how would go about getting ready to do that art (from the tool aspect).

-Owl
 
himself Nov 14, 2006 05:37 AM
Better font handling and built-in system-wide color matching (via Colorsync) are two big reasons.
 
Tuoder Nov 14, 2006 06:36 AM
This question was easier in the early-mid 80's. Try making a newspaper with DOS. Anyone remember fixed-width fonts? or better yet, remember when there was no other option?
 
red rocket Nov 14, 2006 07:09 AM
It's also a bit of a historical thing. Thanks to PostScript and PageMaker, Macs had the better cards in the desktop publishing game when it started, and thus became the de facto standard in the industry. The guy who developed what became known as Photoshop developed it on Macs.
 
mania Nov 14, 2006 11:40 AM
okay, just now - I was trying to edit a file in CS2 Photoshop on a new PC with 2G RAM and when I tried to zoom in i just got screen artifacts (like the window was in a hall of mirrors). Moved it over to my old 1.25 GHz G4 powerbook with no problems.

the PC is just flaky, everything requires reboots, monkeying and fiddling to get things to work. mac is smooth like butta. this is my experience with doing anything on windows vs mac. Is it not yours?
 
Dark Helmet Nov 14, 2006 11:51 AM
It was because of Fonts, software and colour accuracy.

Right now it is mostly because the artistic crowd don't want to be seen as PC drones, the gamma on a mac is 1.8 and not 2.2 so you can see more details in dark colours and better colour matching.

Also pretty much all print houses are Mac based so if you want things to go smoothly it is better to do it all on a Mac.
 
SirCastor Nov 14, 2006 06:52 PM
The Mac platform isn't inherently better, it's just got a history in the industry. That's why the shift from 9 to X was such a big deal (and subsequently, the shift from PPC to intel has been a little shaky too). The print industry needed their stuff to work. Those shifts were risky because the industry could've jumped ship.

Fortunately they didn't.
 
davesimondotcom Nov 14, 2006 06:53 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Dark Helmet (Post 3205351)
It was because of Fonts, software and colour accuracy.
Still is. If you have an investment in type, you don't really want to switch to Windows.
 
Dark Helmet Nov 14, 2006 06:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by davesimondotcom (Post 3205992)
Still is. If you have an investment in type, you don't really want to switch to Windows.
Well I was talking more about when there was no PC photoshop/quark and windows had shitty font files for the pickin.
 
davesimondotcom Nov 14, 2006 07:10 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Dark Helmet (Post 3205995)
Well I was talking more about when there was no PC photoshop/quark and windows had shitty font files for the pickin.
Not that anyone cares. I still see Papyrus used to excess around here.
 
olePigeon Nov 14, 2006 07:16 PM
One (two) words: ColorSync

Not to mention you won't have any problems with printers if you only use Macs, you may run into problems with some printers if you use Windows.
 
indigoimac Nov 14, 2006 07:19 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 3206006)
One (two) words: ColorSync

Not to mention you won't have any problems with printers if you only use Macs, you may run into problems with some printers if you use Windows.
Pretty much, and for the moment, until CS3, intel macs are at a performance disadvantage, but that will change.
 
chabig Nov 14, 2006 08:38 PM
Macs still have better WYSIWYG because the entire graphics system is based on PDF.
 
olePigeon Nov 14, 2006 08:43 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by chabig (Post 3206091)
Macs still have better WYSIWYG because the entire graphics system is based on PDF.
:thumbsup: Adobe's licensed a lot of their technology to Apple and is actually apart of their OS. The integration is great from a designer's standpoint. You can create PDF-X documents from almost any program just from the Print dialog! :cool:
 
olePigeon Nov 14, 2006 08:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by indigoimac (Post 3206009)
Pretty much, and for the moment, until CS3, intel macs are at a performance disadvantage, but that will change.
I think CS2.5 (UB version of CS2) is coming out pretty soon as an interim solution until CS3 hits the market.
 
mitchell_pgh Nov 14, 2006 08:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 3206102)
I think CS2.5 (UB version of CS2) is coming out pretty soon as an interim solution until CS3 hits the market.
The CS won't be UB until CS3
 
Tuoder Nov 14, 2006 08:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 3206102)
I think CS2.5 (UB version of CS2) is coming out pretty soon as an interim solution until CS3 hits the market.
I am pretty sure that they said they were waiting for CS3 already. After Adobe announced an app that was Intel-only, this became no surprise at all.
 
olePigeon Nov 14, 2006 08:58 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Tuoder (Post 3206111)
I am pretty sure that they said they were waiting for CS3 already. After Adobe announced an app that was Intel-only, this became no surprise at all.
Ah. I heard rumors of a CS 2.5. Oh well.
 
Tuoder Nov 14, 2006 09:03 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 3206115)
Ah. I heard rumors of a CS 2.5. Oh well.
It isn't all bad news.

Macworld: First Look: Benchmarks: Rosetta apps bolstered by OS X update

If you don't feel like reading it, skip to the benchmarks. It seems that Apple has done more for Adobe than Adobe has done for Apple, at least lately.
 
Millennium Nov 14, 2006 09:44 PM
Actually, there's one other reason that Macs have retained their lead in these fields, and it has to do with a little-known feature of the OS: AppleScript. It doesn't get a lot of press, but it sees a lot of use in many shops for automated workflow tasks. This sort of thing is possible on Windows by scripting through COM, but for some reason it's just not as popular there. It may be that the makers of these apps just don't do much with COM scripting support, since AppleScript has been around for longer.
 
Salty Nov 14, 2006 09:45 PM
Macs are more designer friendly. Less frustrating little things popping up. And then there's features like colorsync, exposé, actually in general the windowing system just feels better. It's hard, it just feels better on a Mac. In all honesty though it comes partly from the fact that Macs feel better for a lot of things for creative people, and the industries where there were at one point more reasons to work on a a Mac, still keep them because the Pros don't want to switch to systems that don't feel as nice.
 
olePigeon Nov 14, 2006 09:48 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Millennium (Post 3206159)
Actually, there's one other reason that Macs have retained their lead in these fields, and it has to do with a little-known feature of the OS: AppleScript. It doesn't get a lot of press, but it sees a lot of use in many shops for automated workflow tasks. This sort of thing is possible on Windows by scripting through COM, but for some reason it's just not as popular there. It may be that the makers of these apps just don't do much with COM scripting support, since AppleScript has been around for longer.
Not to mention Automator that lets even novices make decent AppleScripts.

A quick search on Google found tons of Photoshop & Illustrator Automator scripts. :)
 
imitchellg5 Nov 14, 2006 09:57 PM
Photoshop is much quicker I've noticed on old Macs than on old PCs. Try Photoshop CS on a 400MHz G3 vs a 400MHz PII. It's much quicker.
 
- - e r i k - - Nov 15, 2006 01:36 AM
I have a single example from today how Photoshop annoys the sh*t out of me on a pc: When I clicked the zoom button so I could see the whole picture to compare it to another version I had open at the same time, it maximized it instead. Real useful. *grr*
 
Tuoder Nov 15, 2006 01:56 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by imitchellg5 (Post 3206175)
Photoshop is much quicker I've noticed on old Macs than on old PCs. Try Photoshop CS on a 400MHz G3 vs a 400MHz PII. It's much quicker.
That particular argument is obsolete now. Aside from EFI, the hardware is the same now.
 
anonymac Nov 15, 2006 02:09 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by dndog (Post 3205061)
I know that Macs are the computer of choice for graphics designers, but aren't programs like Photoshop readily avalible on PCs as well? What advantages do the Macs have over PCs when using Photoshop?

Thanks.


Uh...let's just say gay guys and PCs don't mix well.
 
Tuoder Nov 15, 2006 02:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by anonymac (Post 3206432)
Uh...let's just say gay guys and PCs don't mix well.
That is wrong on a couple of different levels.
 
MattJeff Nov 15, 2006 11:47 AM
macs are art themselfs, design consious and "they just work" :)
 
chris v Nov 15, 2006 12:59 PM
Designers, as such, are more apt to appreciate a well designed operating system. That, and just the general entrenchment from the days when Windows was not a viable option.

The thing I most despise about Photoshop on the PC is how it hogs the whole screen, so that you can't get to your desktop. And file navigation on Windows machines is arcane. Everything seems to be some sort of alias, and it's hard to tell where, exactly files are really stored, so moving files around from internal to external drives & such is more troublesome. (To me. don't flame me.)
 
OwlBoy Nov 15, 2006 01:19 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by chris v (Post 3206930)
The thing I most despise about Photoshop on the PC is how it hogs the whole screen, so that you can't get to your desktop. And file navigation on Windows machines is arcane. Everything weems to be some sort of alias, and it's hard to tell where, exactly files are really stored, so moving files around from internal to external drives & such is more troublesome. (To me. don't flame me.)
I totally agree, the file management on windows does not feel as straight forward as it does on the Mac for me.

-Owl
 
chabig Nov 15, 2006 01:47 PM
Has anyone mentioned the Mac's superior implementation of cut and paste, and drag and drop? It's common on Macs to use several apps at once, taking advantage of each app's specific strengths.

Chris
 
Calimus Nov 15, 2006 02:16 PM
Using photoshop without Expose is a nightmare. I do it all day at work and hate it.
 
AuPhalanx Nov 15, 2006 02:17 PM
Hi, all!

Other than the reasons mentioned in the responses, I'd like to add that the Mac's document-based approach versus Window's window-based approach is far superior. Having a document (such as a photo in PhotoShop) and pallets, in my opinion, beats having one entire window in which everything happens, especially when working with two monitors.

Have fun... Tony.
 
CRASH HARDDRIVE Nov 15, 2006 02:26 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by chris v (Post 3206930)
The thing I most despise about Photoshop on the PC is how it hogs the whole screen, so that you can't get to your desktop.
If you're talking about parent windows, those you can (finally) get rid of for the most part in Photoshop CS. The whole idea of parent windows is arcane and backwards and should have been shed from Windows a decade ago. If you mean the way palettes remain on screen even when you're not in the application, that's still an annoyance with Photoshop for PC.

Quote
And file navigation on Windows machines is arcane. Everything weems to be some sort of alias, and it's hard to tell where, exactly files are really stored, so moving files around from internal to external drives & such is more troublesome. (To me. don't flame me.)
:confused: I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, as files are wherever you put them on a PC, the same as a Mac. Maybe things that 'look like aliases' are missing file extensions? This used to be a PC-only thing (with Microsoft dumbly having extensions inviable by default) but these days OSX can freak out just as badly with missing or incorrect file extensions.

I actually find browsing photo directories easier on a PC than a Mac, as Windows will display thumbnails always, whereas on many occasions I find there are none in a folder of files on the Mac, depending of course on how they were saved. There are also times when I notice some serious lag in updating file changes with date/time in the Finder, whereas the PC updates such info instantaneously.

Quirks exist on both platforms, and it largely comes down to individual preference. I'm comfortable doing work on either platform myself.
 
olePigeon Nov 15, 2006 03:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Tuoder (Post 3206421)
That particular argument is obsolete now. Aside from EFI, the hardware is the same now.
AltiVec is awesome. While SSE/2/3 is more featured, it's also a lot slower. I'm gonna miss AltiVec.

The PowerPC was/is a great chip design. It's too bad there wasn't a big enough computer market to keep it competitive.

Maybe someday IBM and Intel will get together and have some kind of convergence with the two chip designs. It sure would be cost effective.
 
MattJeff Nov 15, 2006 06:19 PM
Expose, Expose, Expose. life saver right there.
 
SirCastor Nov 15, 2006 06:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by MattJeff (Post 3207442)
Expose, Expose, Expose. life saver right there.
I have to say that if there is one really annoying thing about my job, It's that I reach for my function keys to get access to different windows, and stop myself short realizing that I need to collapse a bunch to get access to the desktop, or cycle through to find what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm just used to the Mac too much, but this feature is definitely one that I cannot live without.
 
Sky Captain Nov 16, 2006 11:43 AM
Whay are Macs better for graphics?
More like why do PCs suck.

Two words.


Microsoft Publisher
 
hayesk Nov 16, 2006 06:07 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by dndog (Post 3205061)
I know that Macs are the computer of choice for graphics designers, but aren't programs like Photoshop readily avalible on PCs as well? What advantages do the Macs have over PCs when using Photoshop?
Mouse ballistics are more natural.
No app is an island - Interaction with other apps is more reliable (drag and drop, file types, etc. more universally supported), interfaces are more consitent, and Apple's Finder is much easier for managing your files.
Networking is easier - A lot of graphic designers collaborate and end up sharing a lot of files.
Colour matching works better.
Fonts work better/look better.
WYS is more WYG
 
kick52 Nov 16, 2006 06:11 PM
i think its because the graphics designers like the way the macs are designed.. they look "neat".. and i suppose designers like things "neat"

not like a beige. boring winbox.
 
Salty Nov 16, 2006 06:59 PM
I forgot about mouse feel. Windows mice drive me nutty!
 
Mellon Nov 16, 2006 08:15 PM
Im not exactly pro at PS or anything but i can say the colors on macs are more precise than pc's other than that i see no difference really.
 
- - e r i k - - Nov 16, 2006 08:16 PM
Oh, we were talking about graphic design were we?

Hehe. But yeah, seriously work with CS on both windows and a mac and you'll easily see what's the best.
 
Strupat Nov 16, 2006 10:44 PM
I believe it is because people with a strong inclination to art have no developed ability to use a computer. Mac OS X has a very simple interface that people who put their efforts into art, appreciate.
 
olePigeon Nov 17, 2006 01:09 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Strupat (Post 3209128)
I believe it is because people with a strong inclination to art have no developed ability to use a computer. Mac OS X has a very simple interface that people who put their efforts into art, appreciate.
Since I work at a school, I can tell you there are Math teachers who have absolutely no idea how to use a computer...

...come to think of it, that could just be teachers in general. :P
 
- - e r i k - - Nov 17, 2006 01:16 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 3209259)
Since I work at a school, I can tell you there are Math teachers who have absolutely no idea how to use a computer...

...come to think of it, that could just be teachers in general. :P
… nor can they for the life of them operate a vcr/dvd/av equipment.
 
design219 Nov 18, 2006 09:13 AM
I'm a designer and have to occasionally use the single PC in our office to check the behavior of website we design (that's another issue). The PC (this one at the moment is brand new) is so clunky I don't understand why they are still more popular than Macs. I'm not even using serious apps, just browsers, and the experience is awful. I can't comment with the authority of those above, but just from a visual and physical interface experience, the PC is no where near as pleasant to work with.
 
tooki Nov 20, 2006 03:29 PM
OK, folks, I just deleted 93 off-topic posts, and am about to begin issuing infractions to all the participating parties for derailing a thread. DO NOT post anything in this thread that is not directly related to the original question of graphic design.

tooki
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2