[K107]

When it comes to the design industry, whether advertising, the film industry, music industry,etc... Apple computers are the standard platform they use. Why is that? What do you think?

[Wiskedjak]

Because designers don't like beige. It's a rather uncreative colour.

[sniffer]

Becuse the creative marked is something Apple take seriously?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by K107:
When it comes to the design industry, whether advertising, the film industry, music industry,etc... Apple computers are the standard platform they use. Why is that? What do you think?

Because a British person is in charge and American's lost their sense of subtle design over 20 years ago. Ever since MTV came out and changed the face of the media, everything in American design has been bigger, louder, more color. British design is subtle, neat, economical and to the point.

[K107]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Because a British person is in charge and American's lost their sense of subtle design over 20 years ago. Ever since MTV came out and changed the face of the media, everything in American design has been bigger, louder, more color. British design is subtle, neat, economical and to the point.

So you guys are saying its basically because apple cpu designs are better looking than pc so us designers are Attracted to it and Appreciate the design of it. I think there something more to it than that. or is there?

[Eyenovation]

IMHO, it's because Apple was the first to make DTP available on their platform. Window's didn't follow suit for quite some time. Thus, most of the world's print firms and design houses jumped on board with the Mac, making it the industry standard for designers.

I think many of the points made above are also true. It's a stunning piece of architecture, the OS is soothing and appeals to artists. I think in recent years, PC's are catching up in terms of appeal to designers. Most web development is actually conducted on PC's rather than Macs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by K107:
So you guys are saying its basically because apple cpu designs are better looking than pc so us designers are Attracted to it and Appreciate the design of it.

The fact that Apple puts so much thought and attention into the look of the product suggests that they put an equal amount of thought and attention into other areas of the product. Whether that's true or not is another issue entirely, but it's the suggestion that's important.

[capuchin]

Originally posted by Eyenovation:
IMHO, it's because Apple was the first to make DTP available on their platform. Window's didn't follow suit for quite some time. Thus, most of the world's print firms and design houses jumped on board with the Mac, making it the industry standard for designers.

This is the correct answer. I'm IT manager for a 50 person, 30yr old design firm, and we've been all mac since '86.

These days, using a mac is de rigeur in the design field, mainly because Apple got such a head start on other platforms in DTP that most firms have significant investments in their choice of platform - sure, we could switch to Windows, and probably adjust pretty well, but the cost of buying full-priced new copies of every licensed application would be prohibitive. So we're sticking with Apple and scarfing up G5's and OS X licenses as fast as we can.

Of course, the mac is the industry standard, so design firms train students to use it, who then go on to perpetuate and advocate the mac in firms they work for. It's cyclical.

[RooneyX]

I misread the question. I skimmed it as 'Why are Apple Computers the design standard in the industry?'

[madmacgames]

A few people have told me this, and after switched from PC to Mac, I completely agree with what they told me:

"I love working and designing on the Mac because the operating system gets of my way and lets me do my work and be creative"

as opposed to windows, where from personal experience, I can say, that very often the operating system gets in your way or makes you hurdle over obstacles (even winXP does).

It is hard to pinpoint exactly what "getting in the way" and "getting out of the way" is for people that have not used both systems for extended periods of time, but if you have, then you know what I mean.

[madmacgames]

Originally posted by K107:
music industry

In regard to the music industry, Pro Tools was a big player I think. Pro Tools became the "industry standard" as far as programs like that do (and we could ask the same question here... how did Pro Tools become industry standard?). For a long time, Pro Tools for windows sucked big time. I believe it is now much better on windows, but I remember that it used to be very very buggy on windows. If you wanted a good version, Mac was it.

That kind of makes a full circle then because was there only a decent version of Pro Tools available for Mac because the Mac was the music industry standard, or did the Mac become the music industry standard because a decent version of Pro Tools was only available for Mac? or was it a combination of the two? so many questions.

[rag on a muffin]

macs have pretty much always had the software and hardware for multimedia.

[K107]

I agree with everybody here. Apple was the first for DTP. And it ture it is a cycle. The industry use it, in school your taught in it. So you buy one.

It also true that for some reason when your designing on a PC, something get in the way. I can't explain it myself but it just fells better desiging in a mac. It might be because of the OS.

Anyway that is the reason I just bought my first apple computer. A powerbook G5 1.5 15" 128 Vram 80 HDD 5400. I can't wait. IT should be shipped on of after the April 28.

[zubro]

Originally posted by rag on a muffin:
macs have pretty much always had the software and hardware for multimedia.

Indeed! :o)
The very first hardware for music was Atari I think.
Then came the MacII (or was it the Plus)
anyway, Mac is a good thing and designers like good things.
hummmmm! Good Things! :oP









ha, I almost forgot, Windows is ... Windows.

[RooneyX]

Back when I was heavily into design and video I have to admit using Windows NT and 2K. It was simply more stable, better at multitasking, I had full SMP support for dual CPUs and was able to work with Photoshop, Premiere, Lightwave and After Effects at the same time with no crashes. But things have changed and OSX has surpassed that while XP has become rubbish and gimmicky.

[Saleo]

Adobe photoshop was first released on the mac before PC. Most standard design tools used by the industry were released first on the mac (Quark also I believe) so it sort of became the defacto standard.

[hardcat1970]

like everyone said, mac is used on earlier DTP including font management/Postscript, and the OS is smooth to use, that's why they dominated the design/prepress market.

I don't know if this is an excuse or not, even though windows PC has caught up mac in recent years, but i always find myself being more productive and creative when using a macintosh computer for my advertising works. The interface, icon, menu font usage and windows design on XP or earlier windows versions are just too damn ugly.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because designers don't like beige. It's a rather uncreative colour.

Uh-huh. Apple made most of it's progress into the design field long before they went candy colored. I distinctly remember all the Macs I worked on originally with Photoshop were beige.

Do some research kid before the next time you post.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because designers don't like beige. It's a rather uncreative colour.

When was the last time you saw a beige laptop?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Because designers don't like beige. It's a rather uncreative colour.

Beige is the new Titanium didn't you hear?

[Xerxes]

Yeah that Brit was so good he had to go across the world to a foreign land to get the decent job he had.

British design is so good it is famous aaaallll over the world.......NOT

X

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Because a British person is in charge and American's lost their sense of subtle design over 20 years ago. Ever since MTV came out and changed the face of the media, everything in American design has been bigger, louder, more color. British design is subtle, neat, economical and to the point.

[Link]

Originally posted by K107:
I agree with everybody here. Apple was the first for DTP. And it ture it is a cycle. The industry use it, in school your taught in it. So you buy one.

It also true that for some reason when your designing on a PC, something get in the way. I can't explain it myself but it just fells better desiging in a mac. It might be because of the OS.

Anyway that is the reason I just bought my first apple computer. A powerbook G5 1.5 15" 128 Vram 80 HDD 5400. I can't wait. IT should be shipped on of after the April 28.

I hear one of the biggest pains in the butt is getting used to the parent/child window interface. While other OSes are accustomed to the same behavior only because MS started that behavior, all the Mac OSes since the first one have been made to work like the one we're all using now.. apps aren't made to take up the entire screen and thus you can do 6 or 7 things at the same time.

[Graymalkin]

One reason I've always prefered using MacOS for any graphical work is ColorSync. There's no equivalent on Windows which makes it next to worthless to me for graphic design. If I spend an hour working out the colors for an image I want them preserved. I do not want to spend another hour adjusting my image colors to match what the printer is spitting out. ColorSync does all of that for me so I can spend my valuable time doing real work. Color management on Windows is a sick joke.

[Waragainstsleep]

Macs became prominent in the music industry because Intel chips couldn't keep proper time, and Motorolas could.

Remember the first batch of Pentium 1s? They couldn't even add up.
Someone posted an official looking message at the time saying that Intel had divided their stock which was now selling at $X for 1.9999999999972 shares.

[nath]

ha ha. not wanting to start a flame war but - are you sure about that?

neil ive, norman foster, neville brody....

there are a lot more, but anyway, here are three british designers in different arenas who have completely blown away their american counterparts in the last 20 years. pretty impressive considering the comparative populations of the two countries, i'd say.

I mean Rooney's post was kind of dumb, but yours...come on, get a grip man!

Originally posted by Xerxes:
Yeah that Brit was so good he had to go across the world to a foreign land to get the decent job he had.

British design is so good it is famous aaaallll over the world.......NOT

X

[angelmb]

Originally posted by nath:
ha ha. not wanting to start a flame war but - are you sure about that?

neil ive, norman foster, neville brody....

there are a lot more, but anyway, here are three british designers in different arenas who have completely blown away their american counterparts in the last 20 years. pretty impressive considering the comparative populations of the two countries, i'd say.

I mean Rooney's post was kind of dumb, but yours...come on, get a grip man!

What about british Neil Poulton?,

[misnomer]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
One reason I've always prefered using MacOS for any graphical work is ColorSync. There's no equivalent on Windows which makes it next to worthless to me for graphic design. If I spend an hour working out the colors for an image I want them preserved. I do not want to spend another hour adjusting my image colors to match what the printer is spitting out. ColorSync does all of that for me so I can spend my valuable time doing real work. Color management on Windows is a sick joke.

??

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...html/icmwp.asp
http://www.colourconfidence.com/windows/

[sheer]

It's an historical thing, then the fact Apple seem to tailor their pro-products and OS to the creative market as well as making them practical, easy to use and I suppose fun to use. Also presentation and packaging of Apple products is second-to-none, so much thought goes into that.

[moodymonster]

Macs got a headstart 'cause of software available and what the system could do.

Nowadays macs are still the standard because designing is very much an ideas process and I, for one, cannot stand using Windows for anything other than the most basic stuff, cause it gets in the way of my thinking. I want to concentrate on what I'm doing, not constantly mess about with the tools I'm using to do it (maybe I'm just used to the mac?).

Also macs look nicer, both the machines and the OS. If you're a designer (etc), you don't want to be looking at windows all day when there's macintosh. Macs are designed, and thats appreciated - its craftmanship.

Also, in my view, macs have that something extra - you can't put your finger on it, but it makes it more than the sum of its parts. That certain something

[Waragainstsleep]

The X factor.......

[jwon985]

i haven't read anything about hardware....
but interms of why macs are the industry standard....

mac processors, made by motorola... are RASTER based... which means better performance for working with pixel data. such as used in adobe photoshop.
VS
pc processors are VECTOR based. which means basically alot of mathematical formulas... such as used in adobe illustrator.

you will notice that for computer animation, which uses almost all vectors to create motion... they are all made for PCs. NOT macs... ie) maya... 3d studio max...


also, mac processors and pc processors are not on the same comparable scale... i have heard different theories on this topic...
1) the listed mac speed (ie. 1Ghz) is actually faster than a pc (1.5Ghz)
2) the listed cpu speed is actually slower than the pc cpu, however, the mac programs work well with the hardware, thus having better performance...

i dont know about those theories. if they are true.

but it is a fact that when apple and intel were in their early days... apple processors were much more powerful than pcs... but for some reason, they kept their Mhz scale the same, whereas it should've been higher...

well, thats my 2cents...
sorry if anythings inaccurate...

[iomatic]

I think you are talking out of your ass.

Simply, Macs are more elegant, and easier to work with.

Originally posted by jwon985:
i haven't read anything about hardware....
but interms of why macs are the industry standard....

mac processors, made by motorola... are RASTER based... which means better performance for working with pixel data. such as used in adobe photoshop.
VS
pc processors are VECTOR based. which means basically alot of mathematical formulas... such as used in adobe illustrator.

...

[Graymalkin]

Originally posted by jwon985:
a swath of inaccuracy

I don't think anything you said was even remotely accurate.

[moodymonster]

Originally posted by Waragainstsleep:
The X factor.......

[Waragainstsleep]

Its pretty simple.
Why do most people use PCs?
The standard now referred to as PC or Wintel etc, used to be known as IBM PC (back in the 1980s, you had various CBM Amiga formats, CBM 64, Atari ST, Sinclair Spectrum etc, and IBM PC).

When the desktop computer came into existence (or not long after), you had a choice of an Apple (built in a garage by kids), or a machine made by the biggest, oldest (only) Computer company in the world (as far as most were concerned), IBM.
IBM pretty much had a monopoly before home machines came about. By cutting too many costs when trying to maintain their monopoly from Apple, they inadvertantly handed it to M$, by licensing an OS from them and building their machine from parts available at Radio Shack.
Yes there were Amstrad machines with a different OS, Acorn BBCs, and a few other latecomers to the home computing party.
Windows prevails today because of the respect comsumers had for the long established IBM.
We talk about peoples choice of system, Mac vs. PC, but this choice was made sometime ago by IBM, then by the first generation of home/business users.
(Would you buy a new car from Ford or a bunch of kids who just built one in a garage?)

Apple had the opportunity to redress the balance when the Mac came along, but their poor choice of CEO effectively licensed Windows to M$, then tryed to sue them for using it. Ancient history, but there you are.

As for design/graphics industry using the Mac, I suspect that nowadays many new creative types are attracted to the style and simplicity and the other things mentioned, but when Macs took off in the design business, they had faster clocked chips than anyone.
Back then, you had to have the latest thing to do the latest graphics, and the fastest machines were Macs. Many designers will have stuck with the Mac for the same reason people still stick to PCs: Its the industry standard.

This advantage has long faded away, and Apple now has to rely on making better software for the creative people, something they are good at from long experience in the field.

There was a time when using a PC for graphics or music was unthinkable. They were always cheaper, but now they're faster too. (And for music, they can now keep proper time. 10 years ago, studios used Macs, or Atari STs and maybe some Amigas. All run off Moto chips. I'd bet there are still a good few STs in daily professional use, and the Amiga 500 is practically identical, except the Atari had better sound (16-bit, CD quality) until later Amigas came out).



People stick with what they know, because they know it.

[Link]

Originally posted by Waragainstsleep:
People stick with what they know, because they know it.

I guess I move against the tide. I wanted a powerful unix OS that didn't require the troubleshooting most linuxes require (lots of RTFM heheh), that had a lot of commercial apps - when OS X first came out I saw it as the perfect opportunity and jumped on board.

IMHO "speed" hasn't changed too much. In many cases macs have been competetive with their x86 counterparts at release, I know this machine was to a good affect, and sometimes they're even faster -- then again there were the days when apple was releasing a 1.4ghz processor on a 167mhz bus while others were using a 533 bus

If I had a 1.8ghz PC like I could have gotten at the time, it would be loosing it's leagues on usefulness by now.

[Xerxes]

Amigo, when the day comes that you need to 'blow' your own trumpet it is aleady too late.

X

Originally posted by nath:
ha ha. not wanting to start a flame war but - are you sure about that?

neil ive, norman foster, neville brody....

there are a lot more, but anyway, here are three british designers in different arenas who have completely blown away their american counterparts in the last 20 years. pretty impressive considering the comparative populations of the two countries, i'd say.

I mean Rooney's post was kind of dumb, but yours...come on, get a grip man!

[nath]

Originally posted by Xerxes:
Amigo, when the day comes that you need to 'blow' your own trumpet it is aleady too late.

X

no trumpet blowing here mate, just stuffing a bit of basic design history down yours. how's that foot taste?

[Xerxes]

Not as bad as your cuisine ;-)

X

Originally posted by nath:
no trumpet blowing here mate, just stuffing a bit of basic design history down yours. how's that foot taste?