Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Irby, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. Irby

    Irby Guest

    It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
    Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
    this is? Thanks
    Irby, Mar 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Il 08/03/2007 15:43, Irby dixit:

    Mac was released in 1984, Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, but until
    the 3.0 version, in 1990, it was a "poor GUI" compared to Mac.

    Publishers who placed a lot of money on Macs don't want to jettison all
    their hardware (and knowledge) to change their systems just because the
    new ones are "fancier", and obsolescence, in the typographic world, was
    once measured in decades (in 1980, during my duty, to make offset
    clichés I used a Xerox reproduction machine leaved in Italy by Allies in
    1945 - and it works perfectly).

    Presently, between Mac and PCs there isn't a great difference: just like
    between Sunni and Shia in Baghdad...

    cyrusthevirus, Mar 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Irby

    Cynicor Guest

    Because they like to spend more to be locked into a single hardware
    maker's platform?
    Cynicor, Mar 8, 2007
  4. For me it is preferring a computer that will not suddenly crash while I
    am in the middle of editing a complex graphic.

    The Mac has been a more stable platform for years. And, sure, I know
    about frequent saves etc.
    Ockham's Razor, Mar 8, 2007
  5. Irby

    Brian Lund Guest

    It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer
    Yes, but today there is no difference in stability...
    Today it is a question about what you prefer!
    (And the new macs can run Windows too)

    Both are good.

    Brian Lund, Mar 8, 2007
  6. I work supporting Macs in the education, graphics, and publishing
    arenas. At one time, Apple was almost literally the only way to get
    things done in these markets. This has diminished; Windows has gotten
    much better. To the extent that if someone is a Windows expert user I
    wouldn't necessarily recommend a change.

    That said, there are still advantages in color management, file
    handling, user interface, and stability. Some excellent graphics
    software is exclusively for, or better on, the Mac.

    Finally, the nearly complete freedom from malware is a big plus as
    well. I recently converted a college newspaper to Mac because they were
    literally drowning in viruses; they had IT there every single week to
    disinfect their PC's. Since they got Macs, not a single infection. And
    that's without any antivirus software at all.
    Scott Schuckert, Mar 8, 2007
  7. Irby

    ray Guest

    Probably because MACs 'just work'. Most of them are not technically
    proficient and don't have the time to deal with MS malware, BSODs,
    defragging, . . . Basically some of the same reasons I use Linux as
    opposed to MS.
    ray, Mar 8, 2007
  8. Irby

    Roy G Guest

    This just demonstrates the percentage of Mac users to PC users. There are
    so few Macs that the Virus / Malware writers don't bother producing a Mac

    Mac users always remind me of a certain kind of VW driver. "VWs never
    break down", the "Beatle" was more reliable than most in it's day, but that
    was a very long time ago.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Mar 8, 2007
  9. Yes, but today there is no difference in stability...
    Today it is a question about what you prefer!
    (And the new macs can run Windows too)

    Both are good.[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps, but with my investment in Mac and Mac compliant SW I cannot
    afford experimenting with Windows.
    Ockham's Razor, Mar 8, 2007
  10. I don't actually think it's true. It's *more* true to say that most MAC
    users work in graphics.

    As to why -- I suspect that designers are strongly influenced by Apple's
    excellent industrial design.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 8, 2007
  11. Today, it's a matter or inertia. Graphics designers use Mac because
    those who came before them used Macs. This happened for a about
    three reasons. In the early days, Macs were far easier to learn to
    use, if you weren't a computer geeks (and graphics artists in those
    days were artists first, and computer users second). Second, in the
    early days, Macs were a lot better at graphic design, because they
    were designed to be good at it. Third, Apple used to give deep,
    deep discounts to schools, especially schools that taught graphics
    design, so that graduates, in looking for a job, would tell
    prospective employers that they were already familiar with Macs. It
    was a very good business move on Apple's part.

    "What is the first law?"
    "To Protect."
    "And the second?"

    Terry Austin
    No 33 Secretary, Mar 8, 2007
  12. Irby

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I agree, but with one caveat. Photoshop was, IIRC, originally
    written for Macs.
    Paul J Gans, Mar 8, 2007
  13. Irby

    Ken Lucke Guest

    Because Macs were designed from the beginning with a graphical user
    interface as the entire basis of operation, rather than as an
    afterthought desperately cobbled on top of the OS to try to compete (as
    the first Windoze OS versions were), graphics just came more naturally
    to them, so the evolution of graphical programming was easier on the
    Mac (many of the core graphics rendering and manipulation routines were
    written right into the firmware itself, or into the "toolbox" (as it
    used to be called), which allowed programmers to use them without
    having to understand the "on the metal" technicalities of manipulating
    of every graphic format available (which was actually a pretty small
    set back then).
    Yup - it was Mac-only for 4 years, until v2.5 (1992, IIRC).

    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    -- Charles A. Beard
    Ken Lucke, Mar 8, 2007
  14. Irby

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Skipping over all of the posts so far, the whole thing can be summarized:

    1. People will tend to continue to use whatever it is in which they have
    made a considerable investment in supporting expenditures, as in mac vs
    pc (software), Nikon vs Canon (lenses) and anything else you can think of.
    2. Although windows is now a respectable competitive graphics platform,
    this wasn't always the case. Formerly the mac was way ahead in graphics
    stuff and preferred by design artists. Prior to windows, pc's were (and
    still are) strong contenders for business apps.
    3. Although listed third, this is by far and away the most important
    factor. Corporate enterprises were badly burned in the mainframe arena
    by companies appearing and disappearing. IBM was the only solid
    reliable, here to stay outfit and IBM introduced the pc. Along with the
    pc came the spreadsheet (I think visicalc was the first but there were
    possible others and my memory fails me). What the Mac was to graphics,
    the spreadsheet was to accountants and related skills only more so.
    Corporate MIS people were dragged kicking and screaming into permitting
    pc's into the corporate environment (as opposed to MIS putting a
    terminal on user's desktop). Now of course, once this practice became
    established and clone pc's appeared, people like me wanted either to
    borrow or purchase same in order to work at home. All this created a
    tremendous market force against which Apple could not compete. It's
    marketing policies didn't help any either.
    Now I know MIS fears of the short lifetime for Apple have not
    materialized but they didn't know that back then.
    4. Other factors like better hardware and software integration in the
    mac, virus vulnerability etc. are relevant but not decisive. Some of
    those factors are due to sloppy design now being addressed by MS. It
    takes them a few years (decades) to get thing right. When the do, the
    end result can be satisfactory with the added advantage of when this
    happens, hardware horsepower has had time to grow to support the added
    5. Note: None of the above made MS supremacy a forgone conclusion. The
    fact that MS has so successfully been able to piggyback on the success
    of the pc has to be credited to Bill Gates marketing skills. Remember
    Digital Research and another graphical interface whose name escapes me
    plus others.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Mar 8, 2007
  15. Irby

    nsag Guest

    At this point in time there is far more software and hardware for high end
    graphics work on the PC platform. As of this writing there is no
    commercially available version of Photoshop that runs natively on the Mactel
    platform. The Adobe CS3 beta release was a desperate ploy by Adobe to keep
    Mactel users from switching to Aperture (as if anyone who did this for a
    living would!) and to satisfy the orthodox Macaholics that populate the
    Adobe design team. If you want to hear strained logic mixed with religious
    preference listen to a Macaholic explain why color management is better on a
    Mac than on a PC. If you buy it then you will prablably soon want to choose
    sides in the Shiite vs Sunni Iraqui civil war.
    nsag, Mar 8, 2007
  16. Irby

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Paul Mitchum, Mar 8, 2007
  17. Irby

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    So where's the 'far more?'

    I've got a MacBook, and it runs Photoshop just fine. It'll be nice when
    the native version comes along, but it's still pretty freakin' fast as
    Paul Mitchum, Mar 8, 2007
  18. Most people are simply sheep and believe everything they see and read on TV
    or the Internet. Macs are nothing more than a novelty box. If you want
    high performance and reliability you will select the PC platform. Most
    graphics professionals chose the Intel Xeon for their processor of choice.
    They are more apt to be using a dual Xeon system. Even Mac caved in and all
    their "performance" systems are Intel based. And you guessed it they use
    Xeons. Why buy a copy of the best when you can own the best, a PC.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Mar 8, 2007
  19. Apple went to the intel chip for two reasons, Motorola was not making
    any progress with advanced chips and the intel chips run cooler.

    A secondary thing may be that too many users only recognize the intel
    Ockham's Razor, Mar 8, 2007
  20. If they COULD do it, they WOULD do it.

    Just to force the Macistas the STFU.
    Steve Cutchen, Mar 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.