Redestium Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Probably, but I'd have prefered they were thinking something like "We've got really great software, wouldn't it be great if even more people could use it?"It's a difference in attitude that definetly shows itself in the finished product. Why MDI when SDI would have mapped more closely to the Mac OS style interface (which had years of polishing before the windows version was ever dreamed up) is something that is beyond me. MDI isn't as bad as you make it, especially since there are relatively simple ways around those problems. If it's all the same - I'd rather not have to deal with work arounds to get my job done; simple or otherwise. I suppose that's why I'm a fan of Mac OS/Apple in general. Agreed, preference is a crucial factor I have no trouble working on either platform with the Adobe line of products so it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_daemon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I would like to mention that you can still do photoshop on an old Powermac G3 (the beige towers), while you can't really do it efficiently using a PC from the same era... So they DO have a longer life, and artists like not having to change their hardware all the time. The graphics guy downstair has a Dual G4 with a 21 inches screen (!) and and old Powermac G3 with a 15 inches screen, and running OS 7.5 -- he uses the later more often because he's used to it and hell, it JUST WORKS even though its very old. That tells something I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macster Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 i heard someone say once that macs are better for graphics because of something to do with the difference in the way the pc and mac processors round numbers. dont know if it's true but i thought i'd throw that in. :) I think you are refering to the vector processing capability of the G4 and G5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmccoy Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 At this stage in the game they are both equal. Graphic programs have been optimized for each of them. The questions is how you want spend and which do you have experience using :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoove Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 It all comes down to what you are used to and what you prefer. A Mac isn't better then a PC for graphics, also a PC is not better then a Mac. That whole story about MDI posted above is just bullsh*t..... sorry but I (and millions of people with me) can work with it just fine. It isn't holding back my productivity at all. It might not suite you, but that doesn't mean that it is an evil techinique. In the end it turns out that I can get my work done faster on a PC then on a Mac. This is not because the PC is better, but just that I'm used to the Windows interface and I know my way around. Put me on a Mac and you'll see that I have to search for stuff.... which slows me down. Photoshop is a great product on both platforms. Just pick the platform that you like and don't let people make the descision for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_daemon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 That whole story about MDI posted above is just bullsh*t..... sorry but I (and millions of people with me) can work with it just fine. It isn't holding back my productivity at all. It might not suite you, but that doesn't mean that it is an evil techinique. You forgot to add "in my opinion" or "in my own view" after the bull**** comment.Many people (including myself) found this pretty annoying since day one. It's a matter of taste, it doesn't means it's bs as you say. It's your opinion, and could you show me that "millions of people" with you? I'm not trying to be the least anal here, just saying that I firmly dislike when people use the "millions of people" argument... which is then again, just my opinion, so don't take that personally :) In the end it turns out that I can get my work done faster on a PC then on a Mac. This is not because the PC is better, but just that I'm used to the Windows interface and I know my way around. Put me on a Mac and you'll see that I have to search for stuff.... which slows me down. Here I have to wholefully agree with you. What you describe here could be the same for a Mac user sitting on a PC. As you said, it all boils down to what you like best. It's just a matter of preference, Macs and PCs have equal capacibilities when it come to graphical editing. I personally like both just as much. Even if the MDI window *IS* annoying it doesn't prevent me from working with it, I just think it would have been better without it. EDIT: Curse you typo gremlins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 One thing about the MDI interface which is a real disadvantage is reduced workspace. I cannot fathom why the PC versions don't take the approach of gimp. Gimp obviously does not use MDI and it gets around the limitations of the menu in the window problem by having the menu in the toolbar palette window combined with a context menu. This fairly closely mimics the usability of the mac interface with the one menu on top feature by confining the menu to the toolbar window instead of replicating it on each document window. Just my 4 cents (inflation) :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Dorr Veteran Posted October 2, 2003 Veteran Share Posted October 2, 2003 Going back to Dirty Larry's post comparing Mac vs. PC to Manual vs. Automatic, I actually have to say that the loophole described actually is valid to use in arguement. I equate PC to the manual, and Mac to the automatic. Coming from a background of PC knowledge, moving to the Mac platform was relatively easy. There were a few quirks to learn, but for the most part I was able to get around just fine. My roomate from last year just got an iBook recently and he's already at home with the thing. The fact is PCs, while powerful when learned, are harder to comprehend from the new user's standpoint. Sure, many of you reading this have gotten quite used to working with PC (as am I), so it may seem rediculous to call a PC "hard to use", but it remains that people pick up the Mac OS faster and gain more competence over the system over time. The reasons for this is the usabilty of the Mac OS UI is much higher. There is less use of confusing key commands (Alt+F4??), centralized menu location, a true representation of the idea of a document. The UI on a PC is generally program based. You have programs you manipulate to do things. The Mac OS UI is more document focused. It's as though everything is a big MDI window, and you can interact between applications more seamlessly. For graphics designers, this makes logical sense as they want to work on their images and designs, not on a program. I think it's the difference in UI focus that really separates the two and makes graphic design more natural on the Mac... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornett Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I think it is because the initial version of Photoshop (which I believe was called Color) and many other applications were Mac only and since Macs were adopted at that time by the industry they have continued to be the most popular platform. Sorry if this point has already been made, I read the thread but I've been up 24 hours now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 That whole story about MDI posted above is just bullsh*t..... Did I lie about how MDI works anywhere? Did I like about how document model interfaces work? If not how was that 'bullsh*t'? The truth is they are valid issue, and those are just the ones I had to deal with on that particular day - there are dozens more activities where MDI is an obstruction to one's work flow - I'm just not going to rant about them unless we have a thread called "Worst interface elements".sorry but I (and millions of people with me) can work with it just fine Millions of people drive automatic transmittions and deal with weekly system updates too. There was a time when millions of people believed in slavery. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's the best method. It isn't holding back my productivity at all. It might not suite you, but that doesn't mean that it is an evil techinique.It does bother me. I didn't realize how much until I started to doing professional work with it (actually I didn't notice how much untill I started doing paid work on a Mac).I don't think I said it's evil, I said it's a terrible document model. Almost every other interface designer for documents with multiple windows agrees with me. Even microsoft who pushed MDI on the world has taken it from almost every application they sell (Access is the only one left IIRC). It's also no existant in *NIX and OS 9/X applications. If it provided any sort of benifit someone would have re-invented it and started using it by now. The only benifit MDI has is that it's easy to hide all windows from one application at once. Sort of like Option-minimize on a mac. Windows interface and I know my way around. Put me on a Mac and you'll see that I have to search for stuff The menus, tools, and filters are all in the same place. there isn't a whole lot of searching except for maybe where the big grey background that obscures your desktop is. Unless you've got a learning disability you should be able to memorize the differences in a matter of an hour or two. Ever notice how photoshop books will show screens from a Mac OS 9 version (or X, or WinXP) and the guides/tutorials/advice are written once but they work on all platforms? Photoshop is a great product on both platforms. Just pick the platform that you like and don't let people make the descision for you. Photoshop is an amazing program. It's my experience that it works better on Mac OS for the reasons illustrated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrelusive978 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 i cannot afford the time or luxury of making the switch and "re programming" my brain per say for such little tasks I think this right here says it all...if I had to memorize all new shortcuts, I'd be lost. I would also like to point out that the Mac has been aimed at the creative, non-analytical type of person since it's inception, and these are the people that are most comfortable with the design of the OS. Graphic artists dont want to repair a virus or ddeal with a drive conflict; they want to spend their time working and creating! :ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger.Girl Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 color calibration still isnt up to par with mac imho but i dont know if that can be considered adobes fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Going back to Dirty Larry's post comparing Mac vs. PC to Manual vs. Automatic, I actually have to say that the loophole described actually is valid to use in arguement. I equate PC to the manual, and Mac to the automatic. Coming from a background of PC knowledge, moving to the Mac platform was relatively easy. There were a few quirks to learn, but for the most part I was able to get around just fine. My roomate from last year just got an iBook recently and he's already at home with the thing. The fact is PCs, while powerful when learned, are harder to comprehend from the new user's standpoint. Sure, many of you reading this have gotten quite used to working with PC (as am I), so it may seem rediculous to call a PC "hard to use", but it remains that people pick up the Mac OS faster and gain more competence over the system over time. The reasons for this is the usabilty of the Mac OS UI is much higher. There is less use of confusing key commands (Alt+F4??), centralized menu location, a true representation of the idea of a document. The UI on a PC is generally program based. You have programs you manipulate to do things. The Mac OS UI is more document focused. It's as though everything is a big MDI window, and you can interact between applications more seamlessly. For graphics designers, this makes logical sense as they want to work on their images and designs, not on a program. I think it's the difference in UI focus that really separates the two and makes graphic design more natural on the Mac... Great points. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 *whistles* forgetting SGI are we?Some great workstations they make. Awesome cases too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexor Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Can't answer the original question, but I do have a point to make about colour colibration that came up many times. I had several encounters with creating something in Photoshop and then loading it up anywhere else (i.e. preview program in XP, Fireworks, browsers etc.) and the colour would look different on the same machine and monitor. Now if I go to Photoshop again and get the hex and/or RGB values and create an image in Fireworks/PSP etc. it looks the same in every other application I try it in, or print. This makes me a firm believer that bad Colour Synching is Adobe's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoove Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Did I lie about how MDI works anywhere?? Did I like about how document model interfaces work?? If not how was that 'bullsh*t'?? The truth is they are valid issue, and those are just the ones I had to deal with on that particular day - there are dozens more activities where MDI is an obstruction to one's work flow - I'm just not going to rant about them unless we have a thread called "Worst interface elements".No you did not lie about how MDI works.... and I never said that it was the best solution.It is one of many solutions and I happen to have absolutely no problems with it. To take Photoshop as an example, I like the way it works on the PC, but when I use it on a Mac it feels akward to me. Millions of people drive automatic transmittions and deal with weekly system updates too.? There was a time when millions of people believed in slavery.? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's the best method. Like I said, it never said it is the best method. It is just not as bad as you try to make people believe. MDI has its good and bad points, but so has SDI for example. It does bother me.? I didn't realize how much until I started to doing professional work with it (actually I didn't notice how much untill I started doing paid work on a Mac).I don't think I said it's evil, I said it's a terrible document model.? Almost every other interface designer for documents with multiple windows agrees with me.? Even microsoft who pushed MDI on the world has taken it from almost every application they sell (Access is the only one left IIRC).? It's also no existant in *NIX and OS 9/X applications.? If it provided any sort of benifit someone would have re-invented it and started using it by now. Well MDI is being re-invented as we speak.....The whole fuzz about tabbed browsing, tabbed chatting, tabbed this and tabbed that is just another form of MDI (multiple documents in one interface element.... a.k.a. the tabs). I happen to like tabbed browsing in firebird and opera, it is something that actually does help me in surfing the net quickly and userfriendly. The SDI approach of IE is just horrible in my opinion... my taskbar get's extremely cluttered with junk I don't want there. So in this case I think MDI is a great solution to this problem. The menus, tools, and filters are all in the same place.? there isn't a whole lot of searching except for maybe where the big grey background that obscures your desktop is.Unless you've got a learning disability you should be able to memorize the differences in a matter of an hour or two.? Ever notice how photoshop books will show screens from a Mac OS 9 version (or X, or WinXP) and the guides/tutorials/advice are written once but they work on all platforms? You're kinda missing my point here. Sure Photoshop on Mac is very similar to Photoshop on PC, but that was not my point. The question was if Macs are better for designers then PCs. My point is that this is not true by definition. A person with lots of PC experience can be very productive with a PC. On the other side a Mac user can be very productive with a Mac. The reason why you are more productive on one platform and less productive on another is not always the interface. I agree that Mac has a nice interface which is really userfriendly, but when I use it I have to adapt, just because I mainly use PC's with Windows on it. It is easier for me to do the task in Windows then in MacOSX, just because I'm very familiar with it. Like I said, I can adapt (in probably less then an hour), but why would I want to do that if I can do it straight away on a PC which suits me fine. I used Macs and frankly I didn't see MacOSX offering me more then Windows XP does. I made my choice and I chose Windows XP.... and there is nothing wrong with that. Photoshop is an amazing program.? It's my experience that it works better on Mac OS for the reasons illustrated above. That's fine... good for you. I prefer Windows over MacOSX. I guess it is just old habbits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Can't answer the original question, but I do have a point to make about colour colibration that came up many times. I had several encounters with creating something in Photoshop and then loading it up anywhere else (i.e. preview program in XP, Fireworks, browsers etc.) and the colour would look different on the same machine and monitor. Now if I go to Photoshop again and get the hex and/or RGB values and create an image in Fireworks/PSP etc. it looks the same in every other application I try it in, or print.This makes me a firm believer that bad Colour Synching is Adobe's fault. No, it's not Adobe's fault. The image looks correct in photoshop (which can represent up to 48-bit colour) because photoshop is working correctly. The problem is that windows does not have professional colour correction built into the OS so those simple programs depend on the windows OS colour model display them incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger.Girl Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 there has to be some sort of cross platform industry standard for calibration to come out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leif Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 my daddy says your daddy sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 it boils down to a matter of preference they both run ps very well, ive used ps on both platforms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 a total urban myth that Macs are better for graphics .. It's just over time ppl gots used to running Macs coz there were only Macs that had a working GUI ( early Mac OS vs. Windows 1.1 :no: ) like someone already said in one of the posts ..you cant teach an old dog new tricks... the same way you can't teach Mac users to use a PC. "M--" :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Like I said, it never said it is the best method. It is just not as bad as you try to make people believe. MDI has its good and bad points, but so has SDI for example. What exactly are the "good points" of MDI over SDI. A single menu bar and one click to minimize all documents are the only functional ones I can think of on windows (on mac os that's not an issue). 2 pluses that bring with them all sorts of issues (breaking the desktop, forcing you to use a single desktop, limiting window positions/resize, making the taskbar useless with photoshop, breaking window tile/cascade functions - or rather forcing you to do it with both documents in photoshop and applications on the desktop....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fusion Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 making the taskbar useless with photoshop This is one issue that I would like to address because I firmly believe this is one of the most annoying things encountered while doing design work. Really, does anyone find that Photoshop keeping track of it's own minimized windows instead of having the taskbar handle them is a useful feature? I understand that some people here just might be used to using a windows port, but don't you still find this aspect of PS on windows just a little bit flawed. I sure do. I find it very difficult minimizing separate windows that I am working with, only to find that they are all minimized within the MDI window of Photoshop. So then if I have another large image I am working with, I either have to zoom out and make it smaller, or minimize that one just to find my other windows that were minimized. I'm sorry, this may seem like a rant, but it is one aspect that has been very hard to get used to when I sold my Mac and started using my PC for everything. I am not sure what Adobe's purpose for this was, but I would really like to know if anyone finds this useful and wishes that they were not handled by the taskbar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoove Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Like I said, it never said it is the best method. It is just not as bad as you try to make people believe. MDI has its good and bad points, but so has SDI for example. What exactly are the "good points" of MDI over SDI. A single menu bar and one click to minimize all documents are the only functional ones I can think of on windows (on mac os that's not an issue). 2 pluses that bring with them all sorts of issues (breaking the desktop, forcing you to use a single desktop, limiting window positions/resize, making the taskbar useless with photoshop, breaking window tile/cascade functions - or rather forcing you to do it with both documents in photoshop and applications on the desktop....) Like I said, the tabbed browsing thing is one of the good implementations of MDI. I can work with MDI in Photoshop, it is not a problem for me... though I have to admit that it isn't the best solution in this case. This is mainly because of the floating pallets. They get in the way and can block access to the min/max/close buttons of the MDI window. They should have done that different in Photoshop... but again I can live with it, it is not really a problem. MDI is one of many solutions and in a lot of programs it is implemented the right way. - WinRoute Pro uses it to organize its log files.... done fine. With SDI I would have a sh*tload of buttons on my taskbar which I find pretty annoying. - I already mentioned Firebird and Opera. A slightly different, but still a form of MDI, used the right way. - mIRC. I have by default at least IRC channels open.... god bless MDI for that. - Macromedia products use MDI in a way I like. The con's you are summing up are pro's for me...... - I like my taskbar uncluttered. - The limiting window prevents the application to interfere with my other applications. - How the hell does it break tile/cascade?? It still works, only limited to the main form.... which is kinda the point of MDI. We have a totally different view on this. I still think that if you use MDI in the right way it is a good technique. In some applications it is far superior to a SDI solution. That's just my point of view on this matter. This is one issue that I would like to address because I firmly believe this is one of the most annoying things encountered while doing design work.Really, does anyone find that Photoshop keeping track of it's own minimized windows instead of having the taskbar handle them is a useful feature? I understand that some people here just might be used to using a windows port, but don't you still find this aspect of PS on windows just a little bit flawed. I sure do. I find it very difficult minimizing separate windows that I am working with, only to find that they are all minimized within the MDI window of Photoshop. So then if I have another large image I am working with, I either have to zoom out and make it smaller, or minimize that one just to find my other windows that were minimized. I'm sorry, this may seem like a rant, but it is one aspect that has been very hard to get used to when I sold my Mac and started using my PC for everything. I am not sure what Adobe's purpose for this was, but I would really like to know if anyone finds this useful and wishes that they were not handled by the taskbar. I agree. It doesn't make MDI a bad technique though.... only they shouldn't have used it in Photoshop this way. Maybe they should add easy accesible section in the menu with all the available windows (I know it already exists, but it is damn well hidden). Or maybe a pallet with the available windows. Taskbar is fine too btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shermang Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 it's mainly because macs are natively better at colorsyncing so what you see on the screen is exactly what you are going to see in print without having to worry about weird colours in the final product quoted for truth this is the only reason I know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts