Mac for Graphic Design, why is it better than Windows?

[Septimus]

Yeah same. Use both extensively for video editing (and some holding gfx), results are pretty much identical.

Only difference is apps. For graphics CS3 is the same on either, Final Cut is better for video than say Premiere 3, but 9.8/10 they can both produce the same results.

TabletPC as mentioned can be very nice and can save a lot of money over buying a seperate Wacom tablet monitor.

[Glassed Silver]

Well, you get some pretty nice advantages in Mac OS X with Core Image.

Mac's have always been designed for multimedia tasks and you feel that.

there's a reason why every music production studio has a Mac or more. (yea, thats audio not graphics, but this basically strengthens the fact that for audio it is better, but at least simplier)

then again I might have missed some news here or there and I'm wrong with certain aspects and I didnt dig too deep to read up the advantages, just my simple and basic knowledge here :)

Glassed Silver:mac

[shadowmatt]

Through history there have always been advantages for using macs for graphic design over PC's though those advantages change with every generation.

For a start is was WYSIWYG printing, font usage, a different gamma and the support of software, most of it originally written for / on a mac. Microsoft wrote mac software before they released windows.

These days its intergration. I can view an eps in mail / preview / or any other app which is using the os for image handling. The whole OS runs a PDF layer so any app can output a PDF with ease. Expose is nice and allows you to have many windows open, I cant work with out it but its not something I would miss if I didnt know about it, always got alt tab (apple tab on a mac).

The software support has always been good, but nothing I cant get on a windows pc, these days, not always the case.

What you have to realise about macs as graphic design / desktop publishing it that many companies took their workforce, say in publishing, and replace most of the people with computers, why, to compete better, become streamlined, cut costs etc.. And macs were the computers that replaced them. Think about leading between characters in a program like freehand / illustrator, before computers it was someones job to use pieces of lead to do the same!

[freedom77]

Another factor I would have thought is the ease and reliability of buying a mac, and they are all the same too. I mean most people, these days, seem to recommend building your own PC, and with all the different hardware, perhaps it's easer and quicker to stick with just one system, one brand.

[Shadrack]

There are many reasons why the Mac OS is superior to Microsoft's OS when it comes to graphic design and layout.

For one, Mac OS now supports a universal copy-n-paste that allows you to copy objects or elements from one application and paste them into another application. Mac OS also has a nice selection of WYSIWYG editors available. On top of that Mac OS......

Oh wait. Windows has all those things now too. Forgot that this wasn't 1989 anymore.

-shad

[Lasker]

There are many reasons why the Mac OS is superior to Microsoft's OS when it comes to graphic design and layout.

For one, Mac OS now supports a universal copy-n-paste that allows you to copy objects or elements from one application and paste them into another application. Mac OS also has a nice selection of WYSIWYG editors available. On top of that Mac OS......

Oh wait. Windows has all those things now too. Forgot that this wasn't 1989 anymore.

-shad

:laugh: (Y)

[cptcaveman2004]

Personally, I think the reason Macs are popular for graphic design is the same reason they are popular for other kinds of creative work. The OS doesn't get in the way as much. The apps basically the same.

The problem is that with a windows machine, unless you know the workings of windows and you know how to keep it working, theres always something in the way of being creative. I would find that when i wanted to write music, the sound drivers from my super duper sound card would need updating and i would have to change latency settings to get it to record something as simple as a guitar track. Or, when i wanted to launch my favourite web design apps, They wouldnt start up because i had installed another program that installed an older DLL thus breaking half a dozen tools i liked using.

In short, when Im using a Mac, the tools just seem to be there waiting for me to get creative. The OS seems to fall out of the way better so i can concentrate on what I want to be doing. And I believe this is the most important thing for newbie users or creative people who arent computer boffins and know how to keep their system ship-shape.

I like to think of windows as a cheap house that very quickly develops loose hinges, leaks and doors that wont allow you in without force! OS X is more like a modern elegant home that can almost look after itself allowing you to enjoy living in it.

Oh, and before you pigeon hole me as a mac-fanboy, I should tell you that I'm a PC engineer by trade and work with windows all day, every day... when I get home, I use a Mac!

[obsolete_power]

Mac is not better at graphics design than windows. The industry just tends to be using Macs instead of windows. This started based on this false rumor that Macs are somehow magically better than windows at this kind of thing. You can thank Apple marketing for these lies and the million other lies they put out there.

[betasp]

Mac is not better at graphics design than windows. The industry just tends to be using Macs instead of windows. This started based on this false rumor that Macs are somehow magically better than windows at this kind of thing. You can thank Apple marketing for these lies and the million other lies they put out there.

A tech report study showed graphic designers were 15% more productive on a Mac than a PC, while doing the same tasks (I have the source from 1998, but I am at work). Macs gamma is also already set to that of your typical press.

Mac shops earn more than Windows shops. Typically, for the type of work the graphics department performs, a Macintosh user produces $26,411 more annual revenue and $14,488 more net profit than a Windows user of comparable skill engaged in similar work.

In a fully-accounted cost-of-ownership analysis of a system purchase, a Macintosh user saves $2,211 more than a Windows user.

According to a 1997 study by Microsoft and Interpose (a software developer specializing in Total Cost of Ownership tools), even for general use a Macintosh is still about $1,450 less expensive to own than a Windows machine.

Because of the more efficient computing environment (i.e., integrated hardware and software platform, system resources optimized for media-rich processing, and third-party software), the Power Macintosh user gains per year an average 304 more prime time authoring and composition hours than a Windows user.

Increased efficiency and a smoother, more efficient graphic development process (Designers using Macintoshes are 42% more productive, according to a recent GISTICS study.

[5Horizons]

Macs gamma is also already set to that of your typical press.

Which is bad if you don't realize that and are making web pages or working with photos. I've seen Mac users that don't switch their gamma to 2.2 and are all confused about why their images/web pages look wrong on PCs... I actually kind of wish Apple would change the default gamma to be more in line with everyone else in the world of computing.

[Xero]

Its better because of the way Mac works, for example Photoshop on OSX doesn't have a background so you can easily have websites open below or emails or word documents that relate to what your making. Also if you have many windows open you can use expose to quickly find all photoshop windows or all application windows if you want. Keyboard controls is another, they are far more handy than those of Windows. You can also hide an entire application and all its windows in a single click or keyboard combo without actually closing it, which I use when I switch from say Flash to Photoshop. OS X itself runs these programs faster than a Windows machine does (more so now with CS3 being released) Mac's also come with very high quality screens in both laptops, and desktops so you get a quality picture with every Mac. Lastly Mac is overall faster when doing tasks, going through menus, going through folders, ect. Its been proven that Vista is 20% slower than XP is (thanks to all the animations and fading) Vista tasks are done at the same speed of Windows 98, OSX is faster than XP is and technically the most productive os as its faster, but I dunno many people who really try and speed their way through menus and folders so that isn't a huge deal but another point nonetheless.

Bottom line, I switched to Mac's for all my design work and haven't thought twice about it.

[Ironman273]

Umm.. it's pretty simple actually. Apple advanced the GUI before anyone else did. Way back then it was much better then Windows and DOS so a lot of the people getting into graphical work would choose Macs for obvious reasons. Now say you have your whole art department using Macs and it's time to upgrade. Do you throw away all your software and retrain all your personnel? Of course not, you upgrade your Macs. Just like what has been done over and over again. Also, the people that learned Graphic Arts back then learned it on a Mac so if they're going to teach anyone, whether in a class or in their department, would teach it on a Mac and the Mac usage would get passed down.

Even with everything being equal today a Windows machine would have to have an incredible benefit to cause whole companies/departments to switch.

[Chad]

Which is bad if you don't realize that and are making web pages or working with photos. I've seen Mac users that don't switch their gamma to 2.2 and are all confused about why their images/web pages look wrong on PCs... I actually kind of wish Apple would change the default gamma to be more in line with everyone else in the world of computing.

Because if you are in the majority, you are always right. :rolleyes:

Companies have their own color spaces (Adobe RGB (1998), IEC61966-2.1, Apple RGB). An untouched image will look much different from an Adobe RGB image even if they are both viewed at the same gamma. So someone could be using a gamma at 2.2 with the Adobe RGB color space and it would look different on another pc if viewed in a noncolor-managed application. So your point is moot. You still run into problems if someone doesn't calibrate their monitor.

Not to mention that a gamma of 1.8 much more closely resembles the output of a printer.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Chad

[andrew_f]

I understand that Apple is probably the choice in the industry. On a personal level I find Windows more comfortable to work on, however I'm sure if I just put the effort into OS X I'll be just as if not more so comfortable with it :)

[raskren]

Well, you get some pretty nice advantages in Mac OS X with Core Image.

Good job throwing out Apple buzz words. Can you list any specific examples of how "Core Image" makes the Adobe Photoshop experience better on a Mac than on Windows?

Apple's advantage today lies in color management and profiling and the OS X audio stack. Both of these are significantly better than Windows XP's systems. Vista has caught up and possibly even leapfrogged OS X in the audio realm.

A tech report study showed graphic designers were 15% more productive on a Mac than a PC, while doing the same tasks (I have the source from 1998, but I am at work). Macs gamma is also already set to that of your typical press.

Mac shops earn more than Windows shops. Typically, for the type of work the graphics department performs, a Macintosh user produces $26,411 more annual revenue and $14,488 more net profit than a Windows user of comparable skill engaged in similar work.

In a fully-accounted cost-of-ownership analysis of a system purchase, a Macintosh user saves $2,211 more than a Windows user.

According to a 1997 study by Microsoft and Interpose (a software developer specializing in Total Cost of Ownership tools), even for general use a Macintosh is still about $1,450 less expensive to own than a Windows machine.

Because of the more efficient computing environment (i.e., integrated hardware and software platform, system resources optimized for media-rich processing, and third-party software), the Power Macintosh user gains per year an average 304 more prime time authoring and composition hours than a Windows user.

Increased efficiency and a smoother, more efficient graphic development process (Designers using Macintoshes are 42% more productive, according to a recent GISTICS study.

Are you seriously citing studies conducted before 1998? How is this 10 year old data relevant anymore?

[Chad]

Apple's advantage today lies in color management and profiling and the OS X audio stack. Both of these are significantly better than Windows XP's systems. Vista has caught up and possibly even leapfrogged OS X in the audio realm.

While I can't comment on the audio realm as I have minimal experience there, I do agree regarding color management.

[Vecter]

I think now the application support is pretty much a wash between the two platforms. While there are subtle differences (some may swing you one way or the other) you can create designs that will be identical on either platform. I still believe Macs are the standard because the industry still demands it. Print houses were setup with all Mac based software support, until the last few years more and more are having PC software support. There are still some that only have mac support, and are slow to adopt. Consider that at one point the widely used Quark was not available on a PC or lacked features compared to the Mac version.

At this point though it doesn't really matter what platform is used, it is just the industry as a whole that has been slow to change.

[Corris Veteran]

I'm mainly a windows user since I only have a normal Pc, but at college we use macs, and only macs for our design work, if I had the choice between using OS X and Windows at doing my graphic projects, I would choose OS X, I don't know why exactly, but to me, everything just works better together than the same programs I use at home on my Windows Pc.

[freedom77]

Mac is not better at graphics design than windows. The industry just tends to be using Macs instead of windows. This started based on this false rumor that Macs are somehow magically better than windows at this kind of thing. You can thank Apple marketing for these lies and the million other lies they put out there.

Here comes the cavalry...

[evo_spook]

Here comes the cavalry...

Ha, it wouldn't be so bad but he's even being told the reason why Macs took off in the graphics/printing industry, but no he's decided to ignore that a plow a lone path of ignorance.

[betasp]

Are you seriously citing studies conducted before 1998? How is this 10 year old data relevant anymore?

So you grabbed hold of one piece of data out of 5 or 6 actual studies. Did you miss the point? Where is your data? Give me some from twenty years ago if you can find it...

[raskren]

So you grabbed hold of one piece of data out of 5 or 6 actual studies. Did you miss the point? Where is your data? Give me some from twenty years ago if you can find it...

You need to fix your post then. I see two dates in it: 1997 and 1998 (neither of which are relevant anyway). To me it looks like the whole post is one study.

What is your point? That Macs had an advantage in this realm 10 years ago?

[+Fahim S. MVC]

I think since 2000 Microsoft Windows has made some pretty major steps in terms of productivity and in terms of colour management etc, relatively speaking OSX has been relatively static on these fronts. I would like to know how the two platforms compare now on TCO etc.

I'm not saying one would win over the other but it would definitely make interesting readings.

[betasp]

I think since 2000 Microsoft Windows has made some pretty major steps in terms of productivity and in terms of colour management etc, relatively speaking OSX has been relatively static on these fronts. I would like to know how the two platforms compare now on TCO etc.

I'm not saying one would win over the other but it would definitely make interesting readings.

http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=6389

You need to fix your post then. I see two dates in it: 1997 and 1998 (neither of which are relevant anyway). To me it looks like the whole post is one study.

What is your point? That Macs had an advantage in this realm 10 years ago?

The post is a compilation of studies done over the past 10 years. Unlike some, I have researched the matter quite a bit considering the last two places I worked were split environments. My point is that your original premise is wrong, and while you can try to expand the argument, your premise will still be wrong. You cannot provide and real data on the matter an therefore anything you provide is anecdotal at best.

[5Horizons]

Because if you are in the majority, you are always right. :rolleyes:

Companies have their own color spaces (Adobe RGB (1998), IEC61966-2.1, Apple RGB). An untouched image will look much different from an Adobe RGB image even if they are both viewed at the same gamma. So someone could be using a gamma at 2.2 with the Adobe RGB color space and it would look different on another pc if viewed in a noncolor-managed application. So your point is moot. You still run into problems if someone doesn't calibrate their monitor.

Not to mention that a gamma of 1.8 much more closely resembles the output of a printer.

Of course an untouched image will look differently than an Adobe RGB image w/ the same gamma in a color managed application. I don't see how any of that rambling mess proved that I'm wrong -- an untouched image on a PC looks different than it will on a Mac. If you seriously care about color calibration then getting a Mac isn't the answer, a calibration tool is.

Hell, even Apple agrees with me:

Unless you have a color management expert instructing you otherwise, select a 2.2 gamma and a D65 white point.

Because Windows PCs use 2.2 gamma, images edited in the traditional Mac 1.8 gamma will appear incorrectly to most viewers on the Internet