Why are Mac's preferred for graphic design?

By Ashiaveli
in Apple (macOS)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I can search the above way in Vista as well - however, it's *much* easier to simply click a column header, check or uncheck different options, and the items are instantly filtered. As far as clutter is concerned, I don't see how it's cluttered at all. I guess it's one of those things you need to see in action to see the benefits of that way. If you noticed the "Group" option, I can group the items by different things, and save them as "saved searches" to come back to them later. Very handy. It's also very useful to see how many files of a certain type/size are in a particular folder.

Oh, and I might add - the filtering options only show types/sizes/etc. that exist in that folder - if there are no Quicktime movies in a folder, for example, that option won't exist to check/uncheck.

That does seem pretty simple--kudos to that feature. (Y) In Finder, it's just CMD+F to bring up the filter bar.

Grouping and saving of course are handled through the buttons on the right.

Picture%201.png

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
...

Edit: @Decryptor: I guess I made an assumption there that I shouldn't have; but I have yet to meet a person who designs and cannot script/code. Perhaps I haven't worked in teams that are large enough to have 'pure' designers.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they need Windows and Visual Studio unless they're doing something windows related.

I do all my PHP stuff (as simple as it is) in a text editor, it does syntax highlighting and bracket matching, and shows a list of open files on the left where I can switch backwards and forwards.

Grand Master

sanctified Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
This is what my co-workers tell me, so I'd have to agree. It has nothing to do with usability, the 'experience', nor does it have anything to do with the systems used previously. I'm told that if it did, they'd still go Windows as the cost for a Mac doesn't justify any of those things.

They color-correct photos for the largest newspaper publisher in the US, so I tend to believe them. Our department is 100% Mac and I would say the entire company is probably close to 80-90% Mac. Unfortunately the corp IT department largely uses, and is very much in love, with Windows

Reading you quoting me made me realize how horribly written was my post, let me clarify:

Even a calibrated system based on windows presents a slight innacuracy comparing the printed material with that you see on your monitor. This innacuracy its unavoidable, doesnt matter what system you use but with OS X (And I might add, thanks to its widely questioned "closed hardware" method) the color management produce more acurate works. That is why that after using an OS X system (Software and hardware) even a calibrated windows one feels like a step backwards.

A very notorius example: I have some scanned photos that I produced in lab. These are b&w examples using a "warm" b&w. In my uncalibrated (Hardware method) macbook pro monitor the scanned pics looks very closely to the original material, yet in the calibrated windows system at my school the scans looks blueish.

Mentor

NateB1

Posted
Posted
To me it seems that they both do the same thing and look different :/

Either way, I just learned about filtering in Finder so thanks.

Yeah - it all evens out at the end, I guess. I prefer the interactive preview pane and quick filtering in Vista, and others prefer QuickLook and the search filtering on OS X..

I guess this is an example of using the strengths of each OS to your advantage.

With that said, I still prefer Vista's method of managing files. :)

Grand Master

gigapixels Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Reading you quoting me made me realize how horribly written was my post, let me clarify:

Even a calibrated system based on windows presents a slight innacuracy comparing the printed material with that you see on your monitor. This innacuracy its unavoidable, doesnt matter what system you use but with OS X (And I might add, thanks to its widely questioned "closed hardware" method) the color management produce more acurate works. That is why that after using an OS X system (Software and hardware) even a calibrated windows one feels like a step backwards.

A very notorius example: I have some scanned photos that I produced in lab. These are b&w examples using a "warm" b&w. In my uncalibrated (Hardware method) macbook pro monitor the scanned pics looks very closely to the original material, yet in the calibrated windows system at my school the scans looks blueish.

It depends on how well calibrated the Windows system is. If you use a color calibration system, like Huey or Spyder, on both systems, you should get the exact same color settings, or that color calibration system isn't doing its job properly.

Grand Master

sanctified Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
It depends on how well calibrated the Windows system is. If you use a color calibration system, like Huey or Spyder, on both systems, you should get the exact same color settings, or that color calibration system isn't doing its job properly.

Maybe its the second case since a Spyder (first gen) was used on that Windows system.

Grand Master

QuarterSwede

Posted
Posted
Unfortunately the corp IT department largely uses, and is very much in love, with Windows

It's called job security. Seriously, Mac's are a LOT less work to maintain and therefore require less people to maintain them. The proof is in companies that have moved to them and now have far less people maintaining the computers.

Mentor

NateB1

Posted
Posted
It's called job security. Seriously, Mac's are a LOT less work to maintain and therefore require less people to maintain them. The proof is in companies that have moved to them and now have far less people maintaining the computers.

...Skipping right on by that troll bait... :whistle:

Grand Master

QuarterSwede

Posted
Posted
...Skipping right on by that troll bait... :whistle:

Troll bait? The first sentence is called a "joke." The rest is simply the truth. Research it yourself if you're so inclined. I really don't care if you or anyone else responds either because I probably won't follow the thread. Also, how can this be troll bait in a freaking Apple thread!?

Grand Master

oldaccount1

Posted
Posted
Troll bait? The first sentence is called a "joke." The rest is simply the truth. Research it yourself if you're so inclined. I really don't care if you or anyone else responds either because I probably won't follow the thread. Also, how can this be troll bait in a freaking Apple thread!?

+1

Mentor

NateB1

Posted
Posted
Troll bait? The first sentence is called a "joke." The rest is simply the truth. Research it yourself if you're so inclined. I really don't care if you or anyone else responds either because I probably won't follow the thread. Also, how can this be troll bait in a freaking Apple thread!?

OK. You want me to respond? I'll do so very quickly.

In our large company, we have hundreds of internal win32 apps that we have developed for internal purposes. Every one of our 1500 computers is managed via Active Directory. We have Exchange 2007 running on Vista x64. We have SQL Server 2005 running on a Win2K server. We have a Sharepoint 2007 server that interfaces with the SQL 2005 Server. Now, tell me exactly how you would propose switching everyone to Macs, with no downtime, with our measly budget. Also explain to me why us developers should learn an entire new language, learn an entire new IDE, Xcode, and redevelop all our apps, some of which are very complex and do heavy analysis.

I know our company isn't alone.

I'll be waiting for your response.

Another test: How many webservers are hosted using Xserve? How many are using IIS? How many are using Apache? You'll find the latter two are the ones leading the pack, with Xserve bringing up the very rear. There's a reason for that.

Grand Master

Cara Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Another test: How many webservers are hosted using Xserve? How many are using IIS? How many are using Apache? You'll find the latter two are the ones leading the pack, with Xserve bringing up the very rear. There's a reason for that.

Just for the record, any stock Xserve which is operating as a Web Server is running Apache...

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/webhosting.html

  • 2 weeks later...
Neowinian

AMIRZ

Posted
Posted (edited)

By Vista thumbnail previewer, do you mean this?

24q3kms.png

While similar, Quick Look really isn't comparable as it offers much larger previews (full screen if you want), index pages, slideshows/video playback, support for multi page documents and many file formats. (extensible as well if a format isn't supported)

quicklook_gallery08_20071016.jpg

quicklook_gallery03_20071016.jpg

Once in Photoshop, press F. You can cycle through different window view modes which you can have the background gone if you want.

rvkj10.png

CS4 is actually introducing an even more improved application frame with tabs and better palettes though.

Some research would be nice before making such rash comments. Carbon was introduced by Apple for backwards compatibility when making the switch from Classic. It was far from "stupid", as they're actually very flexible with each other. Cocoa has been pushed by Apple from some time now but Adobe got caught off guard by Leopard's forward push of it. It's no ones "fault"--just happens because it did.

Quality > Quantity. I have yet to really see an Expose the way it's supposed to work as it does in OS X. (the clones mainly mimic the "All Windows" expose. Many don't realize that there is more to expose than just that: individual application expose and show desktop)

Switcher though has been my favorite so far on Vista.

:) Hello, sorry if i post 2x. There's something error with my browser. OK, please correct me if i am wrong, but let me explain:

Yes I agree with all you said, but in fact (it seems you didn't mention it yet) Windows Vista also has a feature called "preview pane" to preview a file without need to open it by any associated application, directly in Its Explorer (To launch: View-Explorer Bar -Preview Pane or Organize-Layout-Preview Pane).

All you need is only select the file and the content preview suddenly appears in same window (the preview pane on right side). It supports almost all filetypes: text, image, document, multimedia audio/video even binaries like zip, exe, dll etc (if supported preview handlers exist). Yes, you can adjust the preview results (e.g. by resizing them larger etc)

In Leopard you have to launch a separated external application (the Quicklook itself by "space bar"), but in Vista, you dont, and never. It's more integrated. Windows Vista Search, Games, and some system file directories also have same feature as well as Explorer.

Vista Preview handlers have/Will have more file preview supports (yeah, we all know Windows "monopoly" for both 3rd party design softwares and sometimes even supports of their filetypes). Remember "AutoCAD"?

Btw, talking about Vista Previewer and Quicklook, previous versions of Windows 2K (Windows 95 and 98) also have a previewer tool called "QuickView" (It's been abandoned in Windows 2K or Xp, dont know why).

The W2K and WebView (active desktop) of pre-Windows Xp also have Webview preview pane (optional) to preview file content as well. Could you see the "similarity" of them?.

I also know about Coverflow ability in Quicklook display, 3d view looks amazing, but In my Opinion, for file and thumbnail previewers, Vista preview pane (as well as its live icon and thumbnail feature) is still more easier and practical than Leopard Quicklook (i dont mean it's better, but again more practical...). That's it.

Thanks and regards-Amirz :)

Edited by AMIRZ
Proficient

Zenicanin

Posted
Posted
It's not about the OS or even the design tools. It's all about the artist.

http://diamonster.deviantart.com/art/powerdraw-17908194

WOW! :o

On topic, I don't think it matters whether you use a PC or a Mac. It's a personal preference. One thing's for sure, is you look cooler working on a mac, but it really doesn't have any technical advantages anymore.

Collaborator

Srsly

Posted
Posted

I always wondered why Apple would be better for graphic design too. My father is a graphic designer and he told me that it has better font handling and it looks closer to the actual print.

I just got into OSX86 since a few days and i love the OS, but i dont think the workflow is better than Windows. Personally i prefer a taskbar over Expose, and Alt-Tab works better on Windows(well at least with browsers). On the other hand, OSX is a lot more stable.

I think it is just a tradition as well. Today the differences are minimal, and Adobe software works more or less the same. Today it is more about the OS than the designer software. OSX is more reliable, but Vista is going the right way with reliability. I like OSX, but i can not see why people would pay twice the price for a mac over a pc. Money wise, i dont understand why a mac is preferred over a pc for graphic design. Windows has enough good font managers, you need security, but total that would be still cheaper than a mac and it gets the job done. Only reason i can think of is the reliability, although the gap between reliability on OSX and Windows is getting smaller i think, and maybe the calibration, maybe the color display is really better on a mac?

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I always wondered why Apple would be better for graphic design too. My father is a graphic designer and he told me that it has better font handling and it looks closer to the actual print.

I just got into OSX86 since a few days and i love the OS, but i dont think the workflow is better than Windows. Personally i prefer a taskbar over Expose, and Alt-Tab works better on Windows(well at least with browsers). On the other hand, OSX is a lot more stable.

I think it is just a tradition as well. Today the differences are minimal, and Adobe software works more or less the same. Today it is more about the OS than the designer software. OSX is more reliable, but Vista is going the right way with reliability. I like OSX, but i can not see why people would pay twice the price for a mac over a pc. Money wise, i dont understand why a mac is preferred over a pc for graphic design. Windows has enough good font managers, you need security, but total that would be still cheaper than a mac and it gets the job done. Only reason i can think of is the reliability, although the gap between reliability on OSX and Windows is getting smaller i think, and maybe the calibration, maybe the color display is really better on a mac?

Where are you getting twice the price? :s What's Alt-Tab not doing for you? If you want to switch between different windows in the same application (Safari, Firefox), use CMD+~.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.