What exactly makes Macs so supposedly brilliant at media editing?

[Nick Brunt]

One of the main arguments for Macs has always been that they are supposedly brilliant for video, picture and all other media editing... Why is that?

Surely it's completely down to the software in which case the argument should not be "Macs are better than PCs" but "Final Cut is better than Adobe Premiere (or whatever)" or am I wrong? Do Macs tend to have better hardware for media editing? Or is it the OS itself, in which case, what is is it about the OS that makes it better?

I'm not against the notion that Macs may be better at this but I just don't understand exactly what it is about them that makes them better...

P.S. not sure if this is the right section so feel free to move it if it's not :)

[tempAccount2]

IMHO, it's just a marketing gimmick.

[Sethos]

Nothing, nothing at all.

[migo]

Macs now have the same hardware as PCs, so it can't be the hardware.

I think it's just the software, they bundle pretty much commercial quality photo editing software for free with their consumer product line (in iLife), while the free options on Windows are considerably weaker. It's sort of a situation where Photoshop gets compared to GIMP and of course comes out ahead, but it really costs a fair bit, except half the users who get it would be getting it for free.

You can get stuff that is just as good (and better) for Windows, but it costs you quite a bit.

So it's less that they're better and more that they're more accessible.

[ccoltmanm]

Adding on to your original question, this is the reason a lot of colleges (art) require students to have MacBooks and such.

It used to be that the color quality on their big monitors were better (iMac), but I think it is the software that is designed around the Mac. Wasn't Photoshop originally designed for it?

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

its the software, iDVD/iMovie compared to Windows Movie Maker ( or whatever it is now )

there are Windows alternatives that are far above the mac equiv, just none that come with the install of windows. but iLife isnt on the OSX DVD either, just with new Mac's

Adding on to your original question, this is the reason a lot of colleges (art) require students to have MacBooks and such.

It used to be that the color quality on their big monitors were better (iMac), but I think it is the software that is designed around the Mac. Wasn't Photoshop originally designed for it?

i think so, but i think main reason for that requirement is that a majority of the desktop publishing/art companies still use macs ( quark comes to mind )

[Shadrack]

Its left over trash-talk between Microsoft and Apple from the 1980's that has absolutely no relevance today. IIRC, Apple was the first to have copy-n-paste features across multiple programs. Apple really made the industry of Desktop Publishing possible with its early features.

Windows and Linux have had these features for years now. What it comes down to is the software and user preference. Someone might be able to make the argument that the Mac OS is brilliant at media editing for them. But they can't make it as a blanket statement, less they be proven wrong.

[maash]

its the software, iDVD/iMovie compared to Windows Movie Maker ( or whatever it is now )

there are Windows alternatives that are far above the mac equiv, just none that come with the install of windows. but iLife isnt on the OSX DVD either, just with new Mac's

i think so, but i think main reason for that requirement is that a majority of the desktop publishing/art companies still use macs ( quark comes to mind )

i think the OP meant why, if you use photoshop, are you considered to be using a MAC instead of a PC.

I think personally from my use, Photoshop is more optimized for MAC plus graphics designers and video editors like the feel of the MAC OS. they think its a more 'creative' OS than Windows

[Shadrack]

its the software, iDVD/iMovie compared to Windows Movie Maker ( or whatever it is now )

iDVD/iMovie isn't necessarily free, as you pointed out. The current version may come with your Mac, but you will have to pay for new versions that come out (or buy a new Mac).

Windows Movie Maker is decent, and I really like its simplicity. I've used all of these and they are all on par for what I ever need to do, but I'm not a professional. And along those lines, a professional probably wouldn't be using any of these products.

i think the OP meant why, if you use photoshop, are you considered to be using a MAC instead of a PC.

I think personally from my use, Photoshop is more optimized for MAC plus graphics designers and video editors like the feel of the MAC OS. they think its a more 'creative' OS than Windows

Adobe also likes to cut-support for Photoshop versions on Mac a little earlier then they do for Windows. Adobe doesn't support CS3 on Snow Leopard, for instance. It will run, but you can't count on any help from Adobe if you run into issues... or even the hope that they will resolve issues.

Meanwhile, Adobe Photoshop 5 should run fine in Windows 7 w/o any issue.

[Xilo]

Basically historical reasons. The design and publishing industry grew up on Macs. All the software, hardware, etc was only available on Macs. Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat... These industry standards all started on the Mac.

Macs is the only OS with built in support for typography settings. Macs let you change the typography and styles for any font on the system and save as custom fonts. These can be used in any program. You will never be able to do this on Windows.

At least until Windows Vista, color calibration and reproduction was much better on a Mac. Again, something very important in the publishing industry.

In the end, it's most likely due to the historic nature of Macs being really the only viable option. It's not so much that they are brilliant at it. There are still some advantages, but basically they continue to use Macs because that's what the industry has always used. And well, if you are going to work in the industry, you might as well be familiar with what's standard.

[thealexweb]

Nothing they do it just as well as a PC, Photoshop is made for Windows and Mac OS X.

[Sophism]

i think the OP meant why, if you use photoshop, are you considered to be using a MAC instead of a PC.

I think personally from my use, Photoshop is more optimized for MAC plus graphics designers and video editors like the feel of the MAC OS. they think its a more 'creative' OS than Windows

What does Media Access Control have to do with anything? Ohh you meant Macs...

I own a 24" Imac, have a windows 7 PC and use linux on my laptop, personally I think all 3 have good points and bad points. I prefer OS X, but on the subject of why its better I am not so sure it is these days. But back in the day I know applications such as Photoshop ran better on OS X. I think FinalCut is pretty heavily used in the industry for video editing and such as well.

[Nick Brunt]

So it seems to stem from tradition rather than reality...

I think it's a trend these days. People think it's cool to have a Mac so that's why they get one.

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

I think it's mostly historical, but the legacy has stayed on in the majority of design studio's so in almost all cases, they are using Macs for design work and they expect everyone else to be using them. Virtually anyone I know who does any serious graphic design work uses a Mac.

I think it stems from two scenario's... one, the days when Apple gave serious consideration to things like colour calibration, accurate rendering of fonts, etc so that whatever was designed on the screen actually looked like what it did when it was printed. Second.. back when the PowerPC CPU's were better and faster than the Intel alternatives. If you wanted a powerhouse of a machine to do video work, or something which just crunched through design jobs, you got a PowerMac. Things are different now of course.

I'd imagine that, for most studio's, if the product Apple sold worked well then and still works well for them today, there has been absolutely no desire to change over. There is a lot to be said for brand loyalty.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Digital Performer is Mac only. http://www.motu.com/products/software/dp/

[thealexweb]

In my college there is only one room with Macs in, the Media suite. When I asked why they have Macs the teacher wasn't able to give any reasons, just feeble excuses. Also that department is short on money now, because Macs are expensive! The rest of the campus use HPs, for how much we spent on each of the Macs we could have bought three of the standard HPs we have.

[splur]

It's mostly a successful marketing gimmick. The same way why people think bottled water is better than tap water, it's just water. I know a lot of my friends in graphic design/animation were practically forced to buy Macs by their schools.

Their tech specs are nearly the same as PCs you can get except for one thing; LED monitors. Most PCs still come with LCD screens, it's dimmer and the colors aren't as vibrant. Yes, you can totally get a LED monitor/TV, but it's hardly ever bundled with a computer and usually pretty expensive. And given the demographic of Mac users (people who aren't willing to go further than their own backyard to find things), it's a huge bonus.

Other than that, it's flashy and looks nice?

[Mega Goatlord]

One of the main arguments for Macs has always been that they are supposedly brilliant for video, picture and all other media editing... Why is that?

Surely it's completely down to the software in which case the argument should not be "Macs are better than PCs" but "Final Cut is better than Adobe Premiere (or whatever)" or am I wrong? Do Macs tend to have better hardware for media editing? Or is it the OS itself, in which case, what is is it about the OS that makes it better?

I'm not against the notion that Macs may be better at this but I just don't understand exactly what it is about them that makes them better...

P.S. not sure if this is the right section so feel free to move it if it's not :)

I think it's basically this;

Mac OS X is so idiot-proof and dumbed down, that the typical media professional won't have to dink around with the computer to get what they need done. They can sit down, edit their work, have their hand held the entire way, then walk away. Rather like your microwave. It's just there, waiting to do the same mundane task. Same as a Mac. It's a high-priced iAppliance, that happens to look good. Some people like this, and are willing to pay a premium for it, others don't, and can't justify the cost.

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

You guys are missing the point. Historically, the Mac was better for design and print work. As a result studio's bought them. Macintosh became the standard. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

It's not a marketing gimmic - it's just history, and now it's a standard. There is no compelling reason to switch to Windows over using a Mac, just as there is no compelling reason to switch to Mac over a Windows box. If the industry has always used the Mac, and the product has always worked well for them, why switch?

[I am Reid]

You guys are missing the point. Historically, the Mac was better for design and print work. As a result studio's bought them. Macintosh became the standard. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

It's not a marketing gimmic - it's just history, and now it's a standard. There is no compelling reason to switch to Windows over using a Mac, just as there is no compelling reason to switch to Mac over a Windows box. If the industry has always used the Mac, and the product has always worked well for them, why switch?

You forgot one major reason to switch from apple, and I am sure you know what it is.

[MS Bob 11]

Because Apple doesn't *ONLY* make software like Windows Live Movie Maker. They also make Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio. And QuickTime currently has the advantage of being an extensible format converter for end users as well as a platform/framework built into the OS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectShow#End-user_tools. Post Video for Windows, MS stopped really making it easy for END USERS to convert amongst formats. Sure DirectShow is extensible but it is decoding oriented. QuickTime for Windows sucks, QuickTime for Mac doesn't. The platform support built into the OS makes video editing special.

[Guest]

i just prefer snow leopard over windows. Its things like expose and dashboard that i really like.

[MS Bob 11]

There is no compelling reason to switch to Windows over using a Mac, just as there is no compelling reason to switch to Mac over a Windows box. If the industry has always used the Mac, and the product has always worked well for them, why switch?

Are you really aware of the level of typography, color management and built-in text services upported on Mac OS X compared to Windows? I recommend you read up on this a bit. That's what makes Mac special for design and print even today. Windows' recently introduced "Windows Color System" was broken because of their own anti-spyware, Windows Defender last time I checked.

Edit: I forgot to mention the first class support Mac OS X provides for pro audio and MIDI, which Windows 7 can't even dream of ever coming close to. The only thing Microsoft is interested in is pushing the Windows Media everywhere.

Edited October 16, 2009 by tuxplorer

[powerade01]

Surely it's completely down to the software in which case the argument should not be "Macs are better than PCs" but "Final Cut is better than Adobe Premiere (or whatever)" or am I wrong?

It all comes down to that FCP is easier like all OS X software. Knowing this, Adobe Premiere Pro has included a feature in their software that now allows you to do it the easy way on FCP, save the project, and then import the project into APP and really get down to working.

Do Macs tend to have better hardware for media editing? Or is it the OS itself, in which case, what is is it about the OS that makes it better?

Less resources. Thats about it.

I think personally from my use, Photoshop is more optimized for MAC plus graphics designers and video editors like the feel of the MAC OS. they think its a more 'creative' OS than Windows

It just to be this way. Photoshop was more optimized for PowerPC but now that everyone is with x86 it is a even playing field.

[Eric Veteran]

Because Apple doesn't *ONLY* make software like Windows Live Movie Maker. They also make Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio. And QuickTime currently has the advantage of being an extensible format converter for end users as well as a platform/framework built into the OS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectShow#End-user_tools. Post Video for Windows, MS stopped really making it easy for END USERS to convert amongst formats. Sure DirectShow is extensible but it is decoding oriented. QuickTime for Windows sucks, QuickTime for Mac doesn't. The platform support built into the OS makes video editing special.

Windows Media Encoder can do the same thing as Quicktime as far as conversion.