Any of you guys using OSX in a design environment?

in macOS edited January 2014
Currently we have a slew of G4 towers and I am contemplating the upgrade into OSX...

BUT we also are in a graphic/web design issues with software, fonts, networks, etc. come into play.

Any advice?




  • Reply 1 of 46
    Me and a friend of mine are webmasters/web developers I code php and use standard html. I havent run into a problem yet in fact I find OS X much better for web development then 9. You have the ability to host your own mysql database and php server from your own computer for internal testing much easier. You have dreamweaver, flash, GoLive, BBEdit, Photoshop and imageready everything you could need is there and it works great.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    luxom3luxom3 Posts: 96member
    Thanks for your reply floppy!

    Any feedback on using OSX for Print Projects like using Fonts in Quark, Illustrator?

    And how do you load/use fonts in OSX? Like 9?
  • Reply 3 of 46
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    Fonts? You can load them in, but you will better off with a font manager. We use Suitcase 10.1 which works in OSX and classic. Comes with Xtensions and plug-ins for Quark and Illustrator and works really well (make sure you get the latest upgrade though).

    We only use classic now for Quark, when we have to. But as we have moved to InDesign 2 we hardly use it at all.

  • Reply 4 of 46
    cyko95cyko95 Posts: 391member
    I work for a Recording Studio and do all of their graphics for CD's and whatnot. I am also the webmaster for their website. I use everything from Photoshop 6 & 7, to Dreamweaver MX...Quark to iMovie. I have no complaints as of yet. Mainly I do my work in OS X, but occasionally have to use "Classic" or just boot into OS 9. I'd say 95% of my work is in X though.
  • Reply 5 of 46
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by LuxoM3:

    <strong>Thanks for your reply floppy!

    Any feedback on using OSX for Print Projects like using Fonts in Quark, Illustrator?

    And how do you load/use fonts in OSX? Like 9?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Suitcase 10.1 in OS X works great. It now even comes with a free utility to tranfer your font sets from Adobe Type Manager (ugh).

    I do my freelance design using OS X (print and web design), and it works pretty well. Just be aware of the following issues:

    - Some of the OS X-supplied typefaces conflict with the necessary Postscript ones (e.g. Futura, Helvetica) and are a bit tricky to replace (requiring root access). That has to be done.

    - Printing can be quirky, and s-l-l-ow. I've had to remove and add my printer in Print Center a dozen times by now.

    - A G4 and a good deal of RAM makes it much nicer.

    Otherwise, there's lots to look forward to. OS X rarely crashes, and is much more visually oriented than OS 9.

    p.s. Also recommend "Yapasu" for auto- hiding the Dock in palette-heavy applications, e.g. InDesign.

    [ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 46
    jdradenjdraden Posts: 89member
    I have found OS X very unproductive for website design. I have downloaded the trial version of Dreamweaver MX for OS X, and it is incredibly slow and glitchy. Just typing words into a cell has up to a 5 second delay!

    I also run Dreamweaver MX (and Dreamweaver 4) through Windows XP on my PC and it runs much smoother, the interface is more intuitive, and the dragging of cells and layers is dramatically more responsive.

    My vote if you will be using Dreamweaver would be to either stay in OS 9, or to try it in Windows. A much better experience with that paticular application/line of work.

    [ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: JDraden ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 46
    Custom page sizes can't (easily) be created for some (any) printers. We have a large size HP2500CP and, in OS X, are stuck with the defaults.

    Print Center is getting an overhaul in 10.2, I hear, so maybe this gets solved then.

    Many apps seem a bit hacked together, with rough edges here and there, but this will of course smooth out when developers hopefully get more comfortable with OS X.

    In general, things work quite decently.

    My biggest prob is the general sluggish responsiveness of the GUI, which consistently fails to do things under 10 ms, resulting in an all-too-familiar click, wait, drag or click, wait, select- mode of working. A bit like OS 9, really.


    [ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: judge_fire ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 46
    I do all of my work for my graphically intensive website (link in signature) in OSX. That said, I only user BBEdit and Photoshop, but it works quite nicely.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    cindercinder Posts: 381member
    We're too deathly afraid of X to move to it.

    I wouldn't have any problem since I do 85% web work and photoshop, illustrator, Flash and BBEdit are all X native.

    But Quark, fonts, printer drivers are a Big Deal.

    We've got an image setter, an old HP Laser and two Epson larger format printers.

    We can't lose functionality for those.

    I'm gonna try it out next month when we get a new machine in after MW, though.

    We'll see how it goes.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    I have been using OS X as a freelance web developer since the beta (I must be a masochist).

    OS X and web design/development can be considered synonyms in many respects - at least now that X is at .1 ... Using a unix platform as a design AND dev box means you have 1 computer to do everything - instead of needing a second box as a test server.

    Running PHP/MySQL/Fireworks/Photoshop/Dreamweaver plus being able to use the command line means 1 person at 1 machine can do everything in the design process (and be on a mac). If you have designed sites on a mac traditionally, this is a no-brainer.

    I am a big Dreamweaver fan (why use a hunting knife when there is a samurai sword laying right next to it?) and I totally agree thatDreamweaver on X is a big disappointment performance-wise (you basically have to type in code view or it is unusable). But with MM wrapping UltraDev functionality, HomeSite functionality and a slew of new features you still can't really go wrong (and I am hoping 10.2 helps some of those speed problems).

    I don't personally know much about print, but have recently been exposed (wonder why that sounds like a bad thing?). As far as I have seen, most people who own Quark usually have plug-ins (since it has been around so long unchanged) and I think most print people are scared to make the move (for some very valid reasons). But in all honestly nearly everything I have seen works fine in classic (RIP server, Quark, etc...).

    With those caveats, if you have machines with gobs of RAM, running classic really isn't too bad. And you get all the perks of a virtually un-crashable system with the ability to actually multi-task (who can work with without streaming radi0?!)

    If you are in a production environment, I would say put 1 machine on X, experiment with it, and get to know it and love it before committing and freaking out because it is different. There are HUGE perks to upgrading to a technologically current OS.

    Anyway, thought I would finally register since I have been ghosting this site for so long...

    [ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: The Pie Man ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 46
    What speed are your computers (the people who complain about dreamWeaver performance). I use dreamweaver for table layout only but it seems to run just fine. The only real bug i see is veiwing live data when there is alot of it, such as a chat forum, crash`s DreamWeaver but thats the only problem i see
  • Reply 12 of 46
    chilleymacchilleymac Posts: 142member
    I have been trying to use OSX since 10.1 on a test machine. It works for the most part. The main problem I have is an inability to print separations to my Agfa imagesetter and to set custom page sizes for anything. (We have an HP 5000ps, and an Aspect thermal imagesetter as well) I really want to switch my whole department, because I actually prefer X to 9. But apparently the hold-up is on Apple's end on the printing problems.
  • Reply 13 of 46
    jdradenjdraden Posts: 89member
    My computer is a PowerMac G4 533 DP with a fresh, happy, clean install of OS X 10.1.5 and 1.2 Gb Memory. I so wish DW preformance was better, I really like using OS X more than Windows (I will use Windows before I use OS 9) but realistically I cannot work with DW MX in OS X. The app doesn't crash all that often but it is just sooooooo slow it makes my stomach hurt.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    [quote] My computer is a PowerMac G4 533 DP with a fresh, happy, clean install of OS X 10.1.5 and 1.2 Gb Memory. <hr></blockquote>

    Really I have almoast the exact same setup (1.5 Gb RAM) and I dont really find the perfomance all to bad, I also havent done any real complex work in it I usually perfer BBEdit. Make a table in dreamWeaver in a blank doc. then copy the html back to bbedit works great. Well either way I still perfer X to anything else thats out there even if my super computer can resize windows as fast as my 7100/66...
  • Reply 15 of 46
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    You would have thought Apple would have made the Print Center and printing issues a priority when they first launched OSX.

    Afterall, they own the graphic design and publishing markets which in general have been slow to change over.

    We all know how we don't want to change if it ain't broke.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    [quote]Originally posted by JDraden:

    <strong>The app doesn't crash all that often but it is just sooooooo slow it makes my stomach hurt.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I am using a Dual 500 with gig of RAM and a 350 with &lt;400. Like I said DW performance sucks @$$ - I agree completely with you.

    For any text you have to enter try typing in the code window - typing in the "design" window is unusable if you have any kind of table structure.

    But for anything else it is usable if not the most pleasant experience. When you use it you can figure out how to get around the slow interface - at least until these issues get worked out (hopefully before the next yearly cycle). People are ranting a bit on the MM boards which is good.

    Overall rating OS X on the speed of a Macromedia product is like saying you like hotsauce so you thought you might take a bath with it.

    In my mind the benefits of X can't really be judged by the speed of 1 app.

    Considering the amount of coding acreage X covers I am really impressed with the speed it has been developed... And everything is there for any environment you want to put it in (open standards out the wazoo) - there are just a few rough edges to smooth out.

    Just my 2¢
  • Reply 17 of 46
    Hey luxo what are the specs on the towers you are thinking about install X on. That might help us better help you decide if X is the right choice
  • Reply 18 of 46
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I'm using OS X full-time (and have been since January...can't recall the last time I launched Classic or booted into OS 9...).

    Now that Photoshop is out for OS X, all the pieces are in place. For me, anyway.

    I do use Suitcase for OS X (essential!), although I'm kinda bummed that Adobe isn't making ATM Deluxe for OS X (that was a very easy, intuitive and transparent font utility!).

    I think, at this point, the remaining issues revolve around various printer and scanner drivers from Umax, Epson, etc. That and perhaps some Photoshop filters or third-party plug-ins.

    But, speaking for myself and my work habits (I don't use filters or plug-ins, nor do I own a scanner), I've been using OS X blissfully for all of 2002, and routinely putting Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, etc. through their paces.

    The monthly Adobe Illustrator column/tutorial I write for Mac Design magazine is done all in OS X (Illustrator 10, SnapzPro X for screenshots, write the text in Word v.X, etc.).
  • Reply 19 of 46
    buggybuggy Posts: 83member
    Netwoking has been a challenge until 10.1.5 (NT networks were a real issue) But eveything seems o be working now.

    Printing, ... Not too many unusual problems, except that illustrator often gets confused between where I want the page set-up and where it wants the page set up (I think its the HP drivers fault) I have work arouns but this problem was not there with Illustraotr 8 and OS9 ... my previous configs

    We have multiple users installed and have been experimenting with that for the last two weeks.... This seems to be our next challenge, since all users have their own libraries/desktops/document folders.... there needs to be some relearning on everyones part about where they are to "put" things so that all of us have access.

    So far very impressed with X. But learning will have to be done by everyone as they get used to the new system. This is not just an upgrade (though i am sure that you know this but those around you may not ..)

    good luck
  • Reply 20 of 46
    luxom3luxom3 Posts: 96member
    Ok here is the scary news for you Gents....

    I am a Senior Designer at HP. Our team of 3 all run dual platforms...G4 towers and HP PCs.

    Obviously being HP, we can go ALL HP workstations with P4 processors...but we'd have to buy WIN versions of all our software.

    The Macs we have are G4 Dual 450s, and 2 500's. They work fine for web development through DW and print.

    We're mostly worried about the print aspect.

    Hearing printing issues with drivers is now what we want to hear and none of us really wants to move over to InDesign.

    But what it might come down to is using our Macs for print work only and our superfast PCs for web dev.

    And I personally find it hard to swallow $3k for a Mac workstation when we can get 2.4 P4's loaded for nearly free.

    Thanks for everyone's input!!

Sign In or Register to comment.