Macintosh vs. PC
I am new to this forum. My name is Ammar Elmousa. I am from Amman (Philadelphia), Jordan. I am interested in learning about what makes the Mac better in the graphics area than the PC. I have been following the PC ever since the XT; I have had very little exposure to the Mac however.
Ammar
Ammar
Comments
<strong>I am new to this forum. My name is Ammar Elmousa. I am from Amman (Philadelphia), Jordan. I am interested in learning about what makes the Mac better in the graphics area than the PC. I have been following the PC ever since the XT; I have had very little exposure to the Mac however.
Ammar</strong><hr></blockquote>
An out of the box working postscript system
? Colorsync color management systemwide
? Interface (Multiple Document based applications vs instance-based fullscreen apps)
? Consistent interface between programs
? Consistent drag & drop and cut & paste between apps
? Superior file management
? Far superior mouse tracking (laugh if you want, but this is very significant)
I used to try to design CD covers using Windows Pagemaker and had endless problems. Part of that was Postscripting stuff, and part of it was (I think) the fact that my service bureau really didn't WANT to deal with Windows format files.
I don't know what kind of work you're doing that you're calling "graphics" but if you're working with any outside agencies or services bureaus or film shops, try calling them up and asking whether they'd prefer that you give them Mac files or PC files. I think they'll express a strong preference in one direction...
Ammar
[quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:
<strong>Another thing that makes it easier to work on a Mac for graphics, that has nothing to do with the Mac being "better" in the ways that Fluffy listed, is that so many graphics pros are using Macs that you'll have fewer compatibility problems if you go Mac too.
I used to try to design CD covers using Windows Pagemaker and had endless problems. Part of that was Postscripting stuff, and part of it was (I think) the fact that my service bureau really didn't WANT to deal with Windows format files.
I don't know what kind of work you're doing that you're calling "graphics" but if you're working with any outside agencies or services bureaus or film shops, try calling them up and asking whether they'd prefer that you give them Mac files or PC files. I think they'll express a strong preference in one direction...</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>What about hardware?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardware is hardware. It is the quality of the software and the level of software/hardware integration that makes the Mac great for graphics.
[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>
Hardware is hardware. It is the quality of the software and the level of software/hardware integration that makes the Mac great for graphics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've heard many people say something like what you've heard. Something like, "Macs are good for graphics but PCs are better for other things".
Is that the type of thing you'd like explained?
If so, it's hard to explain.
People have been saying "Macs are only good for graphcs" since the 1980s and I've often wonder what they meant by that myself. I think it is said because the Mac was the first, mass produced PC, to have a graphic user interface (GUI) with icons, windows, folders etc. When the first Macs were being made the other major alternative was Windows 3.1 which obivously wasn't so good in the graphic user interface area - theres that graphics word.
It seems to me that the "Macs are better/good for graphics" stemmed from that. However, it doesn't mean that, in many ways, it isn't still true. One just needs to define graphics a little more clearly.
Graphics can refer to graphic design - such as using Photoshop or Illustrator for print or Flash and Fireworks for the web. Earlier in this post you've seen some of the things that make the MacOS the common choice for doing "graphics" work.
Graphics can also refer to the GUI. Many feel that the MacOS has a better GUI - hence it has better graphics. If you look at the newest GUI implementation in Mac OS X, you'll probably agree that it hasn't an excellent use graphics. Things like Quartz for doing all of the 2d vector graphics/PDF stuff. And it has a very cool OpenGL too. The Quicktime layer of OS X is just damn cool. I'm not a programmer, so I can't get into the nitty gritty details, but if you try a Mac OS X machine on newer hardware and compare it to Windows XP you'll probably be able to make your own judgement on which has the better "graphics".
Apple has always tried to gear its computers toward the 'creative' market. People who use Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash and other "Graphics" programs. The G4 chip has Altivec which is supposed to help in vector processing by doing it in 128bit chunks.
That helps with doing grapihcs processing. Especially when working with video encoding. Apple's Final Cut Pro is quickly emerging as the industry standard for video editing, because of its integration with the G4 processor's ability to do this 128bit processing.
The other are of 'graphics' is games. Games are a bit of a sore spot for some Mac owners - not because you can't play games on a Mac. But you can often build a cheap PC that will get higher framerates in games than a comparable Mac. The newest Macs are getting well over 100FPS but PCs normally achieve 200FPS - mostly due to the way game makers integrate the game sotware to work with PCs. 100+FPS should be plenty for any game, but PCs can get more. That subject is best left to another thread though. You'll probably see some threads in this forum that already talk about Mac, PCs and FPS. For gaming 'graphics' PC can be a better choice - but for most other 'graphics' applications - the Mac is often the better choice - with decent gaming as a nice bonus.
Hope this helps more than it hurts.
<strong>He means how well does the software work with the hardware, and the hardware work with the software.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah. Hardware is worthless. The new Radeon 8500 has processing power that can run rings around a G4 CPU, but software cannot take advantage of it. Deep Blue is an amazing supercomputer with tremendous computational abilities, but it can't color match between a scan and a print job. There's no software for it. There is no doubt in my mind that PC hardware is faster in general than Mac hardware, but the software is sh*t, plain and simple.
Intel & AMD
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>Hi Ammar,
I've heard many people say something like what you've heard. Something like, "Macs are good for graphics but PCs are better for other things".
Is that the type of thing you'd like explained?
If so, it's hard to explain.
People have been saying "Macs are only good for graphcs" since the 1980s and I've often wonder what they meant by that myself. I think it is said because the Mac was the first, mass produced PC, to have a graphic user interface (GUI) with icons, windows, folders etc. When the first Macs were being made the other major alternative was Windows 3.1 which obivously wasn't so good in the graphic user interface area - theres that graphics word.
It seems to me that the "Macs are better/good for graphics" stemmed from that. However, it doesn't mean that, in many ways, it isn't still true. One just needs to define graphics a little more clearly.
Graphics can refer to graphic design - such as using Photoshop or Illustrator for print or Flash and Fireworks for the web. Earlier in this post you've seen some of the things that make the MacOS the common choice for doing "graphics" work.
Graphics can also refer to the GUI. Many feel that the MacOS has a better GUI - hence it has better graphics. If you look at the newest GUI implementation in Mac OS X, you'll probably agree that it hasn't an excellent use graphics. Things like Quartz for doing all of the 2d vector graphics/PDF stuff. And it has a very cool OpenGL too. The Quicktime layer of OS X is just damn cool. I'm not a programmer, so I can't get into the nitty gritty details, but if you try a Mac OS X machine on newer hardware and compare it to Windows XP you'll probably be able to make your own judgement on which has the better "graphics".
Apple has always tried to gear its computers toward the 'creative' market. People who use Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash and other "Graphics" programs. The G4 chip has Altivec which is supposed to help in vector processing by doing it in 128bit chunks.
That helps with doing grapihcs processing. Especially when working with video encoding. Apple's Final Cut Pro is quickly emerging as the industry standard for video editing, because of its integration with the G4 processor's ability to do this 128bit processing.
The other are of 'graphics' is games. Games are a bit of a sore spot for some Mac owners - not because you can't play games on a Mac. But you can often build a cheap PC that will get higher framerates in games than a comparable Mac. The newest Macs are getting well over 100FPS but PCs normally achieve 200FPS - mostly due to the way game makers integrate the game sotware to work with PCs. 100+FPS should be plenty for any game, but PCs can get more. That subject is best left to another thread though. You'll probably see some threads in this forum that already talk about Mac, PCs and FPS. For gaming 'graphics' PC can be a better choice - but for most other 'graphics' applications - the Mac is often the better choice - with decent gaming as a nice bonus.
Hope this helps more than it hurts.
[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>
Yeah. Hardware is worthless. The new Radeon 8500 has processing power that can run rings around a G4 CPU, but software cannot take advantage of it. Deep Blue is an amazing supercomputer with tremendous computational abilities, but it can't color match between a scan and a print job. There's no software for it. There is no doubt in my mind that PC hardware is faster in general than Mac hardware, but the software is sh*t, plain and simple.
Intel & AMD
[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mac OS uses dynamic mouse tracking, which means that if you move the mouse faster, the cursor tracking speeds up, enabling you to get the mouse all the way across the screen with the flick of a wrist. When you move it slowly however, it can take several trips across a standard mousepad to make the trip across the screen. This makes graphics programs much easier to use without zooming in or slowing the mouse tracking down.
Windows uses linear mouse tracking, meaning that however fast you move the mouse, the speed that it moves on the screen doesn't change. This seems good on paper, but it's crap in real life. Try to use a graphics program when you are used to working with the Mac, and it's gurranteed frustration. When you move the mouse slowly even the cursor flys around on the screen. Not only does this make graphics apps harder to use, but the entire GUI as a whole. Maybe its a part of why if you use Windows you are more likely to commit a violent crime
<strong>I am an Electrical Engineering student. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd probally be interested in running some sort of SPICE/PSPICE simulator on your macintosh. I'm not aware of any freely available gui SPICE program for the macintosh yet. kivadesigns.com does make a command line version that will run on OS9 or OSX. Microsim, now Cadence, now Orcad unfortunately stopped support for the Macintosh after PSPICE v 6.0.
For just learning digital logic there is LogicWorks v.4 available for the Mac. <a href="http://www.logicworks4.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.logicworks4.com/</a>;