What makes a Mac better for designers?

kabayiri

joeypesci wrote: »

Apples are over priced. I find designers are into fashion, they go with what is fashionable so end up with a Mac and get screwed by it due to the price. You can get a PC that will be more powerful and now with Windows 7 even more stable (my XP machine and now the Windows 7 machine rarely crash unless I'm making them do so my messing about. Being an IT engineer I like to mess about ).

If you like to mess about, and hack stuff, then consider virtualisation.

I prefer a linux host, and then run a mixture of windows and *nix virtual machines. If I am testing some new software which leaves windows in a heap (not unknown) I can just restore the VM from disk.

Why do these arguments about windows v mac v linux still persist, anyway? Isn't it more about personal preference now?

jbreckmckye

CharlesCooper222 wrote: »

Apples use non-sequential programming - a throwback to the inventions of Steve Wozniak - the original apple Engineer and partner of Steve Jobs.

This non-sequential ability to store and retrieve data meant that the Apple could run smoother and faster than an equivalent PC that used sequential programming instead. In other words, the PC has to put everything down lets say from line 1 to line 100, whereas the Apple can store and retrieve data in any order it likes - much faster!

Additionally, instead of using clunky hardware to store data and count cycles, Wozniak used software and fewer chips to speed things up.

This ability to process data gave Apples a huge advantage when it came to mathematically intense operations such as graphic rendering and display. At a simple level, even today just moving the mouse across the screen seems to move just a bit more smoothly on the Apple than the PC. And this all stems from Wozniak 30 years ago.

Clever bloke. Steve Jobs was the visionary of the two who marketed this advantage into the Cool world of design - something he's still doing today!
That's why designers prefer Apples!

Er... what? I think you're a little confused.

There are sequential and non-sequential programming languages (usually object-orientated), but both compile to purely sequential ASM. And either way, I've never seen any PC software developed in a sequential language like FORTRAN. Most PC and OS X software tends to be written on an object orientated language like C++.

It's all moot anyway: modern Macs are Intel-x86 based, like their PC counterparts (they haven't been Power-PC based in many years), though I know of no processor architecture that doesn't address memory in a non-sequential manner - that's why it's called Random Access Memory.

The Mac OS X operating system is simply a BSD core (a variant of Unix) with a proprietary API named Darwin. Darwin simply manages Windowing features (the layout and appearance of windows).

The only thing that I could see you referring to is a non-stack-based architecture... but all processor architectures are stack-based at heart. And even if Wozniac's machine was some magical tuple-based architecture, there is no relationship between 1980's Macintosh and the Macbooks you see today. The oldest ancestor of OS X is the 90's NeXtStep OS, and the hardware is effectively PC-based.

jayme1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pLe9jmx0E4&hd=1

I think this is a pretty good vid on the mac/pc and esp why a mac may be better for design/video type work.

frugalfreddie

I've had an iMac for about two years now and I can honestly say that they are the best machines for absolutely anything that you need to do. I have to use a PC at work with Windows installed and it pains me to use it every day, especially when I got home and find myself pressing the wrong buttons!

Fred.

[Deleted User]

The only benefit of OSX most people don't even know about...it's the same old rubbish story 'it just works' (oh rrr yeah thats a good explanation, lol)

And its journaled file system.

Simon_Pugsley

frugalfreddie wrote: »

I've had an iMac for about two years now and I can honestly say that they are the best machines for absolutely anything that you need to do. I have to use a PC at work with Windows installed and it pains me to use it every day, especially when I got home and find myself pressing the wrong buttons!

Fred.

How true, to coin a phrase.... "They just work"

jbreckmckye

Simon_Pugsley wrote: »

How true, to coin a phrase.... "They just work"

...Except that any Windows or *buntu-based Linux distro from the last ten years 'just works' just as well.

The problem with Mac fans is that they're happy to talk about late 90s variants of Windows and Linux, but rarely recall the failings of 90s Mac software (typically poorly debugged and limited in functionality). They assume that Windows is still in the state they left in back in '01, that Linux still demands command-line mastery and that Macs are still unique. Worse yet, they're convinced Macs are unbreakable. If you believe *that*, take a look at day-zero vulnerabilities of the latest BSD kernel and talk to me again.

Macs only gain usability by horrifically restricting the user's choices. You're only marginally more secure because Apple don't give you root access, and even then I can think of plenty of exploits that work in a multi-user environment. After all, how do servers (often running some Unix variant) get attacked? Aren't they supposed to be protected by the Power Of User Permission Controls (TM)?

Do people really think having a multi-user system magically prevents things like buffer overflow exploits, format string attacks and port scanning? Do they really think a Mac sans firewall will be somehow invisible to any semi-competent nMap user? Just because you're not SUDOing around doesn't make you invincible.

There are good reasons for using an Apple machine. For those who want to do a specific, limited number of tasks that aren't quite supported in current iterations of Linux (eg Mint), a Mac may be useful until that functionality is added for ordinary Mint / Ubuntu users (probably two years). Otherwise, Apple's flagship personal computer became irrelevant in 2005, and Apple's real asset is its iPhone (which is hewn of pure loveliness).

DrScotsman

kabayiri wrote: »

Why do these arguments about windows v mac v linux still persist, anyway? Isn't it more about personal preference now?

If this were any other forum I'd probably agree with you. However this is MSE, and Macs are almost always more expensive (or so I heard ).

The whole point of Moneysaving is spending "a little" or "some" effort/inconvenience to live the same lifestyle for cheaper. It's subjective, but there are plenty of people who find that Windows or Linux (or Hackintosh for that matter) does "just work" for them, and there are a lot more who would say the inconvenience is worth the £XXX they save.

Call them liars or in denial if you feel like it, you know that most of them are being truthful, and they are the real winners on this forum.

Simon_Pugsley

I like mac you like windows, personally I like my MacBook Pro because I find it easier to use than a PC, the next guy may not, each to there own..

I must admit not spending hours messing with compatibility issues or virus software does have its benefits.

DrScotsman

Simon_Pugsley wrote: »

I like mac you like windows, personally I like my MacBook Pro because I find it easier to use than a PC, the next guy may not, each to there own..

I must admit not spending hours messing with compatibility issues or virus software does have its benefits.

Yes, I must admit it does have its benefits too. That's why I no longer run Windows ME.

Complaining about OSs you don't use.

I don't think there's much else to say that hasn't already been said by jbreckmckye.