What makes a Mac better for designers?

[Deleted User]

[quote=[Deleted User];37669044]If you had read what was written you would realise that as a majority, designers do NOT prefer OSX.

There is no trouble shooting and learning to be done on OSX because it is dumb user focused, hence one button mice. If you want to learn, save your money (MSE!) and download a copy of live bootable ubuntu.[/QUOTE]

Or if you want an actual challenge, Gentoo.

Chimpofdoom

anewhope wrote: »

Or if you want an actual challenge, Gentoo.

Indeed, if you can decipher how to install it.. you win!

danielmeade

Simple. Just look at it. That's design inspiration right there!

DatabaseError

CharlesCooper222 wrote: »

So, where does that leave my own arguments....

I think it leaves you in the same place as (most of) the rest of us, "horses for courses".
Apple undoubtedly have their place in the market, but it's no longer a simple, obvious and sensible choice, a lot of the decision making process is down to prejudice and 10 year old arguments, rather than actual fact.
I remember the people saying that apples were much better than PCs as they used the motorolla CPUs, now, they're just the same as PCs, just with pretty cases and a different OS.
I think everyone should make their decision on OS based on their capabilities and need, and i don't care if they chose linux, OSx or windows, just so long as they get the right one for them.

[Deleted User]

Edit: Misread.

jbreckmckye

CharlesCooper222 wrote: »

What I was referring to was that because of the non-sequential programming of Wozniak

I've seen no reference to this anywhere. Can you elaborate?

Are you suggesting that Apple's OS was the first to be written in an object-based language? At any rate, all object orientation does is model certain sorts of problems in a 'non-sequential' manner. The executables still compile to procedural assembler, whether that's for your x86, SPARC, MIPS or whatever architecture you fancy.

It was Wozniak who introduced the notion of Windows and the mouse - ideas that cost Apple dearly in the court room later when they tried to defend (Windows particularly) against Microsoft and lost.

'Apple'? I think you're misspelling 'Xerox', who invented WIMPY.

So ends Part 1. The age when operating systems were programmed or at least modified in BASIC, by people like Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak.

C++ had just been invented and a new kid was on the block.

>> implying IBM-DOS wasn't written in C
>> implying even BASIC hadn't been replaced by FORTRAN

Microsoft's success at this time was due in part because of the horsepower provided by Intel which disguised Windows woeful lack of performance and heavy handed programming.

Is that the Mac-fan's new term for 'adequate third party support'? ; )

What Wozniak had achieved with sheer engineering and programming brilliance, Microsoft with Intel was achieving with brute processing force.

I take it you've never seen the raw ASM of MicroSoft's ALTAIR BASIC interpreter, then?

Also, I like the idea that Intel haven't pioneered 80% of the pipelining technologies modern processors use.

To reiterate: There's no real such thing as 'non-sequential programming'. All programming languages compile to purely procedural assembler, a stream of single-byte opcodes using jump instructions for program flow.

Edit: A caveat. There are languages like the .NET and JAVA languages that produce a sort of generic assembler referred to (misleadingly) as bytecode. These can still contain object-like structures, but are transformed on the fly into 'ordinary' assembler by things like the .NET CLR or a Java Virtual Machine.

DrScotsman

jbreckmckye wrote: »

>> implying IBM-DOS wasn't written in C
>> implying even BASIC hadn't been replaced by FORTRAN

>implying you need more than one '>'

poppy10_2

CharlesCooper, your posts are utter gibberish, from both a technical and historical standpoint. I don't want to sound mean but you don't seem to have even the most basic grasp of what you are talking about. To take a few examples:

CharlesCooper222 wrote: »

the non-sequential programming of Wozniak

You've made this term up. I've no idea what you are trying to refer to, but googling it reveals no results relevant to operating systems or Apple, and googling non-sequential programming + wozniak in an attempt to find the "countless books and interviews" you are referring to yields only your post on MSE.

It was Apple that introduced WYSIWYG - what you see is what you get, because of Wozniak.

No, Xerox (and HP) did, ten years earlier.

It was Wozniak who introduced the notion of Windows and the mouse

Again, Xerox introduced WIMP, ten years before the first Mac was made.

the exceptional speed and graphics handling of Wozniaks non-sequential programming and modified chip sets.

Again, just gibberish. I can't even begin to dissect this one

Microsoft didn't even introduce the notion of Windows until the late 80's and a working version until 1992 with the release of Windows 3.1 - a good 10/15 years after Wozniak had implemented the idea.

Windows 3.1 was not Microsoft's first windows based GUI, as you might be able to tell from the version number.

Microsoft announced the development of Windows in 1983, a year before the first Mac was released. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. It was a fully working version, just a year after the first mac, rather than the 10/15 years you claim.

The age when operating systems were programmed or at least modified in BASIC, by people like Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak.

No operating system was programmed in BASIC. BASIC is a high-level programming language that ran on top of the operating system, rather than the other way around.

C++ had just been invented and a new kid was on the block. Jobs was booted out of his own company. Apple went into decline.

C++ was 'invented' in 1983 (its predecessor in 1979), before the first Mac, and had absolutely nothing to do with Apple's decline

Microsoft's success at this time was due in part because of the horsepower provided by Intel which disguised Windows woeful lack of performance and heavy handed programming.

Even PC fanboys at the time recognized that PowerPC was a much more powerful architecture than Intel, right up until the early 2000s. Even in 2003 the PowerPC 970 used in the G5 was one of the fastest CPUs on the market. It was only in the subsequent few years that Apple grew dissatisfied with IBM for failing to match Intel's rapid development pace, particularly with regards to energy consumption and heat production.

Jobs had failed to make any market headway with the new C++ based, or more accurately 'Cocoa' based environment he created at NeXtStep.

NeXTSTEP was based on Objective C, not C++.

[/quote]
Apple was finished and so was Jobs. So he had nothing to lose by returning. That was 1998.[/QUOTE]
NeXTSTEP had been fairly successful in its target market, and far from being "finished and having nothing to lose by returning", it was actually seen as a "triumphant return by Steve Jobs" by most analysts at the time.
And it was in 1996, not 1998.

Within a couple of years of returning from the wilderness, Jobs created the all new colourful iMac's in strawberry and blue continuing the vision began by the now retired Wozniak and himself in those early years from his garage.

With Cocoa at their operating heart, the new Apple iMac era began...

Cocoa is a programming API, not an operating system. The Apple iMac era began with Mac OS 8, which did not have Cocoa. Neither did Mac OS 9. Cocoa was only introduced in Mac OSX, which was released three years after the first iMac, and long after Apple's resurgence had already begun. And even today many Mac programmes are written with Carbon rather than Cocoa.

And it all stemmed from Wozniak's non-sequential programming...

Sigh.

I'm sure you're trolling. Nobody can be this obtrusively dense.

metalfrogstudios73

This is actually quite a simple one when it comes to the aspect of web design:

Apple's are graphically superior to PC's and their virtual memory capabilities are far in excess of Internet Explorer. In fact, on the PC the only true Apple alteernative is the Linux operating system - which again uses little or no virtual memory and is totally virus free to boot!

Apple's are common amongst the web design fraternity because they are true WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). This is not the case with Internet Explorer. The closest on PC, non Linux, is Firefox, which renders almost the same as Safari on the MAC.

As a web developer, we have major issues always when Microsoft bring out yet another version of IE as this means we have to write scripts to ensure that the website renders(views) properly. In fact, on final Beta testing of a site we check on 19 different browser types and versions to ensure that we are as true to the design as possible.

One day Microsoft might realise what trauma they put web developers through, but I'm guessing not!

23n1th

metalfrogstudios73 wrote: »

This is actually quite a simple one when it comes to the aspect of web design:

Apple's are graphically superior to PC's and their virtual memory capabilities are far in excess of Internet Explorer. In fact, on the PC the only true Apple alteernative is the Linux operating system - which again uses little or no virtual memory and is totally virus free to boot!

Apple's are common amongst the web design fraternity because they are true WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). This is not the case with Internet Explorer. The closest on PC, non Linux, is Firefox, which renders almost the same as Safari on the MAC.

As a web developer, we have major issues always when Microsoft bring out yet another version of IE as this means we have to write scripts to ensure that the website renders(views) properly. In fact, on final Beta testing of a site we check on 19 different browser types and versions to ensure that we are as true to the design as possible.

One day Microsoft might realise what trauma they put web developers through, but I'm guessing not!

You can't make a massive generalisation like: "Apple's are graphically superior to PC's and their virtual memory capabilities..."

Then go on a talk about IE which is just a piece of software that runs on windows. Though you are right that IE is a piece of poo! Microsoft have never obeyed web standards in the passed relying on their massive financial clout to force through their own standards. Just look at the .docx debacle!

Linux isn't completely virus free though you'd have to be extremely dense to get one.