Computer

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in
news:45f04254$0$15013$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse. net:

> Irby wrote:
>> It seems most people who work with graphics (including
>> pictures) prefer a Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an
>> explanation in layman's terms of why this is? Thanks
>
> I don't actually think it's true. It's *more* true to say that
> most MAC users work in graphics.
>
> As to why -- I suspect that designers are strongly influenced by
> Apple's excellent industrial design.
>
Today, it's a matter or inertia. Graphics designers use Mac because
those who came before them used Macs. This happened for a about
three reasons. In the early days, Macs were far easier to learn to
use, if you weren't a computer geeks (and graphics artists in those
days were artists first, and computer users second). Second, in the
early days, Macs were a lot better at graphic design, because they
were designed to be good at it. Third, Apple used to give deep,
deep discounts to schools, especially schools that taught graphics
design, so that graduates, in looking for a job, would tell
prospective employers that they were already familiar with Macs. It
was a very good business move on Apple's part.

--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."

Terry Austin

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Irby wrote:
>> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
>> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
>> this is? Thanks

>I don't actually think it's true. It's *more* true to say that most MAC
>users work in graphics.

>As to why -- I suspect that designers are strongly influenced by Apple's
>excellent industrial design.

I agree, but with one caveat. Photoshop was, IIRC, originally
written for Macs.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

In article <esphb1$pna$2@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
<gans@panix.com> wrote:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >Irby wrote:
> >> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> >> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> >> this is? Thanks
>
> >I don't actually think it's true. It's *more* true to say that most MAC
> >users work in graphics.
>
> >As to why -- I suspect that designers are strongly influenced by Apple's
> >excellent industrial design.

Because Macs were designed from the beginning with a graphical user
interface as the entire basis of operation, rather than as an
afterthought desperately cobbled on top of the OS to try to compete (as
the first Windoze OS versions were), graphics just came more naturally
to them, so the evolution of graphical programming was easier on the
Mac (many of the core graphics rendering and manipulation routines were
written right into the firmware itself, or into the "toolbox" (as it
used to be called), which allowed programmers to use them without
having to understand the "on the metal" technicalities of manipulating
of every graphic format available (which was actually a pretty small
set back then).

> I agree, but with one caveat. Photoshop was, IIRC, originally
> written for Macs.

Yup - it was Mac-only for 4 years, until v2.5 (1992, IIRC).

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Irby wrote:
> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> this is? Thanks
>
>
Skipping over all of the posts so far, the whole thing can be summarized:

1. People will tend to continue to use whatever it is in which they have
made a considerable investment in supporting expenditures, as in mac vs
pc (software), Nikon vs Canon (lenses) and anything else you can think of.
2. Although windows is now a respectable competitive graphics platform,
this wasn't always the case. Formerly the mac was way ahead in graphics
stuff and preferred by design artists. Prior to windows, pc's were (and
still are) strong contenders for business apps.
3. Although listed third, this is by far and away the most important
factor. Corporate enterprises were badly burned in the mainframe arena
by companies appearing and disappearing. IBM was the only solid
reliable, here to stay outfit and IBM introduced the pc. Along with the
pc came the spreadsheet (I think visicalc was the first but there were
possible others and my memory fails me). What the Mac was to graphics,
the spreadsheet was to accountants and related skills only more so.
Corporate MIS people were dragged kicking and screaming into permitting
pc's into the corporate environment (as opposed to MIS putting a
terminal on user's desktop). Now of course, once this practice became
established and clone pc's appeared, people like me wanted either to
borrow or purchase same in order to work at home. All this created a
tremendous market force against which Apple could not compete. It's
marketing policies didn't help any either.
Now I know MIS fears of the short lifetime for Apple have not
materialized but they didn't know that back then.
4. Other factors like better hardware and software integration in the
mac, virus vulnerability etc. are relevant but not decisive. Some of
those factors are due to sloppy design now being addressed by MS. It
takes them a few years (decades) to get thing right. When the do, the
end result can be satisfactory with the added advantage of when this
happens, hardware horsepower has had time to grow to support the added
bloat.
5. Note: None of the above made MS supremacy a forgone conclusion. The
fact that MS has so successfully been able to piggyback on the success
of the pc has to be credited to Bill Gates marketing skills. Remember
Digital Research and another graphical interface whose name escapes me
plus others.
Dave Cohen

At this point in time there is far more software and hardware for high end
graphics work on the PC platform. As of this writing there is no
commercially available version of Photoshop that runs natively on the Mactel
platform. The Adobe CS3 beta release was a desperate ploy by Adobe to keep
Mactel users from switching to Aperture (as if anyone who did this for a
living would!) and to satisfy the orthodox Macaholics that populate the
Adobe design team. If you want to hear strained logic mixed with religious
preference listen to a Macaholic explain why color management is better on a
Mac than on a PC. If you buy it then you will prablably soon want to choose
sides in the Shiite vs Sunni Iraqui civil war.

"Irby" <irbyb@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:UhVHh.10464$tD2.9120@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> this is? Thanks
>

Irby <irbyb@mindspring.com> wrote:

> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of why
> this is? Thanks

<http://www.apple.com/pro/color/>

nsag <fac@hotmail.com> wrote:

> At this point in time there is far more software and hardware for high end
> graphics work on the PC platform. As of this writing there is no
> commercially available version of Photoshop that runs natively on the
> Mactel platform. [..]

So where's the 'far more?'

I've got a MacBook, and it runs Photoshop just fine. It'll be nice when
the native version comes along, but it's still pretty freakin' fast as
is.

Irby wrote:

> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures)
> prefer a Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in
> layman's terms of why this is? Thanks

Most people are simply sheep and believe everything they see and read on TV
or the Internet. Macs are nothing more than a novelty box. If you want
high performance and reliability you will select the PC platform. Most
graphics professionals chose the Intel Xeon for their processor of choice.
They are more apt to be using a dual Xeon system. Even Mac caved in and all
their "performance" systems are Intel based. And you guessed it they use
Xeons. Why buy a copy of the best when you can own the best, a PC.







Rita

In article <12v16nof5mv75fe@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> Irby wrote:
>
> > It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures)
> > prefer a Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in
> > layman's terms of why this is? Thanks
>
> Most people are simply sheep and believe everything they see and read on TV
> or the Internet. Macs are nothing more than a novelty box. If you want
> high performance and reliability you will select the PC platform. Most
> graphics professionals chose the Intel Xeon for their processor of choice.
> They are more apt to be using a dual Xeon system. Even Mac caved in and all
> their "performance" systems are Intel based. And you guessed it they use
> Xeons. Why buy a copy of the best when you can own the best, a PC.

Apple went to the intel chip for two reasons, Motorola was not making
any progress with advanced chips and the intel chips run cooler.

A secondary thing may be that too many users only recognize the intel
brand.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

In article <k7XHh.27721$fa.3888@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Roy G
<roy.gibson1@REMOVE.tesco.net> wrote:

> "Scott Schuckert" <not@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:080320071105436387%not@aol.com...
> > In article <UhVHh.10464$tD2.9120@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
> > Irby <irbyb@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It seems most people who work with graphics (including pictures) prefer a
> >> Mac over a PC. Can anyone give me an explanation in layman's terms of
> >> why
> >> this is? Thanks
> >>
> >>
> > I work supporting Macs in the education, graphics, and publishing
> > arenas. At one time, Apple was almost literally the only way to get
> > things done in these markets. This has diminished; Windows has gotten
> > much better. To the extent that if someone is a Windows expert user I
> > wouldn't necessarily recommend a change.
> >
> > That said, there are still advantages in color management, file
> > handling, user interface, and stability. Some excellent graphics
> > software is exclusively for, or better on, the Mac.
> >
> > Finally, the nearly complete freedom from malware is a big plus as
> > well. I recently converted a college newspaper to Mac because they were
> > literally drowning in viruses; they had IT there every single week to
> > disinfect their PC's. Since they got Macs, not a single infection. And
> > that's without any antivirus software at all.
>
> This just demonstrates the percentage of Mac users to PC users. There are
> so few Macs that the Virus / Malware writers don't bother producing a Mac
> version.

If they COULD do it, they WOULD do it.

Just to force the Macistas the STFU.