[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Jake

i dont think we disagree really btw Aj... i think i might have misread what you said. sorry! my second paragraph is not really related to your post anyway.

I think we agree a lot, especially with "Except the idiots who buy them because they like the case." the same "creative" people omloflump is refering to.

It's not that I'm not impressed with Macs, but the fanboism and elitism is anoying. Visual arts people bought Macs because they were told photoshop runs faster on a Mac, that was a complete lie, and now that Apple has gone Intel it will show what those guys like to swallow from Apple. Atleast, that's the only answer I get from those people, and that the cases look nice.

Someone I know from College is a good scripter, xhtml, php, etc... and used to run Linux, he has good arguments for using a Mac, but he isn't a "visual arts" or "creative person" (note: he is creative, just not a label).

I met an engineer that was brought up on Macs, and he liked the way Apple built computers, I can see that, inside those sparkly cases the Macs have always had good build quality.

Recently Apple has been pushing a unified GUI that's pushing towards conformity that will help productivity, your point is good, hell that one is on the top of my list when looking at applications for Windows.

Another thing is that Microsoft is not a hardawre company, if you buy a Windows based computer you are going to have a lot of choice about who builds and sets that computer up (or if like me you can build and set it up yourself), this greatly impacts how usable it is.

I think the two main arguments that I think makes very few people suitable for buying Apple is that they are far too expensive, price/performance, and peripherals against others are very different. The second thing is that Apple still doesn't have as much support as Microsoft, you can show me alternatives that Mac OS as, but you can also do that for Linux, and there is definitely a problem there. One great step towards this is the switch to Intel, because I think portability is going to be considerably improved, prices will go down, and the power greatly increased.

[em-deecee]

No, once again they came close, but didn't get it.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by em-deecee

No, once again they came close, but didn't get it.

Except that it will sell really well. After thinking about it I'm still pretty sure that if I get a new multibutton mouse it will be some nice Logitech, but just because to you they "didn't get it" doesn't mean that they in reality "didn't get it."

I mean, Apple generally doesn't put things out to market just because one VP or one programmer or one engineer in the company thinks it's cool (see: every Apple project from ~1992-1998 for examples of that happening) - they really think this stuff out. If modern day Apple ships something, they ship something they think will sell a zillion copies.

[omloflump]

What I meant by Macs being geared towards creativity, was that in most of the arts that require computers, Mac is the industry standard. Graphic design, music, and, more recently, T.V people all use Macs over PCs. It's hard to believe that all this is based on a lie about Photoshop running faster on Macs. PC on the other hand, is the leader in business programs, games and, perhaps, film (I'm not to sure about what people mainly use here). The great thing about Macs today is that they come with free software that allows you to explore your creative needs right out of the box: iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, GarageBand etc.

The debate over which system is better is, in the end, pointless. All it usually amounts to is that the people who own PCs will argue that PCs are better, while the people who own Macs will argue that Macs are better. Since PCs vastly outnumber Macs, then a poll would no doubt rule PCs to be better. Nevertheless, I will continue arguing.

One of the greatest things about Macs is that they, as yet, don't have viruses*— at least no serious ones. They are also a lot more stable then PCs. And it also must be said that a lot of features in today's standard PC were lifted from Mac innovations. Of course, Microsoft helped develop and create the operating system back in the day, but Mac took it a whole step further. They pretty much created the graphical interface of icons and folders, and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) they created the mouse. They made computers accessible to your average person.

It's not that I'm not impressed with Macs, but the fanboism and elitism is anoying.

Ah but this is a testament to the quality of the product. There's a reason why Mac people love their computers a whole lot more then PC users love their cold grey towers (or Incompetent Beige Machines, IBM for short).

My Mac does everything I've ever wanted it to do and it does it well. Having had experience in both operating systems, I will say that Microsoft Windows is a really sloppy system by comparison.

[Sage]

The GUI and the mouse were features on the stillborn Xerox personal computer. After that project was killed off by short-sighted Xerox brass, the working prototypes of the machine were shown to Steve Jobs who incorporated those innovations into Apple's Macintosh project and wound up hiring most of the people responsible for them.
The original Macintosh 128k of 1984 was the first computer to be sold with a mouse and a GUI.

ScottMate

[omloflump]

The GUI and the mouse were features on the stillborn Xerox personal computer. After that project was killed off by short-sighted Xerox brass, the working prototypes of the machine were shown to Steve Jobs who incorporated those innovations into Apple's Macintosh project and wound up hiring most of the people responsible for them.
The original Macintosh 128k of 1984 was the first computer to be sold with a mouse and a GUI.

Okay, thanks. That's close enough in my book.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by omloflump

What I meant by Macs being geared towards creativity, was that in most of the arts that require computers, Mac is the industry standard.

I seriously doubt this is true.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Aj_

I seriously doubt this is true.

It is, actually. Causes me all sorts of problems. Although not about it being "geared towards creativity". They're both as capable as eachother at creation.

Worse thing is, people still don't know how to use macs properly and whenever they send me through images, mac's split them into two files which confuses PC's. All they have to do is zip them, but do they ever?

As someone who's used Mac's and PC's for doing graphics, I really can't see the point of debate. I have always found PC's more flexible to tailoring to my needs as an artist and there's no difference between Photoshop, Painter or Illustrator on a mac compared to a PC. All I know is I can build a powerful, high memory and faster PC for less than the price of a Macintosh and I'll know what's in it as I put it there.

The only time I'd consider a Mac is if I needed a laptop. I find PC laptops can be incredibly clunky.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

It is, actually.

Are you going to back that up by any data?

I think it's unlikely because statistics have shown Macs install base to be under 10%, closer to 5%, and while I don't believe the statistics to be accurate by any means I do believe that Mac usage is small, and below Linux usage. Now, I'm sure there are a far greater number of creative specialists who use a computer than the whole number of Mac users.

3D Studio Max is the most used 3D software around, Maya may have over 50% of hollywood, but Discreet owns Architecture and Game developement, that program is only available for Windows. Maya is the second and supports Windows XP and Mac OSX. So it is safe to say that the majority of creative professionals that work in 3D will be using a Windows based PC.

I cannot confirm the statistics but it has been published that 53% of photoshop sales are for Windows boxes, this very good and very popular software started on the Mac, it could be said that this is one of the factors in people who want to use the software choosing Macs. I couldn't find any infomation on 2D graphics applications, but I can guarantee there are more of them for windows, and far more users aswell.

I might go into sound editing later, but I have a feeling it will take longer.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Are you going to back that up by any data?

Well, I won't, since I don't have any, but I'll second the assumption. I see a lot of my media computer science professors with macs, who use macs at home, et cetera. Honestly I'd never seen a mac in proper action before I started studying this stuff... But there you go. From that limited scope of people, I'd say the percentage of Mac users in media computer sciences (including/mostly digital art) is at least HIGHER than in other fields. Don't know if it's leading, though, but we hear that here, and have been told so, so I'm believing it until told otherwise.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

I'd say the percentage of Mac users in media computer sciences (including/mostly digital art) is at least HIGHER than in other fields.

I agree that it is does seem like Mac usage in digital art is higher than in other fields. As I said, Photoshop started on the Mac, and I will add that the Mac when it was more popular had a tradition of having good 2D editing/illustrating applications, it's not surprising that people who had used Macs then are still using Macs now.

[em-deecee]

I truly feel sorry for people who use PCs simply because they don't know any better. I have to work on a PC at my job. I choose to use a Mac at home because it's an easier, far more elegant way to compute than the so called industry standard.

Earlier this week I spent most of the day trying to rid my work PC of the Aurora pop-up Trojan. It arrived on a CD slide show that had been made with HP software & was absolutely insidious. Stuff like this never happens on a Mac.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by em-deecee

I truly feel sorry for people who use PCs simply because they don't know any better.

Excuse me? I don't need your sympathy or your condescension. For what I need my PC is perfectly fine, thankyouverymuch.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by em-deecee

Earlier this week I spent most of the day trying to rid my work PC of the Aurora pop-up Trojan. It arrived on a CD slide show that had been made with HP software & was absolutely insidious. Stuff like this never happens on a Mac.

Well you should know better than trust a slide show from someone. I never get any viruses because I don't open these kinds of documents, unless I scan them (Yahoo! mail provides a scanner for any attachment).
Also make sure you have the latest virus scans, and you have a firewall. Download only from sites that are reliable, and never trust an attachment from anybody, even if you know that person. Use popup blocker on your browser, and always always update windows with the latest security patches. I know these sound trivial, but they account for 90% of the spyware/addware you get.

As far as Macs go, well I just built my new monster PC gaming rig, for less than I would buy a Mac. Pricewise and software support, there is no competition. Until Mac has support for all the top games, and give more freedom of choosing my parts, I'm sticking to my PC.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by em-deecee

I truly feel sorry for people who use PCs simply because they don't know any better. I have to work on a PC at my job. I choose to use a Mac at home because it's an easier, far more elegant way to compute than the so called industry standard.

Of course, it wouldn't be reasons like variety, software support, performance and price.

Earlier this week I spent most of the day trying to rid my work PC of the Aurora pop-up Trojan. It arrived on a CD slide show that had been made with HP software & was absolutely insidious. Stuff like this never happens on a Mac.

*Cries* "I ran an executable from an untrustworthy source, it couldn't possible be my fault, I will blame the OS because Mac OS is not vulnerable to similar attacks"

One problem with these "ignorant" people using Macs, that would mean that Mac OS would be popular enough to get viruses, or do you think Mac OS can't get spyware and Trojans?

NT security isn't as good as Unix, but if people running NT didn't log into root like Unix users don't, and didn't run executables that you have proven Mac suers are perfectly capable of doing, then there wouldn't be such a wide spread problem. Microsoft hasn't helped with ActiveX, Internet Explorer and MSN messenger being needlessly integrated into the OS, but when Apple copies a company that created widgets and call it "Dashboard" they intergrated something needlessly into the operating system that also has led to vulnerability.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by Aj_

"I ran an executable from an untrustworthy source, it couldn't possible be my fault, I will blame the OS because Mac OS is not vulnerable to similar attacks"

You know, this is a pet peeve of mine in all regards, not just Mac OS users (whom I've actually not heard that "argument" from)... people who assume something they did is the fault of the OS, or the computer, or something else they don't understand shit about. Brr, don't get me started.

[em-deecee]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Excuse me? I don't need your sympathy or your condescension. For what I need my PC is perfectly fine, thankyouverymuch.

Tough $hit. You've got it anyway!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Oh yeah? Well here's my 'thank you':



emsie






Ha!

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Are you going to back that up by any data?

I think it's unlikely because statistics have shown Macs install base to be under 10%, closer to 5%, and while I don't believe the statistics to be accurate by any means I do believe that Mac usage is small, and below Linux usage. Now, I'm sure there are a far greater number of creative specialists who use a computer than the whole number of Mac users.

I'm not weighing in on some stupid 'who's more creative' blather but I would like to point out:

If you're so keen on data and statistics it would be grand if you supplied links to the data you quote, contrary to what you post here there seems quite a few beancounters of differing opinion. Some suggest as high as 16% and reactionary comments to this figure guess around the 10% mark with the word 'realistically' put somewhere in the sentence as evidence.

The software sales in that second link are interesting wouldn't you say? Stunning that with such low install base, the little buggers make up nearly 20% of software sales.

Counting install base is extremely difficult, counting sales volume isn't the same thing. Compare upgrade/new computer purchase rates (yes I know its mostly blather and slightly that side of mac porn) among PC users and Mac users based on hardware quality/unit price and the general stubborness of 'bloody mac users'.

I would love to see any evidence at all that more people use linux than any version of mac os. It might be more common in buisness server use etc but does that honestly tip the scales all that much when counting home use too? I doubt it. Do you count all versions? What accounts for 'use'? Do you include every possible incarnation of linux? How much of that is free software that someone's just tried out on a whim but doesn't really use? How many people are really willing to put up with the darned thing? <-this link is funny, if you should press at least one link in this post, press this one.

3D Studio Max is the most used 3D software around, Maya may have over 50% of hollywood, but Discreet owns Architecture and Game developement, that program is only available for Windows. Maya is the second and supports Windows XP and Mac OSX. So it is safe to say that the majority of creative professionals that work in 3D will be using a Windows based PC.

If they make games, sure... 3D is used more often than in just games, student folios, and hollywood mov...

3DStudio max is also bloody expensive, as are a lot of high end 3D applications. For the more common use of 3D art (image renders) I would imagine a combination of much cheaper, more varied programs are used.

I cannot confirm the statistics but it has been published that 53% of photoshop sales are for Windows boxes,

During which year? It goes up and down. It's hardly a stretch on the imagination to wonder that PC sales will rise when you finally make your software available to the larger install base... And what a perfect bunch of potential sales those jolly windows users are proving. All jumped up and keen to get the newest thing every year... if only less of the blighters where willing to pirate the darned thing eh!? What a wonderful world of whimsy it is.

I couldn't find any infomation on 2D graphics applications, but I can guarantee there are more of them for windows, and far more users aswell.
I might go into sound editing later, but I have a feeling it will take longer.

Yes, well guarantee's with no data behind them are marvelous things. Use them myself all the time! I'm sure we can come up with some number or other with percentage signgs behind them regarding the install base of programs like Quark, InDesign, etc... they'll be as equally legitimate as anything else out there. I guarantee it.


// Edited because I've had coffee.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

If you're so keen on data and statistics it would be grand if you supplied links to the data you quote, contrary to what you post here there seems quite a few beancounters of differing opinion. Some suggest as high as 16% and reactionary comments to this figure guess around the 10% mark with the word 'realistically' put somewhere in the sentence as evidence.

I'm keen on people backing up statements said as facts with atleast some statistical basis. If i made out that any of the statistics I posted was legitimate in my view or that my views represent fact then that is more of a communication problem on my part. I didn't see the point in posting links to press releases that have no infomation on how the data was collected, but I guess you think differently.

If they make games, sure... 3D is used more often than in just games, student folios, and hollywood mov... 3DStudio max is also bloody expensive, as are a lot of high end 3D applications. For the more common use of 3D art (image renders) I would imagine a combination of much cheaper, more varied programs are used.

How is it different? Is modelling for animation that much different from modelling for a still render that a cheaper, possibly inferior product can be used? The sites I go to the professionals there tend to use Maya and 3DSM, because they are great tools, I'm not talking about an average desktop user, I'm talking about professionals. Are you implying that the software is only suited to games?