Windows vs. Mac (or, the World vs. Apple)

[Guest Vitamin X]

That's it. I'm sick and tired of the cheapshots through advertisements, and nitpicky arguments with fanboys of both OSes. We'll settle this in a hopefully more civilized argument, using simple questions and answers if need be.

 

That said, being a film major and going to an arts school where it's almost all Macs (because of graphic design and film) I get a lot of bullshit about how/why Macs are supposedly better than a "PC" (I put PC in quotes because, you know, Macs are also personal computers). And yet, when I ask why, noone can really seem to answer EXACTLY why. "Well, because it's what all the pros use!" "Yes, but WHY?"

 

I ask because I have been a Microsoft loyalist since I was little, all the way from DOS and Windows 3.1 to XP and probably Vista. When they tried introducing us to Macs in elementary school, I hated them then and preferred to do my work at home on my 486. These days, when having to do graphic design work or film editing, I prefer to use Adobe Photoshop and Premiere, although I do like Final Cut Pro, Premiere is essentially the same thing but cheaper (apologies to Ripper who I had vehemently disagreed with months ago about this). Using Photoshop on both systems, it's the same thing. Hell, the PC one will run better with the right specs- and let's face it, non-Apple computers are much easier, simpler, and most importantly cheaper to upgrade. You pay extra for design. That's it.

 

The Mac OS is oversimplified and sometimes a bit underwhelming if you want to do anything even the slightest bit complicated. Lack of games and whatnot also. Also, there's nothing inherently built in to OSX that makes it any less vulnerable to viruses than Windows. It's just as easy to program one for either OS, but there's a far larger user base for Windows, so who would you rather go after as a virusmaker (then again I don't really understand the point of distributing viruses to begin with, unless it's for personal vendettas or whatever.)

 

I'm getting an AMD Athlon X2 Manchester on a barebone MSI system next month. I want to upgrade my current version of XP to XP Pro 64-bit edition, or Media Center if it supports 64-bit programs. It'll have twice as much RAM as I do now (up to 4GB) and dual-core processing. When I look at what the Intel Macs can do, it really makes me wonder how genius Apple's advertising department is, that they can actually convince people to overpay for a system they can get pre-built for far cheaper, and far stronger/better. You can't even make the user-friendly argument like you used to, since XP is just as, if not moreso than its predecessors.

 

So, take a shot, Appleheads. What makes your OS worth shelling out all the extra money for? Why, exactly, is it better for graphic design? What makes you feel more comfortable with OSX than Windows XP?

 

Also, for the matter don't bring the "lolz Windows is so unstable" argument into this. XP has never crashed on me the whole time I've used it, and I use my computer a lot. Then again, I'm pretty anal about what stays on my hard drive, what's running, and how to keep my CPU usage down.

 

And leave the poor penguin out of this. Linux doesn't deserve to get mentioned with the big boys for personal consumers or anyone outside of server techs until they make it easier and better to find and install any program they wish for their system like the other two. I loathe the day I had to compile sources and tarball and so on. Although I'll mention it's great for people who use their PC for VERY basic purposes.

[In Credible 0]

I actually have both a Mac G5 and a PC. I bought the Mac for film editing, because like you I was told "that's what the pro's use" but I wish I had just bought a really nice PC instead. Im way more used to the Windows interface and I don't really think the Mac is very easy to use actually.

[Ted the Poster 0]

"Hey, has anyone seen the mouse for my Amiga?"

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I made the switch last December, when my Dell Latitude started to fall apart. Love my Powerbook.

 

I prefer OSX and my Powerbook to the alternatives for a few reasons. Plenty of them are simple.

 

-The great hot corners from Expose, which lets you either clear the desktop or show all your windows at once (and select any one) in a very simple, easy-to-navigate system. I know you can sort of rig up similar things in XP, but this works better.

 

-OSX only boots up the essential programs and processes, so it starts extremely quickly. I go from a cold computer to fully up and running in about 20 seconds, and that's on a computer that's nearly a year old.

 

-The program dock is much better than the start menu. No menu navigation--one click access to the dozen programs I use regularly without taking up any desktop space. I like my desktop clean and it prevents me from needing shortcuts.

 

-The search system. Spotlight digs up applications, files, whatever much quicker than any Windows search utility.

 

-I do tons of stuff with iTunes and my iPod, and they're integrated much, much better into OSX than they are in XP.

 

-The touchpad is the best I've used on any computer. Two fingers to scroll is something I haven't seen figured out on a PC yet. I rarely use a mouse, so it's perfect for me.

 

-I know you said "don't bring up stability," but I'm gonna. On my old Dell, I had to install system-hogging anti-virus software, stuff like Ad Aware, etc., and it bogged me down. Never had a problem with anythin on my Mac, and I haven't installed any supplemental utilities. In the current state of things, it's a completely hassle-free machine.

 

I don't play computer games, and I don't really have the urge to upgrade my computer all the time (you really can't do a whole lot to upgrade laptops conveniently anyway). My Powerbook is perfect for music, internet, messaging, Word, Excel, photos, and pretty much managing anything I need. To me, the ease of navigating all these things using all the incredibly basic but incredibly useful features I pointed out is worth any extra expense I paid. And while you might brush off style a bit, I think Mac's laptops are better built than any Windows-based system. Small, light, rarely get hot, and the keyboard's as good as the legendary Thinkpad. For a desktop, a PC might still be the trick, but I doubt I'll ever buy a non-portable computer again.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I made the switch last December, when my Dell Latitude started to fall apart. Love my Powerbook.

 

I prefer OSX and my Powerbook to the alternatives for a few reasons. Plenty of them are simple.

 

-The great hot corners from Expose, which lets you either clear the desktop or show all your windows at once (and select any one) in a very simple, easy-to-navigate system. I know you can sort of rig up similar things in XP, but this works better.

 

Right-click taskbar, show desktop. There's also alt-tab, though I get what you're saying. Preference thing, I like having one window on my screen maximized if I'm web-browsing, if not I'll just have the chat window and whatever else tiled up.

 

-OSX only boots up the essential programs and processes, so it starts extremely quickly. I go from a cold computer to fully up and running in about 20 seconds, and that's on a computer that's nearly a year old.

My computer is a bit older than yours, and it loads up quicker than that. Easily done by clearing out the startup menu and making sure I have what I want running at boot-up. But, for out of the box usage, this is true that Macs run only what's needed at startup. But they always do, and as far as I'm aware, you can't designate programs to start at boot, can you? I like having my Trillian and other programs on right away since my internet connection is always on anyways.

 

-The program dock is much better than the start menu. No menu navigation--one click access to the dozen programs I use regularly without taking up any desktop space. I like my desktop clean and it prevents me from needing shortcuts.

I also hate having shortcuts on my desktop. I use a dock also (Stardock's ObjectDock, although RK Launcher is decent as well- both completely free), but before that, I was using Quick Launch and it was working just fine for me. Right there on the taskbar, tiny little icons, one-click access to the programs I used regularly also. And I could place it wherever I want.

 

-The search system. Spotlight digs up applications, files, whatever much quicker than any Windows search utility.

Google Desktop does a much better, and faster job. Can run in the taskbar ala Spotlight, and/or can be brought up by hitting control twice. And it searches your computer, the web, images, and more.

 

-I do tons of stuff with iTunes and my iPod, and they're integrated much, much better into OSX than they are in XP.

How so? Well I imagine it runs better. iTunes is an insanely bloated program on XP, and I'm sure that's on purpose. I've tried iTunes on the G5's at my school, I saw no real difference. Although, I don't have an iPod yet, I could see what you're saying.

 

-The touchpad is the best I've used on any computer. Two fingers to scroll is something I haven't seen figured out on a PC yet. I rarely use a mouse, so it's perfect for me.

Eh, don't use a touchpad so I can't answer this one. Next.

 

-I know you said "don't bring up stability," but I'm gonna. On my old Dell, I had to install system-hogging anti-virus software, stuff like Ad Aware, etc., and it bogged me down. Never had a problem with anythin on my Mac, and I haven't installed any supplemental utilities. In the current state of things, it's a completely hassle-free machine.

My excellent anti-virus software takes up a whole 6Mb of memory (I use avast! anti-virus). I don't bother with ad-aware, I just don't download anything that has a shitload of advertisements. I have a registry cleaner, but I only go through it every now and then- not that hard for maintenance.

 

Although I don't use laptops, I will readily admit I do plan on getting a MacBook, although not the pro for some of the reasons you mentioned in your last paragraph. It's about the same price as a lot of PC laptops, and well-built and designed. But I guess I'm just talking here, more like.. what exactly makes it that much better? A lot of the things you mentioned, as I pointed out, can be done just as well on a PC as on a Mac, sometimes better. While this is about preference, I guess my beef in the original post is with people saying that Macs do things "better", when I don't really see how.

 

Also, my experience in using Macs and PCs has my current setup with my XP taskbar on top and the aforementioned Google Desktop there also. I hardly use the start menu, also.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You can start some stuff automatically on a Mac. I usually don't, but it's certainly possible. And yep, show desktop. It's okay, but just not as well-devised as Expose.

 

I get that google desktop, free anti-virus programs, a dock program, etc. might do a lot of the same things as OSX does out of the box, but I prefer the feel of the fully integrated system. If those are the features I want, and I don't need to upgrade my computer, I'd rather get the system where they're all part of a whole, both for ease of use and aesthetics. For me, setting up Windows to essentially mimic what OSX already does provides a lesser experience, not a better one.

 

I have nothing against Windows, really. I use it 8 hours a day at work, and it's fine, just not as fun and intuitive to navigate. As for iTunes running better: the organizational system and the way you copy music are much more intuitive just because they were designed to work with the OSX filing system, not the slightly more cumbersome XP interface. It gets rid of some of the clunkiness that's undeniably present in the XP version. I find that my iPod gets recognized and connected much more quickly than on an equivalent computer as well. That's all kind of to be expected, though.

 

As far as laptops go, I think the MacBook's a great deal. Huge improvement over the iBooks. The MacBook Pro, just like the Powerbook, is really a bit of a luxury. Even though it's the "power" version, no one uses it to do the heavy-duty editing and processing stuff associated with old PowerMacs. It's just slimmer, nicer, and generally faster.

[Craig Th 0]

Easily done by clearing out the startup menu and making sure I have what I want running at boot-up.

Yeah, but you have to clear out the startup menu, which you don't have to on Macs.

 

But, for out of the box usage, this is true that Macs run only what's needed at startup. But they always do, and as far as I'm aware, you can't designate programs to start at boot, can you? I like having my Trillian and other programs on right away since my internet connection is always on anyways.

Yes you can. Just hold down the mouse on a program in the dock and click "Open at Login."

 

Google Desktop does a much better, and faster job. Can run in the taskbar ala Spotlight, and/or can be brought up by hitting control twice. And it searches your computer, the web, images, and more.

Two things. One, you have to download a program that allows you to search, which you don't on a Mac. Second, the spotlight takes about 1 second to find what you want. MUCH better than with what comes with Windows.

 

How so? Well I imagine it runs better. iTunes is an insanely bloated program on XP, and I'm sure that's on purpose. I've tried iTunes on the G5's at my school, I saw no real difference. Although, I don't have an iPod yet, I could see what you're saying.

You answered your own question. Since it is an Apple product, of course it will work better on a Mac.

 

I haven't had ANY problems with my MacBook, unlike every other PC I have owned. Windows just doesn't do it for me, at all.

[Red Baron 0]

Compairing a Dell to a Mac is like compairing Ford to a Porsche.

[Guest Smues]

Mac commercials make me want to kill someone. That's enough to give PCs the win right there. And not just the current ones, they've been putting out crap forever.

[AndrewTS 0]

I've worked with Macs for about a year (troubleshooting ipod then the computers themselves), but I'm lukewarm about them.

 

I would buy a Mac Mini (it's small, quiet, has a good price, efficient, and damn near never breaks), but I'm convinced the iMacs are overpriced pieces of crap.

 

However, at the same time I have 3 compaqs in my house now, because none of them have ever broken, and windows is fine as look as it isn't XP, which is memory-hogging junk.

 

Keep in mind I'm not a graphic designer, I don't game with my computer, and I'd be satisified with pretty much any computer that I can surf the net, email, etc. with.

 

However, I don't see myself buying a mac soon because a) all my computers work fine, and if my presario died today I'd still have another. b) there's no effective free solution for windows media content on the new macs. Only a lousy plugin for quicktime you have to pay for (flip4mac), c) the "good" MacMini, with the superdrive (CD-burner) costs 800 bucks, and I could get a comparable or better compaq for about the same--which I've been relying on without a problem for my entire life almost. d) It would be a pain in the ass to get serviced cuz I don't exactly have a ton of authorized service areas where I am. Oh, and e) I would much rather strip Steve Job's flesh from his body with a roll of rusty barbed wire than shell out money and join his disgusting cult.

[Craig Th 0]

Only a lousy plugin for quicktime you have to pay for (flip4mac)

You don't have to pay for Flip4Mac.

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...components.mspx

[Mik 0]

Pay for flip4mac? I got it for free.

 

I have nothing against PCs and I use them all the time at school but I'm happy that I made the switch. I find everything easy, seamless and well integrated. I am annoyed at times that I can not run certain programs, such as most of the Poker sites, but other than that I am pretty happy.

 

My next computer? It could go either way but I'll probably stay with Apple.

[AndrewTS 0]

Only a lousy plugin for quicktime you have to pay for (flip4mac)

You don't have to pay for Flip4Mac.

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...components.mspx

 

It was listed as a "trial" download where I was looking at it.

 

I guess it's just a "trial" as far as the "advanced" features, then?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Compairing a Dell to a Mac is like compairing Ford to a Porsche.

 

I'd say it's more like comparing a Hyundai to a Lexus.

 

I think everyone here is obviously entitled to their preference, but the main question at hand still hasn't been answered.. why exactly ARE Macs more "graphic design friendly" that PCs can't do?

 

My point with the downloading something to match something that comes on OSX (and hey that's really just me kind of liking something Apple did better than MS) is that it's possible to get those features if you want them, and they'll work just fine.

 

If you have to go out and find something you want, on Windows it's at least possible. Even with more Mac software out there nowadays due to the increasing userbase, it's still nothing compared to what you could possibly get with Windows.

 

And really, how is the OS better for graphic designers? OR is that just a preference thing too, because, I'm tellin ya.. After Effects on my shitty little half-Dell (the other half is parts I've since changed or upgraded) is preferable to the oddly clunky interface on Steve Jobs' machine.

 

Eh, good to see none of the fanboys are here, though.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I dunno about AfterEffects. I do know that, although it's been a few years since I used either, I definitely liked Final Cut Pro more than Adobe's alternative. Not sure if the price difference is worthwhile though.

 

Everyone I know in the graphics/layout profession use Quark Xpress or InDesign on a Mac. There's also a vast, vast amount of really powerful freeware out there for Mac graphic support, moreso I think than other types of OSX freeware, which makes it a pretty fluid platform for having expansive capabilities at a relatively low price. I don't know a thing about what would make the Mac a better platform, but it's almost universally used in all realms of publishing and print media.

[Guest Felonies!]

My dad used to work in graphic design until about 1996, and everybody used Macs then, Illustrator, Photoshop, and Quark being the big three programs for vector graphics, raster graphics, and page layout, respectively. He still uses a Mac for all three of those when he needs to use them again. Now perhaps PCs have caught up in the last ten years, but I've always been taught that Macintosh was the industry standard for any sort of serious graphic design. Most of my Photoshop work as of late has been sloppily painting over a picture of an alopecic man from Delmarva whom I've never met in my life, but when I've done any serious business, like CD covers, billboards, things like that, it's been on the Mac.

[dubq 0]

I own a MacBook & a PC (Toshiba "desktop replacement" laptop - ie: it has a huge screen and is way too heavy to actually travel with). At my current job I use a PC because they "don't support" Macs. That said, any other design related job (including the rare freelance gig I do nowadays) has always been with a Mac. It's just industry standard for any sort of multimedia design and editing (anything from print, web, music, video).

 

That said, anyone who is still using Quark needs to get with the times.

[Guest Felonies!]

What has replaced Quark? Do I want what has replaced Quark? Because it's pretty fucking expensive already. Don't say PageMaker; PageMaker is for amateurs.

[dubq 0]

I've found InDesign to be much more versatile and more powerful from a design standpoint than QuarkXPress. Most designers I've worked with (and learned from) agree.

 

I don't even think that Adobe supports PageMaker anymore. They stopped at v7 I believe.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

In my limited exposure, InDesign's better but Quark is still the standard. Most people have already shelled out tons for Quark licenses, and so many people know Quark that the transition'll probably take a bit of time.

 

Interestingly, many design academies are starting to entirely replace the Quark curriculum with InDesign. Good for the future, but it creates a funny little artificial gap in skillset, as people without the Quark background are a bit too ahead of the times to get jobs with firms still using Quark.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I got a package with Adobe After Effects, Encore, Audition, Premiere Pro 2.0, Photoshop CS2, Illustrator CS2, and ImageReady CS2 (along with Macromedia Flash), and they work just fine on my year old Dell compy. I've used Photoshop and Illustrator on both PC and Mac, and I couldn't really tell the difference. I prefer it on PC, since that's what I'm used to. I don't see why Apple is more "graphic design friendly" either

[bobobrazil1984 0]

All those Adobe programs work fine on my PC, but they are a little clunky, and really suck up memory, etc. It makes me wonder what they're like on a Mac.

[Ravenbomb 0]

there were a couple of things that would lock the computer up in Illustrator when I was on the Mac

[Hank Kingsley 0]

I'd just like to add that Apple's new Mighty Mouse is amazing. Bluetooth powered and thus wire- and USB sensor-free, left and right clicks, a 360 scroll, and two buttons on the sides that let you do the neat "show all open windows" effect. Worth the money, especially since I'd never used a trackpad before I got my Macbook Pro.

[Guest heyimbro]

I use a Mac at work and just got one for home (I also have a PC at home). Windows is definitely more user-friendly (maybe that's because I know more about XP than I do OS X). And the Mac programs I've used tend to crash just as much as anything I run on XP..

 

Adding to the Quark discussion, at work we use this for layout still. Why? Who knows. I use Multi-Ad Creator myself, but I have never heard of any other business that uses this, and that kind of weirds me out. I've forgotten pretty much all I've known about Quark and now use a program that nobody else does?

[dubq 0]

Interestingly, many design academies are starting to entirely replace the Quark curriculum with InDesign. Good for the future, but it creates a funny little artificial gap in skillset, as people without the Quark background are a bit too ahead of the times to get jobs with firms still using Quark.

 

Many studios I work with are doing this as well.

[AndrewTS 0]

Just for anyone considering a mac--the mac mini is the most stable computer (hardware-wise) they have.

 

iMacs look nice but it seems as soon as they started stuffing everything behind the display, they started getting into trouble. This is the last good iMac:

http://www.granneman.com/images/imac_flat_panel.jpg.

 

Get a Mac Mini, max it out, spending the rest on a nice display and you're gold.

[GODSON 0]

I'm no expert but I got a brand new computer two years ago and had many problems with XP. My current problem is that I can't use my Microsoft Word 2003 anymore and they won't even let me re-install the software or any similar software like Wordperfect. I keep getting this message Internal error 2908

[Ripper 0]

The PC I have is more affordable and just as powerful as anything that a Mac can do. I use it for graphic design and computer animation, and honestly, I still don't understand the supposed advantages to using a Mac for those purposes.

 

Not getting into games because seriously I could give a crap, but my programs like Zbrush, 3DS MAX, Maya and others either don't have Mac equivilants or I like them better on PC. The Adobe Suite is available on PC, and once again, I don't see the advantage of using them on Mac.

 

Film editing is supposedly better on Mac, although I don't have much experience in that field so I can't speak to it. But the only stuff I have done were with Avid on a PC and everything seemed fine.

 

And seriously, and this isn't to be mean, but when you compare a dell to a mac, its simply a case of you need to learn to use a computer. Complaining about multiple applications coming up that are bogging your system down is a user problem, not a platform. If you know what you are doing, your startup shouldn't take that long. So maybe Macs are better out of the box? I don't know.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Well, I will say that Macs do run better out of the box as opposed to most Windows-equipped PCs that big hardware manufacturers like Dell ship, but that's mostly because those PCs are packed with a bunch of bullshit people don't need and might never use.

 

The fact that Dell started shipping out computers so cheap a while back was the smartest thing that could have been done in the consumer market for computers, considering the parts made are so relatively inexpensive to put together, and when you build a PC, you can come out with a hell of a lot stronger and better system with say, $1000 than you would with a Mac.

 

I wouldn't mind getting a Mac Mini with a 100GB hard drive and DVD/CD-ROM Superdrive though, and setup MythTV on it so I can use it as a media center, since that's pretty much all Macs are good for. Or, I can take this old Dell, put it in a nicer home theater display and add a bigger hard drive, install Linux/MythTV on it, and that'd be an even better solution. I guess Macs just don't come out as economically feasible either ways. At least when talking about desktops.