Apple Mac Vs PC - what is the industry standard for graphic design

hey,

i know this is an age old argument and will most likely get a lot of fan boy answers but please try and be honoust, your helping me ALOT.

the question is a simple one, as far as graphic design, video editing etc is concerned which one would it be more useful to learn to use?

please assume if you are using a max you are using OSX (no duel booting)
if using a PC your using win XP, or 7

 

I'm not involved with any of that graphics stuff, neither do i own anything Apple-branded but for what it's worth, i'm under the impression that people who work in that field tend to use macs.

 

Agreed with Dragunov, I am not in creativity, but they do tend to use Macs (or at least the ones who talk about what they do their work on..). I'd imagine it's because Apple has excellent product design (bar the recent iFad) and they want to be associated with that? After all, if your job is designing slick adverts, a swish, all-in-one computer (iMac) would better serve your company image to potential customers.

However, I could see no downside in using a PC, not to mention greater software availability. If someone needed me to do something creative, I'd stick with Win7 thank-you-very-much.

 

It's often a combination. They may use Mac Pro for the processing grunt and more importantly the programs, but no selfrespecting artist would ever use the Apple displays. You need IPS panels like Eizo or top-end Dell displays.
You obviously get more grunt for you money with a pc, but there are limitations. Some programs are Mac only. There is also less hassle with a Mac.

All in all I think it comes down to: If you have unlimited cash, you should go Mac. If cash is an issue, go for a pc and get used to one of the many other programs out there.

Btw, no fanboyism from here. Proud owner of a windows laptop, a windows desktop, an iPod Touch and a normal iPod. And I absolutely love my friends MacBook Pro.

 

I've seen design firms which use both. It's less a matter of platform than software. Adobe's software runs on either Mac or PC, as do a lot of industry standard applications.

High end video may use a lot of proprietary stuff that is platform specific but by the time you get to that level, you'd probably have no qualms with having both a Mac and PC.

That said, architectural work is usually done on PC due to Autodesk's lack of Mac support. Of course, there are architectural suites available on Mac but are much less used in North America.

If you're doing graphic design work, either works, but I prefer a Mac. Macs seem to have better type handling and little interface conveniences like Expose, the fact that you can scroll a window/work pane which is not in focus, and the fact that your work isn't contained in some grey window is great. Also, colour profiles on Macs just seem easier to manage.

I also find that Macs have more shareware/small developer programs that are more enjoyable to use. Macs just seem to have developers that make better apps. For web design, Textmate, CSSEdit etc. are a joy to use. There are also great font handling programs for the Mac, but I'm sure there are some for the PC as well. I have yet to find something comparable on the PC side. Generally, I find the non-big-name software (EG: Not Adobe etc.) on Macs nicer than PCs, but that's just personal preference.

Macs may support less hardware than PCs though due to Apple having a tendency of cutting legacy support with software updates and OS upgrades, though if you have newer drivers and newer hardware, it should be fine.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. It boils down to which OS you are comfortable with as both support most of the software you'll need and both are pretty solid systems. My recommendation is Mac. It may be a couple hundred more for a comparable PC, but you're really buying OS X which I find is much nicer to use on a day-to-day basis as well as for graphic/web design.

I have a Macbook Pro which dual boots Snow Leopard and Windows 7 as well as a Core 2 desktop from a few years ago which runs Vista for gaming (I don't use the desktop for graphical work).

 

Lots of pros I've seen actually use Apple displays. Aside from their laptops, they all use IPS panels now, though no pro I know would use a glossy display. I hear they are impossible to calibrate. However, if you get that 30" Cinema Display or a discontinued 20" or 23", those are perfectly legit displays.

Personally though, since Apple displays cost practically a liver, I use Dell displays which are a great deal if you get them on sale. I picked up my Ultrasharp U2410 when it was $300 off the MSRP.

 

Oh I actually didn't know that. Well for the price of a 30" Apple display you should be able to afford a 30" Eizo which is better quality.

 

At university, the choice from professors and many students, is a Mac Pro (because the max configuration model can be cheaper than buying the same thing in PC even hand assembled), but for sure run Windows 7 64-bit at 100% on it. For students who can't afford one of these, they run on their desktop PC's. The university has several Mac (latest iMacs with the Core 2 Duo models fully equipped - donated by Apple if I am not mistaken) labs for students, but barely in used due to many issue when loading large project, and poor performance during rendering.

Mac OS is very iffy in 64-bit, it is highly recommended to use the 32-bit for maximum stability with the OS, and software that you use. However, Windows 7 64-bit with 64-bit version of your software really provide a nice boost in performance, all by being extremely stable.

In addition, under Windows, you can use PC graphic cards like Nvidia Quadro's, which are much cheaper than the Mac version, and exists in more powerful models, or more specialized models for tasks like these cards:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/builtforadobepros.html

Another thing, is that Apple spend a nice fortune non stop to promote Apple computers with graphic artist and such, to attract them in using a Mac, but with the fight with Apple and Adobe currently, I would not be surprised if Adobe stops Mac support, or at least focus in improving the PC version and not care anymore for the Mac version, making it the least optimized version between the two, and buggier (less testing).

Also, Apple computers are prone with manufacture defects or other system level issues:
like the yellowing of the screen issue, uneven LCD's, GPU issues, or where if you play audio, your system reduces by 20% in performance (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...ake-20-performance-hit-when-playing-audio.ars), sure they are fixed now... but Apple has an extremely hard time accepting a problem.

And as mentioned, Apple monitors are not good, you can find much better for cheaper or at worst the same price from specialized companies like Eizo, which targets monitors for graphic artists, photo editor, movie editing and so on, with crazy features like perfectly even backlit and near 0 backlight bleeding, for the best color output possible.

So in conclusion, depending where you live getting a MacPro might be a cheaper than a hand built solution or pre-build from OEM of the same specification. (Please note that for all OEM's if you call, you negotiate a price cut with the system (you can't with Apple), so you have to check for that as well), but in any case, its Windows 7 64-bit the OS of choice to maximize performance, readability (comparing with 64-bit Mac OS), and stability. In consequence my vote is for PC (Windows)

 

Goodbytes makes a good point in regards to hardware support, especially pricey graphics cards. If you're doing any sort of 3D work, I would go with a PC. In fact, up until their 2010 versions, Autodesk products (3DS MAX being a huge one) would sometimes have its license break under Bootcamp. However, graphic/web design is still a Mac thing in my view.

I have never experienced any issues with 64-bit software on my Mac. It all runs normally in Snow Leopard. I find it handles 64-bit software as seamlessly if not more seamlessly than Win 7. It's true that Adobe has focused more on PC development as evident by the really shitty OS X version of Flash player. Also, 64-bit Creative Suite came out on PC first as Apple decided to cut essential API's Adobe was working with in porting over a 64-bit version of CS4. CS5 has been updated to address the 64-bit issue in OS X now. I would be surprised if Adobe would cut Mac support for their software, as many customers of theirs are wedded to their Macs and larger pro firms likely already have Mac infrastructures set. Adobe's not stupid enough to eliminate a majority of their userbase over petty squabbles with Steve Jobs' ego.

Monitors are really dependent on what you do. I feel that you really only need a super-accurate monitor for print or for pro-video which you know where and how it's going to be displayed. If you're designing for digital distribution like web, you'll have no idea what your colours are going to look exactly like on someone else's monitor. You could be using a $2000 colour calibrated IPS display from Eizo, but your client or userbase is likely going to be viewing it on some $150 TN panel. That said, an IPS is a joy to look at.

I wouldn't say Apple monitors aren't good. They're just expensive and for the price, you could do better. There's no shame in using a cinema display.

Apple does have a terrible dead pixel policy, and their stuff is known to have defects. I've had to send in my laptop a few times, but if you live near an Apple store, turnaround is fast and warranty repairs are mostly problem-free and easy. Aside from very expensive pro products with special uptime guarantees, I doubt Apple is any worse than any other PC manufacturer. I've had friends with nightmare issues with their Dell computers.

That said, my own self-built PC has been a trooper other than an HDD fail and some mobo instabilities.

 

vote for PC

adobe is pretty much the industry standard in graphic design, and yes a lot of people use macs, however.

Times have changed, and a PC can out perform and run all Adobe applications faster than a Mac, especially when fitted with an i7 which a PC fanboy can overclock.

Really its done to cost now, adobe is fecking expensive and the same goes for mac's, so cutting costs somewhere helps.

 

What they can do, is if you buy the Mac version you have the PC version available under the same license. Meaning companies don't need to buy new licenses. By pressure of their employees, all companies would do is just get Windows licenses to put on the Mac's.

If it looks good on a calibrated IPS panel (well any good ISP/PVA panel for that mater), then it will appear somewhat correctly on the client TN panel screen. If you want to be 1000% correct, then simply use a 6-bit color pallet, but then your pictures will greatly lack color.

Yup, and if you had a Dell for instance (I believe Lenovo and HP has the similar service as well, but it depends on where you live).you have a contracted firm computer technician that comes at your place the next day, at the time you want to repair your laptop where even scratches done by the technician is cover even if you don't have accidental damage protection. Of course this service is for Dell business section, but nothing stores anyone form ordering anything from Dell Small Business (ie: you don't need to be a business to order from there.) Plus, you get a clean system, and can get that extra next business day on site service free if negotiate (in some countries, Dell offers that service by default. For instance, if you get a Dell Latitude E6000/4000 series, you get MINIMUM 3 year warranty with next business day on site service-in Canada with your system. And Dell's Small business tech support during office hours are also in Canada. In my case, I either get some place in Ontario or Nova-Scotia.

 

adobe creative suite 4 has a 64-bit version for pc.

it does not for mac.

 

All of our designers at work use the Mac. A lot of printing houses use them too. There may not be a good reason as far as software is concerned, but maybe they find themselves more productive in OSX
Creative suite 5 is 64bit on the Mac. My preference is the mac, even though the hardware is more expensive. The whole package is worth it.

As far as video editing goes - Final Cut Pro (mac only) seems to be what the biggies are using - BBC, Francis Ford Coppola etc. Even iMovie is better for editing video than anything I can find on Windows.

 

I work for a printing company and our studio has over 20 macs and 1 pc. Most are the 27" quad cores.

The reason for the PC is for the very rare client who supplies artwork in a pc format (about 1 in 500 jobs).

I have been to hundreds of design studios to collect artwork and haven't come across one who is PC based.

If you are seriously going into the industry, whilst it is changing slowly, you will need to be able to use a mac, like it or not.

I am basing this on the likes of creative suite etc. As printers we don't have the need for video editing.

 

Apple dual processor machines are way cheaper than similar offerings from Dell or HP, or even going and buying the bits. Looks like they are subsidised and Apple reply on people adding ram, more HD's, fibre cards, whatever to claw back some profit.

A friend of mine who shoots with a full frame Canon has an older Quad Core Mac Pro and rather than throw money down on buying the Nehalem models, he simply revitalised it with an SSD (OCZ 60GB, £145) and a faster Samsung F3 for his data, plus doubled up the ram, think the total cost was £400.

 

I find it surprising that you could get any Apple machine for less than a PC, though I have specced octo-core Mac Pros for less than PC equivalents.

 

Not to be rude or anything, but what the hell are you smoking ? (I really want some)

No way in hell that you can't buy a similar spec PC for less than a dual core mac, they want nearly 1.2K for...

3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB memory
500GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics

21.5" 1920 x 1080 display

Now... let me go over to newegg....

Antec Three Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - $59.95

DFI LANParty BI P43-T34 LGA 775 Intel P43 ATX Intel Motherboard - $84.99

EVGA 01G-P3-N943-LR GeForce 9400 GT 1GB 128-bit DDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card - $56.99

CORSAIR CMPSU-450VX 450W ATX12V V2.2 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Compatible with Core i7 Power Supply - $69.99

Intel Core 2 Duo E7600 Wolfdale 3.06GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor Model BX80571E7600 - $144.99

2x Kingston ValueRAM 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model KVR1066D3N7K2/2G - $115.98

Western Digital Caviar Blue WD5000AAKS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5 - $55.99

LITE-ON CD/DVD Burner - Bulk Black SATA Model iHAS124-04 - $21.99

Windows 7 Professional 64-bit OEM (right now comes with free mouse as well)- $139.99

Subtotal: $750.86

Add in a decent monitor, keyboard, and mouse, brings you up to around 1=1.5k....

 

For proper video editing I am of the opinion that nothing beats a seriously powerful workstation PC running avid.

For photo editing, it really makes no difference. Adobe rule the roost in that field and their software runs on both OS X and window, and as far as I can tell there are very little differences if any.

Premiere Pro is a good video editing software which runs well on both OS X and Windows, though I have heard that its better on Windows, I can neither confirm or deny this.

A lot of graphic designers use macs, or at least macbooks when consulting because they look cool. This is not trolling or fanboyism, it is just the truth, if you want something designing you are going to go with the people who look good.

The truth is macbooks look fantastic compared to some PC notebooks. Good presentation can sometimes be more important to a client than a good portfolio, first impressions and all that jazz.

 

Thanks for that one.

I said dual PROCESSOR, i.e 2 X XEON Quad Cores not friggin Dual Core iMac.

Go back to Newegg and build me an 8 Core Xeon Machine (2 processors) for less than the Mac Pro.

Tip : You can't.

 

I apologize, I misread your post (and seem to have wasted a bit of my time while I was at it). I'm already aware of their very high end machines being a decent buy. I must have glossed over the "dual processor" bit as it had already been stated by other people .