this post was submitted on
15 points (65% like it)
31 up votes 16 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

14
15

Why are Apple computers the norm in design? (self.apple)

submitted ago by [deleted]

Why are Apple computers always touted as the BEST computers for doing design-related work? How is the experience using Photoshop better on a Mac than on a Windows computer, for example?

all 107 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]summatusmentis 21 points22 points ago

Certainly part of it is history. For a long time, Mac computers were the machines that had the best software options for design-related work. This has since changed, but the association still stands.

[–]MarsSpaceship -1 points0 points ago

" This has since changed"... has changed? I don't see any serious design company not using OS X.

[–]summatusmentis 1 point2 points ago

Most design-software is now also available for Windows machines. Design companies still use Macs, because "the association still stands".

[–]MarsSpaceship -2 points-1 points ago

I don't think this is the reason why they use mac.

[–]summatusmentis 0 points1 point ago

care to provide an alternative? If the software is available for other platforms, why stay with the one they've been using forever, except for inertia?

[–]MarsSpaceship -1 points0 points ago*

example: if you are on high video editing, post-production/VFX, you don't have good windows software there. Example: Audio Postproduction Protools, Autodesk Inferno, Autodesk Flame, Autodesk Flare, Autodesk Smoke, Final Cut Pro (now the X thing destroyed everything, until Apple fixes it), etc.

You can argue that you know similar software for windows, but I guarantee you they suck. The software I mentioned is the supreme state-of-the-art software ever made. Windows software and windows itself are considered bad taste amateur stuff on high-end production. Nobody want to crash in the middle of the production while using windows and lose everything. This is why windows is just used, when used, for unimportant or secondary stuff. This is why real high end software companies don't even care to develop for windows. They develop for Mac or in a few cases for Linux (when they sell you the machine).

[–]spdorsey 0 points1 point ago

Mars,

I'm a verifiable Apple fanboy, and I know that there are MANY editing packages for Windows that can meet or exceed those available on OS X. Avid has owned the non-linear editing industry for decades and that dominance, while eroded by FCP, still holds fast. FCPX is (probably) a temporary annoyance, but Avid is here to stay.

Premiere is making HUGE inroads, and Vegas is a good solution (both for lower-level production houses).

Personally, I love FCP, and I even like FCPX. But to say that there are no comparable apps on Windows is just not true. (And I HATE Windows).

[–]summatusmentis 0 points1 point ago

touche, I wasn't thinking about video stuff. I know that DigitalPerformer, for example, is available on windows, as are the Adobe suite software (things that I had been thinking about for "design shops").

[–]MarsSpaceship 0 points1 point ago

yes, when a software has for both platforms, windows and mac, they are generally the same in features. The problem is when the producer do not cares to make a windows version. Until .recently, all of the software I mentioned from Autodesk just existed for Silicon Graphics runnint irix. Then autodesk bought discreet and made it for linux and mac. It is uncommon, because Autodesk is known primarily as a windows developer, but in the case of these software they never cared to develop windows versions

[–]spdorsey 0 points1 point ago

Apple has a track record for attention to detail. This goes for the hardware design, user experience, and OS standards. They consistently turn out the highest quality and standards in retail computing.

For a long time, there was no such thing as color standards on Windows - you could only get good color accuracy (for print work) on a Mac.

Photoshop was pioneered on the Macintosh. It went Windows in version 2.5, and didn't really catch up until version 4. Postscript has deep roots in Macintosh systems (Adobe Illustrator, and Aldus Freehand), and also the desktop publishing revolution of the 80's was almost exclusively a Mac phenomenon.

These days, the lines are blurred. I use both. But I prefer OS X simply because the interface standards on the Windows side are not consistent, and the security/malware issues are much, much worse.

[–]summatusmentis 0 points1 point ago

right, and that's my point, ultimately. The lines are now blurred in most areas. There are certainly areas where the software may still be better on a Mac (MarsSpaceship pointed out video), but in many design fields, the software lines have blurred. There may be other reasons for using a mac, but the example OP listed arguably doesn't matter (Photoshop on OS X vs. Windows).

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

Mostly tradition and they look better when you have a client round the studio.

There are significant advantages to doing web or mobile design on macs however. But not so much with print these days.

[–]blurio 0 points1 point ago

like? not trolling, just interested.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

Few things that I like about them:

Coding

  • Apache, PHP, Ruby, git installed as standard
  • Unix based
  • Because of those two points a decent text editor like Textmate has a lot more power out of the box and because every mac user has the same languages installed by default the community can release commands ands scripts and know they'll run on everyones machines. Of course this is achievable on any OS but can require a lot more troubleshooting.
  • Textmate
  • Automator
  • With Applescripting one refresh button in Textmate can refresh the same page across 3 web browsers in OS X, IE in a Windows VM and the iOS Simulated Safari.
  • Command key is in a far superior position to the Windows Ctrl key
  • 3 modifier keys instead of 2
  • Better shortcut key defaults and the system wide ability to reconfigure shortcuts for any application

Design

  • Much more powerful colour picker with system wide colour libraries and extensibility
  • Expose is excellent for switching between documents
  • Quicklook
  • Wider font format support
  • Nicer font rendering (if you're a designer it's annoying to look at crummy font rendering all day hah)
  • Adobe software runs with the document windows floating among your desktop windows, not inside an overall MDI window so you can see documents behind your Photoshop/Fireworks docs. Therefore you can easily grab colours from other open docs/web page or drag elements out of your topmost window.
  • Personally I find the mouse movement to be smoother

[–]jzone3 1 point2 points ago

Do not forget Xcode!

[–]TrancePhreak -4 points-3 points ago

XCode is perhaps the worst IDE on the market. I often wonder if anyone at Apple actually uses it. It seems like nasty bugs make it into the release all the time.

The current version can't even symbolicate crash logs for iOS5. The debugger still randomly quits. They removed the ability to have multiple target settings easily usable. Letting XCode manage profiles can easily lead to it installing conflicting outdated profiles. Whenever there is a small config problem, XCode will either crash, spit out "unknown error", or an error code with no information. Many of the settings are spread about in text files in random locations and have no GUI to edit them. Their idea of tabs is a joke.

[–]SuperOstrich 2 points3 points ago

Personally I find the mouse movement to be smoother

It's interesting that you mention mouse acceleration, because I find the OSX curve to be unusable. First thing I do when I get a new MacBook is install Intellipoint and set it to override system acceleration.

[–]TrancePhreak -2 points-1 points ago

As a coder, I really find Textmate lacking compared to free things like Notepad++.

Command key is in a really bad position for causing carpal tunnel. http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/n76fe/why_are_apple_computers_the_norm_in_design/c36uxda

"Better shortcut key defaults and the system wide ability to reconfigure shortcuts for any application" -> opinion followed by falsehoods. Not all programs adhere to the system shortcuts or provide functionality to remap their commands.

Windows does not need Expose, it has hover previews in groups + the task bar.

"Nicer font rendering (if you're a designer it's annoying to look at crummy font rendering all day hah)" -> more opinion based on things that are likely inaccurate. http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/n76fe/why_are_apple_computers_the_norm_in_design/c36v12p

I think your comment about Adobe software only applies to older versions, newer ones are nearly identical on Windows/OSX http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/pe6_01_workspace.jpg

"Personally I find the mouse movement to be smoother" -> which is great for you, because Windows has options to change the acceleration. You can make it behave like OSX if you want.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

I really find Textmate lacking compared to free things like Notepad++.

Hah, interesting because I'd say the same thing about N++. Doesn't seem to have many things I take for granted in Textmate like the Bundles system or tab snippets. The thing I enjoy about Textmate is that it's so extensible with just regular scripting languages. Like my JS code will run through lint and pass the result to a tooltip every save or I can put my caret inside a hex colour and hit a combination to have a HUD window popup and preview it or in HTML I can drag an image in and it will place a tag with the correct sizes but if I drag an image into CSS it will set up a CSS sprite class. N++ just doesn't come close to these sort of workflows.

Command key is in a really bad position for causing carpal tunnel

Your own comment on reddit is not a source nor proof. I have no idea what your desk setup is like but I've found cmd to be placed much better.

Not all programs adhere to the system shortcuts or provide functionality to remap their commands

Incorrect, "System Preferences > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts > Application Shortcuts" Any application can be added to that list and modified. I do it on all the systems I use.

Windows does not need Expose, it has hover previews in groups + the task bar.

Not the same thing or a drop in replacement.

more opinion based on things that are likely inaccurate

As someone who studied typography I much prefer the OS X rendering, the windows rendering only antialiases along the X axis making bowls of the letters look chewed.

I think your comment about Adobe software only applies to older versions, newer ones are nearly identical on Windows/OSX

On the Mac versions you can turn the application frames off, they should never have been enabled by default on OSX anyway.

You can make it behave like OSX if you want.

Nope, I've used both for many years and can tell the differences.

But yeah I'm not going to get into some Mac vs PC argument, I've stated the reasons I prefer it.

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

|Incorrect, "System Preferences > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts > Application Shortcuts" Any application can be added to that list and modified. I do it on all the systems I use.

There are shortcuts for text boxes (system wide) that are not in there. I don't know if they can be changed that way, but the thing I was talking about involves modifying a keybinding. http://superuser.com/questions/28078/remap-copy-and-paste-shortcuts-on-a-mac

[–]MELSU 0 points1 point ago

I'd be happy, if someone could make a non-apple laptop trackpad that isn't completely incapable of competing with a MacBook pro. I've been using better touch tool for so long now I feel that every computer should have this type of functionality. I've even tried to hook up an apple trackpad to my Tower(PC) to use for modeling but there are no programs, that i know of, capable to accommodate multi-touch. Does anyone know of a windows version of BBT? It would make my day.

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

Many of the Synaptics pads offer similar functionality. I'm more of a trackball person. I have a wrist injury that makes trackpads & mice more harmful.

http://www.uscrybe.com/

It seems like Apple hardware is about the only ones not supported by it. (I have not seen non Synaptics based h/w in Windows world in years)

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

I have seen this, but not as much as I've seen illegible fonts in OSX at sizes that don't mean a single paragraph of text on a 21" monitor.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

"Nicer font rendering (if you're a designer it's annoying to look at crummy font rendering all day hah)" -> more opinion based on things that are likely inaccurate.

Not opinion in the slightest. OS X renders fonts far more accurately to the intended outcome than Windows, although Windows is improving.

[–]TrancePhreak 1 point2 points ago

OSX renders fonts for print, Windows renders fonts for screens. Which one are you staring at all the time with your fonts?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago*

Almost, I see what you're saying.

But as I said OS X attempts to render fonts faithfully, it doesn't strictly render for for print but the vast majority are designed for print.

Windows forces fonts to fit a pixel grid which can be interpreted as rendering for screen but really it's not.

Even when fonts are designed specifically for screen OS X still renders them better. Which would you prefer, a font designed for screen and rendered as intended? Or A font designed for screen and distorted to fit the OS rules?

You can see this very clearly in Georgia or other screen fonts like Verdana, OS X renders them more accurately and they're designed for screen.

[–]TrancePhreak 1 point2 points ago

Windows can use font hinting to render them as they are intended on the screen. I can't be limited to fonts that were specifically made for one purpose. As I've stated elsewhere, I need to bake fonts for use in my projects for clients and they are not pleased by blurry fonts. (You might even say they are a little over the top about them)

[–]OverlordXenu 1 point2 points ago

Sorry, no, TrueType is garbage and OS X and UNIX-like OSs (eg. Ubuntu) have such better font rendering it isn't even funny. Thank god for gdipp

[–]third-eye 12 points13 points ago

Not anymore. Desktop Publishing started on the Mac in the 80s but there's nothing you can't do on a Windows machine. Personally I think that the Mac's simple grey UI allows for less distractions during design work.

[–]Karf 2 points3 points ago

The point about the monochromatic UI is what does it for me. When I'm working on a design, I need my screen to be as color-neutral as i can keep it. It's the same theory as black bevels on TVs.

[–]phormality 0 points1 point ago

I heard this was the reason for the color on the old ACD. It was 50% gray so it would be a neutral boarder for those doing design work and not throw them off.

[–]MarsSpaceship 0 points1 point ago

not really true. Every thing I do on my Mac and send to printing by offset method prints perfectly. The exact pantone colors I choose, generate correct offset plates and print correctly. My publisher uses windows (old mentality guy). Everything I send to his company for preview, he says he sees different pantone colors. It is a nightmare. Then I pretend to fix the problem and send him a tweaked version that will show correctly on his windows and I contact the printing company and send them the mac version. He then receives the mac version printed and rings me saying: "see? I was correct. Now it has printed correctly".

Windows stinks for professional work for everything related to multimedia. This is why high-end professional video editing/VFX for example, uses OS X Final Cut or Autodesk Inferno/Flame on unix boxes. And almost all audio post production runs on ProTools on Macs.

[–]third-eye 0 points1 point ago

That sounds like his toolset isn't calibrated properly. How do you tweak it so it shows correct on his machine? Color management is generally a nightmare.

[–]MarsSpaceship 0 points1 point ago

I am working with them for at least 10 years. When I started they were using 98 and XP, today they use Vista and Seven. All this time, the colors never matched the real ones. I don't think they ever adjusted anything, so do I (never needed, just a screen calibration). At the same time I had a XP and then, a mac mini and two iMacs.

For tweaking, I ask his editor what pantones are he seeing, and compare to the real ones, advancing or going back on the scale as needed. Sometimes 3 or 4 interactions are needed with his editor. The difference is slight but is real.

[–]third-eye 0 points1 point ago

That doesn't sound professional in any way, especially for a publisher. Color management is there to prevent these problems, they wouldn't appear if both systems were properly calibrated. Soft calibration is one thing but if you do color sensitive work both parties have to use hardware calibration and exchange profiles.

[–]Raumschiff 0 points1 point ago

There are some benefits. See my post above.

[–]third-eye 2 points3 points ago

I agree. OS X is both more user friendly and capable compared to Windows. I meant that this is not just related to design work.

[–]judgemonroe 11 points12 points ago

Font management and font rendering

Color management and color rendering

Displays that are SWOP-certified out of the gate

Mousing is precise, not accelerated

[–]TrancePhreak 2 points3 points ago

Google suggests OSX mousing is accelerated and with no preference pane by there in default setup.

[–]phormality 0 points1 point ago

Mousing is precise, not accelerated

OS X sets the mouse painfully slow out of the box. I always need to speed it up. It may make it more precise, but it is painful on anything but the smallest of screens.

[–]judgemonroe 1 point2 points ago

A lot of OS X mousing complaints are from Windows users -- I switch back and forth at home, but OS X is my primary OS. I'd like Windows mousing to match OS X, not the other way around, but I don't care enough to look into it. I never did think OS X was too slow though. Mine's set on the fifth notch where slow=1; don't know what the default is. I have no problem navigating my dual 1920x1200 24" displays.

I've also heard bizarre complaints like "I have to move my arm from the elbow instead of mousing from the wrist" as though that's a bad thing.

[–]phormality 1 point2 points ago

I work on Windows 40 hours per week and use a Mac at home just as much. I've never had a problem with mouse acceleration.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

"I have to move my arm from the elbow instead of mousing from the wrist"

Curse you Apple, I wanted that carpal tunnel!

[–]GoodMusicTaste 0 points1 point ago

"Mousing" is very much accelerated. Magic Mouse is painful to use.

[–]NeverComments 0 points1 point ago

Mousing is precise, not accelerated

That's actually the exact opposite of the reality.

Mousing in OS X is heavily accelerated, and you can't make it precise without installing third party applications.

One of the biggest oversights of the OS, if you ask me.

[–]eldridgea 7 points8 points ago

For me it's mostly that the OS stays out of the way.

I don't have to deal with updates nearly as much, and when I do they're minimal. I don't have to deal with AVan the way it handles media is great if you use iPhoto and iTunes. (I don't use those exclusively, but they're still nice).

Also the window manger makes more sense once you get used to it. CS 5 tries to emulate this in Windows, and does fairly well I think, but on the Mac it's across all apps.

There's more, but a lot of it's just a feeling. And I don't mean I feel cooler using a Mac. I feel more efficient and I feel like the tool vanishes and it's just me and the design.

[–]jimicus 0 points1 point ago

For me it's mostly that the OS stays out of the way.

THIS. Apple understand that the single best thing the OS can do is manage hardware, provide a UI then get the hell out of the way so the person using the computer can do something useful.

Microsoft never really seemed to appreciate this. Windows up to Vista effectively expects you to do a lot of stuff for yourself - which becomes particularly noticeable as soon as you start to stray from what Microsoft think you're going to do.

Vista and 7 are much better in this regard - they've got a lot of inbuilt self-troubleshooting - but most of this feels like the computer saying to itself "oh dear I've sustained a huge cut on the leg, hold on a minute while I bandage that". Whereas OS X wouldn't let you that cut happen in the first place.

[–]TrancePhreak -1 points0 points ago

I found the opposite to be true. Try moving folders around on the Mac a bunch. It's nowhere near as elegant.

[–]MELSU 3 points4 points ago

I'm not quite sure I understand your definition of elegant.

[–]TrancePhreak -2 points-1 points ago

The click & hold -> hover to navigate style just makes for lots of mistakes.

[–]MELSU 0 points1 point ago

Not sure I'm understanding exactly what u mean, but isn't that a preference able to be changed?

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

Only if you install a Finder replacement. I use TotalFinder as it adds the much needed cut & paste. I'm also on Snow-Leopard, which means no folder merging (wheee).

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

There already is cut and paste... CMD + C, and then CMD + OPT + V moves rather than copies.

And anyway, it depends on how you use it. You can just drag and drop if you want to. The hover to open thing is just an extra feature.

[–]kingofthejungle223 0 points1 point ago

guh?

[–]jimicus -5 points-4 points ago

mv (folder name) (location). What's difficult about that?

[–]psaulnier 8 points9 points ago

Quite sure he was referring to the GUI

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I think he was having a laugh.. I think.

[–]asscobra 1 point2 points ago

Font rendering is a big reason. What windows shows on the screen isn't what is going to be printed.

[–]rockets4kids 2 points3 points ago

After you've spent time using both, you'll know. A small percentage of people still prefer Windows, so there is always a chance you could be in that category.

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

What's that small percentage? Like >75%?

[–]MELSU 1 point2 points ago

I spend a lot of time with both. Use a beefed up tower(pc) for 3d solid modeling and Multiphysics. I use a mbp for everything else. OSX just runs much smoother. Most people will dismiss me as a fanboy, but I've used pc s all my life and still do.

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

I have the opposite experience. I've run Windows on the same hardware and there's a fair amount less spinning beach ball type stuff that happens (at least with Win7). Just look at any game performance tests. Also, OSX is behind on graphics drivers by a couple years - which explains a bit about that too.

I reboot my Mac every day when using it. I reboot my Windows machines when there's patches mostly.

My work Mac is still on Snow Leopard, Lion is very problematic in my test environment.

Some of the tools I use don't get tested very well on the Mac either (Monodevelop). They work much better in Windows.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Maybe you should give up with the Mac, I don't know anyone who has as many issues as you appear to have, not even combined.

Some of the tools I use don't get tested very well on the Mac either (Monodevelop). They work much better in Windows.

"MonoDevelop is an IDE primarily designed for C# and other .NET languages."… that'll explain why.

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

I use MonoDevelop to develop GUI tools since all of our designers are on Windows. I work in mobile device dev, so I'm stuck on the Mac as long as iOS is viable. I have been working towards getting up a framework that allows the development on Windows, but it takes a long time to get it to where we have everything currently.

[–]rockets4kids 3 points4 points ago

Actually, I've turned dozens of people onto Macs, and so far NONE of them have ever gone back to Windows. I don't see any evidence that anyone goes back to Windows, from my personal data, but I am sure those people must exist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I've not "turned" anyone to Mac but I don't know any web developers who have switched to Mac and regretted it. Quite the opposite in fact, they love what OS X offers.

[–]distortedtheory 0 points1 point ago

Designers, dude(ette).

[–]TrancePhreak 1 point2 points ago

All the designers I know use Windows.... well, anecdotes you know, but I do know lots of them.

[–]kingofthejungle223 0 points1 point ago

Well, I am a designer, and all of the designers I know use macs. At least, all of the professional ones.

[–]PKSTEAD 4 points5 points ago

The command key. Having to use control for short cuts you use countless times every day is not just annoying. It’s painful.

[–]TrancePhreak -3 points-2 points ago

quite the opposite as we can see here: http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1171/Pasted%20Graphic%202.png

This layout using command causes you to bend the thumb under the palm, causing strain on the wrist. I should know, me and my friends suffer from carpal tunnel.

[–]diamondjim 2 points3 points ago

Thank god you brought this up. Apple's keyboard layout is absolutely ass-backwards. I used to think it was just being a baby, but now I feel this is a real drawback of the hardware. Apple should make fixing that a feature for the next revision of all their computers.

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

I remapped some keys because of it... sadly not all apps adhere to my remaps :(

On the apple keyboards, I also think the location of the Fn key is inconvenient. It's the easiest key to get to, but the least used (for me).

[–]PKSTEAD 2 points3 points ago*

This layout using command causes you to bend the thumb under the palm, causing strain on the wrist

This is nonsense. Hands don’t work like that.

Edit: Seriously? The thumb is designed to be under the palm. That’s what it is there for.

[–]TrancePhreak -2 points-1 points ago

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/using-imac-work-my-wrists-killing-me-570908/

http://www.mahalo.com/answers/find-me-a-definitive-guide-on-correct-finger-placement-for-modifier-keys

[–]PKSTEAD 2 points3 points ago

Sorry, how could I have been so blind. The plural of anecdote is fact. Obviously. Fuck evolution.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Does nobody realize there is a command and option key on the right side of the keyboard as well?? What's so different on a PC keyboard?

[–]Scienceman 4 points5 points ago

Going to do this nice and quickly.

Apple's computers are almost guaranteed to come with an IPS display, meaning truer colours and broader viewing angles. However they're still only 8-bit, so they're not capable of pushing billions of colours; only millions. The only Apple computer capable of pushing billions of colours would be the Mac Pro, and you won't get that when buying directly from Apple. Still, what Apple offers is more than enough for the majority of people.

The materials used to build Apple's computers feels really nice and clever in engineering. I have yet to see any other PC manufacturer use the actual case of a laptop as its heatsink. Simple genius is charming like that. There's also a consideration for environmental impact, which other companies also fail to realise.

The tech specs themselves are pretty impressive when you consider the whole package, and the battery life and MagSafe only sweetens the deal.

Disclaimer: I'm a Microsoft enthusiast with a huge-arse gaming rig. And I think I'm in the wrong subreddit.

[–]Lonestar93 1 point2 points ago

Would you even notice the difference between billions and millions of colors?

[–]goocy 1 point2 points ago

I can't think of a single reason to actually display more than 8-bit color on screens. The liberal estimation was that the eye was able of resolving about one hundred hues per channel, resulting in one million possible colors in total. Still vastly below the 16.7m colors of 8-bit.

Of course, for image processing, you usually avoid 8 bit formats because gradients can produce banding. But you don't have to convey the additional information to the user - it's ok if only the filters get access to it.

[–]Scienceman 0 points1 point ago

Absolutely. Particularly with banding. Sure, you could dither, but that's a poor solution.

[–]jzone3 1 point2 points ago

In my opinion, the UI. Exposé, Spaces (I am talking about SL not Lion), and a lot more. Also, as previously stated the pre-created keyboard shortcuts. Also, there is a wide range of dev applications for Mac. Lastly, I personally like Finder a lot more than Explorer. To tie back to the question, these increase productivity and help the OS stay out of the way.

[–]voze 1 point2 points ago

Just tradition more than anything now. Designers like 'designed' computers. Also - worth nothing that many agencies have been heavily invested in Apple specific software licenses and the like now - so it is often cheaper for them to continue using what they have in the past - and this basically just carries on over the years.

[–]phormality 0 points1 point ago

It isn't just about looks. It is tradition. Apple launched desktop publishing on the computer and brought great fonts to the computer. They were way ahead of the curve and for anyone working in design it was really the only way to go. Things have balanced out, but designers still like their Macs.

[–]shiftyeyeddogg 5 points6 points ago

Designers appreciate solid design.

[–]originallonghare 1 point2 points ago

Font Smoothing. Fonts always look smoother on Macs.

[–]TRex87 0 points1 point ago

See most of the UI comments above.

Another thing for me is that I use keyboard shortcuts for damn near all of my tools. Being able to press command with my thumb instead of having to move my pinky to the control makes things much quicker. Not something that is a big deal, but I am one who loves the little things.

[–]beepclick 0 points1 point ago

i dont know about anyone else but for me i run photoshop on my mac for stability and reliability mainly. i have always had a much more trouble and hassle free experiences with macs.

[–]Indestructavincible 0 points1 point ago

The trackpad can be be a drawing tablet

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

I've used Photoshop exclusively on Windows, and havr only rarely had the chance to try it on macs. I thought there was some kind of special feature in Mac versions ha.

[–]Raumschiff 9 points10 points ago

As before mentioned, Adobe apps are quite similar. A lot of the "macs are for design" talk was more of an issue some years back. Today not so much.

But, there are a few benefits IMHO.

I've had a lot of Open Type fonts that my Windows colleagues can't install without special software. Font management is better in Mac OS X, and that goes for the system wide anti-aliasing which looks way better than Windows Clear Type. There are also better third party font management apps in Mac OS than Windows.

Some other benefits. Mac OS has very good system wide color management, Color Sync, ICC profiles etc. Also when graphic design apps support OpenCL (like Photoshop), expect to see huge gains in speed.

When you send or receive files from other design firms, since most of them use macs, you sometimes get files without a file extention (for example .eps) since this isn't required in Mac OS, and it can be a hassle to try opening these in Windows.

Then there are some other system benefits, like QuickLook. You can click on files anywhere and press Space to instantly see the file (this can be expanded with plugins). In a folder with 10 files I can just press space and instantly see a preview of the document/movie/graphic to see if it's the one I'm looking for.

Also, no need for virus programs (yet).

[–]TheBatmanToMyBruce 4 points5 points ago

This is pretty much the answer the op is looking for. Color management, font management, and file viewing options. No evangelism there, just nice features to have.

[–]TrancePhreak -2 points-1 points ago

OSX has built in virus protection, so you are wrong there. The font thing is also a matter of taste, but I believe Windows is better for users and OSX is better for people doing print. If you're staring at text all day, it doesn't help when it's blurry.

[–]TheBatmanToMyBruce 4 points5 points ago

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You don't like antialiased fonts?

[–]TrancePhreak 2 points3 points ago

Windows fonts are anti-aliased, but they are aligned to the pixel grid so as to appear more "solid." This means that more of the pixels show solid color as opposed to the blended color. If you have some "small text", which on OSX is anything less than 14pt for my monitor, it will not appear "dark" enough to read at times. This is because there are no solid pixels, they all become blended.

[–]TheBatmanToMyBruce 1 point2 points ago

Interesting. I just tested this, and it appears OSX turns off antialiasing at a certain size. Down to that size, the cores of the letters remain black. Sounds like an interesting issue thought. It may have had something to do with the individual settings of the program you noticed it in.

[–]TrancePhreak 0 points1 point ago

It has lots to do with the fonts themselves too. Relative size, hinting, widths, and weighting. I've had lots of trouble using OSX to generate font bitmaps as well. You can't always use the size you want (shows up fuzzy), so you have to fudge sizes a bit by 1-2 points. The clients I work with don't like this at all. (I wish I just had fonts artists to correct/generate bitmap fonts for me instead).

[–]Lonestar93 0 points1 point ago

Why downvote this guy? It's a legitimate, well-explained concern.

[–]tvshopceo 3 points4 points ago

Adobe programs are practically the same on both platforms; they neither behave like proper Windows programs nor proper OS X programs. The one upside of that is that it keeps the switching costs pretty low.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Yeah that feature would be extra shittiness :)

Adobe create quite possibly the worst Mac software which is a real shame because they used to create the best.

However I have no complaints about any other software especially indie software which is of such an incredibly high quality on OS X.

[–]ForeverAlone2SexGod -5 points-4 points ago

"Creative-types" are less analytical and more susceptible to marketing and being trendy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Why is this being downvoted so much? I actually think it's a pretty valid point, albeit maybe not the only reason...

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points ago

Because boring stereotypes are not worth upvoting.

[–]RyogaXenoVee -2 points-1 points ago

What marketing? Ive never seen Apple market to designers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

Although it's improving Windows still has fairly terrible font rendering compared to OS X. It forces characters into a pixel grid while OS X stays as faithful as possible to how the typographer intended. Some people prefer the windows rendering but that's probably familiarity over anything else as technically OS X is simply better at the job. This is one factor.

I also find Windows renders fonts too thin which is fine if you're dealing with two weights but when you start dealing with subtler differences it's hard to get it looking good. A thin weight in Windows can be hard to read while it looks great in OS X.

As well as design you might also find Macs are extremely popular in web development. Go to any non-Microsoft focused web dev conference and you'll see Macbooks and iPads outnumbering Windows laptops. The reasons for this are too extensive for me to go over just now.

[update] See these two font rendering examples from Windows7 and OS X

First look at the g in both. Notice how in the Windows screenshot the descender is flattened while in the OS X version it is accurately created. Next look at the word "wizard". In OS X you have the correct x-height and characters are accurately rendered as the designer intended. Windows on the other hand flattens the characters (forcing them into the pixel grid) and distorts them.

The Windows rendering is simply unacceptable to a typographer and most professional designers. This hasn't mattered much to web designers until recently with the improved support for webfonts, now it's becoming even more obvious where the differences are.

[–]Chroko 0 points1 point ago

Windows just has a very different heritage that you're either completely ignorant of or are glossing over.

The Windows font rendering has always been designed with hardware limitations and performance in mind. When you're displaying small text on a screen with limited resolution, snapping pixels makes the characters more legible and is less of a performance penalty.

Mac font rendering has always been designed around printed media, with as much accuracy as possible - but legibility of small fonts suffers, as does performance.

And since most people who aren't graphic designers don't care about exact printing accuracy 99% of the time - and would never even notice the issues you point out, it's a perfectly acceptable decision for Microsoft to have chosen the faster performance. In fact, that same decision was taken in many different places all over the graphics subsystem - and the end-result is that graphics-intensive applications (like games and 3D design software) always run faster on Windows.

It's just the difference between an engineer making the decision and a non-technical artist. Windows applications are still free to implement their own font rendering if they want, which is exactly what Safari does (and performance suffers.)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago*

You seem to have missed the bit where we're discussing why Macs are so popular with designers.

I've never noticed legibility issues at small sizes though.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 21460 on app-134 running 86c9e1d.