OSX crash at glasto...

iCraig said:
Up to 16GB of DDR2 RAM. Which is nice when you have huge Photoshop and Quark projects on the go.

OSX is also much better at rendering type.

Admittedly Vista has closed the gap somewhat, but there's still a line between the two when it comes to raw design.

Are PCs with 16GB that hard to track down? If you pick a dual cpu muli-core xeon setup from any of the big PC vendors they'll inevitably have the option of 16GB of DDR2 providing you use Vista x64.

OSX, XP and Vista screen rendering of fonts is purely aesthetic (and to be honest, pretty much identical - it was only ever glaringly apparent back in days of 1024 x 800 or less) and has no impact whatsoever on the final design by the time it hits paper.

High quality postscript and OpenType fonts are available on both platforms, although admittedly the PC user can forget about them after installing them once instead of faffing about with third party font managers all the time.

Microsoft also have a much more intuitive print dialog. You can change the printer, media size and document size in the same place - I genuinely wish Apple would adopt the same tactic.

I should also point out that the intel Mac Pro is alarmingly prone to hardware failure. At my previous place of work, three died in 2 months. At my new plave of work, two died in 5 months. Both firms between them had 12 Mac Pros, which to me seems a disturbingly high failure rate.

Mac enthusiasts will also point out that a Mac Pro is cheaper than a similar Dell system. This is true. Alienware are a different matter, being fractionally cheaper than Apple on almost identical spec.

It may seem like an anti-mac rant, but I use both on a daily basis in a design environment and as tools both are pretty much equal, the only noteworthy advantage being that the Apple can bootcamp Windows.
 
I have managed to break every operating system that I have ever used, though I have yet to use Vista for any extended period.

Recently, I was having issues Ubuntu freezing up for long periods when opening new applications - it was because I had deleted the hosts file, and it was searching the web for *** way to open applications or something...

Fixed now though.
 
These type of comaparisons boil down to 3 things..

Mac botters

Windows Botters

Those who bot anything (me)

As long as people have valid reasons for why they use what they use, fine.. if not.. they just bot
 
lemonkettaz said:
These type of comaparisons boil down to 3 things..

Mac botters

Windows Botters

Those who bot anything (me)

As long as people have valid reasons for why they use what they use, fine.. if not.. they just bot

gotta love the way you put it !!!! :p


valid in whos eyes ?
 
UncleBob said:
Are PCs with 16GB that hard to track down? If you pick a dual cpu muli-core xeon setup from any of the big PC vendors they'll inevitably have the option of 16GB of DDR2 providing you use Vista x64.

Like I said, Vista has closed the gap somewhat. But does XP support 16GB of RAM? I know two PowerMac owners. One with 8GB, one with 16GB. Out of the many many PC owners I know, the highest is 4GB, so yes, Macs with more RAM than PCs seem a commoner place.

UncleBob said:
OSX, XP and Vista screen rendering of fonts is purely aesthetic (and to be honest, pretty much identical - it was only ever glaringly apparent back in days of 1024 x 800 or less) and has no impact whatsoever on the final design by the time it hits paper.

No, OSX wipes the floor with XP when it comes to font rendering. You only have to spend 5 minutes using either to realise it. Even with Truetype on for XP, OSX still looks nicer. Vista's rendering has improved, however time will tell how good Leopard's will be.

It doesn't have a final impact on design no, but that wasn't my point. As a designer I know I'd rather work on a design with good font rendering rather than poor.
 
iCraig said:
No, OSX wipes the floor with XP when it comes to font rendering. You only have to spend 5 minutes using either to realise it. Even with Truetype on for XP, OSX still looks nicer. Vista's rendering has improved, however time will tell how good Leopard's will be.

It doesn't have a final impact on design no, but that wasn't my point. As a designer I know I'd rather work on a design with good font rendering rather than poor.
:eek:

Clearly all of the Windows users who tried out Safari and complained about its font rendering would not agree with you.

OSX renders fonts on screen the same way as they look on the printed page. This is indeed a benefit for designers. Windows fonts are deliberately rendered slightly differently on screen for maximum legibility.

Apple and Microsoft have always disagreed in how to display fonts on computer displays. Today, both companies are using sub-pixel rendering to coax sharper-looking fonts out of typical low resolution screens. Where they differ is in philosophy.

* Apple generally believes that the goal of the algorithm should be to preserve the design of the typeface as much as possible, even at the cost of a little bit of blurriness.
* Microsoft generally believes that the shape of each letter should be hammered into pixel boundaries to prevent blur and improve readability, even at the cost of not being true to the typeface.

Now that Safari for Windows is available, which goes to great trouble to use Apple's rendering algorithms, you can actually compare the philosophies side-by-side on the very same monitor and see what I mean. I think you'll notice the difference. Apple's fonts are indeed fuzzy, with blurry edges, but at small font sizes, there seems to be much more variation between different font families, because their rendering is truer to what the font would look like if it were printed at high resolution.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html
 
dirtydog said:
Clearly all of the Windows users who tried out Safari and complained about its font rendering would not agree with you.

Safari Windows doesn't render the same as Safari Mac as far as I know.

Because not only are apple forcing their own rendering, windows goes ahead and applies it's cleartype rendering too.
 
knowlesy said:
do fonts realy matter ??? i mean a good old fashion command line would do me every now and then .....

To designers yes, they matter. That's why I'm saying Macs are usually the weapon of choice for graphic designers.

However PCs are still my choice. A mix of website development, design, gaming, and general office and internet use makes Windows my favourite.
 
i must admit every type of os has its good and bad mac seems to not have as many bits of software for it linux seems to be more restriced games wise and windows being common muck but is limited to its 3rd party apps on crashin :S ?
 
dirtydog said:
It uses OSX font rendering. Fonts look EXACTLY the same in Windows Safari as in OSX.

No, they don't. I'm looking at them both right now and they're different. Safari on my main PC running XP SP2 is very bold and globby.

On OSX on the Mac Mini it's far nicer and less harsh.
 
iCraig said:
No, they don't. I'm looking at them both right now and they're different. Safari on my main PC running XP SP2 is very bold and globby.

On OSX on the Mac Mini it's far nicer and less harsh.
You can change the rendering settings within Safari, like you can within OSX itself. (the OS setting in OSX, not a Safari setting.)
 
Back
Top Bottom