Photoshop on a Mac vs PC

[Sanford]

On my PC when I open a photo in Photoshop it appears in a frame. On this frame in the upper right corner

(not the Photoshop screen but on the photo frame itself) there is the + square -. When I select the square

the frame around the photo goes away and I am free to expand or contract the photo using the center

wheel of my Logitech mouse. In fact, I can expand and contract the photo even when the frame is present.

No so on the Mac! In fact Photoshop seems so cumbersome on the Mac I am considering loading XP and

using my old Photoshop in Boot Camp. What am I missing? Buying XP for the Mac may well be the easiest,

least expensive route to go for me.

[smartsheep 1]

I had the same apprehension when I switched to Mac. The truth of the mater is that yo r

brain thinks in p.c.. given time and reading the hidden manual for os x you will love the

mac. I am a system geek for a living and I uses NT4 windows 2000 2003 2007 XP Vista and

a couple of unix boxes and i would be very happy not to uses them again I am not a member of the Bill must die Jobs is a god. school.

Also XP is is only being upgrade with security patches why would you chose an operating

system that is is no ;longer supported? all the best David

[Sanford]

If XP is kept on a partition and never used to surf the internet, just to run Photoshop, what's

the danger?

[bryantan]

Being a windows user, I found Mac OS's to be very cumbersome and slow without getting to know the shortcuts. I'm sure, with time, once you learn the shortcuts, you'll be fine. But until then, you'll feeling that Ctrl-C followed by Ctrl-V takes a split second and feels natural, while Cmd-C followed by Cmd-V takes a lot longer and you think that whoever put the Cmd key where it is must be a complete moron. But the truth is, you've formed certain habits that don't apply to Macs.

 

But the real question is...isn't the point that you overpaid for your hardware so that you can use the Mac OS? Otherwise, what's the point?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"But the real question is...isn't the point that you overpaid for your hardware so that you can use the Mac OS? Otherwise, what's the point?"

 

Mac prices are actually quite competitive.

[douglas lee]

Yes, Mac prices are competitive. Also, Macs are the mainstay of the graphics business AFAIK,

so I doubt there is a fundamental problem with PS and the Mac. If you don't like the interface

then use a PC.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

Bryan: the location of the Cmd button is absolutie perfect. Try to hit Ctrl-I on the average PC

keyboard. You need very big hands to be able to do that. With the Cmd key on a Mac

keyboard anyone with normal hands can reach all keyboard shortcuts from that location with

one hand.

 

Robert: have you ever looked at the Mac prices compared to A-brand PC's? A Mac has a

similar price level, and sometimes (e.g. compared to Dell) a Mac is even cheaper than a PC.

[kelly_flanigan1]

One really needs both PC and Mac users for Photoshop; so it doesnt become like Autocad; changes just to make changes. One can jump from Photoshop 3 to CS3 and many of the Photoshop tools have the same names, similar locations.

[gdanmitchell]

Bryan wrote: "...isn't the point that you overpaid for your hardware so that you can use the Mac OS? Otherwise, what's the point?"

 

Mac OS hardware does not cost more than Windows hardware - if you are comparing Apple prices to prices from major Windows computer manufacturers (Dell, HP) of

comparably equipped computers.

 

I've been a member of the committee that determines hardware/software standards at my college for over a decade. We are a dual-platform institution and we spec

comparable systems in a variety of categories, with Dell and Apple as our primary vendors.

 

The prices tend to be quite similar. Over time, one or the other manufacturer will price their system a bit higher or lower than the other, but the differences are very

small and average out over time. At the moment our Apple systems a bit less expensive, though I'm sure that the opposite will again be the case before long, and so it

goes. (If you need evidence, let me know and I'll share the URL for the standards list.)

 

Also, one can run Windows natively on the Intel processors in new Macs.

 

One of the earlier writers makes a very good point about adapting to a different system. One of my brothers was a die-hard Windows user for years. (Actually, he

worked at Microsoft for better than a decade.) When he first switched to Mac he couldn't figure out how to get his modem to work - and he was a professional software

engineer/designer. It wasn't that setting up a modem on a Mac was an odd or difficult process... it was just that his finely honed Windows skills weren't helping him -

in fact they were getting in the way. He adapted and now is largely a Mac user, though I hear he keeps a few Windows boxes around as well.

[bryantan]

Dan: Comparing laptops only, the entry models tend to be competitive with vendors cutting their profit margins pretty thin. However, as we go up, prices begin to deviate. For example, compared to the $1,999 15" Macbook Pro, a Dell XPS with the same hardware costs $1,449. Compared to the $2,499 15" MacBook Pro, a Dell XPS with the same hardware costs $1,624.

 

The difference between the two 15" Macbook Pro models is a 2.4Ghz processor vs a 2.2Ghz, 256MB of VRam vs 128MB (same graphics board), and a 160GB HDD vs a 120GB HDD. In no way do these upgrades reflect a $500 increase in hardware. The Dell's increase of under $200 is a better reflection of the cost of the hardware.

 

So perhaps I should qualify my statement: with regards to performance machines typically used for Photoshop, a Mac with the same hardware tends to cost significantly more than a Dell (or insert other Windows vendor).

 

And as far as I know, one cannot simply build a desktop Mac, so such a comparison cannot be made.

[colinsouthern]

"Macs are the mainstay of the graphics business AFAIK"

 

Not true.

 

Macs have a disproportionate share of the graphics market (compared to their very low global market share), but in terms of sheer numbers, there are many more PCs in the graphics business than Macs.

 

Probably true to say that "graphics are the mainstay of the Mac", not the other way around.

[erik scanhancer]

"On my PC when I open a photo in Photoshop it appears in a frame. On this frame in the

upper right corner (not the Photoshop screen but on the photo frame itself) there is the +

square -. When I select the square the frame around the photo goes away and I am free to

expand or contract the photo using the center wheel of my Logitech mouse. In fact, I can

expand and contract the photo even when the frame is present. No so on the Mac! What

am I missing?"

 

What you are missing is that you can press the "F"-button on the Mac to change from

frame to full screen without frame. Press "F" once more and you get a black border instead

of a gray one. Press "F" again and you will be back in your framed vision. Zooming in and

out with your scrollwheel can be done on the Mac just as well. Logitechs Control Centre

can be configured that way, if your mouse does not do this by default. I really don't see

what your problem is.

[Sanford]

Thanks Erik. I'm relearning Photoshop on a Mac. I'm not going to use the Logiteck mouse

anymore as it's too old to be configure and I'm starting to like the Mac mouse a little better.

I know there is a way to zoom the screen but the tools and history bars disappmar and the

photo pixilates. What I need is intermediate steps between "print size", "fit on screen" and

"actual pixels". That is what I miss being able to do. I appreciate to tip.

[t_n1]

Macs are NOT comparable in price with PCs. For those of you who think you are comparing equivalent gigahertz numbers between processors, you are misled. iMacs use laptop components with laptop processors and motherboards (reduced processing power). Their architecture and FSB are limited in comparison to desktop PCs.

 

At my university computer labs, we've compared running XP natively on both an iMac and PC desktop. The iMac was considerably slower.

 

The Mac Pro is a different beast, however, but I also wouldn't say its price is 'competitive' against the PC equivalent.

 

I don't have issues with Apple products. Their aesthetics, design, and the fact that they provide an alternate choice for computer owners really help this industry. But I'm also being realistic and honest about differences between hardware components used in each system. Blank statements that say something along the lines of 'you get the same thing for the price of a Mac versus PC' is just blatantly incorrect.

 

PCs are cheaper when comparing same hardware components * OR * PCs provide more processing power when given the same budget. I do admit to loving the Apple displays.

[Brad_]

It's about the OS.

 

And OS X only runs on Apple hardware...

[eugene_scherba]

<p>> <i>Macs have a disproportionate share of the graphics market (compared to their

very low global market share), but in terms of sheer numbers, there are many more PCs in

the graphics business than Macs.</i></p>

 

<p>I just watched a documentary on typography and graphic design, <a

href="http://www.helveticafilm.com/">Helvetica</a> (dedicated to the 50 years of the

Helvetica typeface), and there was not a single PC to be seen throughout the entire film.

Now, it was a documentary, not a drama, so obviously no intentional product placement

there. About 15-20 leading graphic designers were interviewed, all of them using

Macs...</p>

[erik scanhancer]

"I know there is a way to zoom the screen but the tools and history bars disappmar and the photo pixilates. What I need is intermediate

steps between "print size", "fit on screen" and "actual pixels". That is what I miss being able to do. I appreciate to tip."

 

You obviously use system's zooming instead of Photoshop zooming. Not a good idea. When in Photoshop use "cmd +" and "cmd -" combo to

zoom in and out. You can also choose "cmd & spacebar + mouseclick" to zoom in and "alt & cmd & spacebar + mouseclick" to zoom out.

Perhaps reading the manual might be a good idea if you want to know all Mac-equivalent commands. Just remember that all kinds of shift,

control, alt, cmd and spacebar combo's combined with mouseclick will give you control over a great amount of shortcuts (as in every Mac

application). I suggest you do some experimenting with those buttons.

[erik scanhancer]

As for Mac's representation in the graphics world: I know of NOT ONE company that I work

with that uses PC's for their graphics design. Even companies with a huge amount of PC's in

their buildings will have Macs in their graphics department. All printers, publishers and stock

agencies I have ever worked with use Macs. Only some photographers I know use PC's for

their work. This is often because they started out as amateurs and used a PC already. But

those who were professionally trained before they started up their business as a

photographer use Macs too. Same story for video editors.

[colinsouthern]

"As for Mac's representation in the graphics world: I know of NOT ONE company that I work with that uses PC's for their graphics design."

 

And here we go again ...

 

I'm sorry, but I really can't be bothered with all this "my Dad can beat up your Dad" posturing.

 

Hope you have a Merry Christmas :)

[kelly_flanigan1]

In printing all the rip boxes we have are NT based; Nt3.51, NT4, win2000 or XP. We have one lone Imac; since one retoucher likes them; and doesnt know much about win2000 or XP. All the dedicated scan stations I have are PC based; plus the several boxes that are slaves to a phase one scan back. In movie production its typical to have a kickback; the vendor gets a plug with brand A; then one gets services for free; or a gadget for each key memeber. Its done in subtle ways. Thus if one can identify a brand; think that somehow some goods or cash got exchanged. Thus if a copy machine deliver truck is seen crossing the road in a movie; maybe a free copier appears at the movie set with no copy click fees; plus free toner and paper. I saw this at a set about 10 years ago. <BR><BR>Many creative folks like macs because they are more goober proof; they scan surf the web nude; they are into the case's style more than whats under the hood; its more of a toaster purchase; preaching the religion that they are as low cost as a PC is a must. It insults the Mac religion to find out that folks are hacking the mac os and running it under generic PC hardware.<BR><BR>In movies an editor can have a sole Imac; no paper for 10 miles; an office the one can land a plane on; have cute bimbo chicks to do the grunt work; and there are no deadlines. In real editors office there is a massive amount of action going on; images and copy/text to mull over; the exact opposite of the sterile movie image.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>its more of a toaster purchase</i></p>

 

<p>... as opposed to a "toast" purchase when you get Windows Vista.</p>

 

<p><i>In movies an editor can have a sole Imac; an office the one can land a plane

on</i></p>

 

<p>Whoever was talking about movies? I mentioned a <i>documentary</i> showing

real-world production environment.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Bloaded Vista actually helps the Mac's sales. <BR><BR>Most all the pro photo stuff here is done with win2000 or XP. Vista adds really nothing; it takes away the useable ram since the OS is bloaded; it requires a higher video card if aero is used. <BR><BR>Documentaries are often doctored; slanted to fit an agenda. In the political arena it is the norm. <BR><BR>Apple products are marketed in a controlled way. Steve is like the KGB going after spies for leaks on new products. Apple buyers tend to like their boxes; the toaster feeling; the buy a mac and be done with it. In the extreme some mac friends will only by mac memory; since only steve knows whats best.:) Buying Crucial would be like skydiving; risky. Buying Kingston would be like playing with a cobra. These super margin add on sales; Apple must haves; helps Apple. They have a super high profit margin; it allows extra cash for cool cases. <BR><BR>Folks serious into higher end PC's are using 64bit software that allows more ram; such as 64bit XP or server class OS's. The only folks who are getting Vista on a regular basis are new computer buyers; since XP is often not available on new boxes; unless one asks. <BR><BR>Saying that all graphic arts work is done on a Mac is old. Its an agenda. When photoshop finally came out in a PC version with 2.5; many of us built PCs at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of an Apple product. This often irrated the none technical mac user; like its un-American to hot rod a car; build ones own shed instead of buying one at home depot. Some apple groupies are like a cult; any hint of non apple product being ok must be quashed. Before Photoshop 2.5 on a PC I used Photoshop on a mac; with a tethered digital camera. the box with a few megs of ram, the VGA camera was more than a new car cost. At home and at work on a PC I used Photostyler then. Mac users were irrated with PC users even when Photoshop would not run yet on PC. The entire BBS we had was on a PC. Saying that most all graphics are done on a mac is like saying the world has only one religion; total hokem. Its an agenda.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>Documentaries are often doctored; slanted to fit an agenda. In the political arena it is the norm.</i></p>

 

<p>Nope. The documentary I was talking about was made on a very small budget (occasionally, the image was overexposed). The production places shown were located in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and the United States. To equip them with various Apple products, and have real (recognizable) people working there (and many of these people were world-renown designers who work for $500 an hour) would have cost Apple such a staggering amount of money that the video quality would have been considered as inadequate by anyone who have studied marketing for at least a year. Designers like Paula Scher, David Carson, Massimo Vignelli, Michael Bierut, Wim Crouwel, and others were represented, together with the environment they work in. They are all very reputable people, and it is completely incocievable to think that all of them have said one day: "alright, stop all your work and move out all your PC's for one day, because a documentary is being shot tomorrow."</p>

 

<p>All the designers I know are very appreciative of Apple's industrial design, and buy exclusively Macs. For twenty years, Macs have been the de facto standard in publishing, typesetting, and graphic design. Just the fact that Quark Xpress only existed in a Mac version tells you something...</p>

[mark_l3]

"I know of NOT ONE company that I work with that uses PC's for their graphics design."

 

 

I know more than a few, one for example would be international paper, a company that REALLY has to know their s**t, is all pc.

 

 

"But those who were professionally trained before they started up their business as a photographer use Macs too."

 

this doesn't apply to me either, your limited point of view is useless.

 

It really takes a huge ego for someone to think that what happens in their own little world applies to everyone else.

[erik scanhancer]

No Mark L., I just show you my little world as an example of how a world can look for a

working pro in Europe. I have no problems with people using whatever computer for their

work as long as they like their own path of choice. Originally I tried to give plain and simple

answers in this thread (see above), but the others decided to discuss common Mac vs PC

issues. It annoyed me enough to give my personal perspective at the world where I make my

money. That's a world dominated by Macs. And yes, the companies I work for all have PC's to

do their number crunching. I can't see anything wrong with that. But their graphics

departments all use Macs. Just a fact.