Mac and PC

[Vox]

In the virus thread people started talking about macs and PCs so I want to know whats so good about a mac.
I used to put my hands on one exactly ONCE in my life (many years ago) and it's OS was ugly and had a mouse with only one button and I was pretty confused.
So I don't want any WINDOZE/MAKKK ROXX posts or so.
Just simple info (i.e. how the fuck do you use a Mac if you have only one button on you mouse?! I need at least 5.).

 

[Sander]

The fact that you think you need 5 buttons to have a decent interface shows you know hardly anything about interfaces. Fewer buttons without detracting from possibilities, simplicity and capabilities is *always* better.

In any case, Mac OS X is a UNIX-based OS which is focused on user-friendliness and shininess. Both of those things it does really, really well.
However, if you want to game it's very hard to use a Mac, since there are only a few games that get ported to the Mac. Then again, you can dual-boot Mac OS X and Windows these days due to the hardware being exactly the same.

That's about it, really. The OS is just different, not any better or worse.

 

[SuAside]

The fact that you think you need 5 buttons to have a decent interface shows you know hardly anything about interfaces. Fewer buttons without detracting from possibilities, simplicity and capabilities is *always* better.

bullocks...

you saying 1 button is better than a mouse with a mousewheel?

come on, even with advanced mouse movements it's a bitch to work without a mousewheel & you know it.

simplicity does not always equal ergonomy or ease of use.

 

[Vox]

I use my computer mostly for music production.
And the fact that I can individually link heaps of functions just to my mouse without distracting me from the important stuff, like playing a melody with the other hand etc., doesn't mean that I know "hardly anything about interfaces". I just have different expectations.
Useing the keyboard for all the shortcuts, macros etc. would honestly give me the shits. Plus the way I work it'd require me to grow another arm or use the short cuts with my foot.

 

[alec]

Hm... I don't know a hell of a lot about the difference between Macs and PCs, but some of my artistic friends have Macs and claim that it is better for graphic work. I don't know the rights of it, but they say something that goes like "the colours you see on the screen of a Mac are exactly the same as the colours that will come out of your printer, and that is rarely the case with a regular PC" - which, I have to admit, is something I have noticed as well.
Doesn't really bother me, though.
Macs are also way too expensive, and they're too stylish for my taste. Seriously. We're talking about a tool here, people, not about a work of art that just wants to be looked at and admired. I'm willing to pay more for more possibilities, more memory, a better sound quality and so on, but I'm not willing to pay for simple cosmetics.
It is for that same reason that I own a Sony MP3 player and not an iPod, and a DS and not a PSP.

Okay, granted: that black DS Lite of mine looks very iPod-ish... but I hope you get my point.

 

[Vox]

Same with some producers I know. They say you can work much better with a Mac, and maybe that's true, but none of them could really specify anything I couldn't do on a PC with even less effort.

Since I don't care about colours in music production, there's only sound quality left. And that's a matter of individual audio hardware, proper speakers and of course the right mastering.

I reckon they all just say a Mac is much better, because they've paid much more and they need to convince themselves that it was worth it or so... dunno.

 

[Sander]

bullocks...

you saying 1 button is better than a mouse with a mousewheel?

come on, even with advanced mouse movements it's a bitch to work without a mousewheel & you know it.

simplicity does not always equal ergonomy or ease of use.

Yes it does.
A proper interface requires very few actions, with only very few different actions. As long as you can maintain the same simplicity (being the amount of actions needed to achieve an effect), fewer buttons is *always* better.
I also never said that a single button is better than a single button and a mousewheel, only that the latter is not better per definition. And specifically that thinking you need 5 mouse buttons is somewhat ridiculous.

Also, alec, your artist friends are full of shit. The Mac and PC are completely the same hardware-wise, there is no difference in colour.

 

[SuAside]

well, alec, next time point out that the old macs used the same screens and vidcards as any other pc around, just slightly modded so that they aren't interchangeable anymore (this should no longer the case btw).
as an illustration: a normal radeon 9800pro vid card could be converted to a mac version by soldering a lil' copper wire and cutting one line in the PCB. thereby becoming a mac version which costed 150 euros more than the PC version. nifty aint it?
hence there is little reason to say Macs got better colors...

now, it's clear that Mac comes better configured for graphics work when bought than the standard Windblowz pc (who first needs some tuning).

i think the Mac popularity in the graphics sector is due to the culture revolving around the Macs, rather than the Macs themselves. once upon a time, Macs were indeed better for graphics (early 90's), but now? questionable, but people stick with Macs because they're used to it & like the culture revolving around it.

edit @ sander:

A proper interface requires very few actions, with only very few different actions. As long as you can maintain the same simplicity (being the amount of actions needed to achieve an effect), fewer buttons is *always* better.

funny then that no one succeeds in doing just that, no?

in a purely theoretical environment, you're right, but defending a 1 button mouse is moronic.

I also never said that a single button is better than a single button and a mousewheel, only that the latter is not better per definition. And specifically that thinking you need 5 mouse buttons is somewhat ridiculous.

i routinely use 7 buttons + the mousewheel on my mouse. i doubt you'll ever come near what i can do in the same frame with your lil' 1 button mouse, regardless of your interface.

sure, i dont 'need' 7 buttons, but it sure as hell speeds up stuff & it's totally ergonomic.

 

[Sander]

funny then that no one succeeds in doing just that, no?

Actually, Apple used to. No one does on other platforms because there's no need to, though.

in a purely theoretical environment, you're right, but defending a 1 button mouse is moronic.

No, it isn't. If a 1-button mouse can do the job, you don't need any more buttons.
Lesson one in interfaces: superfluous choices and options detract from the interface.

Also, I believe Macs these days have multiple mouse buttons anyway.

i routinely use 7 buttons + the mousewheel on my mouse. i doubt you'll ever come near what i can do in the same frame with your lil' 1 button mouse, regardless of your interface.

sure, i dont 'need' 7 buttons, but it sure as hell speeds up stuff & it's totally ergonomic.

Wanna bet? Intelligent use of the interface is a lot more valuable than just adding more buttons and saying 'well, I don't need to change anything, because I have more buttons!'
In any case, I find having a lot of buttons on my mouse to be more annoying than useful.

 

[SuAside]

if Apple already mastered the interface arts to be totally useful with 1 button, why did they move on then?
your argumentation says no one else does it because "they don't need to"? what kind of bullshit is that? if there's a perfect interface out there, you can bet your ass they're all striving to attain it, don't you think?

no, Apple's one mouse button interface was acceptable in times where people were only used to 2 buttons at most. they never succeeded in creating that 'perfect' interface you're aiming for and no one ever will. they simply had a slightly better interface than Windblows, but does that make them perfect? hardly... they simply offered something that in that time was acceptable, but it is no longer.

and yes, superfluous choices are detrimental to the interface, but who says a mousewheel is superfluous as it allows you to scroll faster and easier than the common interface?
there is no useful interface that can go back & forth faster than me lifting my thumb a few milimeters and pushing my back & forth buttons.

 

[Sander]

if Apple already mastered the interface arts to be totally useful with 1 button, why did they move on then?

Did I say mastered?
No. I said they used it with great success for many years. Which they did. However, in recent years they've strived to become as close to Windows and the PC market as possible, especially since the 'one-mouse-button' was cited as a reason not to use Macs. A silly reason, if you ask me, but eh.

I'm also pretty sure that one button is still standard, though. Had something to do with patents, I believe. However, there are two or more button mice available. I think the current standard Mac mouse uses a single button, but with different 'click-areas'.

your argumentation says no one else does it because "they don't need to"? what kind of bullshit is that? if there's a perfect interface out there, you can bet your ass they're all striving to attain it, don't you think?

Nope, because that's wasted manpower and investing costs.
Note that most proprietary devices have as few buttons as possible, for instance. However, going out of your way to accustom a single mouse button would be superfluous in the current PC market.

no, Apple's one mouse button interface was acceptable in times where people were only used to 2 buttons at most. they never succeeded in creating that 'perfect' interface you're aiming for and no one ever will. they simply had a slightly better interface than Windblows, but does that make them perfect? hardly... they simply offered something that in that time was acceptable, but it is no longer.

Whoa, buster, I never spoke about perfect.

and yes, superfluous choices are detrimental to the interface, but who says a mousewheel is superfluous as it allows you to scroll faster and easier than the common interface?
there is no useful interface that can go back & forth faster than me lifting my thumb a few milimeters and pushing my back & forth buttons.

Whether or not it's quicker is irrelevant, it's about convenience and intuitivity. I personally never found that intuitive and kept accidentally touching buttons. Hence why I still use a 2-button mouse with a mousewheel.

 

[SuAside]

so your own motoric failure is to blame?

j/k ^^

 

[slamelov]

the colours you see on the screen of a Mac are exactly the same as the colours that will come out of your printer, and that is rarely the case with a regular PC"

That's not true, tou have to calibrate your monitor, in PC and MAc, and colours never are exactly the same. NEVER. That's a Myth.

The fact is that both computers can do the same things, but Mac has closed architecture and it's more expensive.

20 years ago, Mac wer able to show colour graphics and PC not, but not now.

Regards

 

[Wooz]

the colours you see on the screen of a Mac are exactly the same as the colours that will come out of your printer, and that is rarely the case with a regular PC"

Let me elaborate on that.

Mac used to have a pseudo-CMY (Cyan Magenta Yellow) color coding on their machines, which was better than the "standard" RGB (Red, Green, Blue, an additive process) coding on PC monitors. It was pretty close to the print colors, as back in the day, printers used only a substractive color coding, the original CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, blacK). so Trendy Artistes went Mac, and it was supposed to be TEH BEST FOR GRAPHICSE!1

Until people invented printers that work in RGB coding. Some 6 years ago.

Anyhow, as stated before, you have to calibrate your monitor colors and temperature in both cases.

 

[slamelov]

A computer monitor, always uses RGB for displaying colors. you can change the image to CMYK channels, but you are still seeing the image in your monitor. The image stores the CMYK channels, but monitor uses always RGB. There is not CMYK monitors. CMYK is for printing purposes, and PC can use CMYK images also. Is for the software. PC and Mac can use the same software. (Photoshop, Frehand, QuarkXpress, Corel Painter, Illustrator...)

That's because you can use color libraries like Pantone or so, because usea numbers to define colors. You know what Pantone 45 color is.

There is not any reason for buying a Mac, only "you like it". But it's more expensive.

A Pc can use another OS; Linux, BSD, Solaris...


Regards

 

[alec]

the colours you see on the screen of a Mac are exactly the same as the colours that will come out of your printer, and that is rarely the case with a regular PC"

Let me elaborate on that.

Mac used to have a pseudo-CMY (Cyan Magenta Yellow) color coding on their machines, which was better than the "standard" RGB (Red, Green, Blue, an additive process) coding on PC monitors. It was pretty close to the print colors, as back in the day, printers used only a substractive color coding, the original CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, blacK). so Trendy Artistes went Mac, and it was supposed to be TEH BEST FOR GRAPHICSE!1

Until people invented printers that work in RGB coding. Some 6 years ago.

Anyhow, as stated before, you have to calibrate your monitor colors and temperature in both cases.

As I said: I don't know the rights of it. I'm just saying what they told me. I've never had a Mac and doubt I'll ever buy one.

Also: a mouse with 5 buttons? One with 7 buttons? What would you need those extra buttons for anyway? I have a simple mouse with two buttons and a mouse wheel (that can also be pressed as a button to scroll in a special way, you know, but I hardly ever use that). Does that mean I'm retro?

Also: should I upgrade my mouse?

 

[Vox]

I make music. Electronic music. I have the control over FX, syntheisizers, patterns, etc. with my humogous 5 buttons. Bow down!

(ayatolla of Piano-Roll-A lol)

 

[Duckman]

I use a mac at work and at a technical college for my apprenticeship, and I have used a Windows based PC as well... And just on general interface and ease of use, OSX really does perform a hell of a lot better using Adobe products (PhotoShop, inDesign etc).

And in regrads to monitors, no monitor can produce "true" CMYK values, seeing RGB has a wider colour gamut. The only monitors that get close to this are specially designed monitors, which I forget the name of now. Nothing can be viewed on a monitor as it will be printed. It can be close, but not exact. That's what a digital proofing system is for, which is another system that doesn't need to be elaborated.

Here are some examples:

The print gamut, is so much smaller than the monitor colour gamut, hence the RGB interface the monitor has. CMYK is constricted to printing purposes. Yes, there are printing systems that allow for RGB printing, but in Standard Sheetfed Lithographic Offset printing, CMYK are the basic colours that try to embrace all colours (excluding the Pantone System).

Oh, and Macs and PCs have different default gamma levels, so this may affect the obvious "softproof" on the screen.

I'm sure this has gone off topic enough, but I think Macs are far better for graphical purposes and PCs are not, in my experience using both types of OS.

 

[SuAside]

Also: a mouse with 5 buttons? One with 7 buttons? What would you need those extra buttons for anyway?

mousewheel: obvious
mousewheel click: only use it in a few games
button 1: left click
button 2: right click
button 3: fastscroll up
button 4: fastscroll down
button 5: fastswitch between programs (although i dont use it much)
button 6: "back"
button 7: "forward"

Also: should I upgrade my mouse?

not if you dont feel the need obviously, but love my mouse!

 

[Duckman]

Fuck those mouse buttons, I'm happy with a mouse like alec's. My mouse cost AU$15 so I'm happy