PDA

View Full Version : my reasons for moving away from apple



skibovision
06-04-2012, 10:54 PM
http://skiboblog.skibovision.com/?p=15

I have done the best I can do put together a truthful and factual post. I am constantly finding myself explaining my decision why I don't use apple products and often my explanation end up being helpful for the people who hear it in making hardware decisions.If you find anything inaccurate in this post please let me know and I will correct it. Otherwise take it for what it is, opinion. You may disagree with me and if you do I welcome a discussion on the matter

GavinAbe
06-05-2012, 12:28 AM
Mac is consumer drive company, money is the only driving force which has be come very clear over the last 2 yrs and with the launch of FCPX , People that are the died hard uses of Apple Pro products will still fool them self in to believing it is a Pro product, FCPX is not innovative nor revolutionary but amateur or entire level Pro-sumer, many of those so called innovations are from older NLE's like Fast LE etc.... Thankfully there are other options and routes to go , companies that are prepared to listen to new and old users. All I can say is good luck to the users of Apples Pro products on that ice berg heading for warmer waters...... Skibovision enjoy your artical.
So let the towns people get out the pitch forks and fire and put me to the stake...... ;)

Gary Huff
06-05-2012, 06:15 AM
"Pro" is what you make of it. If you can use iMovie or Windows Movie Maker and make money from it, then go for it. "Pro" is just a term, and a pretty nebulous one at that.

But if Apple no longer provides what you need or want, then look at the alternatives. Windows 7 is a great OS and comes in an infinite variety of hardware flavors and can run everything except Final Cut (and Vegas and Edius which aren't available on OSX).

mcgeedigital
06-05-2012, 06:38 AM
Can't find fault with any of that, which is why I built my own pc and switched to Premiere/Avid.

Postmaster
06-05-2012, 06:50 AM
If you call a pro also a business man, Apple is a no go.
From an economic standpoint (best bang for the buck), the purchase of an Apple computer can only be seen as a spiritual or religious experience, but not as a valid and solid decision - and yeah, I'm aware that this means calling for a s*%tstorm - but it's my opinion as a business man.

Yes. it's easier to program a OS, when you only have a hand full of selected hardware - but it´s also limiting your abilities to have a custom machine, that can grow with your needs - just start with graphic cards and how screwed some MacPro users are with that.

On the other hand, what are you doing in your OS (besides copying files from one folder to an other)?
Most work is done in applications, that´s where it really counts. So how does the OS mater at all?
Some say the Mac OS is easier to maintain. And I say that´s actually true to some degree.
Any fool can buy a Mac, push the start button and start working, without the need of any fine tuning.

It takes much more work and knowledge to set up a smooth running Windows system (in my opinion a pro should know his tools inside out anyway), but once it's done, it can run with minimal maintenance for years. I sat up a XP 5 years ago and never had to fiddle with it again, besides monthly backups.
Same is true, to several Win7 installations.

I'm not a Mac heater, I started with Macs in 1989 and never touched a PC till 2001 - but I also never look back.

my ct2, Frank

Gary Huff
06-05-2012, 07:45 AM
I'm not a Mac heater, I started with Macs in 1989 and never touched a PC till 2001 - but I also never look back.

I didn't personally own a Mac until last year. My 17" Mac Book Pro was expensive, but also one of the best laptops I've ever owned. Plus, having compatibility with Pro Res (encoding) and FCP7 has earned me money in and of itself.

I also have a Windows tower that I originally purchased 5 years ago and have upgraded piecemeal. It's still a great machine, runs really well, and I've spent less on it after all this time than a Mac Pro. However, I would like to have a desktop Mac, and if Apple either releases a new Mac Pro (doubtful) or an Ivy Bridge Mini with a good GPU (7000M or 600M with 1GB of RAM), then I'll probably go for that. I like having options.

ZazaCast
06-05-2012, 07:58 AM
Still have my Mac G5 PPC and FCS6 (after Apple left me hangin'...D'ough!) ...but use my Windows 7 machine daily as I moved to a AVCHD workflow.
Makes no difference to me what platform I'm using as long as it's the right tool for the job.

gonzo_entertainment
06-05-2012, 09:17 AM
Yep.
Hardware bang for the buck, no comparison. Variety of software, hardware, peripherals, etc... no comparison.
I considered Apple for a brief moment, but I'm a PC based IT person in my day job and didn't want to have to deal with the split personality aspects of one OS at work and another at home. I'm using CS 5.5 on the PC.

Dave ©
06-05-2012, 10:33 AM
...money is the only driving force [for Apple].

Isn't that the driving force for Microsoft, Avid, Sony, Canon, Nikon and any other commercial organization?

skibovision
06-05-2012, 10:45 AM
Isn't that the driving force for Microsoft, Avid, Sony, Canon, Nikon and any other commercial organization?

Yes of course but those I don't think it applies to microsoft which makes software, not hardware, as we had been talking about with these new mac pros. I love the Mac OS but what's the point of having it if I am eventually stuck with only laptops or all in one pc's like iMac. The thing is if the roles were reversed and I said HP stopped making workstations and doesnt care about the pro market like apple does then I follow up with "yeah but who cares because I can run either microsoft or OSX on an apple" and thats the problem. We are forced to use apple computers if we want apple software.

Dave ©
06-05-2012, 10:45 AM
If you call a pro also a business man, Apple is a no go.
From an economic standpoint (best bang for the buck), the purchase of an Apple computer can only be seen as a spiritual or religious experience, but not as a valid and solid decision - and yeah, I'm aware that this means calling for a s*%tstorm - but it's my opinion as a business man.

...

Some say the Mac OS is easier to maintain. And I say that´s actually true to some degree.
Any fool can buy a Mac, push the start button and start working, without the need of any fine tuning.

It takes much more work and knowledge to set up a smooth running Windows system (in my opinion a pro should know his tools inside out anyway), but once it's done, it can run with minimal maintenance for years. I sat up a XP 5 years ago and never had to fiddle with it again, besides monthly backups.
Same is true, to several Win7 installations.

Many business (and personal) decisions do not account for the total, all-in cost of "individual" transactions. The term is Total Cost of Ownership, which I'm sure is familiar to you.

Let's say that an Apple computer cost 2x as much as a comparable Microsoft computer. Let's say the Apple product cost $3000 and the Microsoft product cost $1500. That's sticker price.

Now add up the time-cost of setting up the two different computers. As you say, any fool can plug-in a Mac and it just works. How much incremental time is required to setup a Windows machine? What about installing networks, printers and other peripherals? What about the easier ongoing maintenance of Mac OS, as you say? How much time does that cost?

I can't make a solid business decision for you or anyone else since your financials, needs, skills, etc. are different than mine. But, as for this fool, the $1500 sticker price difference is well the time savings. I don't consider computer maintenance to be one of my core competencies so I effectively outsource that to Apple. And I'm willing to pay $1500 every few years for that outsourcing service. That is...unless they release another crappy product like Lion.

Dave ©
06-05-2012, 10:47 AM
Yes of course but those I don't think it applies to microsoft which makes software, not hardware, as we had been talking about with these new mac pros. I love the Mac OS but what's the point of having it if I am eventually stuck with only laptops or all in one pc's like iMac. The thing is if the roles were reversed and I said HP stopped making workstations and doesnt care about the pro market like apple does then I follow up with "yeah but who cares because I can run either microsoft or OSX on an apple" and thats the problem. We are forced to use apple computers if we want apple software.

I'm just saying, you weaken your argument when you introduce red herrings like, "Apple is only concerned about money."

Gary Huff
06-05-2012, 10:53 AM
Now add up the time-cost of setting up the two different computers. As you say, any fool can plug-in a Mac and it just works. How much incremental time is required to setup a Windows machine? What about installing networks, printers and other peripherals? What about the easier ongoing maintenance of Mac OS, as you say? How much time does that save?

First, this is only an issue if you build your own machine. Pre-built purchased machines do not waste any time with driver installation. Second, Windows 7 does a really good job of pulling down drivers from the Internet during setup, requiring very little use after that. You can't just plug a printer into a Mac. I have to install drivers for my Epson printer under OSX just like I have to do under Windows.

Third, maintenance is no different than OSX. Both can suffer the same hardware issues, and the malware is starting to even out between the two.

Fourth, that Mac "just works" is a misnomer that I quickly found out after having bought a Mac. It still has issues from time to time just like my desktop. I have to reboot both due to slowdowns on an even basis, and I've totally worked on other people's Macs that they've loaded down with software to the point that it's nearly unusable.

It sounds like you're just reposting what you've "heard" about Win/OSX without having firsthand knowledge of how they work.

However, I agree that saying Apple is "just about money" is ludicrous. Microsoft is releasing Windows 8 after all.

skibovision
06-05-2012, 10:59 AM
Well to be fair, I wasn't the one that said that, GavinAbe was. My point is just that Apple has been very successful in the consumer market recently and despite having successful products in the pro sector they have discontinued or handicapped them. It's not necessarily all about the money, but maybe its more how they want to present themselves as a brand ex. Ipads, Iphones, interactive, sleek, small, personal.

Gary Huff
06-05-2012, 11:08 AM
And that's doing very well for them. The worst mistake you can make is that any company has your particular niche interest in mind. Let's face it, for most of the world an iPhone/iPad is more than enough "computer".

nosys70
06-05-2012, 11:15 AM
problem with Apple is they can decide overnight that "bluray sucks" or "firewire is obsolete" or "what about putting weird interface on our computer that cannot be found anywhere else" or "let's give up about big boxes or servers, laptops are more fun".
And you end up with a 5000$ piece of hardware with no future.
Or they can also decide to change processor provider, OS compatibilty with their hardware as well or even stop a full line of product , leaving you in the blue.
That is definitely unprofessional.

skibovision
06-05-2012, 11:23 AM
I am actually relying on consumer products. I use what many people would call a "gaming PC". I have a an intel i72600k (8 virtual cores which are overclocked to roughly 5GHZ) 16GB of RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 570, and an Internal 5TB Raid 5 over 6 drives.

The gaming market is HUGE and is not going anywhere. I feel very safe investing in this type of hardware.

skibovision
06-05-2012, 11:27 AM
problem with Apple is they can decide overnight that "bluray sucks" or "firewire is obsolete" or "what about putting weird interface on our computer that cannot be found anywhere else" or "let's give up about big boxes or servers, laptops are more fun".
And you end up with a 5000$ piece of hardware with no future.
Or they can also decide to change processor provider, OS compatibilty with their hardware as well or even stop a full line of product , leaving you in the blue.
That is definitely unprofessional.

This is basically the super short version of my article. I totally agree. I know there were a lot of people left out in the cold when FCPX came out. I had a contract with a production company that does work for discovery/nat geo etc. They have YEARS of old FCP7 projects to deal with and what are they supposed to do? Go back and open each one and export an XML for premiere?

Dave ©
06-05-2012, 11:33 AM
First, this is only an issue if you build your own machine. Pre-built purchased machines do not waste any time with driver installation. Second, Windows 7 does a really good job of pulling down drivers from the Internet during setup, requiring very little use after that. You can't just plug a printer into a Mac. I have to install drivers for my Epson printer under OSX just like I have to do under Windows.

Third, maintenance is no different than OSX. Both can suffer the same hardware issues, and the malware is starting to even out between the two.

Fourth, that Mac "just works" is a misnomer that I quickly found out after having bought a Mac. It still has issues from time to time just like my desktop. I have to reboot both due to slowdowns on an even basis, and I've totally worked on other people's Macs that they've loaded down with software to the point that it's nearly unusable.

It sounds like you're just reposting what you've "heard" about Win/OSX without having firsthand knowledge of how they work.

However, I agree that saying Apple is "just about money" is ludicrous. Microsoft is releasing Windows 8 after all.

I use both machines everyday. Up until Lion, Macs just worked. Lion is horrible and I agree.

Dave ©
06-05-2012, 11:33 AM
Well to be fair, I wasn't the one that said that, GavinAbe was. My point is just that Apple has been very successful in the consumer market recently and despite having successful products in the pro sector they have discontinued or handicapped them. It's not necessarily all about the money, but maybe its more how they want to present themselves as a brand ex. Ipads, Iphones, interactive, sleek, small, personal.

Yep. Fair enough.

Dave ©
06-05-2012, 11:36 AM
And you end up with a 5000$ piece of hardware with no future.

Doesn't matter what hardware you buy today. It doesn't have a future. Or at least, not a very long one.

Gary Huff
06-05-2012, 11:39 AM
I use both machines everyday. Up until Lion, Macs just worked. Lion is horrible and I agree.

I'm on Snow Leopard on my Mac Book Pro and Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on my desktop PC. I switch back and forth all the time, and even edit on the same projects in Premiere. I like both for different elements (i.e. file handling under Windows 7 is a bit better (search is better than Finder at the moment because Finder won't find files that haven't been indexed yet, being able to move mixed items (isolated files along with folders at the same time) and getting a detailed breakdown of two files whenever you're going to copy one over top of another, but SL has much better disk image utilities for instance). Premiere CS5.5 runs a bit better under Windows (though I've heard CS6 goes a long way towards identical performance on both platforms), and I've been experimenting with RAIDed system drives and the like so I install Windows a lot of my desktop.

Postmaster
06-05-2012, 01:11 PM
Many business (and personal) decisions do not account for the total, all-in cost of "individual" transactions. The term is Total Cost of Ownership, which I'm sure is familiar to you.

Let's say that an Apple computer cost 2x as much as a comparable Microsoft computer. Let's say the Apple product cost $3000 and the Microsoft product cost $1500. That's sticker price.

Now add up the time-cost of setting up the two different computers. As you say, any fool can plug-in a Mac and it just works. How much incremental time is required to setup a Windows machine? What about installing networks, printers and other peripherals? What about the easier ongoing maintenance of Mac OS, as you say? How much time does that cost?



So you say that fools are better of with Macs, but have to pay the price for being not able to maintain their everyday tools?

:evil: just teasing.

I can see where you come from, but Macs are not maintenance free, just look at any Mac user forum.
So you pay much more, to get a little better maintenance and loose a lot of freedom for tailoring your most important tool (at least for an editor) to your needs.
Also you should factor in the HP per buck.
Apple makes much more profit on a computer than anyone else (can´t blame them for trying) - you get what you pay for doesn´t apply to Macs.

Gary Huff
06-05-2012, 01:23 PM
Well, in some ways OSX used to be worth a premium, and the idea of a "console"-like PC isn't necessarily a bad one. It just seem QC has started to lax since Apple got really big, and the move to Intel made them no different than Windows boxes internally.

David Jimerson
06-05-2012, 01:57 PM
Now add up the time-cost of setting up the two different computers. As you say, any fool can plug-in a Mac and it just works. How much incremental time is required to setup a Windows machine? What about installing networks, printers and other peripherals?

You're going on pretty out-of-date info. Hasn't been an issue since the time of the "Switch" ads, which is pretty much the last time it was claimed.

Windows 7 is pretty much all plug-and-play.

bimdas
06-05-2012, 10:39 PM
I've built my own computers since around early 2000 and can attest that the latest one I built didn't require any driver installs. Windows update pretty much installed everything you need including nvidia drivers.
Doesnt stop a tech nerd like me from downloading all the official drivers though but for most people, windows is as easy to use as osx.
As far as security, having a malware free computer just takes a bit of commonsense. Don't click dodgy links or install dodgy programs, let windows automatically install security updates, install a free antivirus like avast and that pretty much guarantees a safe computer. Also keep teenagers off your working PC as they will pretty much install or click anything with a half-dressed model on it.

Dave ©
06-06-2012, 12:11 AM
You're going on pretty out-of-date info. Hasn't been an issue since the time of the "Switch" ads, which is pretty much the last time it was claimed.

Windows 7 is pretty much all plug-and-play.


Some say the Mac OS is easier to maintain. And I say that´s actually true to some degree.
Any fool can buy a Mac, push the start button and start working, without the need of any fine tuning.

It takes much more work and knowledge to set up a smooth running Windows system

I was more or less taking off from Frank's statement above. He said it takes more work to setup a Windows system, not me. I don't setup systems so I don't actually know.

My simple argument (and readily admit that it's a simple and incomplete argument) is that sticker price is such a small factor when considering TCO. It takes perhaps 10 hours or less to burn the price difference between machines. That's 1 hour every 3.6 months if you turnover/depreciate machines 1x every three years. So if a Mac works at a 1-hour-per-3.6-month advantage over a PC (please note my comment about Lion above) then it's well worth it. If a PC works just as well then that's fine as well.

Personally, I'm glad that Microsoft has woken up. I think Apple was probably the best thing to happen to Microsoft. In the space I'm in (corporate), it's exciting to see some of the tools MS is rolling out and I'm not talking about Windows or Office. Lync is simple but replaces several tools at once. Dynamics is challenging the giants in CRM. The vision for Kinect in the business world -- think Minority Report -- makes touchscreens look like lite brights. In terms of stock, MSFT looks like a great buy to me. But none of that changes the prevalent dogma on either side of the argument. Dogma such as "[Apple] only cares about making money," "Apple doesn't care about the pro market," and "FCPX isn't a pro app."

I'll leave you with this: "Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads!"

Perhaps if Dr. Emmit Brown were alive today, he might say, "Desktops? Where we're going, we don't need desktops!"

Dave ©
06-06-2012, 12:13 AM
:evil: just teasing.


It's all good. No worries.

simonpwood
06-06-2012, 03:20 AM
However, I would like to have a desktop Mac, and if Apple either releases a new Mac Pro (doubtful) or an Ivy Bridge Mini with a good GPU (7000M or 600M with 1GB of RAM), then I'll probably go for that. I like having options.

New Mac Pros are coming out in the next 2 weeks. Retailers are out of stock of current Mac Pros; Apple ordered them to be recalled. New stock numbers were uncovered; similar pricing to current models:


MD770LL/A – K5BPLUS,BETTER, BTR-USA
MD771LL/A – K5BPLUS,BEST,BTR-USA
MD772LL/A – K5BPLUS,ULTIMATE,BTR-USA

Gary Huff
06-06-2012, 06:51 AM
Great if true, but I do recall a lot of blatantly false iPad rumors swirling around before that was released.

mcgeedigital
06-06-2012, 06:59 AM
The new replacement for the mac pros may be coming, but it remains to be seen if Apple relies on thunderbolt instead of pci slots in the new form factor.

Gary Huff
06-06-2012, 07:15 AM
It amazes me that people are still ignorant of the fact that while, yes, Thunderbolt is an external PCIe interface, it's still the slowest form of PCIe (4x) when your graphics cards plug into 16x slots.

ZazaCast
06-06-2012, 07:39 AM
I think Apple was probably the best thing to happen to Microsoft.

I think you have this backwards, less we forget that Microsoft bailed-out Apple in 1997.... without that, there probably wouldn't be an Apple today.
Can't we all just get along? :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY

A least take a listen to Steve @ 7:05 .... he was a very wise man. :beer:

Gary Huff
06-06-2012, 07:40 AM
Can't we all just get along? :)

It's not about getting along, it's about showing how "hip" you are.

Postmaster
06-06-2012, 08:23 AM
It amazes me that people are still ignorant of the fact that while, yes, Thunderbolt is an external PCIe interface, it's still the slowest form of PCIe (4x) when your graphics cards plug into 16x slots.

Thunderbolt is way overrated. IMHO it´s just a crook for laptops.
Doesn´t make much sense on a workstation, especially if it has USB3.
But now with Windows PCs and Tablets coming with TB - the hype is high.

Frank

David Jimerson
06-06-2012, 08:30 AM
It takes perhaps 10 hours or less to burn the price difference between machines.

Not sure how you arrive at that.


That's 1 hour every 3.6 months if you turnover/depreciate machines 1x every three years. So if a Mac works at a 1-hour-per-3.6-month advantage over a PC (please note my comment about Lion above) then it's well worth it. If a PC works just as well then that's fine as well.

I never go three years. It's about $900 every 1.5-2 years.

Jordan Scott Price
06-06-2012, 08:44 AM
I use a Mac for all of my freelance and personal stuff and PC workstations in the office at work. Both have issues, and both work very well.

If only I could take the best from both...

Dave ©
06-06-2012, 10:04 AM
It's not about getting along, it's about showing how "hip" you are.

Exactly! Which is why I use my free-to-me Blackberry instead of an iPhone even though the touchscreen on my Torch keeps locking up. It's why I drive a 10 year old Toyota Camry and my wife drives an 8 year old Toyota Sienna even though we should get a new car every 3-4 years like everyone else (exaggeration). It's why I rent my home by choice instead of "owning" it...you know, 'cause when we tell people that we rent, they just look at us with awe.

It's definitely all about being cool! Or hip. Or rad. Or whatever the current word is. ;)

:) :) :) *

* I have liberally applied the Kohli method of denoting sarcasm.

BTW, I'm not in the least bit offended by this discussion. I'm hoping that others aren't offended by my posts either. I'm not trying to attack anyone so please let me know if that's how my posts are coming across.

Dave ©
06-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Not sure how you arrive at that.



I never go three years. It's about $900 every 1.5-2 years.


I arrived at that # this way:
* I assumed that a Mac cost 2x as much as a comparable PC. A Mac cost $3,000 and a comparable PC cost $1500.
* I assumed, whether Mac or PC, that it will be used for 3 years.

1. Calculate the actual difference in sticker price = $1500 ($3000 - $1500)
2. Calculate the hourly time-value of the sticker price difference = 10 ($1500 / $150 per hour)
3. Extend the hourly equivalent over life of the computer = 1 hour every 3.6 months (36 months / 10 hours)

So...to break-even, a Mac needs to save about 1 hour every 3.6 months to justify the cost difference.

Check my math because it might be wrong.

The #s will be different based on your individual situation. But, to a degree, the exact#s don't matter so much as the principle. If a Mac costs 3x a comparable PC then just change the #s. If you account for a new box every 1.5 - 2 years then change that #. If your daily rate is different, change it. My point isn't so much about the exact dollar figures as much as the general principle about TCO.

I'm afraid I've hijacked the OPs thread so I'm going to do my best to be quiet now.

aalleexx
06-06-2012, 11:55 AM
im not an apple fan boy, never have and never will be, the reason why I buy apple desktop in a profesional envirorment is for one simple reason, the operating system, maybe i had a lot of bad moments with windows computers but here is what has made me stick around with apple desktops, in a 4 year period, using our mac pros almost daily, putting them to test everyday running after effects, heavy photoshop etc etc. in 4 years we had one crash, i pay double for that stability, i would even pay triple, its not because its apple, i am really buying stability that what our agency cares about. i have no doubt that windows computers can be just as good right now, but we are havily invested in apple products right now and just could not make the change.

hendosan
06-06-2012, 02:25 PM
Eh, while I've been using OSX for about 10 years, I wouldn't say it is currently more stable than a similarly-built PC. When system crashes happen it's usually a hardware fault of some kind, and any computer can be vulnerable to this.

The reason I prefer Macs is because the UI makes it a lot easier for me to multitask. Windows has come a long way and has a lot little UI features that emulate this functionality, but at the end of the day I find it easier to quickly jump between different documents and apps in OSX than in Windows. And while many people poo-poo the all-in-one designs of the iMac, I like the fact that the design of the computer itself is very clean and it requires a very small footprint on my desk.

I wouldn't hesitate to jump though if OSX became officially supported on standard PC hardware.

Postmaster
06-06-2012, 02:48 PM
That´s interesting. I heard that a lot from guys that use Macs.
But whenever I asked them, to show me what they mean they failed to proof it.
It turned out, they just did not know their way around in Windows - especially what the left mouse button can do with just one or two clicks.

Frank

Gary Huff
06-06-2012, 02:56 PM
The reason I prefer Macs is because the UI makes it a lot easier for me to multitask. Windows has come a long way and has a lot little UI features that emulate this functionality, but at the end of the day I find it easier to quickly jump between different documents and apps in OSX than in Windows.

This has left me scratching my head because it's almost exactly the same between the two for doing what you're describing. Unless you're talking solely about the multiple desktops functionality with Spaces (now Mission Control). Mine's turned off at the moment actually.

mcgeedigital
06-06-2012, 07:18 PM
There is no functional difference between the systems once you are in the NLE.

I say that as a 12 year mac user who has just switched to Windows 7.

hendosan
06-07-2012, 04:35 PM
This has left me scratching my head because it's almost exactly the same between the two for doing what you're describing. Unless you're talking solely about the multiple desktops functionality with Spaces (now Mission Control). Mine's turned off at the moment actually.

Not just multiple desktops and Exposé (which does help), but I'm talking more about how many apps don't maintain a windowed environment in OSX. Mind you my terminology is terrible so I don't know how to express myself verbally, but let me show an example:

http://i.imgur.com/gH7Dl.png

The PSD exists only within the Windowed environment of the Photoshop app and it makes it difficult to switch between documents in different applications without alt-tabbing or clicking on the application on the bar at the bottom of the Windows UI. Okay so maybe alt-tabbing isn't all that difficult, but I find it clumsy when in Mac OS I can have this:

http://i.imgur.com/sRbih.png

I have an Illustrator and Photoshop document open side by side and I can basically click from one item to the next. I even have a Finder window accessible right there, and clicking on any of these different applications doesn't obscure the other. Yes you can resize the application windows in Windows and then have everything tiled like I do in OSX, but then you scrunch the entire UI down for all those apps. In OSX the UI is only active when you select a document and it doesn't obscure your desktop or any documents stacked behind it, nor do the windows change size or position unless you move/resize them yourself.

Gary Huff
06-07-2012, 06:25 PM
See, for me that gets in the way. More often than not, I'm annoyed by click on something I didn't intend, say like the DVXUser forum in the background. Plus, this setup is not very ideal on a single monitor system, so I'm assuming you have two monitors open? You can easily set up Windows like that on a multiple monitor system.

hendosan
06-07-2012, 07:11 PM
I actually do have a 2 monitor setup, but most of the time I use it to just preview the timeline in my NLE and free up space on the main monitor - with high resolution screens (greater than 1920x1080) I've found it easier to just cram everything into one screen and use Mission Control to spill non-essential apps onto. And I never really have problems clicking on something I didn't intend to.

I would never try to say that how I work is preferable for everybody, but I really do like a tiled view of documents and Mac OS seems to accomodate me. Of course I JUST installed CS6 and it looks like everything is moving towards that single-window view, maybe I can get a refund on CS Cloud :-p

nosys70
06-08-2012, 12:31 AM
that is the clever marketing of Apple.
put the motherboard behind a big (at least 24 inches) screen and install it on a desk.
People will say , whoa, what a computer !, just because there is a big screen.
They have done that in my company. where everybody has a Dell laptop with an external screen (at best 17").
so guess what, every body says Macs are great, just because they have seen that big screen.
Guess what would be the result if they would have introduced Apple starting with small laptop ?
And guess why iPad sells like hot cakes, because itis basically an iphone with big screen.
And why Samsung is selling more smartphones than Apple, because they look like iphones with bigger screen.

bimdas
06-08-2012, 04:46 AM
http://i.imgur.com/gH7Dl.png

The PSD exists only within the Windowed environment of the Photoshop app and it makes it difficult to switch between documents in different applications without alt-tabbing or clicking on the application on the bar at the bottom of the Windows UI. Okay so maybe alt-tabbing isn't all that difficult, but I find it clumsy when in Mac OS I can have this:

http://i.imgur.com/sRbih.png


For me it would become a bit hard to focus on the one job when the screen is full of different windows from different programs. What would be the purpose of needing an illustrator window open up next to a photoshop window? I know when I'm editing or photoshoping or using after effects, having another program window open at the same time makes things look clutterred and doesn't do anything to improve the workflow. Having a second monitor for bridge or explorer is all I need.

Noel Evans
06-08-2012, 05:39 AM
Well.... to each his own. END

David Jimerson
06-08-2012, 06:27 AM
Not just multiple desktops and Exposé (which does help), but I'm talking more about how many apps don't maintain a windowed environment in OSX. Mind you my terminology is terrible so I don't know how to express myself verbally, but let me show an example:

http://i.imgur.com/gH7Dl.png

The PSD exists only within the Windowed environment of the Photoshop app and it makes it difficult to switch between documents in different applications without alt-tabbing or clicking on the application on the bar at the bottom of the Windows UI. Okay so maybe alt-tabbing isn't all that difficult, but I find it clumsy when in Mac OS I can have this:

http://i.imgur.com/sRbih.png

I have an Illustrator and Photoshop document open side by side and I can basically click from one item to the next. I even have a Finder window accessible right there, and clicking on any of these different applications doesn't obscure the other. Yes you can resize the application windows in Windows and then have everything tiled like I do in OSX, but then you scrunch the entire UI down for all those apps. In OSX the UI is only active when you select a document and it doesn't obscure your desktop or any documents stacked behind it, nor do the windows change size or position unless you move/resize them yourself.

Just for clarification: you can do that in Windows.

EDIT: Sorry, Noel.