I’ve been doing post-production (the computer side of filmmaking) for more 12 years now. You’d be surprised by the number of people in the industry who use Wacom tablets as their primary “mouse”, especially among editors, and maybe not so surprised by VFX artists, motion graphic artists, and colorists who use them. Nov 30, 2015 - This does not mean that Im a newbie to music production though: Ive. If you are indeed new to recording and production, please feel free to post a. However, I've been having this dilemma for a while now: PC vs Mac.
. current rating is 3.68/5. (1506 ratings) Cost Linux can be freely distributed, downloaded freely, distributed through magazines, Books etc. There are priced versions for Linux also, but they are normally cheaper than Windows. $119 - $199.99, $69 for students, $99 to upgrade to pro Development and Distribution Linux is developed by Open Source development i.e. Through sharing and collaboration of code and features through forums etc and it is distributed by various vendors.
Developed and distributed by Microsoft. Manufacturer Linux kernel is developed by the community.
Linus Torvalds oversees things. Microsoft User Everyone. From home users to developers and computer enthusiasts alike. Everyone Usage Linux can be installed on a wide variety of computer hardware, ranging from mobile phones, tablet computers and, to mainframes and supercomputers. On PC's desktops, laptops, servers and some phones.
Introduction (from Wikipedia) Linux is a Unix-like and POSIX-compliant computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released Microsoft Windows is a series of graphical interface operating systems developed, marketed, and sold by Microsoft. Microsoft introduced an operating environment named Windows on November 20, 1985 as a graphical operating system shell for MS-DOS. File system support Ext2, Ext3, Ext4, Jfs, ReiserFS, Xfs, Btrfs, FAT, FAT, exFAT Text mode interface BASH (Bourne Again SHell) is the Linux default shell. It can support multiple command interpreters. Windows uses a command shell and each version of Windows has a single command interpreter with dos-like commands, recently there is the addition of the optional PowerShell that uses more Unix-like commands.
Company / developer Linus Torvalds and the Linux community. Multimedia, Gaming, and Productivity Applications Both Linux and Windows OS are very rich in multimedia applications, though setting up sound and video options in older versions of Linux can be difficult for some users. The main advantage of Linux is that most of the multimedia applications are freely available, while in the case of Windows, users may have to pay a hefty amount to get the although many Open Source/Free versions are often available.
Moreover, if anyone buys a copy of Windows on a CD-ROM, they do not get any application software with it, other than bundled Microsoft software. But if the same person buys a copy of Linux on a CD-ROM, it typically comes with a lot of free application software, such as Open Office, a complete free Office suite including, Presentation etc. A new computer with Windows pre-installed may have additional application software but that is totally up to the PC vendor.
But, each Linux distribution comes in multiple flavors; the more expensive versions come with more application software. A major attraction of Windows is the library of games available for purchase. A majority of games support Windows and are released first for the Windows platform. Some of these games can be run on Linux with a compatibility layer like Wine, although Wine is difficult to set up and require different versions of it for various games. Others, and especially more modern games that rely on proprietary delivery systems, copy protection, Windows dependencies, or advanced acceleration features, may fail in Linux environment. Though there are exceptions, such as Doom and Quake. When a developer chooses to write graphics code in instead of, Linux ports can become much easier.
The video below features a comparison of. Threats and Problems Every Windows user has faced security and stability issues. Since Windows is the most widely used OS, target Windows frequently. Consumer versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a single-user without a network connection and did not have security features built in.
Microsoft releases security patches through its Windows Update service approximately once a month although critical updates are made available at shorter intervals when necessary. Many times users of Windows OS face the “BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH”, caused by the failure of the system to respond, and eventually the user has to manually restart the PC. This is very frustrating for the user since they may lose valuable data. On the other hand, Linux is very stable and more secure than Windows.
As Linux is community driven, developed through people collaboration and monitored constantly by the developers from every corner of the earth, any new problem raised can be solved within few hours and the necessary patch can be ready at the same time. Also Linux is based on the UNIX architecture which is a multi user OS, so it is much more stable than single user OS Windows. Cost Comparison Windows is much more costly in organizational implementation purpose. As Windows Home is a single user OS, so for each PC, the organization needs to purchase a site license copy of Windows, which can be costly. Although, in developing countries and ones with oppressive governments, non-profits can receive a free site license from Microsoft.
Where as for the implementation of Linux based solutions the organization only needs to obtain one copy. And as it can be freely distributed, the same copy can be used in all the 50 employees’ workstation. However, setup and support services may need to be purchased on an as-needed basis. Current prices for some of these products are available on Amazon.com: Market Share and User Base According to the market research data of September 2007, on 92.63% of the world’s PCs, Windows is running, while only 0.8% PC users use Linux.
The Home users, Multimedia enthusiasts mainly used Windows, where as for serious use, server application, Corporation servers are running on Linux. Irrespective of the GUI, many users find it is very difficult to use Linux as compared to Windows and so the appeal of Linux is very limited to common people. Also for licensing agreement with Microsoft, various PC vendors are entitled to bundle Windows OS with their PC. And for this Windows gain the initial market popularity over Linux. Though these days many PC vendor such as, started to give Linux as the preinstalled OS to cut the cost of their PC system.
According to latest IDC report, Windows Server market is gaining popularity over Linux based Server. The annual rate at which Linux is growing in the x86 server space has fallen from around 53 percent in 2003 (45 percent globally), when Windows Server growth was in the mid-20 percent range, to a negative 4 percent growth (less than 10 percent globally) in calendar year 2006, IDC Quarterly Server Tracker figures show. Over the same time period, Windows has continued to report positive annual growth, outpacing the total growth rate in the x 86 markets by more than 4 percent in 2006, indicating that Linux has actually lost market share to Windows Server over this time. Linux servers now represent 12.7 percent of the overall server market while Windows server comprised 38.8 percent of all server revenue in Q1 of 2007. The main reason is that, while Linux are looking for high performance computing and web serving, but Windows is apparently adopted on a much broader basis. History Windows first released as a part of (DOS) in the year of 1985.
At that time was a very popular OS, as it introduced GUI to the world. So to increase the popularity of DOS, ’s bundled Windows 1 with the DOS at that time. But until Windows 3 which was released in 1990, achieve the success in the GUI based OS market. And with the release of Windows 95, in 1995, Microsoft became a household name in the OS market. From that time on, each Personal Computer comes with Windows OS as the preinstalled OS.
The biggest achievement for Windows OS is that it is very user friendly, easy to understand, and it has the versatility to run with almost every different kind of Personal Computers. Linux is based on the Multiuser OS UNIX, and it can be distributed freely.
It is the brainchild of Mr,. Typically all underlying source code can be freely modified and used. Linux Kernel was first released for public use in 1991. The biggest achievement for Linux is that it is a multiuser OS and the Security and stability is better than Windows. References. Anonymous comments (5) May 17, 2014, 3:11am Bill Gates has enough $$$; it's time to give it to someone else.
— 64.✗.✗.47 ▲ 0 ▼ August 28, 2013, 1:00pm For average desktop use (web, mails, documents.) I would recommend top Linux distributions based on Ubuntu. It's Open source based, applications / tools for most common needs are already installed and you don't need any anti-virus, anti-malware and all kinds of other software that is protecting Windows from security risks. Try it, it's easy, fast and free.
You may also check this post: — 77.✗.✗.46 ▲ -1 ▼ April 9, 2010, 6:22pm 71.3.252.176 I can't tell if you're a troll or just being sarcastic. — 24.✗.✗.146 ▲ -2 ▼ October 16, 2012, 11:13am It states here that Linus Torvalds '.developed the framework of the OS.' He actually only began working on what became the Linux kernel, and he did that in collaboration with members of the Internet community.
The larger part of Linux was the suite of software created by Richard Stallman and the GNU. It's probably more correct to refer to it as GNU/Linux, rather than just Linux. See — 94.✗.✗.113 ▲ -3 ▼ November 5, 2008, 6:35pm linux is so much cooler than windows (so what happens when you drop a window?? Come on guess:: give up here's the answer; it shatters) i run my computer with linux vixta9.03 it's like windows vista but alot better and faster( so what's the glass made of thats in a window? This is very simple but ill give you the answer it's sand) so if you want a dirty o/s windows is for you — 71.✗.✗.176 ▲ -4 ▼.
Why is it that graphic designers more often use an Apple Mac? I am studying graphic design and I am hoping to do some freelance work in my spare time. I have a unit in my studies to discover why Macs are used so much in the graphic design industry. I also want to purchase a MacBook Pro to start off with, but my brother (a PC user) is adamant that I am wasting my money and that I'm only buying it for show, as he says: 'Macs are just expensive because they're stylish.' I want to give him a number of valid reasons as to why it will help me in the graphic design industry. As he studies games design and he is adamant that a PC can do just the same as a Mac. What a ridiculous unit for studying Graphic Design.
Mac does not beat PC on anything but price and style. If you compare an equally priced PC to a Mac it's likely that the PC will have more power.
Mac is more a guarantee of high quality components all packaged nicely together and not prone to hardware issues. Also, there are less viruses. Unless you're rich it would be foolish to spend that money when you're just starting out, my own goal is to earn enough money through graphic design to buy a state of the art mac at some point.
– Apr 2 '14 at 11:07. There's a seperate question on which is better: For the question of why Macs are more popular, there's a very simple answer:. Almost all art colleges and design schools bought Macs back in the days when Macs were unquestionably better for design ( and answers below detail how).
Art / design teachers got used to teaching using Macs. Many top teachers are veterans of the pre- computer days, and would not willingly suffer learning a new operating system. So, most designers use Macs in their formative college years, and get used to Macs Art/design colleges are unlikely to change to PC-first as it would be expensive and difficult (not just the cost of buying new machines, but the cost and time of re-training staff and re-writing course materials, and the cost in popularity among senior staff for whoever made the decision.). Many do now have PC suites as well as Mac suites, but they're usually smaller and linked to specialist areas (e.g. Video/games/fx design, ). Designers are seldom keen to change tools. We're not techies, our tools are a means to an end - 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.
![Windows Vs Mac For Post Production Windows Vs Mac For Post Production](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125450467/105501935.jpg)
We usually have a similar attitude to technology as musicians have to the craft of making instruments - 'magic happens here - don't mess with the magic you need to do your job'. (there are many exceptions - e.g.
Designers who write scripts, like there are musicians who make their own instruments - but they are exceptions, and the reaction to both is often similar: 'What dark sorcery is this.' With a mixture of awe and suspicion) So, most designers prefer to stick to the tools they know, which will more often be a Mac. You could make a Windows machine that is 100% designed for designers, like - but when any crafts professional knows that their existing way works and is considered normal and correct, they usually won't want to risk invoking the wrath of the Technology Gods, smiting them with the curse of 'It fails when you need it the most!' For deviating from the familiar, true path. These days, familiarity, comfort and preference are a bigger factor than any objective difference between Mac and PC, and PCs seem to be becoming slowly more popular in design than they were as more people start design school having already done design on a PC.
I personally use a Mac at work and a PC at home, and the practical differences are tiny. If you're already comfortable with one, there's no real reason to switch, unless you fancy a type of machine that is only available to the other (e.g. Windows pro pen tablets like, or, ). If you do, there's no real reason not to switch, so long as you don't mind re-learning a few things and risking a little frustrating unfamiliarity at first. I think Macs did have one advantage in the early 2000s - they were the first to only crash one application at a time. PC designers could have a doc's layout open in InDesign, placed graphics open in Illustrator, edited photos open in Photoshop, then they'd open a Word doc to copy some text, Word would crash bringing everything else down with it, and they'd lose all their recent work in everything.
Then Windows sorted that out (can't remember which version), and the differences have been tiny ever since. – Apr 5 '14 at 11:23.
@RandomO'Reilly You're about fourteen years late on that, MS-DOS was dropped when Microsoft switched to the NT kernel (the core of the OS) for consumer versions of Windows starting with Windows 2000. They just had emulation built in for 32-bit members of the NT family (and even then you could get issues when trying to run some 16-bit applications even in a compatibility mode). 64-bit versions of Windows don't have that emulation built in, but it's still possible to run DOS applications, you just need to use some sort of virtual machine program (DOSBox, Microsoft's Virtual PC, etc.).
– Apr 3 '14 at 16:43. I think a lot of the legacy reasons have been established here, so I won't address that. I recently purchased a new computer (after asking this community about ), and I went with a Mac Mini. My full-time job for four years had me working on a PC, I like Windows 7 just fine, and I'm comfortable with Ubuntu as well, so when I started thinking about a new system, I had a lot of angles to consider. Here are a few reasons why I stayed in the Mac world:. The software ecosystem. Because a lot of designers are Mac-only, I feel like some of the best software and productivity tools are on OSX.
Panic makes amazing software, but it's Mac-only. Pixelmator and Sketch are promising possibilities to challenge the Adobe hegemony, and they're Mac-only. Compatibility. This is probably the most objective and important point to make: Getting a Mac is the only legal way to run every major operating system. Not only is a Hackintosh a hack that would take some time to get running, doing so would violate the terms of service. However, I've legally run a licensed copy of Windows 7 (and my ever-aging copy of Civilization III) on my laptop for years. Also, with my new job, we used VirtualBox to set up a VM that runs Ubuntu for running Python servers.
Microsoft even provides free VMs for testing sites on old browsers and old operating systems! But if you run a Windows or Linux device, you don't get to try Mac apps or test things on Safari, at least not without needing some kind of specific solution for that. The mobile connection. If you ever want to design for mobile, it's good to have a solid link to iOS. If you don't have an iPhone, iOS Simulator is incredibly useful for mobile testing.
While you can make iOS apps on Windows, it's not the preferred way to do things, and since most iOS developers are on the Mac, it's good to be on that platform as well. Also, if you have an iOS device and like it, Macs will give you better integration with your device. Simplicity. Choosing hardware is a lot easier with Apple. Sure, you have fewer overall choices, but I personally get overwhelmed by too many choices. There are a bunch of PC OEMs that have a ton of choices, but Apple has a relatively simple grid of products and prices.
Do I wish that they'd put iMac parts in a Mini? Do I wish that it was easier to add an SSD to mine?
But I know that I can shop for a Mac without doing a ton of homework. The hardware ecosystem. Because Macs are popular and relatively standardized, a nice ecosystem can thrive around it. If you want a protective laptop case, you'll have more options if you get an Air over a PC laptop. If you want a charging system designed to work with your keyboard, you can get that. If you want a backup drive or a laptop stand that looks like your desktop, you're more likely to get it. Which leads me to my next point:.
Style. Not my most important reason, but I might as well embrace it.
I'm a designer, a visual person. I have a Magic Trackpad and an Apple Wireless Keyboard on my desk.
They look fantastic; the trackpad matches up with the keyboard perfectly. The Mini looks great next to my desk. We're visual people, so visuals matter to us. And to a certain extent, that's okay. They're luxuries, sure.
But everyone has luxuries that they like to indulge in, and for me it's amazingly-designed hardware. This argument is true with software as well. FileZilla and Transmit do a lot of the same things, but Transmit is a beautiful piece of software. I love the attention to detail that tends to go into Mac apps more than Windows apps. Don't let people criticize you for that last one. Any component and software comparison will tell you that Mac prices are at least close enough to make the overpriced argument marginal, so it's not like you're paying $100,000 for a Lamborghini when a $2,000 car would do just fine. We live in a world where people sell $100 purses to the masses and the masses love it because of the style and cachet that comes with it.
Where a guy like me irrationally likes the Under Armour and Nalgene brands. Where people will spend hundreds of thousands on a logo redesign. If you want a world without that stuff, then we can go back to the days where you'd go and get 'rice' and 'meat' from the 'store', and graphic designers wouldn't have much work to do! Some people don't care about design and style and that's one hundred percent okay.
I'm not advocating rampant materialism here, just saying that if you like Macs because they're stylish and because they care about good design as much as you do, that's not a bad reason to get one. But hopefully my other reasons will help you out as well.:). Two things not mentioned in other answers that were keys to establishing the Mac as a DTP platform in the early days:. The original Mac due to a brilliant collaboration between Adobe and Apple, so that it could provide hinting for low-resolution output on screens and laser printers (300 dpi is low resolution in typesetting terms).
PostScript and the LaserWriter made it possible to create great looking documents incredibly cheaply. July 1985 saw the launch of Aldus Pagemaker, the first DTP application. It was Mac-only, it took off in the design community, and it created the DTP industry. There's a wonderful story in the Introduction to John McWade's Before and After - Page Design in which he describes how he established the first DTP company in the world. John was the original beta tester for PageMaker and did a great deal to ensure it had all the essential capabilities for professional grade page layout. He goes on to relate what happened when Apple asked him to design a poster for them: I created How to Design a Page on Saturday and on Monday drove to Cupertino with proofs.
'You did this on our computer?' I was surprised by their surprise. 'No one here does this,' they said. 'I just used PageMaker,' I said. 'But you're using it,' they said, 'to design cool stuff.'
Just as Visicalc had given a new lease on life to the Apple II a few years earlier, PageMaker created the DTP market for the Mac (which was selling very poorly at the time, mostly due to being very expensive and lacking useful, reliable applications). Ventura Publisher followed later on the PC platform, but it was late to the party and hindered by the poor graphics support then available for DOS. As so often happens in a new market, being there firstest with the mostest is a huge advantage. I believe many years ago Mac were better suited to Graphic Design. I remember hearing about the screen being superior at least. These days there is no difference as the majority of features and software are comparable.
I think once you establish yourself in an industry as the go-to brand, old habits die hard. It is like Bing trying to compete with Google - even though they offer the same ability to search the web, people never refer to 'Binging' something (vs 'Googling'). IMO that is why Mac is the default in the Graphic Design industry (besides being stylish). A related industry that is pro Mac is video production.
Final Cut Pro, which is only on Mac can be a decision maker for many budget editors/studios, even though Adobe Premiere (or the top-end expensive Avid suite) is very capable on the PC. In contrast, most games/fx companies are on PC because they need more horsepower and the ability to put in custom hardware like bigger processors, more RAM and high end graphics cards etc. They can build machines for specific tasks like render farms for example at a fraction of the cost. PC is more customizable and cheaper, while Mac lock everything down (and overcharge for the exclusivity). Yes there are more viruses on PC, but that comes with popularity. Install anti-virus and be responsible with your internet browsing and downloading and you won't have an issue.
There are also more hardware manufacturers, which can cause problems, but I've also had more problems with Mac hard drives failing than I've ever had with PC hardware. Personally, I only buy top end consumer machines. A top of the line HP for example (as of 3 years ago), running i7 6-core, 18gb RAM, 2x 23in monitors and advanced video card. You need these things if you want to maximize your productivity. I haven't checked the current prices, but in my experience, you just can't compare a Mac to a PC for pure horsepower customization or bang for the buck. I agree it is something they haven't targeted, which is why I can't compare apples (literally) with apples for high end machines.
The prices may be comparable on budget priced systems which is why I didn't want to comment there. Also, Mac doesn't use better parts than other manufacturers, they just choose a specific manufacturer and remove the open market for mixing and matching. That is what I referred to when I said 'locked down'. I feel Mac also up-prices everything because there is no shopping around - everything has to be mac-approved. You also have to choose from pre-built machines. – Apr 2 '14 at 17:04.
The main reason for Apple having a large design presence is 'tradition.' Apple went all out inserting their computers into the design school workflow as far back as the late 1980s. Because of this, the OS became the standard target for prepress and commercial printing hardware and the Windows versions of the drivers for these RIP devices (etc) was a secondary consideration.
I went to school in the 80s and believe me, Macs were slicker then than now. This also meant that people like Linotype (etc), Adobe and QuarkXpress wrote for the Mac first and the PC second. One huge problem was typefaces which were not generally cross-platform which meant that even if all the other software was (and over time the software was more and more capable of interchange), you still had re-flow and glyph substitution from font replacement.
Both of these problems are insidious and hard to spot. When fonts became more cross-platform, there was still a problem with the Mac dual-fork file system which usually resulted in naive users dragging the wrong fork of the file over for sharing. This meant the font data never got sent. All of these problems helped to enforce the design preference for macs, but most of these issues no longer exist, and in fact Macs are the very nearly the exact same hardware as any generic PC with Windows or Linux on them (excepting BIOS/CMOS locks to restrict OS installation). The change to intel/x86/amd64 hardware has helped a lot on the driver side as well, because things like the old motorola stuff had a different byte order which introduced a lot of problems porting code between OS.
Once you get into the software packages themselves which generally have a unified functionality across platforms, the underlying OS makes little difference. I have used or owned original Mac, apple 2c, amiga, c64, atari 800, CP/M, MS DOS, linux, and even vax.
The OS is only relevant when it gets in the way of the work you need to do.