lordarka
Offline
Image Upload: On
|
tived wrote:
Sure you may be expected to know how to use both a Mac or a PC base computer, but that by no means mean that you have to work on either. I guess if you are good enough, they will have to buy you the toys that you choose to work on, after all it is about the outcome, not the tool.
That's a truism. The importance of outcome or product has no bearing on the quality of tools used to generate the product.
...but you still don't have to use a Mac to make good artistic work on a computer!
I don't think Jerry or anyone else here ever said that a Mac is a prerequisite to making great art. What Jerry did say is that Mac proficiency is essential in the art business, where Macs predominate.
On the brighter side, if you like Mac, by all means use one. Too often people who have this too one-sided Mac view that Mac's are the only way. Have never really used an equal PC.
Nonsense. Most Mac users today have used or still use Windows PCs at work; in fact, most "switchers" are inspired to do so after using relatively modern Windows computers.
Apple only have to cater for a small hardware market, one which they almost dictate themselves, for better and for worse. Windows have to cater for a much greater market, with an almost endless combinations of components - this freedom is also their downfall.
While this fact is well understood, the hardware limitations Mac users face are not as onerous as most Windows system users believe. I also don't believe that most photographers and artists, for whom computers are a means rather than an end, lie awake at night wondering if the latest in boutique hardware technologies will function on their primary computers. "Choice" is great if you leverage it, but the majority of Windows users do not explore the infinity of hardware choices available to them. Gamers might, of course, but they are a performance-oriented minority.
Indeed, among those who like to upgrade computers, I see more people keeping their "expensive" Macs for five years or more, upgrading CPUs, RAM and video along the way.
Just the same, Mac users reap certain benefits from a limited hardware subset, though I will admit that, given the challenges it faces, Microsoft has done an admirable job of building a stable operating system. Secure and ergonomic? Well those are entirely different challenges where Microsoft continually fails to meet the mark...
Any idiot can use a Mac, any idiot drive an automatic car...now apart from the shortcut keys what is the difference between using Photoshop on a mac or a pc? How does using Photoshop or illustrator or Maya or Autocad differ from one OS to another?
Any idiot can use a Windows machine too, but not everyone appreciates the UI of either Mac or Windows systems with much depth. In response to your question, I am a habitual Expose and Spaces (virtual desktop) user, and both go a long way toward easing the management of multiple content-rich application windows. To my knowledge, there is no true Windows equivalent of these window and desktop management features.
But if you equip your computer to suit your needs, well, then you the user is the limiting factor, not the hardware or software.
This statement exemplifies most Windows' users incredible tolerance for poor ergonomics and shoddy software interface design. I can get more work done on Macs because of the software design, not in spite of it. Quite often, people who say that software makes no difference haven't used a Mac very deeply, and certainly haven't explored the wonder that is Mac Shareware. The Mac Shareware community never ceases to amaze me; smalltime developers, catering to a community that values stability and usability, can routinely create software gems that elude companies having billions of dollars in development budgets. I include Apple in this criticism, as its latest apps are no stranger to bloat and overly complex design.
I use Windows and Apple systems at a fairly advanced user (not administrator) level, and I can say quite honestly that the software options and standards on MacOS facilitate productivity. To blame productivity limits on the user completely ignores the value of intelligent software design. As artists and knowledge workers, we use our computers to complete very complex tasks; software design can either facilitiate or hinder the rapid completion of such tasks. If you believe that your productivity begins and ends with the RAM, GHz, and GBs in your computer, you underestimate the value of sensible and efficient user interfaces.
If this argument was about the workflow differences between 3D Studio v.4 in DOS 6.22 and Lightwave v. 7.5 in Windows, I somehow doubt you would resort to the "user and hardware is everything" argument.
Arka C.
|
