| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Topic : "Windows or Mac?" |
kumar
junior member
Member #
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 7:11 am |
 |
 |
Sir,
I am going to learn PhotoshopCS. Somebody tells me that learing PhotoshopsCS with the help of Windows XP Home edition operating system is not advisable. To perfect learning and using Photoshop CS, one should have Mac Machine and Mac Operating sytem. Is that so,Sir? To be frank with you, I cannot afford to buy both these. Your advice,Please.
Moreover, can you tell me whatever jobs(including online) I can get,if I learn PhotoshopCS Software from A to Z?
Your detailed reply,please.
To be frank with you, I am 46 years old. I cannot do anything physically. So, I am in a condition to work mentally at present and in the future. So, I would like to learn any Software and to earn money with the help of it.
Your advice,please,sir. |
|
| Back to top |
|
balistic
member
Member #
Joined: 01 Jun 2000
Posts: 2599
Location: Reno, NV, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 8:47 am |
|
|
The majority of the artists here on the forum use Windows. You do not need to buy a Mac if you have a PC already, Photoshop will work fine on Windows.
Back in the early 1990s, Macs were better machines for graphics than most PCs. Today, however, either platform is viable, with PCs being slightly faster, while Macs are somewhat more reliable.
Welcome to the forums.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheNeverman
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 103
Location: Topeka, Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 9:25 am |
|
|
Short of starting a flame war - I'd be interested to see some supporting facts for those statements...
I find it funny how many times Macs are referenced as being supperior back in the '90's when their network support was so laughable (AppleTalk anyone?). In fact, the only advantage I'm aware they had back-in-the-day (from a print shop perspective) was color management was built into the OS rather than at the application level... but on the other side of the coin - with their natively lower gamma setting - the onscreen colors seem to be consistently darker than what is seen in print...
I'm just wondering why the matter is perpetuated that Mac's were better back then... in what way???
n8
_________________
"They're toys. My friends are toys, I made them..."
J.F. Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
eyewoo
member
Member #
Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 2662
Location: Carbondale, CO
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 10:38 am |
|
|
| TheNeverman wrote: |
| ...in what way??? |
They were simply easier for non-techy artists to use...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheNeverman
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 103
Location: Topeka, Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 11:44 am |
|
|
Hi Phillip...
That's a fair point I suppose - maybe it's more of a matter of upbringing in the digital age? Grew up on the IBM myself - mostly because software was so limited on the Mac's (and in some ways still is)...
At any rate - to each his/her own... I was just curious why that statement continually comes up... (excuse my ignorance).
n8
_________________
"They're toys. My friends are toys, I made them..."
J.F. Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
balistic
member
Member #
Joined: 01 Jun 2000
Posts: 2599
Location: Reno, NV, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 11:57 am |
|
|
| TheNeverman wrote: |
At any rate - to each his/her own... I was just curious why that statement continually comes up... (excuse my ignorance).
|
I am by no means a Mac fan, but they did have the early lead in WYSIWYG desktop publishing.
You had to have a pretty tricked-out PC to do anything close to WYSIWYG prior to Windows 3.1, whereas the average Mac could handle that kind of stuff out of the box. I mean, most PC printers were dot-matrix until about 1995.
That said, the Amiga and PC platforms were probably more important from a digital painting standpoint. You had DPaint on Amiga, and Autodesk Animator on PC . . . both were very capable digital painting programs, despite being limited to a reduced color palette.
Put me back in 1993 and I would still take a 386 over a Mac, just to have access to Autodesk Animator. Screw printing, digital art lives on the screeeen maaaaan
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheNeverman
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 103
Location: Topeka, Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 12:20 pm |
|
|
lol... unfortunetly the printing industry is like the 3rd largest employer in the world though...
n8
_________________
"They're toys. My friends are toys, I made them..."
J.F. Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
eyewoo
member
Member #
Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 2662
Location: Carbondale, CO
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 12:42 pm |
|
|
| TheNeverman wrote: |
lol... unfortunetly the printing industry is like the 3rd largest employer in the world though...
n8 |
Wow! Now that's really interesting... Do you know who the first and second are.
Printed material is so taken for granted, I would have never guessed it was that large an industry...
_________________
HonePie.com
tumblr blog
digtal art |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheNeverman
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 103
Location: Topeka, Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 5:35 pm |
|
|
I'll have to look into it and report back...
Tourism and Manufacturing are up there... gonna see if I can find a top 5 or top 10 list...
n8
_________________
"They're toys. My friends are toys, I made them..."
J.F. Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
jinnseng
member
Member #
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 100
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 7:36 pm |
|
|
| I really dig the wider letter box type monitors some macs have. It's really easier to fit all the windows and palletes you would like to have open in Photoshop but somehow can't find the room or have to pile in a corner of the screen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheNeverman
member
Member #
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 103
Location: Topeka, Kansas
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 7:58 pm |
|
|
...not exclusive to macs...
n8
_________________
"They're toys. My friends are toys, I made them..."
J.F. Sebastian |
|
| Back to top |
|
B0b
member
Member #
Joined: 14 Jul 2002
Posts: 1807
Location: Sunny Dorset, England
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 1:50 am |
|
|
| jinnseng wrote: |
| I really dig the wider letter box type monitors some macs have. It's really easier to fit all the windows and palletes you would like to have open in Photoshop but somehow can't find the room or have to pile in a corner of the screen. |
lol wake up to technology 
dual screen is the way to go
apple 23" widescreen TFT = res like 1920x1200 @ $1,499.00
Formac 20" TFT = 1600x1200 @ $799
i know i'd rather have working res of 2x1600x1200 (3200x200) than 1 res of 1920x1200 for $99 more 
i infact have 3 monitors hooked up to my workstation (2x19 @ 1600x1200 for pagelayout and photoshop, and 1x15' @ 1024x768 to check web page layouts)
| balistic wrote: |
| Back in the early 1990s, Macs were better machines for graphics than most PCs. Today, however, either platform is viable, with PCs being slightly faster, while Macs are somewhat more reliable. |
don't forget back in the 80's as well
i'll always remember back in 1991 i had a Quadra 950 sat @ home and a Dell 486 66 @ work, the Dell used to constantly crash all day every day so much so i wanted to throw it out the nearest window, but the college i was working for didn't recognise Macs as computers.. (stupid asshats)
[rant]i remember working in Freehand on the PC and wanting to export the most basic shape as an EPS file to import into Pagemaker, but each time i tired it failed giving me an error. so i took the Freehand file home on a floppy and exported it on my Mac
Winblows 95 started the revolution of the way the PC was to be used.. i built my first PC back in '96 and haven't looked back since once you get used to the querky way that windows works over MacOS (X isn't that much removed than Win2K or XP when it comes to the way it works)
you'll get Apple diehards that will try and tell you that their machine is better because they spent 1-2K more on it than you did on your home built PC and that its much more reliable and doesn't have any viruses etc.. but with the right protection on either Machine will give you solid results..
oh and how many times has Apple charged people for an OS upgrade over the past 5 years?
Macs have a nice Exterior, but they now use cheap insides to what they did in the 80's and early 90's
can't remember if i posted on here or not, but i spec'd up a high end PC workstation vs top of the line Dual G5 and the high end PC worked out �900 cheaper than the G5, and the only arguement that kept coming back to me was the fact that OS X is a superior Operating system and the G5 would be faster, and all this after i'd shown benchmarks of the Workstation wooping the G5..
when i went freelance 3 years ago, i had the choice of spending �1,200 on a G4 800mhz with 512MB RAM and 40GB HDD or �800 on a Dual 1Ghz PIII with 2GB RAM and 80GB HDD, a few years ago it would have been a no brainier because of the Type support that MacOS had with Suitcase or TypeManager and windows lack of Type support.. But with Suitcase 9 available on Windows the choice was easy, save myself �400 and build the Dual PIII
[/rant]
at the end of the day, its whatever system you are comfortable with and how much money you can spend |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gort
member
Member #
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Posts: 1545
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 4:40 am |
|
|
My only problem with Macs was in 94 back in the computer labs - they were Performas, and they crashed / locked up as much as anything else in there. I recall spending more time on the PC just to get work done (which had it's fair share of limitations, too).
All back then, tho'
_________________
- Tom Carter
"You can't stop the waves but you can learn to surf" - Jack Kornfield |
|
| Back to top |
|
balistic
member
Member #
Joined: 01 Jun 2000
Posts: 2599
Location: Reno, NV, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 8:05 am |
|
|
| B0b wrote: |
apple 23" widescreen TFT = res like 1920x1200 @ $1,499.00
Formac 20" TFT = 1600x1200 @ $799
|
You do need 1920 if you're working on full HD footage though, as it's 1920x1080. Pretty much the only reason that monitor exists is for high-def editing.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint |
|
| Back to top |
|
jinnseng
member
Member #
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 100
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 4:28 pm |
|
|
| Thats cool. Obviously i'm not a hard edge tech guy. Keeping up with the lastest and greatest is dizzying and can be costly. I wish I had the spending power for that stuff, but food and tuition comes first. wah wah |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
