Why do professionals in music and art like to use Macbooks?

October 16, 2008 4:20 PM

Why do professionals in music and art like to use Macbooks?

Many music artists such as DJs and design artists like to use Macbooks for their work? Why do they prefer Macbooks over (for example) a Dell when the Dell is much cheaper and can be more easily upgradeable at a cheaper cost.

I have heard that Macs can load certain software at a faster speed such as Photoshop (3-5 seconds faster probably) but that still doesn't justify a $200-$300 difference.

posted by rintako to computers & internet (47 comments total)

You are going to get varied answers, so I thought I would get this in before the war begins.

I'd say that it is due to early design/media software being more readily available for Macs. That trend has been held over. I'm at a Journalism school and I've had a few professors and peers that were surprised to learn that Photoshop even existed for Windows! People generally learn the ways/traditions of their teachers and don't stray. Obviously, this just keeps going year to year.

It really doesn't matter with today's computers. (But Macs usually have higher quality hardware, but that is reflected in the higher price.)

Also discussed here.
posted by PixelatorOfTime at 4:36 PM on October 16, 2008

There is still a bunch of popular music software that is mac only (dp, logic). Historically, I have the impression that support for macs has generally been better for music software (though I don't really think that is true these days, aside from the two I just mentioned). Also, it used to be that macs had good firewire support, something important for things like higher-end audio interfaces (e.g. motu ultralite and such). Not exactly true as of a few days ago, though.
posted by advil at 4:38 PM on October 16, 2008

A lot of high-end graphic, video, and audio applications were developed for the mac platform in the early days of personal computers. I know in the audio industry macs were preferable because the cheaper and more upgradeable PC platform was dominated by windows, which had a relatively clunky and unreliable audio layer in those days. Today almost all of these applications have been ported to windows, but they still tend to run most efficiently on macs. Besides, macs are nice computers, and if you're actually buying these applications an extra grand on hardware won't break the budget.

There's tradition too :)
posted by waxboy at 4:39 PM on October 16, 2008

I think mac caters more towards the creative arts community than pc's do. The mac interface is more user friendly, and quite frankly, macs are just kind of cooler looking...i wouldn't doubt that many people are willing to put a little bit more money down for the cool factor. I use a mac, and I love it, but am not in an artistic line of work. I am a math teacher, in fact, and use my mac to write tests, etc. with Office 2008 with no problems at all. Point being, I think PixelatorOfTime is right...with computers today, you can pretty much do what you want whether you us a mac or a pc.
posted by junipero at 4:41 PM on October 16, 2008

Some of the stories and case studies on Apple's own website might be of interest. Yes, they are basically ads, but there is interesting info there.

As a web/graphic designer and photographer (and Mac user since 1992) I could give you pages of my own reasons, but I'll let others do that for now.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 4:43 PM on October 16, 2008

Software as above and also because they are prettier. Sure, some people may think that is a shallow reason to pay more, but you know, my mac sits around at my house and I use it a lot. I would rather it be something I don't feel I need to hide.
posted by dame at 4:50 PM on October 16, 2008

I think it's a philosophical match, and it's slippery to define, but I'll try.

In both hardware and software, Apple chooses to care more about how things look, fit, connect, and work, and it shows once you use them for awhile. Then Apple decides how much that specialized, narrow attention and extra effort is worth. Costs more, but this speaks to certain people.

Microsoft, or your average Microsoft-coupled PC manufacturer seems to care more about that it works, at the best price possible. And since that's almost all they have to differentiate with (they get the OS Microsoft gives them), price is the big force.

The Apple attention (or over-attention, some say) to qualitative differences, not just hard numbers, closely matches the personality and decision-making style of the markets you're describing: artists, creative writers, musicians... those whose work is about differences in quality even when it is technically identical to other work, differences that only people could understand or appreciate. Two songs that are both 3'42" in the same key and time signature can be very very different, qualitatively. Two sixty-ton sculptures cast in the exact same bronze might have very different values, and few would argue that it was "wrong" or "foolish" to value them differently.

To people who live and breathe that kind of thinking because of their own work, or their own passion, the Apple approach, price and "value system" makes perfect sense. To those who don't (your more coldly logical types, I suppose), it seems like silly style-over-substance. It's a personality-mismatch.

(I have used both Macs and Windows daily for 10+ years. Both are fine enough, though I do choose Macs when I'm paying for myself. Much less time spent mucking around, much more just-working, IME.)
posted by rokusan at 4:52 PM on October 16, 2008 [8 favorites]

There is still a bunch of popular music software that is mac only (dp, logic).

This is a large part of it. I'm familiar with Logic, for example, and it's not trivial to get up to speed on another DAW even if I wanted to switch to Windows for some reason.

Also, I wouldn't say the appeal is "cool factor," as junipero puts it, but rather that people in music and art tend to put a higher value on aesthetics -- an area in which Apple excels. I don't particularly care what other people think about my Mac, but I personally like it better.
posted by danb at 4:53 PM on October 16, 2008

I'm a computer guy as well as a music guy, but I think that, generally speaking, most "music" or "design" people are not necessarily software/hardware geeks. They don't know what to do when the computer crashes, or how to prevent virus infections, or how to optimize system performance. Running Windows for high-end audio pretty much requires all those skills. On a Mac, not so much. (most) Stuff just works.

I made music for a long time on a PC, but I am much, much happier doing it on a Mac.
posted by uncleozzy at 4:56 PM on October 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

Perhaps artistic people appreciate the aesthetic design of the macs and identify with the "mac culture" that Apple tries to promote.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:59 PM on October 16, 2008

just a shot in the dark here, but apple also used to have a very unified interface which made programs a bit more interoperable and easier to pick than in windows, which is handy. Nowadays there is more crossover built in so it's not as large a deal.

I might be totally wrong though.
posted by Large Marge at 5:06 PM on October 16, 2008

To avoid Windows.
posted by pompomtom at 5:08 PM on October 16, 2008 [5 favorites]

The mac interface is more user friendly,

Only if that's all you've ever used.
posted by Zambrano at 5:10 PM on October 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

As much as I love macs, and feel they are definitely the better choice...

I think this trend is more based on history than the current state. At one point, the mac really was light-years ahead in terms of reliability and usability, and it pretty much had the niche for artistic stuff. That trend has great momentum. Given that, the question is really "why don't they switch" rather than "why do they use macs"
posted by TravellingDen at 5:12 PM on October 16, 2008

Apple traditionally spend more time focusing on the design aesthetic of their machines, which can appeal to artsy types.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:19 PM on October 16, 2008

I can only speak from personal experience here, but as someone who uses Linux, Mac, and Windows every day, I prefer the Mac greatly because the interface gets out of my way, things on the mac always "just work", and the operating system and hardware are stable and durable enough that it can take a software developer beating the ever-living crud out of it for years without any serious maintenance.
posted by SpecialK at 5:20 PM on October 16, 2008

In addition to what has already been said about legacy and tradition, Apple (continues to) go to lengths to advertise and market itself as the choice for creativity, to an extent that I don't see elsewhere.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:24 PM on October 16, 2008

Why do they prefer Macbooks over (for example) a Dell when the Dell is much cheaper and can be more easily upgradeable at a cheaper cost.

Bullshit. With a PC I gotta worry about viruses and and DLL files and a half assed approach to OS design. All that money saved goes out the window when the PC gets hosed by virus and screwed up system.

I consider it paying for quality upfront. At home I use an upgraded (processor/disk/video card) G4 from 2000 to run CS2, so don't tell me Macs are more expensive. I use a Dell PC regularly, under XP, and I'd take the Mac any day. The OS also just feels "right," where I don't have to fight with it just to get things done.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:29 PM on October 16, 2008

Also it's not unusual for DJ's to have a lot of vanity invested in their gear, and since anyone looking at them is looking at them past the lid of the laptop, that laptop should look like a good brand of gear. Viao or Apple or whathaveyou.
Further, I'm sure that for some, the fact that the Apple logo on the back of the screen has a light in it, is not insignificant - DJ's work in nightclubs and dance halls - the lights there are dim - so that light on the lid really draws attention to their gear being brand-name stuff.

(I think I see DJs with PCs more often than Apple, but by brand instead of OS, Apple leads)
posted by -harlequin- at 5:36 PM on October 16, 2008

Lets be honest -- its about keeping up with the jonses. Apple has a current "coolness" perception, and people still falsely believe Macintoshes are somehow superior at media. People still percieve a Mac user as a pro; and Joe Plumber with a Dell as a lying republican.
posted by SirStan at 5:43 PM on October 16, 2008

I am a photographer and also I am very tech-oriented and have used PCs/Macs/Linux/everything my entire life so this is my perspective (ignoring the technical benefits like better color management and things like that):

Macs are designed a lot better, and by design I do not mean "ohhh shiny box pretty" I mean functionality wise. The interface is well thought, everything is unified, there is a lot of attention to detail, things work like they are supposed to, and there is a lot of emphasis on how things are put together that creates a more streamlined experience.

I have used PCs extensively, built them, am the go-to tech support guy for everyone I have ever known, and have no problem using/fixing/diagnosing problems on a PC. Still, PCs to me feel cluttered. There is almost zero thought put into how people actually use them. The menus are clunky, nothing is ever where it is supposed to be. Sure it works, and if you know what you are doing you can (mostly) keep it running smoothly, but it all seems half-assed from an actual usability standpoint.

I hate this stereotype that creative people like "pretty" things and that's it. You don't hire a graphic designer to make things "pretty" you hire them to communicate something effectively. Design is about making things functional and intuitive, whether we are talking about how a photograph communicates a message, a typeface contributes to the readability of a page, or how your operating system allows you to get work done faster without getting in the way of what you are trying to do. Aesthetics is a side benefit.

I mean when I buy anything, not just computers, the design is the most important factor to me whether we are talking about spoons or tables or cars. I suspect it is for most people too, it's just that people in the creative industry deal with these issues everyday and have the training to think in those terms.
posted by bradbane at 5:46 PM on October 16, 2008 [8 favorites]

This is of course a minor factor, but in the case of DJs, Macs just look cooler and more credible as an instrument. It's like going out there with a beautiful black Tele Plus vs. a mail-order Ukelele Guitar.
posted by abcde at 5:57 PM on October 16, 2008

Speaking as someone who moves pretty fluidly between "console jockey" and "media creator," I appreciate having a platform that mostly Just Works, and has Unix underpinnings. That doesn't specifically address the artist's perspective, but hopefully it's a useful datapoint. I don't use Linux because I got sick of fighting with drivers and config files (also: no Photoshop, and Cinelerra is a poor stand-in for Avid or Final Cut at this point), and I don't use Windows because I got sick of fighting with, well, everything.
posted by Alterscape at 6:03 PM on October 16, 2008

I've used Windows from 3.11 to XP, Solaris, gnu/Linuxen of many flavors, DOS, and I'm writing this on my first Mac (a year old now). But I'm hardly in your question demographic (I'm a hacker). But, I'm the first one to admit that OSX really gets the UI right--and this is what most people see when they see a compuer. It's standardized (and enforces standards in applications), and works smoothly and consistently. Peripherals designed with a Mac in mind (like most Mac-compatible pro-level gear) tend to Just Work, except when they don't.

I would say that you can't discount the power of the software base and the customer base. If I'm in art school (which I was for a while), I'm going to see Mac labs that were first opened in 1986 and have been upgraded every two years since. I'll probably buy a Mac to be compatible. I probably will work with tools that were first purchased in 1994 and have been upgraded every year since. Those will be the tools I'll learn, buy the ultra-cheap student editions of, and when I go out and set up my own studio (for whatever medium) those are most likely the tools I'll buy (or pirate).

Why is it this way? Why did the tools choose to support Mac?

Well, my guess is: Macs are standardized. You can say on the box "Needs Mac OSX 10.2+, 1.5GHz CPU" and every Mac with those specs or better will run the program^*. You don't have to worry that the system was poorly integrated, has a motherboard design with a random unknown bug, a broken pirate copy of Windows, or whatever. With a mac, the hardware in the dev box is the same as the hardware in the user's box. Because of this standardization, software publishers could guarantee consistent performance with professional-level, highly-demanding tools.

To get similar reliability and consistency on the PC side, you have to go with a certified system from the tool company you intend to work with. If you want to run Avid, you buy a qualified system. The ones I found on google seemed to run around $5k. So, there's not really a price difference between PC and Mac on workstations. Not to mention that it's going to be really hard to find a PC qualified for both Avid and, say, ProTools simultaneously. Your MacPro could be.

^*The PPC-to-x86 switch puts a break in the truth of this statement. New software does not seem to backport especially well.
posted by Netzapper at 6:14 PM on October 16, 2008

This is a historical question. Luckily, I was around when all of this was happening. I used to own a few macs and supported macs at my old job, and grew up using apple products in school. Theyre nice but they certainly arent faster. OS X really can be a dog and adobe apps arent running any faster on them than a comparable pc for the money. Heck, it took Adobe ages to release a universal binary for their apps so all these intel core users were running this stuff in emulation and taking a performance hit, while windows users were running native.

Apple made a lot of inroads into education in the 80s and the computer revolution at one time was synonymous with Apple. This incuded art schools and music departments. Around this time the business world bought heavily into PC and for a long time there was a divide. This divide is mostly gone except for art, music, and some other fields. I dont think any of this really has to do with the merits of the platform. OS 8, 9 was a pretty lousy product compared to windows editions at the time. I think what we are seeing nowadays is mostly marketing which succeded in keeping these academic users who later became professionals and demanded macs in the workplace.

Its also worth mentioning that all design software and music software have traditionally been super expensive, so there's a huge disincentive to switch to PC when everyone was switching back in the late 80s and early 90s.

Theres also an argument to say about Apple selling a slightly better put together product but this wasnt true all the time. A lot of Performas if not Apple's entire line in the 90s with the exception of the higher lend laptops were considered pretty cheesy. Considering half the macs at work have needed warranty service and all the apple complaints on the internet, something tells me theyre not as good as fanboys say they are. There's a lot of perception and marketing at work. The only technical merits have been fairly recently, since the move to OS X, and even then Apple has only shot to superstardom because of a product unrelated to graphic design or computers: a small music player. Oh and a phone.

Frankly, a lot of mac switchers I know just cite one thing: lack of viruses. I wonder how long thats going to last as Apple gets more marketshare. I guess we'll start seeing if Apple ever hits 50% of all computers, which will most likely never happen.

At this point I think of Apple as someone who buys an imported car and talks about it all the time, makes an effort to keep it clean, and looks down upon the rest of us who drive domestic cars. He paid a little more and self-identifies with it. I fulfills an emotional need. A domestic car would have been almost just as good but just not as cool or classist.
posted by damn dirty ape at 6:14 PM on October 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

"Much cheaper" is a pure fallacy. Over more than 20 years of computing, including building and maintaining several computer labs, I have come to the conclusion that Mac desktops are unquestionably cheaper in TCO than PCs (this in a higher ed environment, with a specific music focus, in fact). I am not so sure about laptops by the same measure, but they certainly don't cost *more* over time than PCs.

No one needs to cop attitudes about this stuff-- they're just computers and they do what they are designed to do and what you can do with them. But I am perfectly comfortable on Windows, Unix, and Mac OS, equally say, and my personal machine is and has always been a Mac because it is just more pleasurable for me, personally, less of a hassle for me, personally, and equivalent in cost to any PC option for me, personally.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:19 PM on October 16, 2008

DDA, I think the classist thing is projection, really. I don't use Macs because they are cool. I use them because they work better for me. I don't look down on people who use PCs. I don't care what kind of computer someone *else* uses, and there are plenty of times I find it convenient or necessary to use a PC too.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:22 PM on October 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

1) My primary learning experience was spent on a Mac. Inertia is a terrible mistress.
2) Some of the software I'm used to is Mac only, though this hasn't always been the case; Logic used to be cross-platform until Apple bought Emagic. I will never forgive Apple for killing Logic on Windows.
3) The Mac OS fits my workflow better than Windows does. I've been using a Wintel at home for four years or so, and I hate, hate, hate everything about the Windows interface.
4) *anecdote about bad hardware/software integration which is likely due to operator error; assertion that, despite building FrankenMacs from scraps, no such problems ever arose*
5) Apple reached out to teachers and the the graphics and music industries much, much earlier than Windows did. My teachers, and their teachers before them, learned on Macs and taught on Macs.
5a) Since established designers and musicians (and film makers and, and, and,) use Macs, the services that support them are well-served by using Macs themselves; which means that new designers and musicians (and film makers and, and, and,) are encouraged to use Macs in order to take advantage of their services; which means that the services that support the new students are well-served by... you get it. A feedback loop.
posted by lekvar at 6:24 PM on October 16, 2008

Interesting sidenote is that Macs were the first to use a square pixel, which meant what you saw on the screen was just what would print out. Used to be that pixels were taller than they were wide. If you're a graphics person, WYSIWYG is vital, and so graphics-related industries jumped on it hard by way of PageMaker and Quark. PC later caught up, but tradition had set in by then, and graphics software had become a Mac niche.

"Until the Lisa came along, there was no correspondence with what you saw on a personal computer and what you got on paper. And the Macintosh went a step further, using square pixels which corresponded precisely to the typographer's points."

Rest of the story here.
posted by Askr at 6:41 PM on October 16, 2008

Macs are designed a lot better, and by design I do not mean "ohhh shiny box pretty" I mean functionality wise.

I think this is more incidental than you're suggesting.
I remember working creative fields in the bad old days leading up to the complete overhaul (and leap-frogging of the competition) that was the OSX line, back when the operating system was on it's last legs, had long since lost the vast lead of earlier versions, was hopelessly outdated compared to the competition in so many ways, and new versions were playing catch-up on features - and often failing, due to the dated underpinnings.
But it didn't really matter. Sure, Apple was losing market share, but in creative fields the institutional inertia of using Apple - even when the design was inferior - was immense and self-reinforcing.

I agree that the design edge of the current generation of Apple machines goes far far deeper than "ohhh shiny box pretty", but I just don't think that this is as important as you're assuming because when it wasn't the case, it barely made a difference. In many creative fields, Apple is an established and entrenched institution. The better design of today's machines definitely helps, but is barely even necessary for the status quo, let alone solely responsible for it
posted by -harlequin- at 6:46 PM on October 16, 2008

I agree with those who put forth the "It Just Works" point. I'd been a faithful Windows user from 3.11 until XP. It was all well and good, but I always remember spending a crapload of time trying to get to what I wanted to do. For my favorite 3 or so applications, there was the one touch button on the lower left. But other than that, I'd have to go through Start or whatever it was called during any particular incarnation.

OSX also doesn't treat me like an imbecile. It doesn't continually ask me if I'm absolutely sure I want to implement something minor, like a system font change. Instead, they made it so the process is easy enough to do if you really mean to do it. If you don't mean to do it, there's no accidental shortcut to it. Just in case you happen to find one, it'll instead ask for your password.

Regarding the longevity issue, my personal experience has me on my second Mac in 4 and a half years. I use laptops exclusively and am not that careful with them. I'd go through a PC every year and a half or so. 2 years if I was lucky. I finally laid my Powerbook to rest 3 months ago, after numerous crashes which are probably more to do with the hard drive than the machine itself. Having seen that, my mother (a self-confessed technophobe) recommended buying a Mac to her boss when she was looking for a replacement for her finicky 6 month old Dell.

As a reference point, I'm a photographer who uses Photoshop and Bridge CS3 constantly with a small side dish of Dreamweaver. And let's not get started on my games and video stuff. :-)
posted by arishaun at 7:01 PM on October 16, 2008

If you're sitting at a desk all day and have a $30 chair that is uncomfortable, your life will be hell. So you spend some money and get a $100 or $200 chair and suddenly you're no longer uncomfortable all day. You can concentrate on doing what you need to do at the desk, as opposed to constantly adjusting your body to fit into the chair from hell. Is that extra money you spent really a waste if you're not longer miserable and now able to do work?

Say you're a manager and have two employees. Ted, the so so worker, is fine with the $30 chair. However, Thelma does great work, but hates the $30 chair and really wants the $200 chair. From a business standpoint, that $170 is more money, but it's probably a cheap price for getting great work from an employee.

There's more to the tools we use than price.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:02 PM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

The mac interface is more user friendly,

Only if that's all you've ever used.

It's more user-friendly than Windows and more user-friendly than any Un*x interface. You may love your BeBox, but the time has come to move on.
posted by oaf at 7:09 PM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

any other
posted by oaf at 7:09 PM on October 16, 2008

Mr Mums makes voiceovers, creative audio production for a living; stuff that requires a lot of mixing, tweaking, sound effects, added music, etc...Every time he needs to upgrade he considers a PC, b/c of cost. But it comes down to multiple sound production issues, ease of use, software that is simply optimized on a Mac, not to mention (again) intuitiveness, dependability...(no techie is the creative Mr. Mums), NO viruses. These days there are a number of PC's that "look good"... so that, as a primary motivation for most Mac creative types, is a red herring, IMO. Virtually no one but Mr. Mums ever sees what equipment he uses. However, they do hear what he produces on it.

It just does what he needs to do well and seamlessly. He has, in fact, used PC's to do audio at several places of employment, so he's had plenty of opportunity to compare. And as a rule, he holds onto his pennies pretty tightly. ;-) But he just got his 4th Mac last about 3 months ago.
posted by mumstheword at 7:26 PM on October 16, 2008

I worked at Microsoft for six years. The night I was finishing my first novel, and my laptop kept blue screening FIVE TIMES during the last chapter, due to a conflict with the USB spec (I was using a zip drive as a backup device... remember those?) - that was the night I almost bought a Powerbook sight unseen.

I got my machine a few months later (I was waiting out a new line). I picked it up on a Friday, planning on spending the weekend setting it up - because, you know, that's about what it took to get a PC ready.

I took it home. I plugged it in.

The OOBE (out of box experience) for the Powerbook was about 20 minutes. It was about an hour and 45 minutes for Windows at the time. I was dumbfounded. I was even more dumbfounded as I bought devices for the Powerbook. I would plug them in.

They would work.

No seriously, they would just WORK. I mean, I could fix just about anything that went wrong with any of my computers, and if I couldn't, I could take it into work and find someone else who could. But when I'm home designing a web site, or editing photos, or writing a novel (btw, Word is the worst.software.possible for writing a novel)... I don't want to have to. I just want the stuff to WORK.

And for me, Macs do that. There's no headache, no futzing, no sixteen reboots while the app writes to the registry... I take the battery out, I put another one in. Hell, even ejecting a freaking thumb drive is a drag on a PC (which I still use at work).

I've been away from MSFT for five years now and my entire setup is Mac based. I just got an iMac to replace that old Powerbook and will probably be picking up one of the new MacBooks. Every once in a while I take a look at PC notebooks and can't imagine going back.
posted by micawber at 7:51 PM on October 16, 2008

Microsoft, or your average Microsoft-coupled PC manufacturer seems to care more about that it works, at the best price possible. And since that's almost all they have to differentiate with (they get the OS Microsoft gives them), price is the big force.

Have you used a Microsoft operating system lately? It actively works against your intentions. Don't get me started on the manufactuers who bundle enormous amounts of shit with their default install. Even business customers have this problem when buying from Dell (from personal experience).

I would imagine the only way you could begin to approach the bliss of a default Mac installation with PC hardware would be some very large corporate environments with strict imaging policies that include all necessary drivers.
posted by odinsdream at 8:27 PM on October 16, 2008

Further, I'm sure that for some, the fact that the Apple logo on the back of the screen has a light in it, is not insignificant

This is a really good point. If you can tell when someone has an Apple, but can't tell or even notice when people have a PC, you'll think everyone has an Apple.
posted by smackfu at 9:02 PM on October 16, 2008

Because Steve Jobs dropped out of a small liberal arts college in Portland, OR where there was a strong tradition of calligraphy and typography and kicked around there for another year or so.

The appreciation for typography he picked up influenced the Mac, which had proportional fonts, and was the first mass market computer to do What You See is What You Get when it launched in 1984. That, combined with the LaserWriter (1985), which was the first mass market laserprinter with PostScript, launched the rise of "desktop publishing," over traditional forms of layout, typesetting, photo editing, and illustration. There were digital system for various elements of the design workflow before and after the Mac, but they were more expensive and less well integrated.

By 1987, Apple had released the MacII, which brought support for high resolution color. The platform picked up more and more graphics software, Pagemaker, Frame Maker, Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand, and an ecosystem of service bureaus sprung up to serve the desktop publishing market. Apple's position in this market was pretty much uncontested for years. Windows 3.1 wasn't released until 1992, and it still wasn't close. Font management sucked. Apple introduced color management in 1993.

Windows wasn't really a viable competitor for graphics design work until 1995, at the earliest, and by then, Apple was well entrenched. Pretty much everyone was using Macs for this kind of work. They might have saved a few thousand bucks by moving to windows, but that would've be false thrift.

Apple included audio support in the first mac, and improved it further in subsequent releases. In the early 90s, Apple also released QuickTime, which provided a platform for time-synchronized media, and helped Apple build on its presence in the creative market and extend it into video. I think it probably helped them in the audio space too. In 1994 or so, they released the AV macs, which had digital signal processors that helped them process multimedia.

In the latter half of the 90s, MacOS was getting really long in the tooth and all sorts of people were jumping ship to windows. Adobe and Macromedia ported their graphics design software to Windows, etc. There were defections in the creative community, and I think the dotcom era, which brought a lot of new people into web design who didn't have allegiances, and didn't have to fit into the whole service bureau ecosystem, also threatened Apples position. Even so, a lot of people in the creative sphere stuck with the Mac. In a lot of ways, they kept Apple alive long enough for Jobs to execute his turnaround.

People can sneer all they want at boorish Windows users, or snobbish fashion conscious Mac users. The fact is, people started using Macs for this kind of work for a good reason, it was pretty much the only game in town. They continued to use Macs for this kind of work for other good reasons: They already new how to use Macs. The software they needed often only ran on Macs. The people they collaborated with used Macs. The collective knowledge of how to do things in their field revolved around Macs. Compared to all that, the savings from using a windows computer was often a pittance. This is not to dismiss fashion or usability issues, but they are really just a sideshow.
posted by Good Brain at 11:47 PM on October 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

Putting it simply, when you push your machine to it's limits and your own, testing the creative possibilities. The last thing you want is a crash. Not that mac's don't crash, but the whole closed system architecture seems to do wonders for reliability.
posted by emptyinside at 1:06 AM on October 17, 2008

The software and hardware are better integrated for the average user. Put in a disk or thumb drive and it show up on your desktop.

If you run a cintiq or second monitor, you can put the computer to sleep, disconnect the second monitor and the computer reconfigures itself. Reconnect the second monitor and it goes back to the preferences you had before.

Your first 10 minutes after starting up a windows machine is spent stamping out all the annoying little warnings about updating virus software, running shortcut wizard, etc..
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:49 AM on October 17, 2008

Further, I'm sure that for some, the fact that the Apple logo on the back of the screen has a light in it, is not insignificant

AFAIK, the illuminated Apple logo and the LCD screen share the same lighting. That is, hold your powered-off macbook/powerbook etc up to a bright light and you should see the logo through the lcd.
posted by limited slip at 8:40 AM on October 17, 2008

Incidentally, I put up a pretty detailed post yesterday which is an email I sent to my father explaining why he should get a Mac (i.e.: aimed at non-technical users).

Why the Mac is better.
posted by Caviar at 4:56 PM on October 17, 2008

Caviar, in your writeup you mentioned built-in screen sharing. I use this frequently between my machines inside my house, but you indicate you could help out your father remotely? How does that work?
posted by odinsdream at 7:38 PM on October 22, 2008

It's easy to proxy screen sharing over ssh.

You'll need the IP address of the machine you're trying to connect to, and it has to accept ssh connections from the outside (open firewall ports, etc...).

Once you have that, make an ssh connection with tunnelling parameters:

$ ssh -L 2200:localhost:5900 @

This means "redirect port 2200 on my machine to localhost:5900 on the remote machine".

Then open up a Safari session and enter the url:

vnc://localhost:2200

Screen sharing will start, proxied over the ssh tunnel. From there, it's as if you're on the same LAN, but securely connected over the internet. You can also do this with any other service you want to connect to. If you do this a log, consider adding this to your .ssh/config file. See "man ssh" in Terminal for how to set that up.
posted by Caviar at 8:49 PM on October 22, 2008

That should have been

$ ssh -L 2200:localhost:5900 <user>@<remotehost>
posted by Caviar at 8:50 PM on October 22, 2008

Ah, I see. I thought I was missing something. I also do this frequently from work to my own machines. I thought I might have been overlooking some obvious one-click thing.

Thanks though for the explanation!
posted by odinsdream at 6:15 PM on October 24, 2008