An objective comparison: Mac or PC for Adobe CS3?

[citogrid]

Hi,
Question:
I'm having difficulty finding an objective comparison between the new iMac and any equally spec'd PC.
I do web design, so i'd like to see some statistics and speed comparisons between the new iMac and any pc specifically using graphic applications like the adobe CS3 package. Photoshop on iMac running OSX and Photoshop on a PC running XP or Vista.
CS3 on new iMac vs CS3 on new pc...

I'm trying to justify reasons to switch to Mac, but I need some plain empirical objective data to do that. Any ideas links to sites that do these side by side comparisons or statistics are more than welcome.
I have found plenty of sites that compare Mac speeds with "older" Mac speeds, and that's very nice, but not applicable to my question.

thanks for any help or suggestions,
Ben

[rasmits]

There have been a few Mac vs. PC photoshop comparisons, for sure - Now that Macs run Windows, it's easy to compare which OS is faster at which tasks. I don't think there have been any thorough comparison tests on the new iMac, though.

Most reports I've seen have pretty much been a toss up. I think the Mac and PC versions of CS3 pretty much run the same.

If you happen to live close to an Apple Store you can try CS3 on their machines.

[homeboy87]

I don't have any links to comparisons but this is my advice:

If you're not working with 3D animation choose Mac, they offer better productivity. But you work with 3D animations Macs are worth less, choose PC.

[Brad]

Specs are generally meaningless, especially since Macs and PCs use exact the processors now. Macs and PCs with the same clocked processor will crunch raw numbers at roughly the same speed.

What's different is the software and user experience. Mac software is usually designed with quality and usability first and foremost over the notion of an exhaustive feature set. This is not a universal law by any means, but it is a general trend in Mac software titles.

Things like discoverable functionality, minimal obfuscation, pervasive drag and drop, consistent interface widgets and layouts, and attention to visual details in general are what make the Mac experience. There are other perks like improved security and a notable lack of viruses and malware, but that's periphery to the overall design.

If you are considering buying a Mac, it shouldn't be because it runs at the same speed or incrementally faster than "an equally specced PC". You're wasting your money if that's the case. Rather, you would be best to consider "the whole package" of what you get by buying a Mac.

If you'll just be using Adobe's apps and sticking with the same exact workflow you have on your current PC, to be honest, you may not notice much of a difference.

Also, I'm moving this to our Purchasing Advice forum...

[Sketch]

Not much but CS3 is compared

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/desktops/0,39029980,49292128-1,00.htm

[Brad]

If you're not working with 3D animation choose Mac, they offer better productivity. But you work with 3D animations Macs are worth less, choose PC.
That's entirely subjective. Several of the major 3D modeling and rendering suites are supported on Mac OS X and work very well. So, again, it comes down to the general workflow of the operating system. For some folks, the Mac experience will be far superior. For others, it may not.

[Taskiss]

With BootCamp you can have a PC when you buy a Mac, but you don't have a Mac when you buy any other PC.

Bottom line - get the system that runs the tools you use. They'll run about as well in one OS as another, given the state of the hardware these days. Everything being equal in the toolbox, then you can start looking at the OS that runs them...and then you'll pick Macs! ;)

[Is it 1981?]

The new iMac may cost a little more compared to "an equally specced" PC, but I find you get a lot more for your money (in terms of software, user experience and other reasons listed above).

[drewprops]

Brad's first post is spot-on in regard to the user experience and he's a good reference because he works on both platforms (PC and Mac).

If you're not already aware, you should factor in learning an entirely new OS interface as you move from the PC to the Mac. You can expect to have a few hiccups and moments of confusion along the way, but as you begin to experience the "discoverability" of OS X you'll value it more and more.

The way that windows work on the Mac is also something that has always made working on websites so much FASTER.... not being forced into a full-screen mode by many apps will affect your entire process.

[citogrid]

Thanks for your suggestions. If I summarize the replies so far, I should conclude that a Photoshop CS3 edit on a Mac(intel) will not be significantly faster than the same edit on a similarly specced XP or Vista Photoshop CS3 edit. That is a bit disappointing to hear, I would have hoped for a significant and noticeable change for the better. However, as some of you remarked, it's not just "one" application's direct comparison that makes the difference, it's also the design environment and the OS environment which makes a difference in the user experience. That could be either a positive or a negative, depending on the user of course.

I have used a mac before (iMac G5 i believe) for a couple of weeks in a design course a few years ago. I liked the experience, but I wasn't "overwhelmed" by the experience. I'm still kind of leaning towards wanting to switch to Mac, also because the mac now has the option of having XP or Vista installed via Boot Camp should the need arise. Boot Camp is much more of a safety blanket option than one might assume, it's good to have that there when you need it.

thanks again for any advice,
Ben

[Wyatt]

Welcome to AppleNova, my fellow Ben. :)

While it sounds like you've made up your mind, let me back up that point you made about Boot Camp. Having a Mac just opens up so many options that you don't get on a PC.

Not only that, but you're in a profession where the flexibility of using two platforms can open you up to opportunities you might not be qualified for if you can only use a PC. A lot of design shops use Macs exclusively and might hesitate to hire a lifetime PC user. If you're fairly savvy with the PC, I think switching to the Mac is a logical choice, especially in your field.

[ghoti]

If I summarize the replies so far, I should conclude that a Photoshop CS3 edit on a Mac(intel) will not be significantly faster than the same edit on a similarly specced XP or Vista Photoshop CS3 edit. That is a bit disappointing to hear, I would have hoped for a significant and noticeable change for the better.
Why? After the transition to Intel, "similarly specced" now means that you're looking at two computers with the exact same CPU, mostly the same peripherals like memory bus etc. The only difference is the manufacturer, and even Apple can't do miracles. If you're only looking at performance and you need a significant advantage for the Mac, the Mac won't win. But if you're looking at the overall experience, the design, the little things that make using the computer much more enjoyable, you will find the Mac a good investment.

[Taskiss]

Google will show you the reason you should get a Mac. When you google for "must-have" software for Windows systems you get listings for stuff that removes or prevents virus or spyware, cleans your registry, generally a ton of stuff that address a fact of life for PC users - your average user has a system that slows down after being used for several months, for a variety of reasons.

That doesn't generally happen to a Mac. Macintosh "must-have programs" are stuff that do cool things, not stuff that makes your system run as fast as it used to.

"Tips and tricks" stuff are the same way. The majority of stuff that's out there are for making up for the fact that Windows seems to run slower over time.

[Brad]

That doesn't generally happen to a Mac. Macintosh "must-have programs" are stuff that do cool things, not stuff that makes your system run as fast as it used to.

"Tips and tricks" stuff are the same way. The majority of stuff that's out there are for making up for the fact that Windows seems to run slower over time.

While we're on that subject, here's a classic thread: Cool Things a Mac Can Do? (http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=6397)

[citogrid]

Why? After the transition to Intel, "similarly specced" now means that you're looking at two computers with the exact same CPU, mostly the same peripherals like memory bus etc. The only difference is the manufacturer, and even Apple can't do miracles. If you're only looking at performance and you need a significant advantage for the Mac, the Mac won't win.

Well, it may well be that OSX addresses RAM much more differently than XP or VISTA, same goes for CPU addressing. I'm assuming that # there are many many differences between OSX and any other OS. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to assume that one system is better performing than another even with equal hardware spec's. I'm way out of my depth on that subject, it's a bit of OS wizardry that I don't understand. What's important to me is the net gain in productivity I achieve when working with either a Mac or a PC.

# when I look at pure cost/hardware spec's I get this:

iMac:2,299.00USD
# 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme
# 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
# 500GB Serial ATA Drive
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# Apple Mighty Mouse
# Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
# Accessory kit
# ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory
# 24-inch glossy widescreen LCD
# AirPort Extreme
# Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

Dell XPS 410:2269.00USD
# Intel® Core™ 2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)
# Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition with re-installation CD
# 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
# 500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
# Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
# 24 inch UltraSharp™ 2407FPW Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
# 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT-DDR3
# Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
# 13 in 1 Media Card Reader

So as you can tell, the specs for the Dell are quite a bit higher than those for the mac, based on those spec's I would not chose to go for a iMac. Now here's the question: if I were to run these two systems against each other with identical software (adobe CS3 Photoshop for PC, Indesign, Flash, Illustrator,...) Would the PC completely thrash the iMac as I would expect from the spec's or are the differences more subtle? I ask this because if I look at a GeekBench score for Mac,and look up the new iMac http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/08/updated-imac-performance/
The score for a iMac with a core2Extreme processor is 3791
If I then cross reference that with PC scores http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/06/pc-performance-june-2007/ and browse down the list to look for a system with a similar performance, I see that the PC system that comes closest is a...Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Four Cores @ 2.39 GHz with a score of3771....This again turns the advantage somewhat more to Mac...

Now, there may be a serious disparity between geekbench benchmarks for Windows and OSX, but I found no real mention of that on the website.

Your thoughts or clarifications are more than welcome,

Ben

[curiousuburb]

Macs have historically been preferred in Design because they have tended to be more colour accurate. While this is less true if you properly calibrate, it's still an issue in some shops.

If you're doing print, Macs also have the minor advantage of native PDF creation support from the OS. An area where Windows often requires additional 3rd party $oftware.

The other issue is compatibility... if you're on a Mac, you can open Mac and PC format graphics files. If you're on a PC, you cannot open some Mac files.

CS3 now phones home to validate on both platforms, but up until CS2, the Mac was less inclined to tattle to Head Office without your knowledge than the PC. YMMV

[ghoti]

What's important to me is the net gain in productivity I achieve when working with either a Mac or a PC.
Then why are you comparing CPU specs and benchmarks? Unless you're spending your entire day running simulation batch jobs, raw CPU power won't do anything for your productivity - the computer spends 99% of its time waiting for you to hit another key or move the mouse, so it gets to do something.


# when I look at pure cost/hardware spec's I get this:

But you're not, you're comparing two different systems that are quite different in their specs. And just looking at a 5% difference in one particular benchmark is completely meaningless. I think you're too hung up on comparing numbers. For most purposes, any current PC or Mac will provide enough power. And if you're really looking for the utmost in power, you will have to compare the eight-core Mac Pro and some high-end PC.

You are certainly right about differences in how the operating systems work, but in practice you won't see much of a difference. Perhaps the difference can be measured, but you won't notice it. And I'm not going to make any claims about which system is faster, because I'm sure it depends on the task and exact PC/Mac you're looking at.

[chucker]

iMac:2,299.00USD
# 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme

$851. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Mer om_XE.22_.28standard-voltage.2C_65_nm.29)

Dell XPS 410:2269.00USD
# Intel® Core™ 2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.4GHz,1066FSB)

$851! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Core_2_Quad)

Funny how that works, eh?

[curiousuburb]

You might be able to make a case for Memory management as a deciding issue if you were working on insane Gigapixel files and needed all 16GB of Mac Pro RAM.

i.e.: Can both machines address all the RAM you're planning on? Are they as efficient?


But I'll have to echo fish here... most of the time the slow part is you.

Spec whoring over the engine and ignoring the comfort and ride quality and blue book resale value is usually a bad sign.

Clearly you should go for the one that has speed holes. :\ ;)

[drewprops]

To echo Mr. Scates from a different thread, I've built websites, 4-color print jobs and designed the rPhone using an iMac, which really only has the innards of a laptop inside of it.... I shudder to think what trouble I might get into with a darned Mac Pro tower!!! :lol:

Spec Whore! Spec Whore!
I love it when that term gets dragged out.... it's like a fight in the Chess Club!!! :lol:


.

[Dorian Gray]

Personally, I'd be more productive on my ancient G4 PowerBook than the latest Quad-Core Dell running Vista. There is no comparison in workflow efficiency. Anyone who insists otherwise is either employed by MS or ignorant of OS X's power or being wilfully contrarian or all of the above.

I'm also being dead serious when I say that I wouldn't trust a creative type who works with a fugly Windows PC. Taste counts in creative matters.

However, as you seem to be obsessed with benchmarks, which in practice are almost meaningless unless the difference is an order of magnitude, you should take a look at this page (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/photoshop-cs3.ars/8), which shows that OS X does in fact run CS3 faster than Windows on the same hardware (though the difference, around 15%, is again meaningless).

[citogrid]

Personally, I'd be more productive on my ancient G4 PowerBook than the latest Quad-Core Dell running Vista. There is no comparison in workflow efficiency. Anyone who insists otherwise is either employed by MS or ignorant of OS X's power or being wilfully contrarian or all of the above.

Hi Dorian,
thanks for the link, certainly helpful.
If I may offer some criticism on the other part of your reply:
Anyone who sees Windows as the holy grail of design is a fool.
Anyone who sees Apple as the holy grail of design is a fool.
Anyone who sees [place OS of choice here] as the holy grail of design is a fool.

Win PC's or Apple PC's are the tools, they are enablers. It takes the man/woman using these tools to create something worth seeing. Any creative person can work with both after a little while. Those that are unwilling to do that are by definition arrogant or narrow minded, and not the type of person you'd want to associate with. People with a one track mind on one subject tend to not be open minded on other subjects as well...

I'm also being dead serious when I say that I wouldn't trust a creative type who works with a fugly Windows PC. Taste counts in creative matters.

hmm, well that's a bit of a statement isn't it? I'll be happy to work with anyone with a creative mind, whether they use a fugly PC or not, I'm always willing to learn. I'm sure that somewhere in the world there is a creative "windows" person who can teach you or I a thing or two about design. I'd gladly take that lesson, but I guess you would rather not...

Do you have a website where I can view your work, I'd love to take a look and learn.

thx for the help and the comments
Ben

[FFL]

citogrid

I can assure you that a few months with a Mac as your primary design tool will allow you to realize exactly what chucker and everyone is talking about.

Nothing anyone can say now will make you understand. But most recent switchers would agree, and you will as well once you join the ranks.

It ain't cool-aid or mass hypnosis. A Mac just really, really IS that much better.

[thegeriatric]

citogrid

I can assure you that a few months with a Mac as your primary design tool will allow you to realize exactly what chucker and everyone is talking about.

Nothing anyone can say now will make you understand. But most recent switchers would agree, and you will as well once you join the ranks.

It ain't cool-aid or mass hypnosis. A Mac just really, really IS that much better.

I switched and still use a PC, But can't wait to get back to use my Mac. It is a far better experience than using a PC.

[citogrid]

FFL:
I'll look forward to it!

I did use a iMac (G5) for a couple of weeks during a design course about 2yrs ago. There were PC's available as well, but I specifically chose the Mac to learn a new OS and get some hands on experience. I found it to be stable and easy to use, the speed in Flash and Photoshop was good but not impressive, but not comparable to the speed I had with my then laptop (2.5Ghz Dell). But then again, the iMac was probably the lowest possible spec, and my notebook had cost about 2500USD, so the comparison is not fair.

I enjoyed the Mac, it was good, but at the same time I was a bit disappointed because the usability and the OS hadn't blown me away.My expectations were higher than that specific spec'd Mac could deliver at that time. What goes without saying is that Apple computers are (IMHO) stunningly well designed and that OSX is in many ways superior to XP or Vista.

You'll never hear me say a bad word about Mac, but I do get a bit testy when people claim that they are better designers solely because they use a Mac. That's just a foolish thing to say and a slanted way of thinking.

I hope you'll agree that one's character or quality of work is not determined by the car they drive or the computer they use :-)

[Robo]

FFL:I hope you'll agree that one's character or quality of work is not determined by the car they drive or the computer they use :-)True. But I'm not sure I'd trust an auto mechanic who drove a Yugo, insisting it was the pinnacle of automotive design. ;)

Or, to use a more realistic example, I'm not going to take my Toyota to a mechanic who drives an F150 emblazoned with eagles, with an American flag waving from the antenna, with an "ONLY USA" vanity plate, and with bumper stickers describing how driving an import is tantamount to treason.

If it's obvious to me that a designer put numbers ahead of quality when they bought their equipment, how can I expect them not to apply that same philosophy to their work?

Just a thought.

Obviously, I'm not saying that using a Mac magically makes one a better designer, or that I will only ever choose designers who use Macs, even if they suck. But...well, which would you rather your designer use? A stable, tested, UNIX-based operating system that you yourself use and trust, or Windows Vista?

(Low blow, I know. ;))

[admactanium]

Hi Dorian,
hmm, well that's a bit of a statement isn't it? I'll be happy to work with anyone with a creative mind, whether they use a fugly PC or not, I'm always willing to learn. I'm sure that somewhere in the world there is a creative "windows" person who can teach you or I a thing or two about design. I'd gladly take that lesson, but I guess you would rather not...

Ben

i tend to agree with dorian's statement. obviously there are some talented people out there who use other platforms, but i find it very strange and somewhat suspicious when i see people who sell themselves as designers who use windows. in your field of web design, it's much more common to find windows users. but in print, broadcast and graphic design a windows-using "designer" is as odd as a $3 bill. perhaps it's an unfair bias, but whenever i meet a non-web designer who uses windows, i think they're an amateur or hobbyist. in my 15 years in advertising and design, i cannot think of one photographer, art director, retoucher, studio artist or graphic designer who used windows.

[citogrid]

RoboMan, admactanium:
But...well, which would you rather your designer use?

To me, honestly I don't care what a designer uses, just as long as he/she fulfills the brief that the job demands. Seriously, no one really cares HOW something was created, just as long as the created object is done according to plan and specification.
It's not the tools you use, it's what you do with those tools...
I've done some work for a large design company and I literally had a PC to my left and a Mac on my right. Worked as a web designer for a large cell operator, they used pc's exclusively.Worked for an interactive design company, they used both as well.
I'll look forward to getting a Mac, I'll look forward to the user experience.

Would you recommend I get one ASAP or wait until October when 10.5 is released?

[thegeriatric]

Wait until October, may as well get leopard.

[Anthem]

# when I look at pure cost/hardware spec's I get this:

Sorry to be dense, but do you really need that much beef to do web design?

I mean, as far as computing power goes, web design is one of the least resource-intensive disciplines. Any one of those machines is overkill.

Buy the low-end iMac and put $1500 towards your retirement fund (or paying off credit cards, since anyone who throws around money like that probably has some that need paying).

[citogrid]

well I'm a bit of a generalist, so I tend to use Photoshop pretty intensely, as well as Flash, Illustrator and Lightwave, (often all open at the same time) with some minor forays into Premiere. So yea, I think I kinda would like the power. I don't have 8 core Mac Pro needs (nor cash)

[citogrid]

Wait until October, may as well get leopard.
http://www.bittbox.com/os-x/scientific-visualization-of-vista-vs-osx/

[Wyatt]

Sorry to be dense, but do you really need that much beef to do web design?

I mean, as far as computing power goes, web design is one of the least resource-intensive disciplines. Any one of those machines is overkill.

Buy the low-end iMac and put $1500 towards your retirement fund (or paying off credit cards, since anyone who throws around money like that probably has some that need paying).
I couldn't agree more. You don't need that much beef at all. I do all kinds of Web stuff on the original base model MacBook (which Apple sells for $799 refurbished now). The only thing I upgraded was the RAM (I have 2GB), and it works perfectly fine.

[thegeriatric]

http://www.bittbox.com/os-x/scientific-visualization-of-vista-vs-osx/

What???

[citogrid]

What???
came across it a few hours ago, seems to depict somewhat how some forum members view any other OS. Meant to be funny...

[thegeriatric]

came across it a few hours ago, seems to depict somewhat how some forum members view any other OS. Meant to be funny...

Oh sorry. As i also use Vista, i thought it was personal. Understand now. And yes it is funny. :lol: :) ;)

[curiousuburb]

More to the point of direct comparisons that illustrate the 'quality of Web Server coding' by platform...
actual tracings of identical pages served by IIS <Windows> versus Apache <Linux> (also OS X)

IIS is an abomination of sloppy spaghetti (no offense FSM) with lots of wasted calls
http://a.parsons.edu/~lima/visualcomplexity/images/392_big02.jpg

Apache is clean and efficient.
http://a.parsons.edu/~lima/visualcomplexity/images/392_big01.jpg

Source (http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project_details.cfm?id=392&index=392&domain=)

Maybe the reason Windows machines are often overclocked is to make up for similarly shitty OS coding slowing them down at underlying tasks.

[Anthem]

More to the point of direct comparisons that illustrate the 'quality of Web Server coding' by platform...
actual tracings of identical pages served by IIS <Windows> versus Apache <Linux> (also OS X)

IIS is an abomination of sloppy spaghetti (and a lots of wasted calls and resources)

Apache is clean and efficient.

Maybe the reason the Windows machines are overclocked is to make up for similarly shitty OS coding slowing them down at underlying tasks.
I'm all about Apache. But I think the OP is talking about graphic design, not Apache vs IIS.

[Anthem]

well I'm a bit of a generalist, so I tend to use Photoshop pretty intensely, as well as Flash, Illustrator and Lightwave, (often all open at the same time) with some minor forays into Premiere. So yea, I think I kinda would like the power. I don't have 8 core Mac Pro needs (nor cash)
I'm telling you that the iMac has enough power to handle that no problem.

You're spending money that you don't need to spend.

[citogrid]

I'm telling you that the iMac has enough power to handle that no problem.You're spending money that you don't need to spend.
How so am I spending money that I don't need to spend? I was informing about the iMac, nothing else. Perhaps you misread my previous post.

.....................
Anyway, I'd like to wrap up this thread, I've received much useful information and I'd like to thank those that contributed constructively to my query. Mac=Good PC=Good :)

If I decide to get a Mac, I'll probably wait until the release of Leopard in October (apple tends to wait til the end of the month, so it might even be on my birthday on the 29th)

Thank you for your help.
.....................

[curiousuburb]

I'm all about Apache. But I think the OP is talking about graphic design, not Apache vs IIS.
I realize that.

It was the most visually obvious illustration of platform differences at a system call level that I've seen.

If MS coding hacks in IIS are like that compared to a *nix based Apache, just imagine how much worse their OS must be. Malware openings aside (the rationale behind the original research), why buy a computer that has to wade through all that extra crap coding before you even get it to do what you bought it for.

[Dorian Gray]

Hello again, citogrid. I refute the flaccid idea that all operating systems are good and that preference for one over another is only a matter of taste. Taste does have a lot to do with it, but OS X is fundamentally better in ways that only a fool could dispute. Windows is gaudy and tacky, and cluttered from top to bottom with poorly designed junk. Examples are the semi-transparent title bars of windows, which Microsoft in its wisdom has chosen to make less transparent in the immediate vicinity of the title text itself, to make the dumb idea readable at all. This reminds me of blurred-out car registration plates in for-sale photos. The Start Menu is messy. Windows' text anti-aliasing screws with the kerning, whereas OS X's anti-aliasing renderer respects proper kerning conventions (as a designer you should particularly care about this). So many things that I take for granted in OS X, like spell-checking everywhere, the pop-up dictionary, Exposé, etc., are missing or atrociously implemented in Windows. Unwanted warning messages accompany the user at every step of every task. If you have ten Internet Explorer windows open, the task bar stupidly repeats "Internet Exp..." ten times in a row instead of giving you the webpage title, i.e. useful info. This problem repeats itself everywhere where there is text in Windows. Look what happens on a Mac if a filename is too long to fit:

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/9883/filenamelc8.png

(Obviously the full name is revealed if you hover the cursor over it.) This is especially useful with things like filenames from digital cameras, where a number at the end is more important info than blather in the middle.

OS X is smart in so many ways that Windows isn't. There are literally scores of examples, but one is how numbered files are ordered. If you have twenty files numbered 1 to 20 (Or xxxxxx1 to xxxxxx20), Windows sorts them like this: 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2, 20, 21, 22, etc. OS X organises them the way a person would. With Windows we have to do unnatural things like call files xxxxxx01 to get it to behave properly.

I know many of Windows' problems are legacy issues, but as an end-user, I really don't care why Windows has these problems: I simply care that OS X doesn't. And many Windows user interface issues seem trivial to fix.

Use Windows if you want; I certainly won't mind! But there is no natural law that states all operating systems are "good" except for aesthetics, and I, like almost everyone who buys their first Mac, think OS X is much better.

[drewprops]

.... whereas OS X's anti-aliasing renderer respects proper kerning conventions (as a designer you should particularly care about this).


Amen.
My display looks like a printed page.
A PC user's display looks like a bad screenshot of a printed page.