Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

One of the classic arguments on the mac-side in a discussion Mac vs PC, is that Macs are better for graphical jobs, like video-editing, or Photoshop. I haven't heard this one for a while actually, which is probably partially due to Mac now using Intel Processors.

I was wondering, where did this story come from, and has it actually been true at any time?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by studiohack, Randolph Potter, Josh K, ChrisF, Ivo Flipse Jan 31 '11 at 17:33

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

3 Answers 3

It had quite a bit to do with colour correction, an important feature for creatives and designers targeting print media.

Windows was always second rate as far as system-wide colour correction was concerned up until Windows Vista (and Windows 7) introduced Windows Color System.

Mac OS and Mac OS X's far superior ColorSync system-wide colour correction was far easier to use and "set once" and then just use across multiple apps than Windows was.

share|improve this answer

Macintosh was first to make a big splash with a GUI, so naturally this started the perception that they were better for "graphical jobs."

If you've ever worked in the print industry, and compared the problems trying to get documents created on the PC to print properly compared to those created on Macs, you'd see why this perception continued even after Windows 3.1 became popular.

Historically, Macs had better font handling, colour workflow, postscript support, anti-aliasing, and other little technical details which made video and graphics creation smoother on the Macintosh platform.

I haven't heard this one for a while actually, which is probably partially due to Mac now using Intel Processors.

The switch to Intel is fairly irrelevant. You probably haven't heard this in a while because later versions of Windows solved many shortcomings and the proliferation of discrete graphic GPUs made Windows PC boxes graphical powerhouses, in the raw pixel-pushing sense.

share|improve this answer
1  
You probably could have made your point without the "Uh, no" part. –  MattC Jan 31 '11 at 17:38
1  
@MattC Fair point, I'll remove it. Apologies for the condescending tone :) –  ghoppe Jan 31 '11 at 17:52

It was the first with a GUI, it had a graphical Office five years earlier than Windows. It's also to do with Photoshop, and a lot of other programs, often exclusive. They are simple to use and powerful, so they are good for video editing. It's no less true because they are Intel, just that programs and people are on both platforms.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.