Compatability is the only area I know of where Macs are "better": even now,
some fonts behave differently between OS X and Windows, and so for
historical reasons (ie. they were there first!), Macs are stuck in the
design/typesetting industry (re-typesetting entire books isn't an option in
most cases, so it's cheaper/easier for publishers to stick with the Mac
version of the software and the fonts rather).
And, yes, this is an argument I constantly have with our design/production
departments :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Andrews" <[email protected]>
To: "feistfans-l" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Possible copyright infringement noted...
It is completely a myth now. 25 years ago, not so much. Back then
you had Amiga and other systems which did graphics and such as well.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM, BW~Merlin <[email protected]> wrote:
I have never understood this argument that MACs are better for multimedia
and everyone I have asked have said "I don't know they are just better".
They use the same processors now (Intel) and the same graphics cards
(nvidia
or AMD) and the same software (Corel or Adobe) which have been used in
Windows machines for years. For the same price point a Windows machine
will
be much better equipped and yet this myth as I believe it to be of MACs
being better for multimedia work keeps persisting. Does anyone know of a
solid case where a MAC is better?
"and the art departments got early Macs."
Best, R.E.F.
----
www.crydee.com
--
Nick A
"You know what I wish? I wish that all the scum of the world had but
a single throat, and I had my hands about it..." Rorschach, 1975
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin,
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names
the streets after them." Bill Vaughan
"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
Plato
