PC vs MAC graphic design

I profoundly disagree with DaveBaldwin.  There are differences that make the Apple product much more productive, efficient, and stable. First, you are running UNIX, not windows.  The system is somewhat closed, in that Apple doesn't let developers put in dozens of different runtimes with different revisions that can conflict and cause instability.  Apple controls the drivers.

Don't believe me?  get a DOS prompt, cd to \
then enter dir mfc***.dll /s

I have no doubt you'll have a half dozen different versions of the same files, perhaps well over a dozen versions of some of these runtimes all over your computer.  All these take up memory when they are invoked, and conflict.  But apple's o/S uses a shared runtime model. One version gets loaded, once.  Less memory overhead.  No registry to corrupt either.  But that is just one of of dozens of reasons the O/S is "better", plenty of others if you start digging.

You use the right tool for the job. If your graphic artist is a mac person, let her use it.  OSX is a tier-one development/porting environment for the latest versions of the best of the best products.  Software runs better and more efficiently on those platforms.  The code is COMPILED and optimized for the processors as well.  Any C developer will tell you that in a windows environment, you can't optimize any commercial software due to all the platforms you have to support and all the different chips that are used.    Threading actually works too, and you can't beat the backup.

Here is a suggestion on a compromise ..  load parallels for Mac, and run XP in a virtual machine/  Parallels lets you drag & drop files and even share directories between the two environments.   So run XP in a VM, use standard MSFT AD utilities, and make that a shared directory that is common between both environments.  I have a half dozen VMs on my mac and it boots windows faster than windows boots windows ;)

If your IT staff is too inept or unwilling to learn something new, then somebody needs a new department manager. When I was i IT, we LOVED to learn new stuff, and it was Christmas whenever something we weren't experts in appeared on the dock.  


 

@dlethe, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with since you didn't address anything I said.  I didn't say anything about differences between the operating systems.

^^^ I  agree with Dave. Sounds more of a personal response than anything from dlethe. I just want to find out if there's any obstacles and info on what I stated on my first post. Thanks all for those that are contributing.

I am respectfully rebutting that the "Pc and Mac" are the same, and the difference is pretty much fonts.  I've been writing system software & apps for windows since 3.1, and linux/unix since the early 80's, plus macs since OS X came out.  So many differences that people are not aware of.  I find it grossly inaccurate to claim that the only significant difference between the operating systems has to do with font bundling.

Back to question at hand .. Buy the MAC, run parallels on it concurrently so IT just sees a windows PC running standard XP, or Win7 on the network.  Then user can access the Windows network from within the OSX environment.  That eliminates all the concerns, because she IS just running a windows machine, and all they have to do is worry about a windows machine.  They'll never even know the Mac is on the network ... because they won't see it.

she runs OSX natively 24x7 & Win7 as a VM 24x7.  Parallels even lets you just double click an extension, and if it is a .doc file, it will automatically open up MSFT word, or if it is a PDF it will open up the mac version, if that is what she wants to do.  No file conversions, best of both worlds, easy-peasy.

How would that resolve any GPO, logon scripts or security on the OS X side?  She would still be able to access whatever shares she want's without any security restrictions and internet sites.

I didn't say they were the same.  I did say that it didn't matter if they were and could do everything the same because the user would want her Mac anyway because she thinks it's 'easier'.

DaveBaldwin:

To an artist, the look and feel of the OS and computer means everything! You need to look at it from an artist's perspective. They are not technical and the Windows OS comes across that way. Trust me, there is a reason why graphic artists flock to the mac.
The Windows PC can do everything that the mac can do ( I feel like a kid song here, I can do what you can do but I can do it better) but the environment is not the same.
It's also funny the the Windows 7/vista OS is looking more and more like the MAC X OS series.....

Is this a new form of arguing?  Arguing by agreeing with someone?

OSX is much more technical than people realize.  How many graphic artists, teachers, and technophobes even know that they are running a UNIX computer, let alone serving as a sysadmin.  That is the true test for sophistication.  The O/S is so tight and well designed that people don't know what is running under the covers, let alone be a UNIX sysadmin.

Also one thing a PC can't do .... Run a legal copy of OS X. :)

I agree with dlethe - there's no reason to be afraid of modern macs - ever since they moved to OS/X, they are essentially running BSD 4.2, which is a unix variant.  I'm sure you already have unix machines living happily with Windows, and viruses and permissions are not a problem.  You shouldn't constrain the application by the platform for no good reason.

Thanks all for contributing to this thread. At the end we felt that PC was the best direction to go for just print work, office apps, and nothing else. All Adobe products are compatible with both OS. Office we already have. At the end of the day It just makes more sense.