Apple exclusive software

[jmachin]

As the title says really, I want to know the names of any pieces software that are exclusive to macs. I'm trying to compile a list. Thanks for any help.

 

[joshhedge]

Aperture, Logic Pro, Final Cut, iWork and the iLife suites to name but a few.

 

[TheStu]

Safari

I'm confused, is this for an assignment or something?

 

[Atty]

Safari

I'm confused, is this for an assignment or something?

Safari is available on the PC.

 

[FoxFifth]

"As the title says really, I want to know the names of any pieces software that are exclusive to macs. I'm trying to compile a list. Thanks for any help."

iBank (well not exclusive to the Mac since they also have an iPad version).

 

[TheStu]

Safari is available on the PC.

I thought they had discontinued it.

 

[mavere]

Xcode.

Why don't you look through the App Store? High(er) profile 3rd-party items would be Things, Capo, Pixelmator, Coda, Fantastical, the Omni apps, TweetBot, djay.

 

[scannall]

I thought they had discontinued it.

They stopped updating it, but it is still available.

 

[Printer Bandit]

iCal / Calendar

 

[jmachin]

I've never used a mac OS before, I thought the appstore was for iOS only? Lots of professionals in art, music, and even academia prefer to use mac OS's over windows and I'm trying to figure out why. Thanks for the replies by the way.

 

[FoxFifth]

If you go to the App Store from a Mac you get the Mac apps. Here is some information on that: http://www.apple.com/osx/apps/app-store.html
In my case I prefer the Mac primarily because of the MacBook Air hardware. The OS is second for me (although it is a good part of what makes the hardware work well in terms of battery life and the outstanding trackpad). I'm OK with the applications available but it definitely isn't a positive for me.

 

[jmachin]

If you go to the App Store from a Mac you get the Mac apps. Here is some information on that: http://www.apple.com/osx/apps/app-store.html
In my case I prefer the Mac primarily because of the MacBook Air hardware. The OS is second for me (although it is a good part of what makes the hardware work well in terms of battery life and the outstanding trackpad). I'm OK with the applications available but it definitely isn't a positive for me.

I agree, I wouldn't buy a Mac desktop but I've done some research and I haven't found a laptop that's powerful enough and as light as the new rMBP 15". I've got a disability and as a result I might be given a laptop to allow me to access resources e.t.c., but really there's no point me having one if I can't carry it around and if it can't do what I want. So I've an interview to access my disability where I need to make the case that I need a mac. My argument wont hold water with them (although it's 100% true; I've got mobility problems and can't carry a bulky 4kg laptop like the one I have at the moment) they don't want to give macs to people who don't need mac software specifically. I don't know why that's the case, but that's what I've heard from other people who've been through the process. So I need to convince the assessors I need a mbp (or an alternative with similar power/weight/build quality).

 

[Rakehellion]

I agree, I wouldn't buy a Mac desktop but I've done some research and I haven't found a laptop that's powerful enough and as light as the new rMBP 15". I've got a disability and as a result I might be given a laptop to allow me to access resources e.t.c., but really there's no point me having one if I can't carry it around and if it can't do what I want. So I've an interview to access my disability where I need to make the case that I need a mac. My argument wont hold water with them (although it's 100% true; I've got mobility problems and can't carry a bulky 4kg laptop like the one I have at the moment) they don't want to give macs to people who don't need mac software specifically. I don't know why that's the case, but that's what I've heard from other people who've been through the process. So I need to convince the accessors I need a mbp (or an alternative with similar power/weight/build quality).

Here's a better question: What software do you use?

 

[slugg]

Why do you need the "power" of a MacBook Pro? That would help us find an excuse for you to get one. So far, the only concrete reason you've said is the weight, in which I'd reply with a thin-and-light PC laptop.

 

[Zaap]

I've never used a mac OS before, I thought the appstore was for iOS only? Lots of professionals in art, music, and even academia prefer to use mac OS's over windows and I'm trying to figure out why. Thanks for the replies by the way.

There's a lot to this question. I'd say that software exclusivity is actually a very small part of it.

For example: many types in art/film/photography/publishing prefer applications like Adobe's (Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator) etc. on the Mac. It's not that you can't get the same apps on Windows, it's just that many have grown to prefer the Mac. For years, things like greater color-accuracy/more logical window management were in Mac's favor. That's less true today by far, but still, Macs remain popular.

Apple also is viewed as more user-friendly. Various creative industries like to be able to sit people down at a computer and have them not worry so much about technical issues and IT support, but just getting a creative task finished. Apple has an excellent reputation for being better at this. The PC world offers more choice, (hardware/software) but that's also seen as a negative. (More opportunity to make the wrong choice is the downside).

I work in the film industry and Macs are still incredibly well represented. Things have changed a lot- Apple itself has distanced itself from the professional market in a lot of ways (for instance, Final Cut X as I witness it every day is still reviled vs. older versions that were more pro-oriented). I don't personally know of a single production using it. It's lousy introduction (its gotten better, but still damage was done) forced many to competing software, and also prompted a look at competing hardware. (IE: if you're going to switch, might as well see if hardware choices are better as well. Doesn't help that it takes Apple years to update its pro hardware line either.) Still, in certain tasks like editing and color-correction, Macs still rule.

Anyway... since a lot of said types end up using Macs at work, they tend to choose them at home as well, and so the stereotype of creative types=Mac still continues.

Personally- I feel that OSX is more robust, and lends itself better to a creative workflow than Windows. My reasons for this admittedly are more in the subtle range than straight up technical absolutes. It's all very subjective. I could do a lot of what I do on a PC. I prefer using OSX. I know many who are the same way.

Example: I know several writers (books and scripts) who could write using virtually anything. The technicalities of typing into a word processor is yester-tech. Any PC would suit. Applications that suit are available for any platform, even mobile. But they all use Macs. The preference is driven by factors having nothing to do with software exclusivity, but the quality of Apple's laptops, and the same aesthetic preference for OSX.

 

[jmachin]

Here's a better question: What software do you use?

Wolfram Mathematica is the only power hungry program I use for my university course. I use photoshop and sony vegas but unfortunately they're not an integral part of my course. I used to use the university computers but with mobility issues getting worse I can't actually get into the campus everyday.

 

[jmachin]

Why do you need the "power" of a MacBook Pro? That would help us find an excuse for you to get one. So far, the only concrete reason you've said is the weight, in which I'd reply with a thin-and-light PC laptop.

My justification is as follows:
I need a laptop that will last at least 5 years (I won't get another one until I've finished my P.h.d). I need one that can run Wolfram Mathematica well; I don't know what kind of machine I'd need, but I've heard it can get resource-hungry and I'm think I'm going to be doing more computer modelling the further I get into my course (I'm studying maths). I've got problems with mobility so while I will be able to travel to uni on some days, there are often days where I'm housebound and so I need something portable. I would like a decent GPU for recreational use, though I'm paying the difference for that obviously.

 

[jmachin]

There's a lot to this question. I'd say that software exclusivity is actually a very small part of it.

For example: many types in art/film/photography/publishing prefer applications like Adobe's (Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator) etc. on the Mac. It's not that you can't get the same apps on Windows, it's just that many have grown to prefer the Mac. For years, things like greater color-accuracy/more logical window management were in Mac's favor. That's less true today by far, but still, Macs remain popular.

Apple also is viewed as more user-friendly. Various creative industries like to be able to sit people down at a computer and have them not worry so much about technical issues and IT support, but just getting a creative task finished. Apple has an excellent reputation for being better at this. The PC world offers more choice, (hardware/software) but that's also seen as a negative. (More opportunity to make the wrong choice is the downside).

I work in the film industry and Macs are still incredibly well represented. Things have changed a lot- Apple itself has distanced itself from the professional market in a lot of ways (for instance, Final Cut X as I witness it every day is still reviled vs. older versions that were more pro-oriented). I don't personally know of a single production using it. It's lousy introduction (its gotten better, but still damage was done) forced many to competing software, and also prompted a look at competing hardware. (IE: if you're going to switch, might as well see if hardware choices are better as well. Doesn't help that it takes Apple years to update its pro hardware line either.) Still, in certain tasks like editing and color-correction, Macs still rule.

Anyway... since a lot of said types end up using Macs at work, they tend to choose them at home as well, and so the stereotype of creative types=Mac still continues.

Personally- I feel that OSX is more robust, and lends itself better to a creative workflow than Windows. My reasons for this admittedly are more in the subtle range than straight up technical absolutes. It's all very subjective. I could do a lot of what I do on a PC. I prefer using OSX. I know many who are the same way.

Example: I know several writers (books and scripts) who could write using virtually anything. The technicalities of typing into a word processor is yester-tech. Any PC would suit. Applications that suit are available for any platform, even mobile. But they all use Macs. The preference is driven by factors having nothing to do with software exclusivity, but the quality of Apple's laptops, and the same aesthetic preference for OSX.

I have lots of reasons like the ones you stated for preferring macs, but my assessors quite rightly wont be interested in whether I prefer the operating system or build quality of apple laptops. That said, the post was an intersting read! I guess once people get settled to using a certain operating system they don't want to change.

 

[slugg]

My justification is as follows:
I need a laptop that will last at least 5 years (I won't get another one until I've finished my P.h.d). I need one that can run Wolfram Mathematica well; I don't know what kind of machine I'd need, but I've heard it can get resource-hungry and I'm think I'm going to be doing more computer modelling the further I get into my course (I'm studying maths). I've got problems with mobility so while I will be able to travel to uni on some days, there are often days where I'm housebound and so I need something portable. I would like a decent GPU for recreational use, though I'm paying the difference for that obviously.

No, you need a decent GPU for massively parallel, high performance computing (GPGPU) that Mathematica is capable of (and Matlab, and R, and everything else of that sort). But as far as PC versus Mac for this, I would warn against using a Mac.

Most benchmarks of research computing and prototyping software (Mathematica, Matlab, MathCAD, Maple, R, etc) are significantly worse on OS X. You'll need to run Windows for these to run decently. Additionally, driver support for the GPU acceleration is much better for Windows, and some of the software you'll run into won't even use *any* hardware acceleration on Mac. All of these software packages are pretty much optimized for Windows, and in limited situations, Unix/Linux (no, Mac is not close enough).

As for *any* laptop lasting 5 years, forget it. Nothing will "keep up with the times" for 5 years. For a top of the line laptop, 3 years is pushing it. Five years from now, whatever you buy will probably technically work from a functional standpoint, but it'll be slow and hinder your productivity with future software. Also, Apple is very much known for dropping backward compatibility and legacy support, whereas Microsoft does a very good job of keeping this up. 5 years from now, your Mac will be practically unusable, but a 5 year old PC maintains wide compatibility. But still, 5 years from now, even the PC laptop will be pretty useless.

Good luck...

 

[jmachin]

No, you need a decent GPU for massively parallel, high performance computing (GPGPU) that Mathematica is capable of (and Matlab, and R, and everything else of that sort). But as far as PC versus Mac for this, I would warn against using a Mac.

Most benchmarks of research computing and prototyping software (Mathematica, Matlab, MathCAD, Maple, R, etc) are significantly worse on OS X. You'll need to run Windows for these to run decently. Additionally, driver support for the GPU acceleration is much better for Windows, and some of the software you'll run into won't even use *any* hardware acceleration on Mac. All of these software packages are pretty much optimized for Windows, and in limited situations, Unix/Linux (no, Mac is not close enough).

As for *any* laptop lasting 5 years, forget it. Nothing will "keep up with the times" for 5 years. For a top of the line laptop, 3 years is pushing it. Five years from now, whatever you buy will probably technically work from a functional standpoint, but it'll be slow and hinder your productivity with future software. Also, Apple is very much known for dropping backward compatibility and legacy support, whereas Microsoft does a very good job of keeping this up. 5 years from now, your Mac will be practically unusable, but a 5 year old PC maintains wide compatibility. But still, 5 years from now, even the PC laptop will be pretty useless.

Good luck...

I should add that I would install a copy of windows on the mac. I didn't realize I needed a decent GPU tbh. I think I have to do more research. I don't know of another laptop with that level of portability that actually has a dedicated GPU. The Razer Blade maybe, but I can hardly order a gaming laptop!

 

[joshhedge]

I would take what slug was saying with a pinch of salt. A fair proportion of the researchers and academia within my department use Matlab, Maple, AutoCAD etc within OS X for various complex modelling scenarios.

I do agree that in a variety of cases Windows has better support, but I wouldn't write off using Unix applications.

 

[Tyranicus]

As for *any* laptop lasting 5 years, forget it. Nothing will "keep up with the times" for 5 years. For a top of the line laptop, 3 years is pushing it. Five years from now, whatever you buy will probably technically work from a functional standpoint, but it'll be slow and hinder your productivity with future software. Also, Apple is very much known for dropping backward compatibility and legacy support, whereas Microsoft does a very good job of keeping this up. 5 years from now, your Mac will be practically unusable, but a 5 year old PC maintains wide compatibility. But still, 5 years from now, even the PC laptop will be pretty useless.

Apple fully supports MacBook Pros made in 2007 and later with the latest software. I had a late 2008 MacBook Pro (first unibody model) that I was still using as my primary machine a year ago. I upgraded last December only because I came into some money and really wanted a retina screen. My existing MacBook Pro was still running fine. Were there faster, newer laptops? Sure, but it was in no way unusable.

 

[joshhedge]

Apple fully supports MacBook Pros made in 2007 and later with the latest software. I had a late 2008 MacBook Pro (first unibody model) that I was still using as my primary machine a year ago. I upgraded last December only because I came into some money and really wanted a retina screen. My existing MacBook Pro was still running fine. Were there faster, newer laptops? Sure, but it was in no way unusable.

Likewise for me with my pre-unibody early 2008 MacBook Pro. No issues at all with that system from a support prospective.

 

[slugg]

I should add that I would install a copy of windows on the mac. I didn't realize I needed a decent GPU tbh. I think I have to do more research. I don't know of another laptop with that level of portability that actually has a dedicated GPU. The Razer Blade maybe, but I can hardly order a gaming laptop!

You don't actually need a good GPU. I'm just trying to help you come up with excuses to get a good laptop.

I would take what slug was saying with a pinch of salt. A fair proportion of the researchers and academia within my department use Matlab, Maple, AutoCAD etc within OS X for various complex modelling scenarios.

I do agree that in a variety of cases Windows has better support, but I wouldn't write off using Unix applications.

This is true. Take what I said with a pinch of salt. But do keep in mind two things:
1. A pinch of salt is a lot more than a grain of salt.
2. While there is a variety of situations where the Windows variants of these softwares perform better, to my knowledge, there isn't a single situation where it runs better on Mac OS. The reason why a large portion of researchers in academia use Mac is simply because they like it, or fell into the trend. If you look into real-world, private sector R&D, you'll very rarely find a Mac. You only see them if the user simply wanted one, not because it was the best option.

It's not a bad option, I just wanted to make you aware of these things. I did plenty of my degree on a Mac, including research with Mathematica and Matlab. I didn't have too many issues in the beginning, although I did end up running everything in Windows because I ran into issues later. It's sad when Matlab runs about 10x faster in a Windows virtual machine inside of OS X than on OS X natively.

And then we get to the age-old question: why do you need a Mac if you're just going to run Windows? Again, if you just want a Mac, that's one thing. But still, I can't find a compelling reason for you other than you like it.

Apple fully supports MacBook Pros made in 2007 and later with the latest software. I had a late 2008 MacBook Pro (first unibody model) that I was still using as my primary machine a year ago. I upgraded last December only because I came into some money and really wanted a retina screen. My existing MacBook Pro was still running fine. Were there faster, newer laptops? Sure, but it was in no way unusable.

You guys are right, in that regard. I suppose I should have phrased what I said differently... Third-party legacy support tends to be better with Windows based software than Mac software. This isn't a rule, just a trend. For example, Windows 8.1 can still run software from Windows 95. Not all of it works, but some of it does, and it may even work poorly, but you never know when you'll run into weird situations like that. Tons of software is still designed for Windows XP, for instance. When you're in academia and downloading tons of random software and/or code sources, maximum compatibility is a huge advantage. It's true that Unix/Linux takes a big chunk of the academic/research computing code base, but Windows is also a huge chunk. There's hardly any Mac specific stuff in research computing, and if there is, it's probably just a port of something that already exists on Windows. Almost everything made on a Mac is just Unix software, for which you can just recompile on your favorite flavor of *nix.

OP: Don't take this the wrong way; I've loved owning the multiple MacBook Pros and Airs I've had, but they're not all they're cracked up to be. For getting real work done, nothing has done better than my good quality PCs (i.e. ThinkPads). But a lot of the time, emotion triumphs over logic, so if you just plain like the Mac, then get it.

EDIT: Holy crap, sorry for derailing! That was not my intention. I forgot the original purpose of this thread!
Back on topic... OP, for what you're looking to do, I can't think of any Mac specific software. Sorry.

 

[jmachin]

I would take what slug was saying with a pinch of salt. A fair proportion of the researchers and academia within my department use Matlab, Maple, AutoCAD etc within OS X for various complex modelling scenarios.

I do agree that in a variety of cases Windows has better support, but I wouldn't write off using Unix applications.

A priori I give everyone's opinion equal weight, so I'm not just going to listen to one person! That said, I've found all advice given so far extremely helpful!

You don't actually need a good GPU. I'm just trying to help you come up with excuses to get a good laptop.

Ah ok

This is true. Take what I said with a pinch of salt. But do keep in mind two things:
1. A pinch of salt is a lot more than a grain of salt.
2. While there is a variety of situations where the Windows variants of these softwares perform better, to my knowledge, there isn't a single situation where it runs better on Mac OS. The reason why a large portion of researchers in academia use Mac is simply because they like it, or fell into the trend. If you look into real-world, private sector R&D, you'll very rarely find a Mac. You only see them if the user simply wanted one, not because it was the best option.

Ok understood, so I can't put forward an argument that software will run better on a mac. But am I right in saying that if I want the level of portability that a macbook has while having a discrete gpu there isn't another way to go? (other than the razer blade 14" or something which is out of the question, and even though I wouldn't use it for gaming is still a gaming pc so...)

It's not a bad option, I just wanted to make you aware of these things. I did plenty of my degree on a Mac, including research with Mathematica and Matlab. I didn't have too many issues in the beginning, although I did end up running everything in Windows because I ran into issues later. It's sad when Matlab runs about 10x faster in a Windows virtual machine inside of OS X than on OS X natively.

That definitely sucks. Though I can whack a copy of windows on the mac if I get one.

And then we get to the age-old question: why do you need a Mac if you're just going to run Windows? Again, if you just want a Mac, that's one thing. But still, I can't find a compelling reason for you other than you like it.

Portability and power. If you're right that I don't need a discrete GPU in order to use the kind of software I stated, then I guess my reasoning breaks down. I don't deny I really like the form factor of the Macbooks and that I feel like they are better made and will be more durable, but they aren't grounds for me getting one.

You guys are right, in that regard. I suppose I should have phrased what I said differently... Third-party legacy support tends to be better with Windows based software than Mac software. This isn't a rule, just a trend. For example, Windows 8.1 can still run software from Windows 95. Not all of it works, but some of it does, and it may even work poorly, but you never know when you'll run into weird situations like that. Tons of software is still designed for Windows XP, for instance. When you're in academia and downloading tons of random software and/or code sources, maximum compatibility is a huge advantage. It's true that Unix/Linux takes a big chunk of the academic/research computing code base, but Windows is also a huge chunk. There's hardly any Mac specific stuff in research computing, and if there is, it's probably just a port of something that already exists on Windows. Almost everything made on a Mac is just Unix software, for which you can just recompile on your favorite flavor of *nix.

OP: Don't take this the wrong way; I've loved owning the multiple MacBook Pros and Airs I've had, but they're not all they're cracked up to be. For getting real work done, nothing has done better than my good quality PCs (i.e. ThinkPads). But a lot of the time, emotion triumphs over logic, so if you just plain like the Mac, then get it.

I'm not sure I'd like carrying a thinkpad around. I really don't want a touch screen, and most of them I've looked at either are chunky or don't have a discrete gpu. I guess the good thing about getting a mac would be that I access both OS's on one machine, and then just use whichever OS was better for a given program.

EDIT: Holy crap, sorry for derailing! That was not my intention. I forgot the original purpose of this thread!
Back on topic... OP, for what you're looking to do, I can't think of any Mac specific software. Sorry.

Not at all, I've found all your replies extremely useful.