Why do so many people run photoshop on a mac?

[wolrah]

Originally posted by: Absolution75
Eh, does this matter to anyone besides developers? No.

SysWOW is obviously System WOW which is synonymous with emulation. It isn't really backwards. As far as the System32 directory, its obviously not renamed to preserve compatibility with old programs.

Program Files x86 is obviously 32bit programs and Program Files is obviously native 64bit programs. I can't see how this is relevant regardless.

I can tell you don't know very much about how software is developed.

No, it really doesn't matter to anyone else, but as a developer I see it as being really silly and a pointless hack.

I don't know how you can see that as not backwards, the directory labeled with the number 64 contains 32 bit libraries and the one labeled 32 has 64 bit libraries. That's pretty much a textbook example of backwards from what one could logically expect.

The compatibility argument doesn't hold water either, since to use those 64 bit libraries a program would have to be recompiled for 64 bit, so no old applications which would need backwards compatibility tricks can ever use it. They also do remapping on all legacy applications, so a 32 bit application sees the contents of the SysWOW64 directory if it requests System32. I don't see any logical reason they bothered with a backwards naming scheme and remapping when it would have been simpler and more sane to just keep System32 where it is and call the new one something like System64. If you look back at the Windows 95 transition that's obviously what they did there, System contained 16 bit libraries, System32 was 32 bit. I think that may also stretch in to the old NT codebase, but I'm unfamiliar with NT before Windows 2000 so I won't speculate.

Separating the different Program Files directories is also a hack that I do not see a reason for. Why should my applications live in different places (once again using remapping so 32 bit applications see "Program Files (x86)" as "Program Files") when the OS knows what they are and doesn't care in the long run? My Linux and Mac boxes don't do this, why does Windows.

Again I also only chose the examples that are obvious and known to anyone who's gone digging around even slightly in a 64 bit Windows system. The AppleInsider articles I linked plus a number of other sources describe other strange decisions in the 64 bit Windows development process and implementation that to me just make it clear Microsoft never planned on having Windows run on 64 bit desktops.

Hint: The first public release of ANY 64 bit Windows was the OEM-only Windows 2000 for Itanium, available in Advanced Server and Datacenter Server licensing levels, released August 2001 (processors had been shipping since June of that year). It took them until April of 2005 to release XP and Server 2003 for x86-64 (processors had been shipping for two years). By comparison, Linux supported both of those chips before any silicon was publicly available, as well as a number of other 64 bit platforms in the past.

As a daily user of 64 bit versions of both Vista and Windows 7, it's clear that it's been implemented in the traditional Windows way of just piling stuff on until it works. Please don't make assumptions about my knowledge of how software is developed. I write code every day for all three platforms and regularly read a number of the MSDN blogs, so I know why some of the things done in Windows that seem silly on the surface were done, but these particular examples I have never seen a decent explanation for.

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
No, your precious mac file system is full of symbolic links since it still uses the Unix file system.

Mac OS X aliases and symbolic links

OMG REALLY!?!?!? </sarcasm>

So? Symlinks are a well known and well defined filesystem feature that have been around longer than I have. They work, what's wrong with them? Why reinvent the wheel with shortcuts, aliases, etc. when symlinks are available?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: wolrah

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
No, your precious mac file system is full of symbolic links since it still uses the Unix file system.

Mac OS X aliases and symbolic links

OMG REALLY!?!?!? </sarcasm>

So? Symlinks are a well known and well defined filesystem feature that have been around longer than I have. They work, what's wrong with them? Why reinvent the wheel with shortcuts, aliases, etc. when symlinks are available?

LOL, you mac people are hilarious. You make fun of 64 windows for having "hacks" when your entire os is based on dirty hacks. Then you change around the story and say that it doesn't matter because it's invisible to the user. NTFS was built from the ground up for Windows, a desktop os. It's not based on a 1960's mainframe os. If you want an os that's sloppily glued together and uses all kinds of hacks then try a linux distro. You won't have to spend thousands of dollars on it either since it's free.

 

[VinylxScratches]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795

Microsoft programmers also take their duty to warn others seriously. There are over 4,000 references to "hacks", mostly warnings. These include
private\inet\mshtml\src\core\cdbase\baseprop.cxx:
// HACK! HACK! HACK! (MohanB) In order to fix #64710 at this very late
private\inet\mshtml\src\core\cdutil\genutil.cxx:
// HACK HACK HACK. REMOVE THIS ONCE MARLETT IS AROUND

private\inet\mshtml\src\other\moniker\resprot.cxx:
// <HACK>
goto EndHack;
// </HACK>

private\inet\mshtml\src\site\layout\flowlyt.cxx:
// God, I hate this hack ...

private\inet\wininet\urlcache\cachecfg.cxx:
// Dumb hack for back compat. *sigh*

private\inet\wininet\urlcache\filemgr.cxx:
// ACHTUNG!!! this is a special hack for IBM antivirus software

private\ispu\pkitrust\trustui\acuictl.cpp:
// HACK ALERT, believe it or not there is no way to get the height of the current
// HACK ON TOP OF HACK ALERT,

private\ntos\udfs\devctrl.c:
// Add the hack-o-ramma to fix formats.

private\shell\shdoc401\unicpp\sendto.cpp:
// Mondo hackitude-o-rama.

private\ntos\w32\ntcon\server\link.c:
// HUGE, HUGE hack-o-rama to get NTSD started on this process!

private\ntos\w32\ntuser\client\dlgmgr.c:
// HACK OF DEATH:

private\shell\lib\util.cpp:
// TERRIBLE HORRIBLE NO GOOD VERY BAD HACK

private\ntos\w32\ntuser\client\nt6\user.h:
* The magnitude of this hack compares favorably with that of the national debt.

 

[yhelothar]

I remember looking at old benchmarks with the G5 processor and the x86 ones, and they former blew the pc's out of the water for media content creation. So that was my understanding why everyone in the graphics industry used macs. But now they're the same. So now you'd just be paying for the brand name, since even PC's can run macosx now, albeit only certain hardware.

BTW, when I tried to apply for a job in photo editing, I found that a few job listings required knowledge of macs, probably about 5% of them cared. Not sure how much they cared, but I applied anyways.

The important thing is that she just gets a big non-tn monitor with a huey.
I'd hate to see her spend $3k on a computer while only using a shitty laptop screen.

 

[wolrah]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
LOL, you mac people are hilarious. You make fun of 64 windows for having "hacks" when your entire os is based on dirty hacks. Then you change around the story and say that it doesn't matter because it's invisible to the user. NTFS was built from the ground up for Windows, a desktop os. It's not based on a 1960's mainframe os. If you want an os that's sloppily glued together and uses all kinds of hacks then try a linux distro. You won't have to spend thousands of dollars on it either since it's free.

First, I'm not a Mac person, like I've said a number of times I run all three major platforms daily and am currently in front of my Vista box. Remember, in my first post I said that this particular user would probably be better off with Windows since it is quite clearly the better choice for Adobe CS4 due to the whole 64 bit Carbon issue.

Second, while I'm still not sure you're not just trolling, you clearly don't know anything about what's going on in the core on any of the OSes we're discussing. The folder redirection and remapping crap Windows x64 does is a dirty hack because depending on the execution environment (32 vs. 64, privileged vs. non-privileged and sandboxed vs not on Vista and up) applications on the same computer can see totally different results when requesting the same data. This behavior is inconsistent and nonsensical to anyone who doesn't know why it's happening and even can confuse those who know more than some of the OSes developers about it (for example Mark Russinovich, who's SysInternals tools were so good that Microsoft bought him out, posted this blog entry about the process of trying to figure out why files were showing up in a directory when running IE but nowhere else. Remember this is the guy who wrote RootkitRevealer which performs raw access to the underlying NTFS data structures, so he damn sure knows what he's doing in the Windows filesystem.

Compare this to symlinks, which behave consistently and are very useful in situations where you may have legacy applications needing certain files to be in one place, but you need them elsewhere. Rather than maintaining two copies, you just symlink it and it's all good. I do this with VoIP phones, as they tend to want a specific config file layout which I don't consider human-friendly, so I've used symlinks to expose the structure the phones want to them, while keeping the area I access organized in a more sane manner. They're not at all invisible to the user as well, they are blatantly indicated in 'ls' results as they are on any Unix as well as showing the alias arrow when browsing from the GUI. That's my point, invisible to the user results in unexpected behavior, like the above mentioned hacks on the Windows 64 bit platform.

Speaking of NTFS, guess what it has had since Vista? Symbolic links! Congratulations Windows for catching up to Unix circa 1983. Granted it's gimped pretty badly (you have to tell whether it's a file or directory you're linking to, what the heck is that crap?), but it's there.

Seriously just go read The Old New Thing or Mark Russinovich's web site. Both are blogs by Microsoft employees who have been deeper inside Windows than anyone who's not under NDA and even they publicly admit to a lot of these hacks. That's almost the entire point of The Old New Thing, explaining why something was done a certain way. Sometimes with that perspective it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. Obviously they toe the company line to an extent, but its still a good read for these kind of debates.

Now if you want to continue your apparent position that Windows is the only OS suitable for desktop use, you go right ahead, but the vast majority of the tech world understands that this isn't OS 9 and Linux 2.2 anymore. Unixes are on the desktop to stay and they're not just for nerds and the computer illiterate.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: wolrah

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
LOL, you mac people are hilarious. You make fun of 64 windows for having "hacks" when your entire os is based on dirty hacks. Then you change around the story and say that it doesn't matter because it's invisible to the user. NTFS was built from the ground up for Windows, a desktop os. It's not based on a 1960's mainframe os. If you want an os that's sloppily glued together and uses all kinds of hacks then try a linux distro. You won't have to spend thousands of dollars on it either since it's free.

Second, while I'm still not sure you're not just trolling

Yes because anyone that disagrees is a troll.

, you clearly don't know anything about what's going on in the core on any of the OSes we're discussing.

Really? You gathered that from a couple of posts huh. Well, I guess my linux mail server set itself up by itself. I could sell that you know, a server that sets itself up by itself.

 

[wolrah]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Yes because anyone that disagrees is a troll.

Read the content of your posts man. "No, your precious mac file system is full of symbolic links since it still uses the Unix file system. ", "LOL you mac people are hilarious", "If you want an os that's sloppily glued together and uses all kinds of hacks then try a linux distro."

You're posting blatant inaccuracies along with attacking comments written like an asshole, seems like trolling to me.

Really? You gathered that from a couple of posts huh. Well, I guess my linux mail server set itself up by itself. I could sell that you know, a server that sets itself up by itself.

Hey, when a large part of what you're saying is either inaccurate or plain wrong, it's not that much of a logical leap to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Setting up a server is not even in the same realm as understanding what's going on internally. I can go from zero to mail + web serving in two hours or less on all three major OSes, and so could anyone else who has a remote understanding of how a server works. They're not rocket science, the process is at least half wizard-based on any current version, and a bit of Google skill would get you the rest of the way.

 

[nerp]

Program Files x86 is NOT A HACK.

People still run 32 bit apps on 64 bit systems. It's an intelligent decision to separate the installations into two distinct directories for a large number of reasons.

You'd be taken more seriously if you knew what you're talking about.

 

[JackMDS]

People can say what ever they want to say about the OS, software, hardware, whatever.

Attacking one the other in person is not allowed.

So please keep it at bay or the thread would be locked.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: wolrah

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Yes because anyone that disagrees is a troll.

Read the content of your posts man. "No, your precious mac file system is full of symbolic links since it still uses the Unix file system. ", "LOL you mac people are hilarious", "If you want an os that's sloppily glued together and uses all kinds of hacks then try a linux distro."

You're posting blatant inaccuracies along with attacking comments written like an asshole, seems like trolling to me.

Really? You gathered that from a couple of posts huh. Well, I guess my linux mail server set itself up by itself. I could sell that you know, a server that sets itself up by itself.

Hey, when a large part of what you're saying is either inaccurate or plain wrong, it's not that much of a logical leap to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Setting up a server is not even in the same realm as understanding what's going on internally. I can go from zero to mail + web serving in two hours or less on all three major OSes, and so could anyone else who has a remote understanding of how a server works. They're not rocket science, the process is at least half wizard-based on any current version, and a bit of Google skill would get you the rest of the way.

Command line doesn't give wizards. I'm talking about a real server. NO GUI

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This general Mac hatred is amusing. Newsflash: Macs have used Intel procs for years now -- they ARE "PCs". You pay a premium for design, manufacturing quality, support, and the ability to run Mac OS X. You can run Windows on them if you want to. If you don't care about any of those things, then get something else. End of story. Some people like Macs, and not just to be "trendy fags". They have their uses.

I think forums like this may bring the hammer down on Macs because the members are so used to the DIY lifestyle involved in system building. OF COURSE you can put together a cheaper rig than a similarly spec'd Mac. But there's a world full of people out there who don't want or need to learn about the current hardware scene, take the time to price components, research compatibility, buy the parts, physically assemble their computer, and get everything working properly. To us that might sound like fun; to others, a nightmare.

From a usability standpoint, Mac OS X is great. The OP has described his sister as not being that tech savvy. A Mac might be nice for her, so the OS can get out of her way and she can focus on learning Photoshop. And no, you don't need a beastly system to run it. Just about anything multicore with a crapload of RAM will do fine. (And if she does need more RAM, don't let her buy it from Apple...)

Until I can throw in any standard PC component it isn't a PC.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This general Mac hatred is amusing. Newsflash: Macs have used Intel procs for years now -- they ARE "PCs". You pay a premium for design, manufacturing quality, support, and the ability to run Mac OS X. You can run Windows on them if you want to. If you don't care about any of those things, then get something else. End of story. Some people like Macs, and not just to be "trendy fags". They have their uses.

I think forums like this may bring the hammer down on Macs because the members are so used to the DIY lifestyle involved in system building. OF COURSE you can put together a cheaper rig than a similarly spec'd Mac. But there's a world full of people out there who don't want or need to learn about the current hardware scene, take the time to price components, research compatibility, buy the parts, physically assemble their computer, and get everything working properly. To us that might sound like fun; to others, a nightmare.

From a usability standpoint, Mac OS X is great. The OP has described his sister as not being that tech savvy. A Mac might be nice for her, so the OS can get out of her way and she can focus on learning Photoshop. And no, you don't need a beastly system to run it. Just about anything multicore with a crapload of RAM will do fine. (And if she does need more RAM, don't let her buy it from Apple...)

Until I can throw in any standard PC component it isn't a PC.

Then I guess Dells with BTX motherboards aren't PCs. And laptops aren't PCs either.

Technically, PC = personal computer = a computer that is intended for use by an individual as opposed to being a server or a cluster node. For the sake of brevity, "PC" = Windows PC.

 

[wolrah]

Originally posted by: nerp
It's an intelligent decision to separate the installations into two distinct directories for a large number of reasons.

You want to tell me why, given that no other OS does this? The closest anything got in recent history was the split Applications (OS 9) directory on PowerPC Macs which was necessary because they ran in an entirely independent runtime environment rather than being the exact same environment with a compiler flag changed.

e: if Microsoft totally dropped support for anything that existed pre-NT5 and then built a compatibility environment, then it would be comparable. Actually I'd applaud them for doing that. Ditch compatibility with 10+ year old crap and have a better platform overall.

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Command line doesn't give wizards. I'm talking about a real server. NO GUI

Tell that to Debian, Red Hat, etc. All the modern package managers have wizards of some kind. If you try to argue Debian in CLI-only mode is not a "real server" I don't know what to say.

Originally posted by: videogames101Until I can throw in any standard PC component it isn't a PC.

Um, exactly what non-standard parts are you complaining about?

All models use standard hard drives, all models except the Macbook Air use standard RAM, all models use standard optical drives, and the Mac Pro will take any PCI Express card and even supports processor upgrades with standard Xeons. Some models have limited expansion (not any more so than their direct PC competitors) but where expansion exists it is currently almost 100% standard. The only catch is video upgrades on the Mac Pro, the boot video card must have support for an EFI platform since it doesn't have BIOS. You can use any PCIe video card as a second, third, etc though.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This general Mac hatred is amusing. Newsflash: Macs have used Intel procs for years now -- they ARE "PCs". You pay a premium for design, manufacturing quality, support, and the ability to run Mac OS X. You can run Windows on them if you want to. If you don't care about any of those things, then get something else. End of story. Some people like Macs, and not just to be "trendy fags". They have their uses.

I think forums like this may bring the hammer down on Macs because the members are so used to the DIY lifestyle involved in system building. OF COURSE you can put together a cheaper rig than a similarly spec'd Mac. But there's a world full of people out there who don't want or need to learn about the current hardware scene, take the time to price components, research compatibility, buy the parts, physically assemble their computer, and get everything working properly. To us that might sound like fun; to others, a nightmare.

From a usability standpoint, Mac OS X is great. The OP has described his sister as not being that tech savvy. A Mac might be nice for her, so the OS can get out of her way and she can focus on learning Photoshop. And no, you don't need a beastly system to run it. Just about anything multicore with a crapload of RAM will do fine. (And if she does need more RAM, don't let her buy it from Apple...)

Until I can throw in any standard PC component it isn't a PC.

Then I guess Dells with BTX motherboards aren't PCs.

I'm not exactly sure of the differences between ATX and BTX form factors, but if indeed I can't but a standard PC component in there then no, not a PC.

Also, laptops are just as bad as macs, terrible products with non-standard components.

And if your going to say what a PC "technically" is, i don't care. The reason I think PCs are better is practically no proprietary hardware, which macs/laptops have.

If I have to buy any 1 component from 1 single company, then it sucks.


(If you haven't figured it out, I think most PC manufacturers are almost as bad as Macs, building your own ftw.)

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Tell that to Debian, Red Hat, etc. All the modern package managers have wizards of some kind. If you try to argue Debian in CLI-only mode is not a "real server" I don't know what to say.

Yeah...you're the one that has no idea what you're talking about.

 

[frostedflakes]

Because it's trendy among graphic design folks.

That said, why not just let her get a MacBook? I'm sure it would handle everything she needs to do, and if all her peers are using them it's probably best that she becomes familiar with the software. And is ability to be easily upgraded really that important, does she even know how to swap out parts? Not all people are like us and enjoy tinkering with computers, for many people it's a tool that is just supposed to work and be easy to use. And many don't mind paying a little extra for this convenience.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Until I can throw in any standard PC component it isn't a PC.

"PC" is simply an abbreviation for "Personal Computer", not the type of hardware used.
Windows based systems can be "Personal Computers",
OSX based systems can be "Personal Computers",
Linux based systems can be "Personal Computers",
Even old DOS based systems are "Personal Computers".

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Tell that to Debian, Red Hat, etc. All the modern package managers have wizards of some kind. If you try to argue Debian in CLI-only mode is not a "real server" I don't know what to say.

Yeah...you're the one that has no idea what you're talking about.

Sounds like he is very well informed to me.....maybe you should chill and learn a few things from this guy....

 

[kalster]

OSX is a much better platform IMO. Much less tweaking, patches. Things just work. Performance is probably similar but not having to deal with constant reboots coz of patches itself is a big selling point.

BTW I dont own a mac, dual booting visa ultimate and hackintosh on my main PC. (next computer will be a mac)

 

[Insomniator]

Regardless of what platform she buys, it should be a laptop. Its not like CS5 is gonna require a heavily upgraded PC platform compared to CS4. Any good PC laptop will run CS4 just fine and give her the ability to take it with her anywhere.

She can always buy a huge accurate monitor for home, but there is no reason to spend a few grand on a quad core with 8 gigs and some crazy graphics card just for photoshop. A core 2 laptop with 4 gigs and a 9600/9800/8800 will be fine for any version of photoshop that comes out for a while.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
My sister doesn't know much about computer hardware, and is currently taking a community college course on photoshop, and is somewhat of an apprentice with a local photographer. She wants to get into digital photography as a new career, including the editing portion.

Why is someone who is taking a course on Photoshop at a community college even considering dumping $1,000+ on a computer to run one program? Tell her to use the computers in the lab or get by with whatever she has until she's regularly using PS for a living.

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
I'm not sure what her budget is, but I feel she should get: A s775 quad core w/ 12mb L2 or a i7 920 w/ maybe some OC, at least 8gb ddr2 1066 or at least 6gb ddr3 1333 on i7, a 1TB internal for storage and non performance program installs, an ssd for os and photoshop, an external drive for backups, at least a 24" monitor with good resolution and color gamut, and 2 ati 4870's in CF.

Are you out of your skull? This is horrible, horrible advice. You're telling someone who's a community college student tentatively taking their first steps toward a new career to drop $2,000 on a system to do something that can be accomplished on a system that costs 1/5th as much money. This is the type of 'American common sense' that will see us through these tough times...:disgust:

Originally posted by: Comdrpopnfresh
Would she be okay with a macbook? What hardware should she get? Maybe a few configurations? Thanks.

If she's deadset on getting a Mac tell her to watch Craigslist for a generation or two old regular macbook...

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

Sry- I didn't want to get too personal; though it is no fault of yours. She has an income, is saving up money wisely, and will likely be purchasing photoshop by the end of her course to continue practicing and furthering her abilities/familiarity with the program. She has a university degree- the community college is just a locally close way to gain the knowledge she'd like to accrue to move into digital photography as a career and/or hobby. She is currently working on a s478 2.4ghz pentium 4 with 256mb of RDRAM... so she'll need a new system before buying photoshop. I read adobe is a bit finicky about their licenses; therefore she should decide on hardware before getting the mac or windows version of photoshop; no?
My throwing out the hardware was just an attempt to provide the windows-based desktop she could get for a similar dollar amount as a macbook- admittedly, I didn't check newegg or anything, so I was guesstimating. It wasn't meant to be the 'goal' system- just an illustration that, if such an amount of money is desired to be spent- something a lot more powerful can be had.
I personally think she'd be fine with an e7200/e5200, and a 9800gt w/ 3 gigs of ram, and vista premium- so pretty much a system before peripherals being <$700...
My suggestion to her on mac hardware- if she insists on it being new, is to wait until the refresh their graphics.

 

[AmdInside]

Mac's have better color management built into the operating system. Plus, as an artist, you generally get taken more seriously when you have a Mac than a PC.

 

[Si7entSam]

"Basically, Final Cut." Adobe Premiere and After Effects... Both super simple to use if you are semi-competant, and have used Adobe before.

My .02$

 

[Fox5]

The biggest reason against a Mac for photoshop is the like of a 64 bit photoshop on Mac currently. Put simply, if you have 4GB of ram or more, 64 bit photoshop performance blows away 32 bit, and the Mac version isn't.

However, she doesn't sound like she's some ultra professional, even a Macbook should be adequate for her needs.