Listen to the man. Go with Apple.

quote:

Originally posted by Xer0:
If she's going to get into the graphic design field professionally, then the standard is Apple. Just the way it is. Sure you can buy a Windows machine that will do the same for cheaper, but the super majority of people/businesses in graphics design are Apple shops.

I've been in the graphics industry 35 years.

Color management SUCKS on a windows system and every last trainee I get that has no color management training gets the door. The constant system updates break the software and settings, often. Like every time often.

Reality.

I do this, professional level for a major architectural firm with MILLIONS of revenue required of me monthly for the projects color to be right. Not good enough, but RIGHT.

Good enough goes in the dumpster.

My RIP is windows based and I have to constantly keep the spectral densitometer on it as it corrupts the icc profiles with the effing updates.

She will no doubt be using Adobe Creative Suite. (Now only available as Creative Cloud)-- Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Premiere and others.

They will run on either Mac or PC, and the end product output is pretty much platform independent.

That said, most studios are Mac based so it's probably good to have a solid footing on that platform. Also, I'll bet most of the other students in her course of study will be running Macs, so maybe being able to share native files would be an advantage. More expensive for sure, but Apple makes top end hardware so no worries there.

When I went to college for graphics - Illustrator, Photoshop, Quark, Flash, and a few others ... - we used Apple in the lab. After the course, I bought a beautiful monitor and computer. A year later, I realized a decent laptop would have been a better choice.

Plenty of people photo-edit on a 15" laptop screen.

And several folks go the way of getting a refurbished Mac to save a few $$. You can still get the Apple Care for the 3 years.

Apple Refurbished

If she plans to work in the industry she might as well get the Mac because that is what everyone will be using that she works with. If she moves on from a creative culture to the later stages (where the money is) she will need a Mac because final trapping, color, output devices are Mac only based.

I started in the industry when everything was done by hand. It then went on to Scitex equipment and was then taken over by the Mac. That isn't going to change anytime soon because the infrastructure is just too deep for the end product, plus it's an undeniably solid platform.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 1s1k,

You ran a Response 300?

I was on Linotype/Hell and Crossfield equipment and just marveled at Scitex equipment.

I still own a Dolev 200 and a Brisque RIP when I had my service bureau I opened in 1997. I expanded to include an Escofot/Purrup plate setter and a Heidelberg GTOZ52 before I sold my shop.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
You ran a Response 300?

I was on Linotype/Hell and Crossfield equipment and just marveled at Scitex equipment.

I still own a Dolev 200 and a Brisque RIP when I had my service bureau I opened in 1997. I expanded to include an Escofot/Purrup plate setter and a Heidelberg GTOZ52 before I sold my shop.

I remember all of that stuff, very cool. I think the Dolev 200 was one of the first imagesetters that started bridging the gap with the old school film strippers and the digital age.

I remember taking a $100,000 Scitex machine and rolling it off the dock into a dumpster after the Macs took over.

If she really wants to be in demand, have her learn web programming in addition to being a good graphics designer. My friend owns her own small graphics design business. The problem she and other local businesses that do the same thing is that you can either hire a good graphics designer or you can hire a web programmer. You CANNOT find a good designer with web skills or vice versa a web programmer with good graphics designer skills.

Graphics designers are kinda of a dime a dozen these days since everyone has a computer and decent creativity is abundant in those aspiring artists. Web programmers are also a dime a dozen, but everyone has seen ugly plain engineer-efficient type websites. As one side is creatively driven, but the other side is logically, it is rare for those fields to cross, even though for advertising on the Internet it is actually essential.

Here's a real example of my friend's creativity AND web tech prowess. www.spray.com. While she wears many hats, for this particular lucrative account she handles this site plus 20+ other Spray sites in different languages and countries (basically same site with language and parts differences. Spray internal IT supports the backend database, while my friend does all the web design and front end integration. The reason she does it all herself is that she CANNOT find people with this type of web/database integrated skill. She has a few employees, but they can only do design or layout. She'd pay GOOD money to get some of this design AND integration load off her back so she could do other company revenue-building boss work (the hard part with being a small business boss trying to get bigger). Pure web programmers know jack about color schemes, design, etc and their efficient-but-ugly type work makes just make it difficult to turn into a quality advertising site that real companies want to pay for.

Like I said, being able to do basic design work like company logos and such are a dime a dozen. Anyone can draw on a computer, it's how fast and error free and hold to the customer's wants. Being a computer graphics Michelangelo is NOT what design houses are looking for these days, it's being able to QUICKLY create what the "customer" expects/wants and INTEGRATE it into a useful advertising mediums like the Internet.

Also make sure she understands the PRINTING side of things well. Everyone used to think that paper printing was a dying skill, but like how emails, only managed to increase printing, so to is paper press-printing alive and well and knowing how print shops operate and how their people "talk" with their terminology and special requirements, puts a graphics artists far above their normal peers who don't know jack about printing beyond clicking a "print" button. That doesn't work out well when contacting a real print house that want to know what type of paper, weight of paper, CYMK profiles, print/plate process, etc to make 10000 advertising pamphlets .

Oh and FYI, I'm not in the graphics business at all, I only learn of her personnel struggles when she bitches to me about trying to hire quality people! One of her most vocal complaints is how bad at spelling most graphics designers are, and by not even knowing they suck at spelling, can't be bothered to use the built in SPELL CHECKS on customer's work!

Definately get a high def wide screen. I got an asus laptop for 500 that handles everything quite well. After effects, premiere photoshop etc... you ought to do just swimmingly with a bit over a grand and the suggestions here.

One heads up, unless its changed i thought adobe was free for students??

quote:

One heads up, unless its changed i thought adobe was free for students??

Not free but at a good discount. Still cloud based with a monthly subscription fee. The school will have all of the details and hook her up.

Yes MacBooks cost more.

Yes the "guts" are the same or maybe even a little lower spec.

What that doesn't take into account though is that Mac OS is more efficient and performs better than Windows. When I made the move to Apple, I did an "apples to apples" comparison and ran windows 7 on a Mac mini with a Boot camp configuration. The MAC, with same CPU, hard drive, memory, and similar video card (nVidia vs. AMD) beat the Windows box by about 10-12% across the board in every benchmark.

There is also a value (what it is is an individual decision) to the support of Apple stores and the 3-year AppleCare (which I would consider a requirement for a computer that is going to travel a lot)

Macs tend to last longer as well and definitely retain used value if she ends up selling to upgrade down the road.

How will she do switching back and forth between OS? I am all Mac, but use Windows 7 at work. Not unbearable, but I am reminded frequently that I made the right choice.


Finally, I will repeat what another post talked about- Color accuracy. MacBook screens are stellar and accurate. Not that you can't get a good screen on a Windows laptop but to do so you re going to be in the same price ballpark of a MacBook. Can't really compare two laptops with a similar CPU spec and complain about price when the Mac has a calibrated IPS Retina display and the PC has a cheap LED panel that needs a piece of external equipment and software to regularly adjust the color gamut.

You can save about 15% going with a refurb, they are like new and have exact same warranty as new, or you can go retail and take advantage of the student pricing which is about the same. Too bad you can't get student pricing on a refurb...

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:


Finally, I will repeat what another post talked about- Color accuracy. MacBook screens are stellar and accurate. Not that you can't get a good screen on a Windows laptop but to do so you re going to be in the same price ballpark of a MacBook. Can't really compare two laptops with a similar CPU spec and complain about price when the Mac has a calibrated IPS Retina display and the PC has a cheap LED panel that needs a piece of external equipment and software to regularly adjust the color gamut.

The Macbook Pro's retina display is 2880-by-1800 resolution, and covers about 91% of the Adobe RGB color gamut.

The Dell XPS 15, which costs about $1000 less, has a 4K IPS screen (3,840 x 2,160 resolution) and covers 100% of the Adobe RGB color gamut.

That's 220 pixels per inch vs the Dell's 282 pixels per inch, or about 30% higher resolution. Apple covers more of the P3 color space, but the world still largely runs on the Adobe RGB gamut--Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Premiere, etc. The P3 color space is of concern for people who make movies for theatrical release.

I'm not saying the Dell is somehow superior than the Macbook (it is, after all, running Windows), but give the other manufacturers some credit. They're all likely built in factories a few miles apart from each other, using supply chain and vendors that all drink in the same bars. Apple can build a better computer for the money. They just choose not to.

For a long time, PC makers have only made their high end computers for their business users. That's changing in recent years, and all the manufacturers are releasing premium level notebooks that are solid contenders against the Macbook in almost every regard.

Probably the single best argument so far isn't Macbook vs PC. It's Mac OS vs Windows. It's a valid argument. I think a college kid would do well with a MacOS machine. Less viruses, and plenty of hipsters out there who should be willing to help her if she has problems. But, I also don't think having a Windows PC will hold anyone back--the software she'll most likely be using will be cross-platform and she'll be learning to use Macs in the lab.

Much of the business world still runs on PCs. It might not hurt her to know how to use a PC as well--most kids these days don't really get much computer time and do everything on their phones and tablets. She'll use this computer for 4 years, tops, then she'll be out in the real world where any real employer will likely issue her whatever computer they expect her to use. Would suck if she didn't know how to use a PC.

Yes, there are quality PC's.

My point was that it isn't fair to compare on price a $2000 Mac vs a mid-range $800 PC. Once you get quality on par between the two, you are starting to look at $1200+ PC's vs that $2000 Mac and the price gap is reduced.

I'm certainly no graphic designer but this might help:

Link For Comparisons

I'm a Windows guy but I might add that ALL of our web graphic designers use a MacBook Pro. On the development side, one of our engineers use an Apple. If your daughter thinks she might want to get into the development side of things she might want a windows box. If she wants to go more the graphics side the Apple seems like the choice to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:


Finally, I will repeat what another post talked about- Color accuracy. MacBook screens are stellar and accurate. Not that you can't get a good screen on a Windows laptop but to do so you re going to be in the same price ballpark of a MacBook. Can't really compare two laptops with a similar CPU spec and complain about price when the Mac has a calibrated IPS Retina display and the PC has a cheap LED panel that needs a piece of external equipment and software to regularly adjust the color gamut.

The Macbook Pro's retina display is 2880-by-1800 resolution, and covers about 91% of the Adobe RGB color gamut.

The Dell XPS 15, which costs about $1000 less, has a 4K IPS screen (3,840 x 2,160 resolution) and covers 100% of the Adobe RGB color gamut.

That's 220 pixels per inch vs the Dell's 282 pixels per inch, or about 30% higher resolution. Apple covers more of the P3 color space, but the world still largely runs on the Adobe RGB gamut--Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Premiere, etc. The P3 color space is of concern for people who make movies for theatrical release.

I'm not saying the Dell is somehow superior than the Macbook (it is, after all, running Windows), but give the other manufacturers some credit. They're all likely built in factories a few miles apart from each other, using supply chain and vendors that all drink in the same bars. Apple can build a better computer for the money. They just choose not to.

For a long time, PC makers have only made their high end computers for their business users. That's changing in recent years, and all the manufacturers are releasing premium level notebooks that are solid contenders against the Macbook in almost every regard.

Probably the single best argument so far isn't Macbook vs PC. It's Mac OS vs Windows. It's a valid argument. I think a college kid would do well with a MacOS machine. Less viruses, and plenty of hipsters out there who should be willing to help her if she has problems. But, I also don't think having a Windows PC will hold anyone back--the software she'll most likely be using will be cross-platform and she'll be learning to use Macs in the lab.

Much of the business world still runs on PCs. It might not hurt her to know how to use a PC as well--most kids these days don't really get much computer time and do everything on their phones and tablets. She'll use this computer for 4 years, tops, then she'll be out in the real world where any real employer will likely issue her whatever computer they expect her to use. Would suck if she didn't know how to use a PC.

Insomnia sucks. That said, I've just spent the better part of an hour on Dell's site pricing the 15" XPS vs the MacBook Pro trying to equal the specs.

XPS 15" i7 3.8GHz, 16GB 2400MHz RAM, 512GB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce GTX w/ 4GB GDDR5, 15" 1920x1080 InfinityEdge, Fingerprint reader is $1774.99 Adding the 4k 3840x2160 InfinityEdge touch screen adds $400 making total $2174.99.

Pros: Better screen, touch screen, more types of ports
Cons: 8 oz heavier w/ 3840x2160 screen, No Office-type software, Windows 10

MacBook Pro 15" 2.9GHZ (Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz), 16GB 2133MHz RAM, 512GB SSD, 15" Retina Screen (2880x1800), Radeon Pro 560 w/ 4GB GDDR5 & Intel HD Graphics 630 is $2799.00.

Pros: MacOS, Slightly faster processor, Multiple software apps (Photos, iMovie, GarageBand) & Apple's Office apps (Pages, Numbers, Keynote), additional Intel HD 630 graphics processor, Brighter screen (500 nits vs 350 nits). Retina Display Profiles include Basic, Adobe RGB, Apple RGB, & ProPhoto RGB as well as the ability to calibrate the display.

Cons: Less diverse ports, Need adapters. More expensive.


Price difference is $624.01 in favor of Dell. It is up to the purchaser to determine which is the better value.

I'd lean Mac as well. My guess -- Sooner or later, there'll be something that comes up where that decision would have been the preferred. Just don't know what it is yet.

Also, if she's not doing a ton of video, I imagine even the cheapest Mac would do a fine job at image editing and such. With video, i imagine the more HP the better. But they always say Macs are very efficient with their resources, so it may not be an "apples to apples" thing. #PUN!

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
You ran a Response 300?

I was on Linotype/Hell and Crossfield equipment and just marveled at Scitex equipment.

I still own a Dolev 200 and a Brisque RIP when I had my service bureau I opened in 1997. I expanded to include an Escofot/Purrup plate setter and a Heidelberg GTOZ52 before I sold my shop.

You are bringing back bad memories. The Dolev was great but the Brisque platform finally failed cause it couldn't handle transparency delivered by the Adobe rip engine. The model of assigning images to linework could not quite figure out how to overprint text/linework. Was it image or LW? If image it was at 300 DPI and the overprint part of the 9pt serif text looked like a pixelated mess. If LW, then no image overprinted.

Ahh, I miss the days when one only needed a razor blade, rubylith and scotch tape to make a page.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JimTheo,

Get an apple.

Get the most memory you can and decent size hard drive. Drive space is expandable externally cheap, memory is not.

I have an HP my wife has mac laptop.

Color is much better on the MAC.

Adobe is "hardware independent" but the results are sometimes not EXACTLY the same.

If she submits something done on a windows machine and is viewed on a Mac it may have some subtle or not so subtle differences.

As part of the total cost of her education, the 1000 difference is small.

Also, couple more fine points here. Although technically you can use Windows to build stuff in an Mac environment, it is a BAD idea in a mixed production setting. Real bad.

Text handling is somewhat different between Mac and Win. InDesign, Illustrator and Quark can't resolve those issues. If you apply formatting on a PC then later on it is opened up on a Mac, kerning and line breaks can and do change, unless you outline the text-then it is uneditable or searchable. Text fitting precise locations will be hard to keep consistent. People lose jobs for crap like that.

What about fonts? It's all well and good that the NEW format (.otf) is platform agnostic, but creatives ALWAYS use older fonts (type 1, type 2 and 3, postscript fonts) that are not converted. And they wreak havok if opened on another machine. Even the version has to be the same else problems can ensue, let alone platform changes.

I love it when instructors give out advice like he did. I'[m not sure he ever worked in the field, an evangelist or was faced with fixing an non-rippable file because of those issues. There are more issues, trust me. Better to try to keep with the production "Norm" of Mac.