# pc vs mac



## zoranb (Feb 7, 2006)

what i wanna know is why has the pc been more significant in the line of work of web design? whys isnt the mac there as strong as on dtp?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 7, 2006)

PCs are more significant in every line of work, simply because: a) they're perceived as "cheaper", b) people blindly use whatever is given to them, and c) they have 15 times the marketshare that Macs do.

If you prefer working on a Mac for web design, then by all means, work on a Mac.  But for the time being, Macintosh marketshare is so low that Macs don't dominate any industry anymore.  Even video editing is mostly done on high-end PCs or dedicated video editing machines that run an operating system other than Mac OS X.

The one industry where the Mac is still pretty prevalent is in the pre-press/printing industry, but if a survey was taken, I'd be willing to bet that there are more PCs than Macs doing that kind of stuff now.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 7, 2006)

Is this actually the case in web development?  All web development?  I think it depends what you're coding for.  Some people might use WIndows PCs if they're developing for Microsoft-based server environments, but there are other resources that allow you to use other operating system such as open source *nix or Mac OS X.  Heck, the first web page was designed on a NeXT cube!


----------



## mdnky (Feb 7, 2006)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Heck, the first web page was designed on a NeXT cube!


Huh?  You might want to double-check that.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 8, 2006)

the first peoper web-browser (not sure what that constitutes) was on NEXTSTEP.


----------



## Viro (Feb 8, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> the first peoper web-browser (not sure what that constitutes) was on NEXTSTEP.



Hmm, if you're not sure what that constitutes, can you still make that claim? What source did you get this information from?


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 8, 2006)

You're right....excuse my ignorance.   After doing some research, the NeXT cube was used in the creation of the WWW.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 8, 2006)

i read it on a very deep NEXT website, but i can't remember the whereabouts. i think it was nixgeek or RacerX's links but i could be wrong again.


----------



## lurk (Feb 8, 2006)

Just google for _berners-lee nextstep_ and you will get lots of references.


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 8, 2006)

The main reason PCs are used so much in web-design is that, unlike print design and imaging/video work, web-pages are viewed again by people with computers, most of whom have PCs.

That is, a web-designer would have to be pretty careless not to test on (and build around the flaws of) Internet Explorer on Windows, since that's where most people will see the final product.

That having been said, I know a lot of people who do their web design work on Macs and do compatibility testing on the PC browsers (instead of the other way around), myself included.


----------



## zoranb (Feb 9, 2006)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> The main reason PCs are used so much in web-design is that, unlike print design and imaging/video work, web-pages are viewed again by people with computers, most of whom have PCs.



Excuse my ignorance but that doesnt sound like a good reason to me!


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 9, 2006)

Sure, the reasoning shouldn't be this way, but that's the reality.  The majority of people viewing your website will be users on Windows machines using IE.  Of course, this is slowly changing in the direction of Firefox, but mostly on the PC.  In truth, you really have to make your website is accessible to your end users no matter what they're using.  Mind you, the rare person still browsing the web on an old 68K Mac running System 7.5 or even a PC user running Windows 3.x on a Pentium I might not be your priority, but definitely most end users will be running either a Mac OS X or Windows 2K/XP computer running either IE, Firefox/Netscape, Mozilla/SeaMonkey/Camino, or Opera.  And you might even want to make sure it displays in the open source desktop enironments properly as well.


----------



## RacerX (Feb 9, 2006)

mdnky said:
			
		

> Huh?  You might want to double-check that.
> 
> *in responce to nixgeek:*Heck, the first web page was designed on a NeXT cube! ​


The first web browser, which was also the first web HTML editor app (and it was WYSIWYG by the way), and the first web server were designed and built on a NeXT Cube running NEXTSTEP 2.0.

In the beginning the web (defined as hyper text transport protocol serving hyper text markup language documents) was only for NeXT computers. And the first web page can be found here... which was (again) made on a NeXT computer.

The first development version of WorldWideWeb.app was made in November 1990. First pages accessible via httpd by NeXT systems started by the end of 1990.

By March of 1991 ports to X11 and Motif had started (line mode browsers, April 1992 for HTML browsers). First port to Macintosh was in December 1992.

The basics of the hyper text markup client were quickly ported to X11, Motif and Macintosh based systems because these were the systems used by scientists, researchers and educators.  But the first Windows client would have to wait until after NCSA started making Mosaic (June 1993 for development, first public release was in November 1993). This was due primarily to the fact that DOS/Windows systems were used mainly by secretaries, data entry and home users (none of which needed to be included on the web because it was originally for sharing research information).

The inclusion of Windows on the web marked a giant step backwards. Because of the limitations of DOS/Windows, web extension standards were changed. Before Windows was on the web most file extensions were not limited to three characters (for example _html_ and _jpeg_ were the original standard extensions), but because of the _8.3_ limitation of DOS/Windows, the web file names took a step backwards until Microsoft was able to catch up with the rest of the computing world.

It should also be noted that Microsoft didn't even do the initial development of Internet Explorer. IE is based on Mosaic.



Hope that helps resolve things.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 9, 2006)

OK, I think we can close the thread now. ::ha::

RacerX, I'm so glad that we have you here on MacOSX.com.  Thanks for the wealth of information you always provide and can count on.   I learn more everytime you post here.


----------



## fryke (Feb 9, 2006)

Well... Yeah, but it's not really an answer to the _original_ question. 

I'd say that "web design" (not web development, the question was design...) at its very beginning wasn't really a design job for graphics designers. You simply _couldn't_ design much. The Mac-using graphics designers _I_ know of the early times had a problem with this. They wanted to replace as much of the pages they designed with pictures. But that was a problem for the web, which was very slow as soon as you had to load a lot of pix. (Well, it's still much better if you use text and code instead of images today, but with CSS etc. we have a lot more "designable" code.)

Before there were WYSIWIG HTML-editors, designing web pages often was a three step process. A designer (most probably on a Mac) desigend something in Photoshop and Illustrator/FreeHand. Then the webdesigner told the graphics designer to *NOT* base everything on 300 dpi but on 72 dpi. Then the graphics designer quit the contract. Just kidding. But I guess it's part of the truth. Designers had to adapt to the new medium or they would rather stay with print. Classic webdesign was more of a code/hack/design-appropriately-to-the-medium kind of job.


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 9, 2006)

This is true.  Now that I think about it, most web pages were done in raw HTML code using editors and such.  Then you had the WYSIWYG editors like Claris HomePage which tried to but never really actually gave you the design you saw.  Seems like web design went through a lot of growing pains during the 90s.


----------



## RacerX (Feb 9, 2006)

We shouldn't discount the very first browser/editor though... or the reason it was WYSIWYG.

HTML started out life as a cross platform page layout language... that didn't really work and was dropped by most everyone. It was still very limited when Berners-Lee adopted it as the layout language for documents for WWW. Between the portability of the documents, the hypertext linking and the flexibility of the layout language (which was working against it as a page layout language), made it perfect.

So, in the original concept, people would not only browse the web, they would have populated it with documents... which was why WWW was both a browser and a user oriented HTML editor.

The problems came from the move from NeXT systems to other systems. The rendering engine was ported... for browsing, but much of the rest of WWW was left with Berners-Lee and the NeXT systems on the web. And one of the key factors of this was that HTML was (for the most part) human readable (specially at this very early stage of the web).

Writing web pages by hand was very easy for people who were currently writing their research paper in TeX. There wasn't a need for the WYSIWYG HTML editor by these people. And by the time that Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina were introduced to the web while they were at NCSA, most browsers had shed the editor that was such a big part of WWW.



			
				fryke said:
			
		

> I'd say that "web design" (not web development, the question was design...) at its very beginning wasn't really a design job for graphics designers. You simply _couldn't_ design much.


Like I said, it was originally designed for exchanging information in the science communities.

When I started using the web in 1993 it was a place to communicate and find information about what other people in your community were doing... in my case, the mathematics community.

I honestly didn't realize that _normal_ people were on the web until mid 1995. I remember starting to see web addresses on ads and thinking... why are they on the web? I was still using xmosaic on a Sun workstation and hadn't even heard of Netscape yet.

Basically my first three years on the web I never ventured outside of the interconnected institutions of research and study. Math, physics, astronomy... these were the subjects of browsing the web for me. In fact watching the first images of the impact of Shoemaker-Levi on Jupiter made me realize that the web was an almost instantaneous medium.

But I never thought that graphic designers would have anything to do with making web pages.



> Before there were WYSIWIG HTML-editors, designing web pages often was a three step process. A designer (most probably on a Mac) desigend something in Photoshop and Illustrator/FreeHand. Then the webdesigner told the graphics designer to *NOT* base everything on 300 dpi but on 72 dpi. Then the graphics designer quit the contract. Just kidding.


Actually I work with graphic designers on web projects and even help bridge the gap between graphic designers and other web designers on projects I'm not even part of.

Sometime I end up feeling like a marriage counselor in those situations. 



As for the original question... what was the question again?


----------



## mdnky (Feb 9, 2006)

I guess it depends on your definition of web page in general.  There were early instances of "pages" which could easily be justified as being called a web page (a Mac is technically a Mac regardless of it being PowerPC based or Intel/x86 based, right?).  If you want to limit it to just HTML based pages, then I would have to agree with you.  Personally I don't limit it to that though.

As far as why the Macs aren't as popular, a lot of it has to do with three things:  Cost, Market Share and Education.  PCs can be had for less, there's no questioning that (especially in the last 10 years).  The PC also has a larger share (ok, most of it) of the market.  

Generally speaking, designing a web page isn't "rocket science".  Until recently you could easily get a job doing it with little or no formal education required.  The pay for such jobs was also pretty low because of that.  Graphic design on the other hand requires a bit more training in a formal sense.  Sure people can and have done it without formal education, but that's far rarer than it is with web design.  The pay is a lot better too.  

Generally, those buying Macs have a bit more money to spend than those buying PCs.  Companies, who thrive on the "bottom line" also play a small role here...why buy a $1000 to $2000 system when you can grab a $500 one that'll do what you need.  Not saying I agree with it, but money (specifically profit) talks in the business world.

You could easily make a claim as to "the why" with any number of reasons mentioned here singularly.  Some make sense, some don't (what in life ever does?).  Some are easy to see, others aren't.  Honestly the real reason is probably a combination of some or all the reasons mention in this thread.  I don't think there's one concrete reason that it can be narrowed down to.  ((And yes, I know I didn't make a good argument here on my reasons...it would just take way too much space to do so...no one would want to read it, including me.))


----------



## zoranb (Feb 10, 2006)

so whats the answer to the topik in a few simple words?


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 10, 2006)

zoranb said:
			
		

> so whats the answer to the topik in a few simple words?



Internet Explorer


----------



## zoranb (Feb 10, 2006)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> Internet Explorer



Thats the reason why the pc is stronger in the Webdesign department and the mac isnt? IE?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 10, 2006)

yup.  IE was the reason the PC took over in the first place, or at least the final nail in the coffin.  every PC shipped had windows on it by about 1996, every copy of windows was completely integrated with IE by 1998.  IE didn't start the internet, but it started to define it, and by IE4, netscape, the previous standard, was dying.  ActiveX controls became the standard, and ever since then, every webpage had to be complient with IE, or it would fail.  to make it easier to make sure it complied with these standards, you made web pages on a pc.  i would still choose a mac.  to be sure it wotrks on any platform.


----------



## chels (Feb 10, 2006)

I have not really read this intire thread, but about IE, isnt that a huge reason for Windows security vulnerabilities?


----------



## zoranb (Feb 10, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> yup.  IE was the reason the PC took over in the first place, or at least the final nail in the coffin.  every PC shipped had windows on it by about 1996, every copy of windows was completely integrated with IE by 1998.  IE didn't start the internet, but it started to define it, and by IE4, netscape, the previous standard, was dying.  ActiveX controls became the standard, and ever since then, every webpage had to be complient with IE, or it would fail.  to make it easier to make sure it complied with these standards, you made web pages on a pc.  i would still choose a mac.  to be sure it wotrks on any platform.



Thats a good reason, but, couldnt macs make web pages compliant to IE? Why not?


----------



## lurk (Feb 10, 2006)

Sure they could,  but you are assuming that IE and the other browsers of the day were not buggy as all get out.  You never really know how it would render until you checked it on IE. You are assuming that the development processes and the tools used were (or are) much more advanced that was the case.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 10, 2006)

Some reasons for whatever I was thinking about:
1) Regular websites are composed using templates, copy and paste coding, and software applications that do it for us. Yahoo offers support for several file types and has made it generally easier for a user to set up a website, blog, message board, guestbook and a slew of other things. If you are looking at the PC side of the spectrum this is an accurate description.
2) Website Design is the careful process of testing compatibility with other browsers, determining a design or style for the client, designing the website so that it is easy to navigate. The latter is especially important for companies that offer a wide range of products. The website designer also has to decide if they will need to add some interactive components via Flash or Shockwave. It depends on the goal for the website.
3) Some Mac users are taking advantage of the newest addition, iWeb, to the iLife suite. They are taking their existing media and combining them to create good websites. PC users don't have an iLife::ha:: so their only option is to buy a Mac or get a life.

Website designers have 'hopefully' moved on to support Firefox, Netscape, Safari, and other standard compliant web browsers as well. 
The problem I see is that Microsoft hasn't updated Internet Explorer for some time now. The only updates are for security almost every single day. When the company does change their browser they add frivilous features or steal coding and come up with an alternate name like J Script. I would say Internet Explorer is used by a significant majority of the population but unless you are a designer; one need not worry about supporting that old dog.


----------



## fryke (Feb 10, 2006)

About your third point, Apeintheshell: I truly hope that iWeb won't really catch on with users for the time being. The code it produces is _horribly_ bloated. I'm ashamed Apple actually produced something like it. I think the Safari developers are, too.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 10, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> The code it produces is _horribly_ bloated. I'm ashamed Apple actually produced something like it.


That's the understatement of the century.  I'm not sure there's a proper adjective in the English language that could properly describe how bloated and horrible code produced by iWeb is.

I'll go a bit farther thougheven the people who designed Microsoft FrontPage are laughing at the people responsible for iWeb.


----------



## fryke (Feb 10, 2006)

But we all know that version 2 of it will come out in January 2007. We also know it won't fix this code-problem. It'll sure add more and even funkier templates, though. Ack...


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Feb 10, 2006)

i've just seen AdamByte's new iWeb-page.  it's horrible, (sorry adam) the images are HUGE, and badly optimised, so they all take ages to load, and then the page breaks.  shoddy.


----------



## texanpenguin (Feb 12, 2006)

zoranb said:
			
		

> Thats a good reason, but, couldnt macs make web pages compliant to IE? Why not?



They can and do; I, personally do exactly that. And depending on the firm, many professional web-design institutions do likewise. The problem is just convenience.

Safari tends to work similarly to Firefox (which is available, of course, on PCs). Mac IE is a dying market. Internet Explorer for Windows is a beast completely unto itself. Since every website needs to be compatibility-tested for IE and Firefox, it makes good sense to use a PC, where you don't have to change computers or run VPC to test it in IE (Win).

But it's not impossible. Personally, I find OS X applications like CSSEdit by MacRabbit completely indispensable, and thoroughly dislike doing webdesign work on other platforms.


----------



## RacerX (Feb 13, 2006)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> Since every website needs to be compatibility-tested for IE and Firefox, it makes good sense to use a PC, where you don't have to change computers or run VPC to test it in IE (Win).


Unless it will impact your work flow... I don't consider Windows to have the ability to let users multitask. In which case, someone more productive on a Mac would make better use of their time building on a Mac and later testing on a PC.



Unless you are paid by the hour of course... then moving to a PC and working slower is an advantage!


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 13, 2006)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> ...
> Safari tends to work similarly to Firefox...



I thought Safari used the KHTML engine like Konqueror...did this change somewhere during Safari's development?


----------



## lurk (Feb 13, 2006)

No it is based on KHTM still.  Think that was more a reference to both of them trying to actually support standards and rendering as correctly as they can.  This is opposed to, well you know...


----------

