Apple VS. Windows

[21questions]

Hi guys i dont know where to go but i do know that there are some very experianced individuals here so my question is ....


Why is it that apple's picture quality is much better than windows?

I mean you can do so much to a PC as far as upgrades along with great monitors. I went to bestbuy the other day and i never seen a windows pc next to an apple. Big difference, is there any way for a pc to have that kind of vivid/clear quality?

[eeyrjmr]

Apply control the hardware and as such they can do alot to get the best matchup between devices
ie a TFT controller-chip that is best matched for the TFT array in-use

you *could* get the same effect for a PC but will take some hunting

[Catweazle]

The 'difference' here has absolutely, totally, completely NOTHING WAHATSOEVER to do with Windows v Mac!

You've looked at two PCs side by side. One has had a high quality display monitor as part of the package, and the display settings already configured for best image quality. The other has either a low quality monitor, display settings not yet adequately configured, or both!

It's as simple as that. You want great image quality on a PC? Make sure the PC you purchase includes a damn good monitor!

Edit: eejymr, that's just silly, if you are trying to imply that it is actually difficult to find decent monitors!

[ne1wantaride]

Another point. I'm sure that the monitors had a different finish on them. The Apple probably had that glossy finish they put on all their monitors. The PC probably had the matte finish. The finish of the monitors does amazing things for final picture quality. Apple monitor's might look nice but when you look at all the specs they are pretty run of the mill until you get into the $$$ monitors. PC monitors run the same track run of the mill until you get to $$$. The only thing that is different is that pricing is more competitive vs. features on the PC side from competitive intrusion.

[eeyrjmr]

Edit: eejymr, that's just silly, if you are trying to imply that it is actually difficult to find decent monitors!

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is Apple control the hardware
You can get decent monitors for IBM-PC's

[Betrayer00GT]

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is Apple control the hardware

Not with monitors they don't. Monitors don't use "drivers" in any real sense of the word. They do not put components in their computers that don't work properly in testing, but to say they have any "control" over the "hardware" in the monitor is silly. They don't even "control" the settings used for the monitor, once some one turns it on, as they can be changed at will by the user.

They use the same LCD monitor panels that every one else uses. The only panel makers for the "TN" type panels (right off wikipedia) are:

LG.Philips
AU Optronics
S-LCD Corporation (a Samsung/Sony joint venture)
Chi Mei Optoelectronics
Sharp Corporation
Samsung

In what way does Apple "control" any of these companies? They control which of those panels goes into their monitors, but all that means is they are a monitor brand. Not manufacturer, they don't even do that, just a brand. There is no difference between them as a monitor brand vs Dell as a monitor brand. Except that they charge more because they are white and have the apple logo on them. Everyone should be familiar with these 30" examples:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=3007WFPHC&s=dhs

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=C2BD3F4C&fnode=home&nplm=M9179LL/A

~$1274 Dell vs ~$1800 Apple, ATM.

Oh wait, Apple "controls" the hardware in that monitor, so it is totally worth the price difference.

It is so awesome to see people suck the Apple marketing department's body part. These sorts of people are so happy as they swallow what comes out. :eek:

:rolleyes:

[odoe]

If this is going to turn into immature mac bashing, I'll close it down and hand out infractions.

[eeyrjmr]

Not with monitors they don't. Monitors don't use "drivers" in any real sense of the word. They do not put components in their computers that don't work properly in testing, but to say they have any "control" over the "hardware" in the monitor is silly. They don't even "control" the settings used for the monitor, once some one turns it on, as they can be changed at will by the user.

fyi I am a hardware engineer and to me a driver is a chip that DRIVES another
Be it a line-driver to send more robust data, or a FET-driver to drive a FET hard enough to get its switching speeds up, or an LED-driver to control the current flowing in the led... or a TFT matrix driver

There are good driver and excellent drivers.
Apple control the hardware FACT, they decide what goes into their computers FACT and they also by and large micro-design their machine THUS they can choose a TFT-driver that is best matched for a certain TFT matrix to get the best out of it, with that comes a cost and that cost is passed onto the consumer

a "software" driver to me is a translator from hardware-specific bit-patterns to an std interface (API)

[markt435]

depending on the LCD i doubt you could notice the difference unless you looked for it. i'm just gonna guess that the screen you looked at on the PC wasn't adjusted correctly and since it was in best buy...people fuck with the shit all the time so.

i have a weird problem with my LCD but i think its because i'm not using a DVI cable. it showed up with a CRT as well so its either a vid card problem or the DVI to VGA converter. other than that...and having used it while i was in a CG class last semester, i didn't notice much of a difference between my PC and the mac we used in the lab. it had a smaller display and the ghosting sucked compared to my cheaper display lol.

[Slade]

if I had the extra cash lying around I'd get a mac 30 inch screen...

but truth be told, regular pc lcd makers have gotten on the ball and made some nice lcd screens as well.

Now to be clear though, it really depends on what you are looking for in a display. If you want medical grade resolution and quality, regular lcd screens won't cut it.

If you want to do true to life photo editing, it actually has nothing to do with either of those companies. You should be in the display forum.

[DeaconFrost]

Why is it that apple's picture quality is much better than windows?
The problem is, you are basing this question off of seeing two displays in a retail store. As mentioned, Macs probably need less tuning because there are FAR less iterations of hardware combinations. If you buy a decent video card and a decent to good LCD, there's no reason why you can't obtain the same level of clarity and color. If you aren't happy with your own setup, it's time to start playing with the options to get the best quality out of your setup.

[Betrayer00GT]

fyi I am a hardware engineer and to me a driver is a chip that DRIVES another
Be it a line-driver to send more robust data, or a FET-driver to drive a FET hard enough to get its switching speeds up, or an LED-driver to control the current flowing in the led... or a TFT matrix driver

There are good driver and excellent drivers.
Apple control the hardware FACT, they decide what goes into their computers FACT and they also by and large micro-design their machine THUS they can choose a TFT-driver that is best matched for a certain TFT matrix to get the best out of it, with that comes a cost and that cost is passed onto the consumer

a "software" driver to me is a translator from hardware-specific bit-patterns to an std interface (API)

Good for you. You do know this is not a hardware engineering forum, but a OS forum though, right?

Your demonstration on "drivers" (EE term you used) is exactly the type of "silly" control I was referring to.

My late father was an EE. He and his coworkers had an abundant amount of intelligence, but a decidedly skewed vision of what matters day-to-day for users. I always thought this was because they knew too much about exactly how things worked.

As a hardware engineer you know exactly how misleading it is to point out that using one "excellent" driver (your EE term) vs a "good" driver will make any kind of difference to an end user. To this extent they of course "control" the hardware in their machine, what they do not "control" is anything that makes the kind of difference seen by the OP. You know that, I know that, why pretend otherwise?

We can argue about the meaning of "hardware" and "control" all day long, but in the end they do not make the LCD panel, the part of the monitor with an actual shot at affecting the image to the degree the OP noticed. Well, excluding the contrast/brightness/color temp settings, anyway.

[As I Lay Dying]

I think what eeyrjmr is saying even though apple does not make the lcd screens they decide what screens are used. So when you buy the apple you are buying that screen and not a crappy lcd option.

[Betrayer00GT]

I think what eeyrjmr is saying even though apple does not make the lcd screens they decide what screens are used. So when you buy the apple you are buying that screen and not a crappy lcd option.

What I am saying is that this is no different than any other monitor brand. There is no special Apple "control" over hardware.

They must use what everyone can use. That does not sound like any kind of "control" I have heard of. To say there could be improved display quality on an Apple product because they can "control" the hardware is just BS.

[Martyr]

Hi guys i dont know where to go but i do know that there are some very experianced individuals here so my question is ....


Why is it that apple's picture quality is much better than windows?

I mean you can do so much to a PC as far as upgrades along with great monitors. I went to bestbuy the other day and i never seen a windows pc next to an apple. Big difference, is there any way for a pc to have that kind of vivid/clear quality?

was it xp or vista? vista looks alot better on an lcd than xp ever did.

[As I Lay Dying]

yes I do agree that apple, and dell monitors are just rebranded LG or samsung monitors, but he is correct, the point is when you buy an imac, and you get a better lcd then getting a cheap alternative. So yes to average joe who is looking at an apple and a pc with a cheapo lcd then he/she is going to think the apple setup looks better.

[iroc409]

There's a very, very simple explanation to why Apple's OS looks better than Windows XP.

OSX uses anti-aliasing, Windows XP does not.

[As I Lay Dying]

sorry are you talking about the whole desktop or just fonts, because windows also anti-alias fonts.

[21questions]

Wow ... so many debates

Well this is why i ask, i have a pc w/ windows xp and for 3 years now i had the HD 23 inch apple cinema display along with a nvidia 7900gtx card. I noticed the differance first when my friend bought a apple ibook. His wallpaper looked so vivid and clear but mine always looked not so smooth? i thought that was what a nice video card was for?

Im by no means a tech person but what can i do to get my pc to look as good as an apple's if possible? My next monitor will be the gateway 30". I figure its somewhere in the PC that needs upgrading?

When i went to bestbuy and fooled around with the apple, i never seen such a perfect screen display ever.
I asked one of the geeksquad guys and they just told me that its two different companys that use totally different parts, blah blah blah and didnt really justify my question.

[As I Lay Dying]

Wow ... so many debates

Well this is why i ask, i have a pc w/ windows xp and for 3 years now i had the HD 23 inch apple cinema display along with a nvidia 7900gtx card. I noticed the differance first when my friend bought a apple ibook or whatever you call those. His wallpaper looked so vivid and clear but mine always looked not so smooth? i thought that was what a nice video card was for?

Im by no means a tech person but what can i do to get my pc to look as good as an apple's if possible? My next monitor will be the gateway 30". I figure its somewhere in the PC that needs upgrading?

sorry but silly question, but what size is your wallpaper and what is your resolution set to?

Because if you are using a 800x600 image, and then scale it to 1600x1200 the wallpaper will not look smooth. Are you using hi res images for you desktop wallpaper???

[DeaconFrost]

Not to continue in the line of silly questions, but are you comparing the same wallpaper file as well on both computers?

[21questions]

No ... my wallpaper was 1920x1200 and his was 1280x1024, i know what stretching is. Its funny with the apple monitor because i just sold it to someone with a ibook and she tested it out right in front of me and when plugged into her little book, the picture was flawless just like i been trying to explaine.

So i been thinking this whole time, my monitor is just as good as an apples (because its an apple) and at the time i know that my video card was better than any apple comp. So only thing i was thinking was because that monitor is made for apple, i wouldnt be getting the same results on a pc.

[As I Lay Dying]

yes that as well, also image format can be a factor, jpeg vs png as well.

[DeaconFrost]

So only thing i was thinking was because that monitor is made for apple, i wouldnt be getting the same results on a pc.
You aren't mentioning the color settings in Windows and/or similar settings in the Nvidia control panel. You need to be playing around with settings in all three places, including the monitor itself.

[As I Lay Dying]

No ... my wallpaper was 1920x1200 and his was 1280x1024, i know what stretching is. Its funny with the apple monitor because i just sold it to someone with a ibook and she tested it out right in front of me and when plugged into her little book, the picture was flawless just like i been trying to explaine.

So i been thinking this whole time, my monitor is just as good as an apples (because its an apple) and at the time i know that my video card was better than any apple comp. So only thing i was thinking was because that monitor is made for apple, i wouldnt be getting the same results on a pc.

ok but what did you set your monitor resolution to and what did she set it to?
OS X does not render an image better then windows xp, are you sure that maybe you are under that impression because OS X visually looks better the standard windows xp. I can tell you from personal experience that I can run the exact same wallpapers in osx and windows and get the same image.

[21questions]

oh? i never messed around with my settings because everything looked good as far as color/contrast/brightness .... so that may have played a part.

At bestbuy i was comparing osx and vista.

It didnt have to do with the image format, i checked that.

When i get my gateway, i will have to mess around with the setting. Does 64bit make a bid difference as well? are osx 64bit?

[JVC]

Hi guys i dont know where to go but i do know that there are some very experianced individuals here so my question is ....


Why is it that apple's picture quality is much better than windows?

I mean you can do so much to a PC as far as upgrades along with great monitors. I went to bestbuy the other day and i never seen a windows pc next to an apple. Big difference, is there any way for a pc to have that kind of vivid/clear quality?

i went once to compusa, and the mac cinema monitor i saw, was in no way better than my samsung 204b pc monitor. in fact it looked worse, but in the outside it does look better imo.

[zacdl]

Here's my two cents...

As already said- Monitors themselves don't rely on drivers.

However the graphic card, does...

I'm following along lines of others, but since Apple controls what goes into their machines- it's obviously going to give you the optimum result.
They control the hardware (chip, cabling, etc), driver, and monitor. It all comes together to give you the optimal result.

Whereas in the PC world, all those little driver settings, choices in cabling, monitor quality, etc all come into play.... Apple simply figures that all out for you ahead of time (Hmmm... is it worth the extra big bux to have it figured out for you?)

[markt435]

When i get my gateway, i will have to mess around with the setting. Does 64bit make a bid difference as well? are osx 64bit?

uh no. i dunno if you're getting it.

drivers and the monitor make the difference here, not the OS. i can make my image look like shit either with my video card driver settings OR with the monitor adjustments. a correctly adjusted video card driver in tandem with a correctly adjusted monitor will give you the same quality as the other platform. goes either way.

[heatlesssun]

Have you ever seen a Windows Vista machine with a high end GPU hooked up to a decent monitor, flat panel or otherwise?

The two monitors in my sig rig look as good as any retail Mac I've seen, heck, Windows Media Center looks just as good a best hi-def LCD TV's when watching hi-def TV. I'm sure some media freaks would argue with me on this one, but still, I don't know where anyone would get the idea that Mac image quality is somehow inherently superior.

[As I Lay Dying]

oh? i never messed around with my settings because everything looked good as far as color/contrast/brightness .... so that may have played a part.

At bestbuy i was comparing osx and vista.

It didnt have to do with the image format, i checked that.

When i get my gateway, i will have to mess around with the setting. Does 64bit make a bid difference as well? are osx 64bit?

No 64-bit wont make a difference and yes OS X is 64 bit as well.... but I think you are missing the point. The Vista and OS X comparison is a monitor issue. A small resolution image scaled up can only go so far before it looks bad even with an nvidia 9900 ULTRA infinity with 50 gigaquads of on board ram. Identical monitors on the both systems look the same, if the same image is used.

[Catweazle]

lolmuch @ this topic?

21questions, you've first compared what you saw displayed on two different machines running two different OS's. You've then gone on to compare what you've seen displayed when the same monitor was connected to two different machines, with two different configurations of components, running two different OS's, and displaying two different images.

Too many variables. You've made an assumption that one particular variable is the root cause, and it's really only a red herring which has captured your attention. As markt245 explained:

uh no. i dunno if you're getting it.

drivers and the monitor make the difference here, not the OS. i can make my image look like shit either with my video card driver settings OR with the monitor adjustments. a correctly adjusted video card driver in tandem with a correctly adjusted monitor will give you the same quality as the other platform. goes either way.

That's basically what I said in post #3 in the topic ;)

[21questions]

Ok ... its clear

1. It doesnt matter what OS ....

Monitor + video driver = what makes up the picture so nice.

Now the monitor im getting will be not the best but great quality, as far as my video driver(this is the video card correct?) like i said i have a 7900gtx and with this i should be able to get that quality im looking for? or do you think i need to upgrade?

[markt435]

Ok ... its clear

1. It doesnt matter what OS ....

Monitor + video driver = what makes up the picture so nice.

Now the monitor im getting will be not the best but great quality, as far as my video driver(this is the video card correct?) like i said i have a 7900gtx and with this i should be able to get that quality im looking for? or do you think i need to upgrade?

what kind of monitor are you getting?

[iroc409]

sorry are you talking about the whole desktop or just fonts, because windows also anti-alias fonts.

The entire screen is rendered with anti-aliasing (or most of it), not just the fonts as in ClearType. That's probably part of the reason a lot of Macs come with fairly decent video hardware.

The OS *will* make a difference if it uses better rendering methods.

[Catweazle]

A 7900GTX should be adequate for producing excellent image quality on a good monitor. If you aren't satisifed with what you get from default installation then learn about how to configure the display driver setting, especially those which relate to 'custom color profiles'.

Goodness, I run a cheap, 6-bit 22" widescreeen panel on my everyday rig, and sopme fiddling with color profiles can get even THAT displaying images at a quality which approaches what you'd expect to see on much more expensive and capable gear!

[As I Lay Dying]

The entire screen is rendered with anti-aliasing (or most of it), not just the fonts as in ClearType. That's probably part of the reason a lot of Macs come with fairly decent video hardware.

The OS *will* make a difference if it uses better rendering methods.

errr no they don't most of them come with intel integrated gfx, low end to midrange ati and nvida gpus. Second the entire screen is not anti-aliased, widgets, fonts and certain windows elements are anti-aliased. The only time the whole screen is anti-aliased is when using quartz/quartz-extreme is running. That being said that wont make the image look better, it makes the effects smoother when using the opengl for the effects. For example when using the magic lamp effect the edges of the windows when going to the dock are not jagged. This does not make the image or the desktop look any better.

Turn off anti alaising in quartz-extreme and you wont notice exect when using effects, the same is done in linux and running compiz and compiz-fusion, with anti-aliasing is enabled, the whole desktop isn't alaised, its the effects that use the aliasing, like wobbly windows, or the magic lamp effect.

[Slade]

I don't get what the hell people are arguing about anymore...

most macs and pc share the same hardware, lcd, ram, sometimes video cards, cpu....

HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD a mac render a superior image?

A pic of a teapot is a teapot... looking at the image from a windows machine to a mac will not change the image.

What it will come down to is HOW the damn machines are setup, and I think we all agree that once calibrated on either the MAC or the WINDOWS machine you would be hard pressed to see a difference in image quality, especially in 2D!!!

So this debate shouldn't be about windows vs mac, heck this shouldn't be a debate, it should be a WHAT MONITOR SHOULD I GET AND HOW SHOULD I CONFIGURE IT? thread in the display forum...

I request the moderators lock this thread because I think what the op wants and what info is being posted are ending up into a mac vs pc debate.

[griffinhart]

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is Apple control the hardware
You can get decent monitors for IBM-PC's

Actually there are several PC monitors that are better than the Apple display. Dell's 2407 and the samsung competitor are both better.

And then there is also the fact that you can also run that Apple display on a PC as well since it's a standard DVI based monitor.

[eeyrjmr]

Actually there are several PC monitors that are better than the Apple display. Dell's 2407 and the samsung competitor are both better.

And then there is also the fact that you can also run that Apple display on a PC as well since it's a standard DVI based monitor.

and when did I say otherwise?
I never said you could get better/worse displays for the PC, just Apple make that decision for you

[MrWizard6600]

I would agree that there is little about picture quality between the two.

A solid 1620 X 1050 20" widescreen coupled with images that are actually the proper size, on a card thats putting out decent gamma, will look as good as any mac --or at least thats always been my experiance.

Its the same with sound quality. People are always saying how these $9,000,000 speakers sound better then a good ol pair of $60 logitechs. Granted the $9,000,000 can probibly hit 200dB, the sound quality has little to do with the speakers, its more about your equilizer settings.

[iroc409]

errr no they don't most of them come with intel integrated gfx, low end to midrange ati and nvida gpus. Second the entire screen is not anti-aliased, widgets, fonts and certain windows elements are anti-aliased. The only time the whole screen is anti-aliased is when using quartz/quartz-extreme is running. That being said that wont make the image look better, it makes the effects smoother when using the opengl for the effects. For example when using the magic lamp effect the edges of the windows when going to the dock are not jagged. This does not make the image or the desktop look any better.

Turn off anti alaising in quartz-extreme and you wont notice exect when using effects, the same is done in linux and running compiz and compiz-fusion, with anti-aliasing is enabled, the whole desktop isn't alaised, its the effects that use the aliasing, like wobbly windows, or the magic lamp effect.

I get my information from shady mac enthusiasts. I did use the qualifier "mostly" because I know not every pixel is.

Although when you say "widgets, fonts and certain windows elements", that covers a whole lot of it. _Way_ more than what XP uses, and that contributes to the overall "prettiness".

[As I Lay Dying]

overall prettyness, but not image rendering, osx is hands down prettier then windows xp however the topic is about image rendering. OS X does not have better image rendering then windows xp.