Mac or Windows?

[skull141209]

I Have a iMac 27" and I use both windows and Mac (Yes) 

 

My question is the affinity Designer and Affinity Photo is better on MacOS or Windows. 

I'm a graphics design student so I just have enough money to buy one for my study and my work in the future.

 

Thanks for all advice 

[MattP]

We're obviously trying our best to give you a seamless experience and the best results on both operating systems... but I'll say that we develop 'Mac first' with all future updates and the products were initially developed and designed for Mac. Also, the next update (1.6) will come with a very fast new document view that makes use of Metal on macOS so it's even faster than before... If I had to decide one way or the other, I'd personally go with Mac (but then, I've not touched a Windows machine in about 7 years, so....)

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

(but then, I've not touched a Windows machine in about 7 years, so....)

So maybe that is why you are a Happy Kitten? 

[toltec]

Well, I prefer Windows. Apart from

 

the viruses,

the ransomware,

the resource hunger,

the fact Windows 10 takes control of your machine for hours at a time

the fact every time it updates, something stops working

 

It's a close thing, obviously 

[- S -]

4 minutes ago, toltec said:

Well, I prefer Windows. Apart from

the viruses,

the ransomware,

the resource hunger,

the fact Windows 10 takes control of your machine for hours at a time

the fact every time it updates, something stops working

 

It's a close thing, obviously 

I would re-evaluate what you're installing on your machines if you're experiencing this.

[toltec]

21 minutes ago, Sima said:

I would re-evaluate what you're installing on your machines if you're experiencing this.

 

I'm not installing anything. It's just Windows 10 forced updating. This is a big issue with laptops sometimes.

 

There are 10 various PCs/laptops where I work and a few at home/with family. Windows 10 forces updates on each Win 10 machine.

 

Turn off any one and it often says (paraphrasing), updating your machine, do not turn off. It then ransoms the machine for sometimes hours (six once), without giving a choice or an estimate of time. Win 10 Pro does give a choice of delaying it to a more convenient time. On two occasions I had to leave my laptop behind or I would have starved .

 

On the Win 7 machines, there is more control but there are often things that stop working. As an example, on 2 machines the taskbar no longer works properly after the last "update". Nothing sticks to it, so I have had to create shortcuts for all my programs,

 

It's no great problem. We expect this sort of thing from Microsoft and work round it. The taskbar will most likely start working on the next "update"

[IanSG]

33 minutes ago, toltec said:

It's a close thing, obviously 

If I didn't know better I'd swear there was a hint of sarcasm there! 

[toltec]

p.s. I did set my laptop to "metered connection" but I often connect through my phone using USB, and that doesn't work.

 

I have to be VERY careful if I want to turn my laptop off. So I often walk around with it in "Sleep" for days.

[skull141209]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

We're obviously trying our best to give you a seamless experience and the best results on both operating systems... but I'll say that we develop 'Mac first' with all future updates and the products were initially developed and designed for Mac. Also, the next update (1.6) will come with a very fast new document view that makes use of Metal on macOS so it's even faster than before... If I had to decide one way or the other, I'd personally go with Mac (but then, I've not touched a Windows machine in about 7 years, so....)

 

31 minutes ago, toltec said:

Well, I prefer Windows. Apart from

 

the viruses,

the ransomware,

the resource hunger,

the fact Windows 10 takes control of your machine for hours at a time

the fact every time it updates, something stops working

 

It's a close thing, obviously 

 

Thank guys.That exactly what I used to suffer when using PC running windows...

 

Actually I'm running Hackintosh then my PC become iMac27" :)). I used to have macbook but at it price, I can't access into highend graphic card like GTX 970 (which I'm running right now). I was afraid of the un-stablize of Hackintosh but I strongly believe in Mac app. that why I have this question.

 

Anw. thank for your advice, I'll buy a Mac version. And hopefully my job in the future can afford another high-end Mac 

 

@toltec  

[toltec]

Just now, IanSG said:

If I didn't know better I'd swear there was a hint of sarcasm there! 

Only the faintest trace of a "hint", obviously 

[jer]

2 hours ago, skull141209 said:

Anw. thank for your advice, I'll buy a Mac version. And hopefully my job in the future can afford another high-end Mac 

As a Win 10 user, I think I saw something about the Mac Affinity (Apple store) license is restricted to one computer, but Win Affinity licenses purchased from Affinity can be used on any PC you own.

Not completely sure, so I'm just suggesting you look into this possible diff. and determine if it impacts you. (You said cost was a factor).

[MEB]

The Apple Store license does NOT restrict the user to one computer. You can use the apps on any device that you own or control.

[jer]

40 minutes ago, MEB said:

The Apple Store license does NOT restrict the user to one computer. You can use the apps on any device that you own or control.

MEB, thanks for the backup and correction.

[anon1]

On 16.8.2017 at 2:48 PM, MattP said:

We're obviously trying our best to give you a seamless experience and the best results on both operating systems... but I'll say that we develop 'Mac first' with all future updates and the products were initially developed and designed for Mac. Also, the next update (1.6) will come with a very fast new document view that makes use of Metal on macOS so it's even faster than before... If I had to decide one way or the other, I'd personally go with Mac (but then, I've not touched a Windows machine in about 7 years, so....)

I do not think this statement is worth the rant after that and does not do the windows team justice 

 

at the moment their beta may face some stability issues and windows has a much broader set of configurations which leads to more possible errors but I've had Affinity Photo Trial running on a CoreQuad and had about the same speed as a DualCore 2017 MacBook,

also a Ryzen Octacore is at the moment probably the fastest configuration which also comes with a very reasonable price tag and trumps every more expensive Mac

 

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/32907-affinity-photo-performance-comparison-data-sheet/?p=159980

here is some data to put performance into perspective 

 

I do not personally use windows either but this is not because of performance 

 

Affinity will be faster on a equally expensive windows config 

the lack of optimization is more than rectified by other parts available on the market (I would not even say that the optimization is worse, it has just a much more wide spread than on mac)

 

the iPad version has the best performance by a huge margin (compared to processing power/ GHz/ Cores) which is actually faster than an 4GHz i7 Quadcore iMac)

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, MBd said:

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/32907-affinity-photo-performance-comparison-data-sheet/?p=159980

here is some data to put performance into perspective 

But running one set of operations in a specific order in a macro in AP on a specific file may or may not be a good indication of the performance of other operations done in some other order or manually on other files, or hold true as the apps are refined.

 

Speaking of which, I tried running the macro on the "Bang" file on the Mac 1.6.4 beta 4 version of AP, both with the display set to use Metal & to use OpenGL. Surprisingly, the macro took much longer to run on the beta than it did on whichever retail version I was using back in January when I reported my results in that topic (well over 16 minutes vs. around 9.5 minutes).

 

To get a better perspective of the overall performance it would be a good idea to run the macro on several different files of varying complexity (ideally including several that are not locked like the "Bang" one is, in case that makes a difference) & perhaps to include several different macros as well. Even so, the results might vary depending on what other processes might require CPU time while the macro(s) ran or the OS version in use & how it is configured, or for other reasons.

[anon1]

yeah I'll adjust accordingly once scripting is available and make the tests cover much more

Hopefully they will add scripting in Haskell, otherwise you just can not make sure there are no side effects harming your measurement

it is not on the 1.x roadmap though afaik

 

where is linked layer btw? disappeared from the roadmap like magic...

 

 

 

 

@MattP 

"Surprisingly, the macro took much longer to run on the beta than it did on whichever retail version I was using back in January when I reported my results in that topic (well over 16 minutes vs. around 9.5 minutes)."

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, MBd said:

yeah I'll adjust accordingly once scripting is available and make the tests cover much more

It also would not hurt to lay out some test conditions for users to follow, like not running any other apps at the same time, keeping AP in the foreground for the duration, maybe restarting the computer before opening AP to flush temp files & such, & reporting if they are running anything that alters basic system processes (assuming they know what that means).