Mac or PC?

[Monkeydominator]

Hello, I'm currently saving up for a mac/PC with corel painter 11. So I just wonder, is there any downs with any of them?

Would be kind of sad if I bought a mac and CP wouldn't run on it or something. :)

[arestocrat]

I try to list a few positives and negatives I experienced with both systems:

Windows: I haven't used it much, but it was working a bit slower and crashed more often then on my mac. But, except the mac, P11 already had a patch fixing some bugs ( but not all!). Still it looks for me, like the windows versions of painter are always a bit more unstable (don't flame me, windows users, that's just my opinion based on my experiences)

Mac: It runs fast and runs really stable.. under Leopard my P11 NEVER crashed with loosing my files in ~3month. A problem I experienced was the Error 18 under Snow leopard. I have to reinstall and clean my reg often to get painter to work again = annoying. Also, Painter 11 has less bugs on OSX, it still got no patch/ update since P11 is out, that's a bit dissapointing for me. If you buy a new mac, it should have Snow Leopard from the start which is good, seeing Painter 11 runs a bit faster then under Leopard. But like I said, there is no patch yet which optimizes the working under snow leopard. Still hope for it, because my error 18 is annoying ( but don't worry, seems like this error occurs very rarely)

Hope that helps a bit.
And I wrote more about Mac because I use it 90% of my time. And I'm still happy using it, the little flaws I mentioned above aren't anything compared to how awesome runs on Snow Leopard :D

[Monkeydominator]

Wow, thanks a lot! I had pretty much decided on mac, so I guess this settles it. ;D

Thank you!

[arestocrat]

Wow, thanks a lot! I had pretty much decided on mac, so I guess this settles it. ;D

Thank you!

no problem, glad I could help you. And trust me, you won't regret it :wink:

[theechoinside]

Hello,

Just to throw my vote in the for the Mac as well.

Besides the stability, I prefer my Mac because it has less issues and seems to pick up my Wacom tablet better. And something nifty as well, is the colorsync utility in the system preferences which you should run when you get it.

Will also say, make sure you have a decent amount of RAM, 2 gigs minimum (which should be pretty standard now), but more if you can. Having a second physical disk instead of just a partition for the scratch disk is also a nifty bonus, but not as necessary. Make sure you buy from the on-line store for the base hardware, it's cheaper than any reseller and sometimes even the physical Apple stores. But, don't buy the RAM as an upgrade to the Mac at the time of purchase. By it from a third party afterward and install it yourself (it is ridiculously cheaper that way). www.crucial.com has a neat utility/menu system which can help you figure out the type of RAM for whatever Mac model you purchase, you can use it to plan ahead that way too =)

Hope that helps and good luck!

[Chipsterology]

I've been using Painter on Win7 64 all summer, 8gb of RAM (which the current Painter code STILL does not recognize over 3gb), 3.4ghz Intel, blah blah blah, and at first it was cool and a definite upgrade to my last rig, but the way people talk about Painter running on a Mac with lower hardware specs than mine pretty much has me ready to get on the bandwagon, especially since if you wanted to you could still dual boot into Win7 on a Macbook Pro so I can take my time to upgrade all my art/design soft to Mac versions. I am in the market for a new laptop pretty soon.....the 8 hour battery life, 8GB of RAM upgrade capability, and the new SSDs and Intel mobile procs are easily swapped out when the higher performance ones finally dip in price, it only makes sense for me to buy Mac next time. I wanna try Painter on Snow Leopard so I can make myself just that much more anxious. Any of you Snow Leopard guys experiencing crashes when accidentally double tapping the lasso tool on the tablet? That will have me buying a Mac super quick.....

[hecartha]

I've been using Painter on Win7 64 all summer, 8gb of RAM (which the current Painter code STILL does not recognize over 3gb), 3.4ghz IntelThat's weird, I tested on two computers (4GB and 8GB) and Painter was unable to use more than something around 1,3GB of memory under Vista64. Are you really sure about that? I am interested to see a screenshot of your task manager.

Anyway, 3GB would be enough in most of case considering how Painter is done. And 1,3GB is not enough to run two big files at the same time without using the scratch disk.

Now, that's not a surprise Mac users recommend using a Mac as in most of case, those users switched because they have too many issues under Windows or using a Windows application.
Windows: I haven't used it much, but it was working a bit slower and crashed more often then on my mac.Mac: It runs fast and runs really stable.. under Leopard my P11 NEVER crashed with loosing my files in ~3month.If you buy a new mac, it should have Snow Leopard from the start which is good, seeing Painter 11 runs a bit faster then under Leopard.I have read here and there under leopard Painter was faster than the Windows version and recently it was again faster under snow leopard than under leopard. God, it must be incredibly fast now! I mean something around 100% or maybe 200% faster. :jawdrop:
Using Painter with 2,6Ghz and 2,1Ghz core2duo, I have never seen a really significant change switching from one computer to the other...so my question is, how dear Mac users you can say without a doubt it is faster under MacOS? Did you test carefully with exactly the same CPU and the same memory (I am meaning two different computers, not the same mac running Windows and MacOS)? What is faster? Everything?? Navigation only? brush strokes? Transformation? What is your usual canvas size?

Painter is a program with a really old core and the performance decreases if you add invisible digital watercolor layer, or an impasto layer, or a layer mask and the number of layer is affecting also how fast is Painter. The brush engine is really complicated and depending on how you set any brushes, the performance can really change...that is why, please dear enthusiast mac users, it will be interesting to really know about the differences but it will never possible just saying "it is faster" without any other precision. It just sounds like a troll....

now about bugs.......I read people recommended using snow leopard instead of leopard because of 0 bug (how it could be even possible?). This kind of comment are becoming funny when I read previously from enthusiast mac users there were not any bugs under leopard (compared to Windows version) but now, the bug which were not there are really not there!
At this moment, I hope you understand why the skepticism is rising a little bit reading the same imprecise comments which are finally for me as useful as "batman is stronger than spiderman"......
People here are requesting information because they will make a choice that will cost them money, it will be nice this thread has more information than the usual "better", "faster". I mean when you are comparing things, give us more precision. Mac users distinguish leopard from Snow Leopard but they talk everytime about Windows like that is only one Windows so if your last experience with Windows was NT4, it could be interesting to know.

Another question; how many memory Painter is able to use under Leopard or Snow Leopard? A screenshot would be nice because I am tired of people just saying things when finally they don't really know. It is really necessary to sort troll from the rest

It is not about Mac/Windows war I don't care, but it will be useful to know how Corel is developing Windows version.

[theechoinside]

Well, I have to say I find the latest response strange for a number of reasons.... contradictions, insults and baseless assumptions aside though, I'll answer some of the points in case they are useful to others.

Though my experience has often been that people don't want the complex descriptors, they simply want to know the answer, especially as most of is potentially needless explanation. I'll stick with the application to art related activities as well, as much as possible in these answers.

RAM and scratchdisks:

RAM will always be faster than a scratch disk simply because of the method of access, as well as the method of read/writing data. In Corel Painter 11 there seems to be a limitation of 2GB of RAM usage (this being a statement straight from representatives of the company). However, this does not include other programs or the OS taking their share (Windows has increased it's footprint significantly with every version), and Painter may not use this amount based on the preferences set as well. It is likely in future version of Painter that this limit will change.

To give an example: On a notebook running Vista with 2GB of RAM, as compared to the same notebook upgraded to 4GB of RAM, there was a significant difference, especially in brush strokes that were more complex or larger. It should also be noted that programs that seek to measure usage (such as Task manager) are only estimates/limited scope at best and seldom give any indication of real usage or performance.

In regards to Windows memory management (RAM and disk), it should be noted that Windows has a long history of issues in this regard. Some notable examples are memory leaks in 95, 98, SE and ME. In XP, pagefile management. In Vista "Superfetch" and a file system which claims to be journaled, but isn't.

I honestly don't know a lot about my Mac's memory system (though it is a true journaled system), because I've never had the need to. On a Mac with 2GB of RAM, I have not encountered any memory issues in 3 years, even when trying to test limits.


In regards to an increase in speed/lessening of bugs under different operating systems:

There's more opinion and data in this area than anywhere else, and common sense in regards to newer OS's having a positive affect doesn't necessarily apply.

I've read a lot of benchmarks and in XP versus Vista, Vista was considered to be slightly slower in most areas or to match it, but the difference was small enough to be effectively meaningless. What was different was that one set of bugs were exchanged for another, with many simply never having been fixed. One of the worst examples in the switch to Vista was the affect on tablet input(pen flicks, etc), driver management and strange interactions with programs such as with the Aero theme issues. If it was possible to have XP on my notebook, it would be on there.

In the various Mac OS X benchmarks, the results are less predictable from version to version with some aspects being faster and others slower, though there does seem to be a slow creep forward overall. And the jump from PowerPC to Intel makes it harder to find clarity. In my personal experience in going from Tiger to Leopard, I noticed a difference in brush size and complexity speeds, as well as a change in the number of layers that could be used without issues. From what I've read on Snow Leopard, I'm not sure there will be as significant an increase, unless it's simply that the OS itself is running more efficiently and frees up resources for Painter to use. I will also say though, that I have never had to fix drivers, tablet input, etc. I have not found any quirks either, but am sure there must be some, just not in the applications I use.


Comparison of similar hardware and OS:

Running XP through bootcamp beta, and bootcamp release version on the Mac showed a significant difference. The OS X side significantly outperformed XP in just about every way I tested it (dual core in XP was active). It's not to say it's slow, before I purchased a new notebook I'd use bootcamp to play my latest games and they ran fine (Deadspace looked great). But in PS CS3 and Painter 11 both, I was especially stunned at the difference. Again, brush strokes and layers being my primary concern, though I believe opening and saving files was faster as well.

There's a contradictory argument applied in this case though. Proponents of PC's will state that there's no difference between an Intel PC and an Intel Mac. However, they will then state that Windows running on a Mac is not as effective and disregard this method of testing. I have yet to see a reason which prevents these views from being mutually exclusive, as the OS operates with the same behaviour and if they are the same, it effectively just becomes a matter of drivers. It seems like an argument where there's the want to have cake and eat it too.

In regards to testing separate machines, I've done that indirectly with my notebook as well. In that, CPU, RAM and hard drive speeds should be the major factors. Notebook is Vista 32, 2.20GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 250GB SATA 5400 RPM. Initially the Mac was OS X Tiger, 2.50GHz Quad Core (and before someone goes "Hey!", Painter is limited to 2 cores, the extra cores do nothing), 2GB RAM, 500GB SATA 5400 RPM. If it's uncertain what these compared specs mean, to put it simply the Mac is at a slight disadvantage overall (The difference in CPU speed is minimal and less RAM and a larger drive affect things). I use the notebook to sketch and do base applications of colour/work the initial forms. It doesn't function very well for large brushes, or the realbristle, and to some degree with some of my custom brushes. At a point, it just can't handle it anymore and I have to switch to the Mac to complete the piece... I've tripled the layers on some pieces without issue and it definitely allows for much larger brushes and the more complex brush types are definitely more responsive. The only oddity is that when resizing the brush size the Mac may take a little longer on the complex brush types. Even if you decide to say that the Mac has the advantage in specs, the difference in performance just can't be accounted for in that. It may simply be in the end that Painter (and Photoshop) play better with the Apple software, but in the end what matters is the result. And for me it's barely a question.

(And for those who care, minimum canvas size is usually 3000 by 4000 or so)


Conclusion:

If you buy a PC it's not like you're going to be dead in the water. If you need compatibility with more programs, are more into games, need to connect to a corporate environment, etc, PC is going to be the better choice. If you're on a tight budget, you will probably be better off getting the highest specs you can squeeze out of it, rather than a lower end Mac for the same price.

Once you get to the middle and high end price points though, the scales tip and it's not a gentle tip in my experience. And if it's mostly for art, even if you completely ignore the performance aspect, the issues with tablet input and functioning right out of the box make the choice easy for me. Hell, I've only had two issues with my Mac in three years and one of them was a defective video card... Compared to the hours I have to spend to keep Vista going or fix issues or just to get it to work as it should... My mental image could be said to be a forest glade compared to the beaches of Normandy. And that feeling was definitely reflected in IT contracts when I supported both Mac and PC environments. It's just plain less painful and I get to focus on what matters, which is the art.

... Anyway, I can't believe I spent that much time responding to this, but hopefully it helps someone out there =P Be well.

Disclaimer: Personal experiences may vary, which should be obvious.

[Chipsterology]

Thanks for laying this down, for a while I've been trying to find someone who uses Painter in both environments. Well, might as well see if they have any Apple T-shirts in a 3x for me to wear soon......

Thanks.

[Chipsterology]

That's weird, I tested on two computers (4GB and 8GB) and Painter was unable to use more than something around 1,3GB of memory under Vista64. Are you really sure about that? I am interested to see a screenshot of your task manager.

Anyway, 3GB would be enough in most of case considering how Painter is done. And 1,3GB is not enough to run two big files at the same time without using the scratch disk.

I'm pretty sure you're correct, I based my statement off of what's available for 32bit apps when running a 32bit or 64bit OS. I originally felt 3gb would be a dream, but it still had painful performance when utilizing larger brushes and multiple layers in files that were 3000x4000 or larger.

[hecartha]

Well, I have to say I find the latest response strange for a number of reasons.... contradictions, insults and baseless assumptions aside though, I'll answer some of the points in case they are useful to others.From my experience I read many things from few mac users and my first impression was "ooh, that must be great". But a bit later I read post from other mac users which contradicts what I read before. My conclusion was there is mac users (or just users) which were really satisfied by what they bought they finally seems to become blind about problems of other users.
SOOOO, sorry for asking precision when we are on internet and you don't know if the person who is posting is a reliable source....that is not like if people will spend their money according to what is being said...and please, later, when you post things like what is quoted in bold, it will be great you quote the parts of my post where you are feeling insulted (??!) or anything else...who know, maybe you misunderstood something because of my english or something else~
Though my experience has often been that people don't want the complex descriptors, they simply want to know the answer, especially as most of is potentially needless explanation.The problem is, if a Windows user comes behind those previous post and say it is faster on Windows because of his/her experience, you finally have one person who say it is faster and the other say also it is faster...so, no one can really know. And this kind of comments are just feeling about the speed, and no one can really know what is really compared, so many many thanks to your post because now we know what is really compared.

RAM and scratchdisks:

RAM will always be faster than a scratch disk simply because of the method of access, as well as the method of read/writing data. In Corel Painter 11 there seems to be a limitation of 2GB of RAM usage (this being a statement straight from representatives of the company). However, this does not include other programs or the OS taking their share (Windows has increased it's footprint significantly with every version), and Painter may not use this amount based on the preferences set as well. It is likely in future version of Painter that this limit will change.

To give an example: On a notebook running Vista with 2GB of RAM, as compared to the same notebook upgraded to 4GB of RAM, there was a significant difference, especially in brush strokes that were more complex or larger. It should also be noted that programs that seek to measure usage (such as Task manager) are only estimates/limited scope at best and seldom give any indication of real usage or performance.Windows 7 seems to fix this issue but it is true there is a lot of difference between vista used with 2GB or 4GB.
Now Painter is just able to use 1,3GB under Vista64 (and I suppose also under Win7, thanks BlackARK) so 3GB will be enough and as all the PC are sold with at least 3GB it is not really an issue especially now because win7 is imminent.
We are now talking about specific Windows version and it seems there is difference between XP, Vista and Win7....Do you still think detailing a little bit is useless? No, there is not only one Windows, as you explained Vista needs more memory.
In regards to Windows memory management (RAM and disk), it should be noted that Windows has a long history of issues in this regard. Some notable examples are memory leaks in 95, 98, SE and ME. In XP, pagefile management. In Vista "Superfetch" and a file system which claims to be journaled, but isn't.In practice, when I am using PaintTool SAI, I can use till 4GB of memory under Vista64 with files Painter is not able to load and the last time the program "crashed" was last year because of 32-bit OS and a too big file for the 1,3GB used under Vista32....so I don't really know what you want to explain here but some developers doesn't seem to have problem with Windows.
That's why I am requesting precision, because it allows to know more about developers skill and if Painter is botched up under Windows (more than the MacOS version), that will irritate lot of Windows users.
I honestly don't know a lot about my Mac's memory system (though it is a true journaled system), because I've never had the need to. On a Mac with 2GB of RAM, I have not encountered any memory issues in 3 years, even when trying to test limits.It depends mostly of the size of files you are using, MacOS does not make miracle, if you need to load files which are bigger than the amount of system memory, you will have an issue. That is why a talked about usual canvas size and number of layers used. Saying 2GB is enough on mac means only it is enough for you because it depends of the user.
Now, if you have more information about the amount of memory Painter is able to use under Leopard or Snow leopard, I will be really interested. :)
In regards to an increase in speed/lessening of bugs under different operating systems:
[...]That is the usual mac/PC comparison. Most people who are using Windows know about that (Windows side) even if I didn't know about issue with aero. Anyway the tablet driver issue has a dedicated thread, so it is not a permanent issue :)
Comparison of similar hardware and OS:
[...]In regards to testing separate machines, I've done that indirectly with my notebook as well. In that, CPU, RAM and hard drive speeds should be the major factors. Notebook is Vista 32, 2.20GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 250GB SATA 5400 RPM. Initially the Mac was OS X Tiger, 2.50GHz Quad Core (and before someone goes "Hey!", Painter is limited to 2 cores, the extra cores do nothing), 2GB RAM, 500GB SATA 5400 RPM. If it's uncertain what these compared specs mean, to put it simply the Mac is at a slight disadvantage overall (The difference in CPU speed is minimal and less RAM and a larger drive affect things). I use the notebook to sketch and do base applications of colour/work the initial forms. It doesn't function very well for large brushes, or the realbristle, and to some degree with some of my custom brushes. At a point, it just can't handle it anymore and I have to switch to the Mac to complete the piece... I've tripled the layers on some pieces without issue and it definitely allows for much larger brushes and the more complex brush types are definitely more responsive. The only oddity is that when resizing the brush size the Mac may take a little longer on the complex brush types. Even if you decide to say that the Mac has the advantage in specs, the difference in performance just can't be accounted for in that. It may simply be in the end that Painter (and Photoshop) play better with the Apple software, but in the end what matters is the result. And for me it's barely a question.

(And for those who care, minimum canvas size is usually 3000 by 4000 or so)Thanks for this explanation, it seems precise enough. Did you use Painter 11 for the comparison?

Your conclusion is much more balanced and resume well the situation I think, so, thanks again. My conclusion now is Corel developers did a bad job under Windows as you nicely explained.

[Pigeonkill]

I haven't read what people mentioned already.

I used both. I like PC, since they are easier and cheaper to upgrade later. There tends to be more 3d apps for them too. If you game, PC also would be also be a plus.

I like the look of Macs better, they tend to be more stable when operating but more overpriced imo. Less clutter.

[theechoinside]

Baseless assumptions were made regarding the intent, ability and included taking statements and restating them in excessive ways, effectively making claims that the posters had not made.

Contradictions were made regarding testing of software on the same hardware. As I stated, the argument against testing Windows on a Mac remains invalid. If you wish to understand further as to why, read up regarding bus architecture, as well as the variables associated with limited scope standards in PC component manufacturing.

As for insulting, I doubt this is a case of language issues, but rather to be blunt, attitude and a grasp of manners. There is a difference between asking:
"Could you elaborate on these points?" and "You didn't mention these things I consider important, so it sounds like trolling". And that's ignoring a swathe of other issues.

And that's also the last I'm going to say on that subject, because it's a waste of time.

--------------

Windows 7 footprint:
There's been some consistency regarding physical hard drive space requirements being less than Vista. Memory reports have been another issue, with most claiming an increase in the footprint. This is also supported by the fact that the 64 Bit requirements went up.


Different versions of OS:
The request was for a general overview, you were the first to ask for specifics, no one claimed there was no value in detailing specifics. However, if you desire others to acknowledge that there are large differences based on versions of Windows rather than making generalised claims; Then you should do so as well, regarding acknowledging different versions of OS X and not dismissing the potential impact of that.


Painter Memory Usage:
As I stated, there is a limit of 2GB of RAM usage in Painter 11, this is a hard limit based on the applications programming as has been stated many times by representatives from Corel.


Windows Memory Management:
The statement: "In regards to Windows memory management (RAM and disk), it should be noted that Windows has a long history of issues in this regard. Some notable examples are memory leaks in 95, 98, SE and ME. In XP, pagefile management. In Vista "Superfetch" and a file system which claims to be journaled, but isn't." This is not a matter regarding application developers.

This is regarding the OS itself. Because of the "botched up" programming and implementation in Windows, it means that every application in that environment will be affected. That statement concerned the Kernel, not the application layer.

My statement regarding not having any memory issues on Mac OS X is directly related to that. It was a statement regarding the system in general, errors, and it's operations. It was not related to file sizes or specific applications.

To put it into perspective, an OS with a memory leak, versus an OS without a memory leak, will indeed look like a miracle, because of the large scale affect that has on a system.


The rest:
Having to correct something manually which can only discovered by independent research into the topic, is a permanent issue, a failure in the OS. Assuming that all Windows users are capable of fixing, or aware of bugs, is a bit of a stretch. And further, that you need to have that knowledge to achieve -minimum- function speaks to this debate directly, as a major disadvantage.

Painter 11 was used for the comparison.

My final point was acknowledging a possibility, but there is no evidence to support the assertion that Corel developers acted incorrectly at this point. If it is assumed that such an assertion is true however, then Adobe Suite products should be included as incorrectly programmed as well (as I stated Photoshop in brackets). And in my own personal experience would also then need to extend to media playback software (DVD and codec based), ZBrush, FireFox, etc. It becomes ridiculous at a point.

My conclusion is exactly as I stated it previously, for this subject, nothing more or less. In general I believe that currently OS X exceeds Windows OS's up to and including Vista. Before OS X based on evidence and experience I was similarly critical of Apple. If Windows 7 ends up being superior, I will support it. In the end, it's a matter of what functions best, the exact causes and reasons for that are secondary because they will often simply end up as conjecture due to the complexity of the systems involved. And again, the result is what matters because the result is what allows one to be productive or not.

And that's it for me on this subject, I won't be responding to this extent again, I have art to pursue =P Be well.

[hecartha]

"Baseless assumptions", "contradictions" and "insulting" are mostly because as many of us, I am tired of people claiming things without any proof or/and without explaining. If I am saying to you, you are wasting your time using painter, you should use PaintTool SAI just because it is better I will never be offended because you just not trust me.

Now you are right, I could use something like "could you elaborate" and I will try the next time but you know, when people are comparing the worst from one OS with the best with another OS, it just sounds like troll.
This is regarding the OS itself. Because of the "botched up" programming and implementation in Windows, it means that every application in that environment will be affected. That statement concerned the Kernel, not the application layer.So, could you explain why when I am working with SAI, I have not any issue and I can use this program with a stability you cannot ever dream using Painter under MacOS?
Having to correct something manually which can only discovered by independent research into the topic, is a permanent issue, a failure in the OS. Assuming that all Windows users are capable of fixing, or aware of bugs, is a bit of a stretch. And further, that you need to have that knowledge to achieve -minimum- function speaks to this debate directly, as a major disadvantage.So, when this guy (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=112&t=804855) has issue under MacOS, the responsible is Apple?? Or maybe you are talking about tablet drivers because the responsible for me is Wacom which do not deactivate integrated Vista feature.
Painter 11 was used for the comparison.

My final point was acknowledging a possibility, but there is no evidence to support the assertion that Corel developers acted incorrectly at this point. If it is assumed that such an assertion is true however, then Adobe Suite products should be included as incorrectly programmed as well (as I stated Photoshop in brackets). And in my own personal experience would also then need to extend to media playback software (DVD and codec based), ZBrush, FireFox, etc. It becomes ridiculous at a point.No evidence? Painter has a damn slow navigation without any anti-aliasing. It has a bugs with any brush strokes done on a transparent part of a layer with image based dab (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O8qcZMtwg) and you are supposing they have not made a bad job?
When a Windows program done by only one guy is able to run file with better display (more precise) than Photoshop CS4 without using GPU with as smooth navigation, maybe there is something really old in their code. Could you explain how a complete team is not able to create a decent transform tool which work on any layer we want when only one guy is able to do this "exploit"? You really think the problem is about the operating system? And I am not talking about the layer system....
My conclusion is exactly as I stated it previously, for this subject, nothing more or less. In general I believe that currently OS X exceeds Windows OS's up to and including Vista. Before OS X based on evidence and experience I was similarly critical of Apple. If Windows 7 ends up being superior, I will support it. In the end, it's a matter of what functions best, the exact causes and reasons for that are secondary because they will often simply end up as conjecture due to the complexity of the systems involved. And again, the result is what matters because the result is what allows one to be productive or not.My conclusion is you seem to think too much about the OS. The most important is the program you use, if this program does not work as expected, you need to try something else.

So, instead of using Painter under MacOS accepting all well known bugs and limitations, use PaintTool SAI under 64-bit Windows (not because it is Windows but because it is Windows only), it will cost you something like 50$ and you will be able to use a lot more memory on a true stable program. And it will be possible to use Painter for the few things SAI does not cover.
It has much better performance (reactivity, navigation, saving/loading), it can use more complicated file with a much more advanced layer system considering digital painting needs (even Photoshop CS4 is still not able to add a clipping mask over a group of layer and I am not sure but a group mask was introduced with CS4 few months after SAI). It never destroys your texture work because a primitive blending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paDpjW2CukQ)/opacity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdAX5l7s0Wg) engine. The developer was smart enough to store paper information per layer instead of using a global option which slows you down a lot when working on multiple documents and it is much more than just a paper, it is a complete integrated system with overlay texture. It has a navigator with exactly the same image quality than the working view so it can be used as thumb view allowing you to check permanently your global composition.......I could make a really huge list but I will stop there as I planned to record a demonstration of its painting system in few months when I will have more time because I don't expect people trust me just because it's me. :) For now, you can check this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjPscduX8xg) about cartoon work (and the first also) the demonstration about true painting work will be recorded later.

[Robellyn]

As far as the original question goes, I too would recommend the Mac over Windows for Painter. I've use(d) it on both platforms, and have had fewer problems with the Mac version (likely an issue with the Program itself more than any flame-war inducing operating system thing).

SAI is a good alternative (if you aren't in love with Painters brush engine as much as I am!!). There are some others out there too, but I have yet to find a program that has made me grow as much as Painter has.

Pax

[Chipsterology]

SAI is a sweet, fast program, but I think we can all agree that once we get rolling in it, we'll hit that ceiling when we want the same brush options available in Painter and see they are just not there, one of them being able to tilt your intuos airbrush and adjust the wheel. I see a benefit in creating or editing outlines and it does have appeal as a program for blocking in color in higher resolution files. A .RIFF or .PSD in Painter that has frustrating performance when rotating or using larger brushes I will take into SAI as a .PSD to speed up any basics I need done before rolling back into Painter. (If Painter on the MAC performs like SAI does on Windows, I'd think I was in heaven :D) I found out about SAI after finishing a job that took at least 5-6 hours longer due to Painter X's slow performance when the layers started adding up. I took this same file into SAI just to experiment and noticed it was being thrown around like a ragdoll and suffered no brush lag whatsoever. Needless too say, I was bit pissed for not trying it sooner.

[hecartha]

SAI is a good alternative (if you aren't in love with Painters brush engine as much as I am!!). There are some others out there too, but I have yet to find a program that has made me grow as much as Painter has. Unfortunately, because of poor designing choice with the brush engine, it is not possible to obtain in a natural way the kind of texture I can obtain (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p76/hecartha/Example%20of%20Work%20In%20Progress/Snap.jpg) (it is a WIP of one of the few illustrations I will use for the showcase about SAI) just painting using SAI :( In Painter, you need to find trick or use post process treatment to approach a natural media look.
For the first time as I know, it is possible to obtain high quality texture at pixel scale...that is the reason why my Painter 11 is opened rarely.
SAI is a sweet, fast program, but I think we can all agree that once we get rolling in it, we'll hit that ceiling when we want the same brush options available in Painter and see they are just not there, one of them being able to tilt your intuos airbrush and adjust the wheel.I used 5 stylus under Painter (yes, I am crazy :p ) because I liked so much the toolID (one brush+eraser+color per stylus) but finally, I have found that all of these things are not essential. Painter is still the best program out there in pixel manipulation as there is no equivalent program which can deform the things like Painter does. But all of this does not help me to just paint, so now, I will recommend it only for special work or for people who really need impasto.

[Portus]

The problem with Painter is that the code is really old like 1998 old, it simply is not optimized to modern hardware or even 64bit like SAI or other programs are. To make things worse it's been patched and patched over the years and it comes to no surprised how Painter 11 is a bug mess, either Painter gets rewritten from scratch or Corel can just stop putting out new versions, no new version OS can fix that.

[Chipsterology]

either Painter gets rewritten from scratch or Corel can just stop putting out new versions, no new version OS can fix that.

Corel is not going to do this. If they had any intention of doing so, it would have happened years ago. I remember saying quite a while ago that they should just up and sell the Painter properties to Adobe already so we can get these advancements and at the same time get it all in one box. I was a devoted Corel Draw user in 98' and even settled for the limited functionality of PhotoPaint back then. I was ok with the product performance....up until I got serious with it. Most people just want to see the word "Adobe" on your sheet, and I got tired of the pressure from 80% of my art/design associates to switch if only for learning purposes at least. Once the CS suite was released, it was a wrap. Ever wanted to pretty much drag a document back and forth between Photoshop, Illustrator, and Painter on the fly, especially if you have a multi-monitor setup? Sounds cool doesn't it? Well, keep dreamin'..... I'm not "anti-Corel", but they've pretty much turned Painter into a zombie that still has my attention, yet still could benefit from a total reconstruction as you have said. All I want right now is a boost in speed and productivity, thus my interest in this MAC/PC thread, a previous post pretty much sold me on the new Macbook Pro seeing as how it will have the capability to dual boot into Windows should I need to utilize a program made strictly for that environment later.

[Arshes Nei]

Painter is like a bad relationship really. You know at some point you shouldn't go back if you want change...but you keep finding things that you remembered you liked and end up going back...only to get hurt again.

I was using Sai and other tools for quite a while, but I found some options in Painter I love and started playing with. Then you get the glitches and bugs again and remember why you left it.

I really don't care about the Mac vs PC debate, if it runs faster...whatever. I do care as some of these posts have mentioned if the product works better (like large brushes). However, who knows since I see that error 18/20 crap everywhere and other such problems even in the Mac version.

Oh yeah and the other "show stopping" bugs like it cannot read the stylus flip correctly and resizes your brush in Painter 11. Copy and Paste bug is actually still present in the newest version despite the patch.

One thing I do like to note is that using the watercolors in both Sai and Painter...I kind of want them to be layer independent. If I turn the fringe up in Painter it just..well looks abnormal at a certain point, but yet Sai seems to be better with this. I also would like Sai to have a better color palette/mixer too. Specially when I store my swatches. The brushes are somewhat limited in Sai so I agree.

Sai is a great startoff sketching like ArtRage too. After all Baron has shown some great results with ArtRage but he has to turn to Painter for some of the same reasons I do - the Blenders.

Also, I'm really not sure about the "rewriting from scratch" if there are things that aren't broken and rewriting them breaks them or changes why you may like some of Painter's features...I can only imagine the number of complaints. That being said, does the code still need a major overhaul? Yes!

I again would rather not see Corel just sold to Adobe... anymore I'd like to see any of the other programs I use besides PS sold to them either. Need less of the "Conglomero" (conglomerate) of software.

I do think though Corel does need some serious programmers...they seem shorthanded - which may have to do with the economy.

[fes]

I see from this article Here (http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/index.cfm?email&NewsID=13195) that Adobe are hinting though not promising that a more Painter like set of brushes will be in PS CS5 (See the link to their facebook video in the article). Whether they actually are or not I'm dubious about. Sounds more promo than solid fact at the moment, but clearly they are working on it.

Corel better get their act together or they'll lose what professional fan base they still retain and they will have to make their next release of Painter truly innovative, not just a few new brushes and rearranged interface, bundled with a dozen old bugs and a handful of new ones to delight us with. I'm a big fan of Painter, it is currently my application of choice, but trying to get info out of Corel is like trying to get blood out of a stone... and I very much doubt any more bug fixes for 11 will come out - even for Mac's who didn't even get the first one - I'd be delighted if there was, but am not going to hold my breath.

[ikken]

I'm a big fan of Painter, it is currently my application of choice, but trying to get info out of Corel is like trying to get blood out of a stone... and I very much doubt any more bug fixes for 11 will come out - even for Mac's who didn't even get the first one - I'd be delighted if there was, but am not going to hold my breath.

This is precisely what I feel with every recent update of painter.
CS5 will have multi-touch interface and now it looks like the 3D brush system from moxi (or its variation) is finally given a green light by adobe;
and what painter 11 has to offer? a single new brush type (though real-hardmedia is good), a minimal menus re-stacking, plenty of old bugs, plenty of new
I really hate painting with photoshop and I miss mixer palette there, but as a texturing/photo application it's really the best - I never had my cs3 crashing, and it looks like I'll upgrade to cs5 once it out.

and I'll have both my painter 6,1 and x with me anyway.

I'm kinda curious about how that "wet paint" behaves in action - because right now it looks like they combined the smudge tool and brush tool together, but who knows..

[Chipsterology]

I see from this article Here (http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/index.cfm?email&NewsID=13195) that Adobe are hinting though not promising that a more Painter like set of brushes will be in PS CS5 (See the link to their facebook video in the article). Whether they actually are or not I'm dubious about. Sounds more promo than solid fact at the moment, but clearly they are working on it.

Corel better get their act together or they'll lose what professional fan base they still retain and they will have to make their next release of Painter truly innovative, not just a few new brushes and rearranged interface, bundled with a dozen old bugs and a handful of new ones to delight us with.....

Hehe, I swear I'm psychic man, I need to get my own hotline LOL :D

I do think though Corel does need some serious programmers...they seem shorthanded - which may have to do with the economy.
Ok, I totally agree, yet totally don't sympathize. I'm not exactly a Painter all-star or megasupernova professional, but I have however been exposed to Painter and Wacom since 1993, I've watched both closely and hopped in on the action in a hobbyist fashion in 1997, started taking it serious in 2001 and decided to field the two as part of my studio offerings and workflow in 2005. My point is that I've watched Painter go from Fractal Design, to MetaCreations, to Procreate, and finally land in Corel's hands. As soon as Corel added Painter to their brand, they should have utilized the intel they already possessed, knowing that users will eventually possess higher processor clock speeds and memory requirements. All they had to do was watch some average sci-fi flick to get an idea of what the future held, but no. They went the same route that the cell phone industry has taken us through for years and try to milk the crowd with tech that's already 3-4 years old for as long as they can. That is until Apple put the iphone out and forced every other phone manufacturer to market crappy iphone wannabes even at this very moment, making their charlatan marketing techniques evident to those who are at least barely wary of what they should be getting for the money they're spending. (No, the iphone is not perfect, nor do I own one, but if you buy a phone that is meant to look and act like an iphone, but it says HTC, Samsung, or whatever other finger flick capable phone, then face it, it is not a freakin' iphone, you have been duped by your service provider) Corel lives on the same block as these manufacturers as far as Painter is concerned. They've had PLENTY of time to implement these improvements waaaaaaay before the "recession" officially hit worldwide last year, their users have been requesting said upgrades for quite some time yet they had the nerve to charge us for Painter 11 which in opinion is little more than a patch. Just like the electric company does not sympathize if you happen to be in dire straits after blowing all your money in Vegas and can't pay your electric bill, I don't sympathize with Corel taking it's sweet time upgrading the program as I watch my 3.4ghz dual core 8gb of ram machine totally blow my Painter high as it struggles to rotate a high resolution file and suffer from abysmal brush lag when trying to use my airbrush stylus on a low opacity layer at 4am, not to mention it's 2009. (Not to be irate though, I just have a cut and dry personality with any tools that I use, either they work as intended or they don't) Photoshop, no lag. SAI, no lag. Painter.......omg, it's the number one natural media program in the world backed by what is supposed to be it's biggest powerhouse brand yet, and it lags insufferably when set side by side with the former two on the same machine with the exact same file. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt in this thread and continue to wear a "Painter" football jersey, hoping their programmers are "Pro Mac" and that these "Painter 11 + Snow Leopard" praises are true, in my studio, I do more than just digital and I need to able to spend more time on the computer getting results than I spend fixing and tweaking just to get to the point where I hope I'll get results before some ridiculous crash sets me back 30-40 minutes.

[Arshes Nei]

As a consumer, I don't expect you to sympathize. I don't exactly sympathize with restaurants that close down at regular hours of dining even with the economy. I've seen a few shut down for certain days or constantly shuffle their hours. At a certain point it becomes too much of a pain.

So like I said, at this point it's at a "Bad relationship" stage I'm only coming back for things I do like only to be turned off and going elsewhere again.

However, no one's sympathy can be squeezed when it involves their wallets or livelihoods.