PDA

View Full Version : Photoshop etc.: PC Vs. Mac


yosoyjay
Jan 13, 2003, 03:03 PM
A fotographer by the name of Rob Galbraith published his comparison of a PC Vs. a Mac in various foto themed tests. The results can be found here http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2003-01/2003_01_07_macpc.html

MrMacMan
Jan 13, 2003, 03:31 PM
So basically the best laptop kicks everything.
Our laptops were upgraded, not extremly much but significantly.
Apple has been losing ground here for sometime, but the hassle or PC's with Photoshop and such is just massivly annoying.

MacBandit
Jan 13, 2003, 03:34 PM
Plain and simply you can not compare the AlienWare laptop with any Apple laptop. That's because it is not a laptop but a desktop replacement with a keyboard and screen built into it. It is far from portable when compared to any Apple laptop because it weighs more then twice as much and is much much bigger.

zarathustra
Jan 13, 2003, 03:57 PM
You know, this is getting tiresome. Here we go, it took XY procedure 12 seconds on PC, but 18 seconds on Mac - I don't give a rodent's behind for that data! He admitted it himself - for batching and processing RAW data. I can tell you from experience, that's not what matters. When I have to batch something on my Mac, I usually "set it, and forget it" (TM The RonCo Company). I walk around, chat with cowerkers get a cup of java, in a little while I come back, and who knows for how long, the batching is finished. Then I take my images and WORK with them. That's what matters - OSX is transparent to me, I see my palettes and I WORK.

Pants.

alex_ant
Jan 13, 2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Plain and simply you can not compare the AlienWare laptop with any Apple laptop. That's because it is not a laptop but a desktop replacement with a keyboard and screen built into it. It is far from portable when compared to any Apple laptop because it weighs more then twice as much and is much much bigger.
Wasn't Steve Jobs going on at MWSF about how the PowerBooks were increasingly being regarded (by Apple and by customers) as desktop replacements?

Don't PowerBooks have keyboards and screens built into them as well?

The AlienWare laptop does not weigh more than twice as much as the PowerBook (9.6lb vs. 5.4lb) and is thicker and deeper but narrower.

LethalWolfe
Jan 13, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Wasn't Steve Jobs going on at MWSF about how the PowerBooks were increasingly being regarded (by Apple and by customers) as desktop replacements?

Don't PowerBooks have keyboards and screens built into them as well?

The AlienWare laptop does not weigh more than twice as much as the PowerBook (9.6lb vs. 5.4lb) and is thicker and deeper but narrower.

9.6 is dang near 2x5.4 and, IMO, the alienware machine isn't a laptop but a small desktop. The thing uses a desktop proc, kicks out desktop amount of heat, and probably has the battery life of a wet sock.

Show me some test between the PB and the Alienware running on batteries only. The Alienware will still be faster, but it will probably die 1/4 thru the testing session. ;)

Lethal

cubist
Jan 13, 2003, 08:20 PM
Yeah, I played a whole game of Age of Empires II on an iBook, on battery - well over two hours, with graphics, music and sound. FWIH the AlienWare is built for games - let's see it play a game for two hours on battery!:cool:

rainman::|:|
Jan 13, 2003, 10:46 PM
The battery life of a wet sock? wtf? hehe i'll have to remember that.

now if anyone around here tries to charge a wet sock to test that, you're paying for the funeral :P

;)
pnw

Kid Red
Jan 13, 2003, 10:54 PM
OH DAMN IT!! The fricking pcs are 6 seconds faster then my dual gig!! Damn it all to hell!!

Ah, whatever, you guys can take that 6 seconds and put it where.....I feel so insignificant because my machine is 6 seconds slower at a few things, booo hooo

Anyone notice that it seems to be fashionable to benchmark againgst macs now? I figure it's 1 of 4 things-

1) They are getting revenge from all the Photoshop bakeoffs from a few years back

2) They want traffic to their web site

3) They know Apple is a little behind and they want to kicks us while we are down

4) Jealousy breeds eny

iJon
Jan 13, 2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
OH DAMN IT!! The fricking pcs are 6 seconds faster then my dual gig!! Damn it all to hell!!

Ah, whatever, you guys can take that 6 seconds and put it where.....I feel so insignificant because my machine is 6 seconds slower at a few things, booo hooo

Anyone notice that it seems to be fashionable to benchmark againgst macs now? I figure it's 1 of 4 things-

1) They are getting revenge from all the Photoshop bakeoffs from a few years back

2) They want traffic to their web site

3) They know Apple is a little behind and they want to kicks us while we are down

4) Jealousy breeds eny
I think the more pathetic thing is that apple still cant beat anyone with even with 2 processors in there machine. sure im with everyone else, i really dont care, i love my mac. but the fact is the prices could be lowered with a single processor which competed. i still think the powermacs are some of the most overly priced computers on the market. for the prices apple charges they should be "giving" us two optical drives in that mac. two cd-roms would all i need, now need for 3 bays like my pc because there is no audigy drive for the mac. i still love my powermac though, wouldnt trade it for anything, and i know that apple cant give away monitors with there computers like other competitors because the build premium and quality monitors which are closely priced with competitors.

iJon

Kid Red
Jan 13, 2003, 11:49 PM
A dual doesn't mean twice as fast. It means 2 chips at said speed. That's it. It only means you can do 2 things at once and not really take a hit. You don't get double the speed, you get double the productivity.

Either way, if you feel cheated then I would consider your stance. I don't feel I am over spending because I feel dollar for dollar that the price is justified. As long as you feel you're money is well spent and you're getting the overall value for your purchase that's all that really counts. Sure some pcs are cheaper and are faster, however, go to some of those owners in a few months and ask about their value. I hear the same thing from pc users over and over. They'd love to get a mac, want to get a mac but they are expensive. They don't feel the value with their pcs even tho faster then some macs, but they also don't see the value in spending more to get a better experience. It's a tough road to travel: Spend more get less speed but better value, spend less get more speed but less overall value.

I guess that's why mac users have that 'elistist' label, we know value and will spend for it.

jaguarx
Jan 14, 2003, 01:02 AM
iJon - Apple can't beat everyone, not anyone. Remember, Alienware boxes like that are bloody expensive, just because the top of the range PC can beat the top of the range mac by a few seconds doesn't really mean much at all.

AmbitiousLemon
Jan 14, 2003, 12:42 PM
i suspect all of you claiming that apple's are too expensive or that the speed issue is a big deal haven't been with apple long. you seem to think you have all the answers and that you have brilliantly hit upon something no one has thought of before. you should run apple.

guess what guys? when you spec out a pc with all the features of a powermac it costs the same as the powermac. . . = no price gap. the price gap is a percieved one. apple does not offer extremely low end machines like dell. you can't buy a stripped down mac with a cheap processor. and so you see dells selling for $700 and you think wow apple is overpriced. truth is when you call or go to the store to get that machine you end up paying twice that because you add all the things you need. the $700 pc is a myth. it is a lure. bring the consumer in thinking they can buy a pc for $700 and then add on all the bells and whistles and drive the price up to $2000. anyone who has spent some time in a computer store has seen it happena dozen times.

the other problem with your arguments is that apple has to boost speed. if apple was faster they woudl gain market share. i hate to break it to you guys but apple has only been behind 2-3 years. that means that for over 2 decades apple was hands down the undisputed leader in personal computing power. this meant nothing to consumers. it is only now that apple has fallen slightly behind that people suddenly think speed is the issue. you are wrong. apple beat the pants of pcs for decades and did not win the great market share. apple's darkest days were during the 90s when apple machines completely dominated pcs.

apple's market share has been growing the past 2-3 years as well. this is during the same time that apple has been falling further and further behind in processor power. consumers clearly do not care about raw power. apple's aggresive marketing, osx, ease of use is what matters. believe it or not apple is on the right path. the processor war is not over, it appears that moto dropped the ball and apple has taken care of things by moving to ibm and things will be rolling again soon.

so stop freaking out every time there is another pc beats mac benchmark. it means nothing. linux market share is up. apple market share is up. this means windows market share is falling on two fronts. this is a good day for apple. quit the doomsday predictions. i know there are a lot of young people and switchers. all of this is new to you. sit back enjoy your machine things are going well for apple. smile while you enjoy the ride.

iJon
Jan 14, 2003, 03:29 PM
Don't get me the wrong way guys. i love my mac, i have two of them. I got my first mac when I was 4.i would never settle for anything less than my mac. It is just when I am at work I have to sell these machines. And since we arents strictly a mac store (we custom order compaqs and we also fix pc's) I have to hear from people who have pc's. I have to defend my computer of choice from my stupid pc friend who is right here in front of my. I have given up sharing the love of the mac and how much he should get one. I have given up because this a guy who says, giga-bit ethernet on the powerbooks is stupid and pointless, macs suck because of games, they are slow as hell, the ipod sucks and the zen whoops its ass, and that controller cards dont work because the pci slot bottlenecks and for that controller cards are pointless. these are the kinds of people i have to deal with. but in no way am i bashing my computer, to me my mac is more than a computer, it has my whole life on it. all my memories and everything from pictures to movies. oh well, i just wanted to clear my self up, dont get mad at me.

iJon

iJon
Jan 14, 2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by jaguarx
iJon - Apple can't beat everyone, not anyone. Remember, Alienware boxes like that are bloody expensive, just because the top of the range PC can beat the top of the range mac by a few seconds doesn't really mean much at all.
haha but on the other end when i think of it, nobody can beat apple.

iJon

movabi
Jan 14, 2003, 10:14 PM
I'm getting sick of people who blindly follow something and can't take a critical look at a situation. I love my mac, but i'm sure I'll get crap for this.

So, when did mac users start defending technology that is slower? I'd say the pentium is kickin some butt. This makes me sad, but apple is definately lacking in the hardware power area. And with no official announcements on where the hardware is going, its hard to have faith. Sure the mac is stylish but I don't buy equipment for the aesthetics. I use to be proud that the mac use to be faster. That the technology was better. But those days seem to be behind us. Apple claims to innovate... nows the time for them to produce.

Once again, I apologize if I honk people off. Its not my intent, but I thought that this was a discussion forum. A place to help make technology get better.

lmalave
Jan 15, 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

The AlienWare laptop does not weigh more than twice as much as the PowerBook (9.6lb vs. 5.4lb) and is thicker and deeper but narrower.

Maybe it's not more than twice as much but that's a HUGE difference. 9.6 lbs is about what my old Dell "desktop replacement" weighed, and it was miserable to carry around. I vowed that I'd go for portability with my next purchase, an I'm very happy with my iBook. Basically, at 10 lbs., this is not a machine that's meant to be taken out of the house. At best, you just move it from desk to desk. At 5 lbs., you are truly mobile. A 5 lb. difference may not sound like much but trust me, your shoulders definitely feel it after a while.

iJon
Jan 15, 2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by lmalave


Maybe it's not more than twice as much but that's a HUGE difference. 9.6 lbs is about what my old Dell "desktop replacement" weighed, and it was miserable to carry around. I vowed that I'd go for portability with my next purchase, an I'm very happy with my iBook. Basically, at 10 lbs., this is not a machine that's meant to be taken out of the house. At best, you just move it from desk to desk. At 5 lbs., you are truly mobile. A 5 lb. difference may not sound like much but trust me, your shoulders definitely feel it after a while.
you are so right. I have a powerbook g3 pismo. its like 7 something pounds and is very heavy after a while in my backpack. thats why my mom is buying me a new 12 inch powerbook. Please someone, if you are interrested in a PowerBook g3 with double hard disk space, more than double ram, and some applecare and more left on it, check out my other thread. I neeeeed to sell it, i am taking offers, name your price within reason.http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17623

iJon

trebblekicked
Jan 17, 2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by movabi
I'm getting sick of people who blindly follow something and can't take a critical look at a situation. I love my mac, but i'm sure I'll get crap for this.

So, when did mac users start defending technology that is slower? I'd say the pentium is kickin some butt. This makes me sad, but apple is definately lacking in the hardware power area. And with no official announcements on where the hardware is going, its hard to have faith. Sure the mac is stylish but I don't buy equipment for the aesthetics. I use to be proud that the mac use to be faster. That the technology was better. But those days seem to be behind us. Apple claims to innovate... nows the time for them to produce.


i don't think yr going to get lambasted for this. We all know about apple's shortcommings in this field. We've probably got five threads on the subject right now. Everyone knows that the pentium is ourperforming apple's motorless motorola chips. no one is ignoring that fact, it's just that when the chips are down (no pun intended) you've gotta play the hand your delt. It may have just been dumb luck, but the timing of OSX, which many agree is the most beautiful, stable, and easiest to use OS ever, is what is protecting apple from the processor effect. Processor development is strictly motorola's problem, and until someone else steps in, apple has to play up what they have going for them. I think most people would agree that their apple hardware gets the job done and they spend less time dealing with freezes and crashes than they did on their pc's. i sure do. My desktop is a year and a half old, and i can do everything i need on it (AE compositing, FCP editing, photoshop/illustrator, DVDSP) and i don't feel that i'm working so slow i need to buy a new one. By the time the new processors come out, apple would have addressed the problem and given everyone what they want- pros get speed, consumers get value and everyone gets stability.

EDIT>
hey! i'm not a newbie anymore! drinks are on me.