Adobe: PC Preferred?

[MacRumors]

Historically, Steve Jobs has used Adobe applications such as Photoshop as a benchmark to counter the "Megahertz Myth" with the widening gap between PowerPC and Intel-based processors with regards to pure clock-speeds.

Adobe (http://www.adobe.com), however, has posted a new page (http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html) implying that PC's are preferred over Macs:

While the computers used in this study are no longer the fastest in their respective classes, the information is still valid. The PC outperformed the similar Macintosh machine, at an impressive rate.

The page cites this Digital Producer Magazine article (http://www.adobe.com/cgi-bin/redirect?http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm) as the basis for the benchmarks.

[iJon]

its the truth, hopefull this will get apple on the move on with some real processors. but you would think apple and adobe have a very special relationship and even though this is true you think they wouldnt release it because of their respect to apple. oh well. you dont see any graphic artists switching do you.

iJon

[NavyIntel007]

DOH!

[praetorian_x]

Faster IBM... Faster...

OK, lets hope this kicks the kids in Cupertino into a frenzy of price/performance improvement.

If Apple doesn't get much faster systems (at the same or lesser prices of todays models) out soon, they will effectively cede the graphics artist market, mac-faithful holdouts excepted, as they have the education market.

I like/love OSX, but the hardware needs help, and fast.

Cheers,
prat

[vniow]

Anybody remember this wacky rumor?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18304

Probably meant drop of OS9 support, but you never know.........

[digitalgiant]

I really dont care,,, I still love my Mac:D

[JD!]

What's to add??? The Mac got it's butt kicked and will continue to do so until SOMEBODY......ANYBODY.....in Apple will at least divulge some info on what's coming. The Pro community is changing...quickly....due to the silence at Apple. What a shame. C'mon Apple....what the Hell is going on??? Give us all a freakin hint will ya??? You can't sell slow, and people are fed up waiting on rumor and blind hope. These latest tests confirm that we are falling way behind. This loyal Apple user for one is sick and tired of waiting.....waiting..........

[Phazer80s]

Good for Adobe. Apple needs a kick in the pants. It's great to have it come from a respected giant like Adobe.

Us 'little people' can only say so much. Quark's big-wig (what ever his name is) came off sounding like a jerk when he suggested users switch to another platform if they weren't happy with Quark's OS X support, etc. Adobe made their comment with stats. That shows a lot more class, and gets the point across without inviting the same level of blind anger.

It's time for Apple to ante up. And not with more berzerk prices, either. They've done that for long enough.

[arn]

possibly somewhat inaccurate graphs?

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151450

[scem0]

Originally posted by iJon
its the truth, hopefull this will get apple on the move on with some real processors. but you would think apple and adobe have a very special relationship and even though this is true you think they wouldnt release it because of their respect to apple. oh well. you dont see any graphic artists switching do you.

iJon

Exactly how I feel. :)

[alset]

This is a dark day for DTP on the Mac. I'll just keep my head down and pray for something revolutionary to hit us. Right about now, our machines need a miracle kick start. No matter how much I love my Mac, these chips just aren't holding up.

Dan

[Steradian]

Meh, these are tests against the Dual 1.25's, I would love to see the Dual 1.42's go at it in there :D

[razorme]

Someone at Adobe is on krak. The illustrations do not match the x-axis. Apparently they couldn't decide if 0.6 means 60 seconds or 36 seconds. In the first illustration, 54 seconds = 0.54 and 1 min 25 = 1.25! (which also = 85 seconds = 0.85???)

The lamers should go back to high school!

[alset]

Y'know, here's another thought - People keep saying that they are surprised Adobe would post test results that damage Apple... But what about when Steve stuck his thumb in their eyes about PS being late to OS X at MacWorld SF last year? Steve didn't exactly come off very warm and cuddly, that morning.

Dan

[Gus]

Give it up with the graph already. Who cares if the graph is misleading? The TIMES are the problem. I could give a flip about a graph that somebody made wrong, I care that the software company that millions of graphic pros use is exposing the (albeit obvious) achilles heel of Apple. People keep saying "What we have is fast enough fo what people need"--and before you attack that statement, yes it has been posted may times on these forums. The end of the Charlie White article is right: why would you buy a computer that will take almost twice as long to perform the tasks you want to do? Time=Money in the workforce. He also makes another great point; if you are working in Photoshop or InDesign all day long, why does it matter what OS you use, really?

I am an Apple fan, and I do not like Windows, but even the zealots have to see hhow much of a slap in the face this is to Apple. They have to start talking about the future of the PowerMac in public. They need to assure the graphics houses that there is something worth waiting for, other than another nifty update to iChat.

Regards,
Gus

[Phazer80s]

Originally posted by arn
possibly somewhat inaccurate graphs?

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151450


Very good point, Arn.

But I'm still glad Adobe isn't staying silent on what platform runs their apps quicker. They're speaking out, exposing Apple's secret shame. It's kinda like an old friend confronting a buddy on a self-destructive habit …but with proportionally-innacurate graphs.;)

Apple's friends need to hold an intervention gathering.

[arn]

yep...

regardless of the graphs, bias etc...

the main point of this story is that Adobe is posting this perspective... and Apple needs to step up

arn

[mum]

I suppose they're trying to blame the machines for the pathetic AE performance on the Mac.

[jeffberg]

Analogy Time

PC vs Mac is like Honda Accord vs. Range Rover

The Accord has more horsepower, creating more speed.
The range rover has more torque, creating more power.
just as a PC goes faster, a Mac can do more at once.

The accord is basic, featureless.
The range rover is leathery, woody, beautiful, and packed with every possible emenaty
just as PC's are hard to use and can't do anything out of the box. while macs are pretty and have all the software required for the basics of everything right out of the box.

The accord is small and hard to see out of, to see what your doing and what others are doing
the range rover has high seating with low windows to allow you to see everything that happens
just as the PC can do things without you knowing, viruses etc. while a Mac tells you or at least gives and indication of just about everything that it does.

the accord is loved by environmentalists and hated by republicans
the range rover is shunned by environmentalists loved by the republicans
the PC is used by most everyone, except the ones with taste.
the mac is used by the ones with taste and hated by the jealous ones.
(I meant nothing personal about the environmental / republican stuff)

There I think that is enough.

*Disclaimer - I mean no offense by this post, it is my personal opinion. It does not have to be your opinion, but I also have the right to say this according to the 1st amendment (I think it is the 1st, its the free speech one that I am referring to)*

[avus]

Originally posted by jeffberg
The accord is basic, featureless, and un comfortable

I am a Honda owner and Mac user, and I am very offended by your analogy. Your post is as convincing as.. that Adobe "PC preferred" page.

[etoiles]

I think it is no coincidence that the performance test is posted in their digital video section and not in the imaging section: they want to get the DV crowd to buy PC's which will keep them away from FCP and probably Shake.

They probably don't care if if you are doing imaging on a mac or PC, since you are likely to use their products on either platform anyway...

[jeffberg]

Originally posted by avus
I am a Honda owner and Mac user, and I am very offended by your analogy. Your post is as convincing as.. that Adobe "PC preferred" page.

Sorry it was wrong of me to put the uncomfortable part, thats is an opinion, not a fact. and I'm not saying that you can't own one, im just saying that that is what I think, it is my presonal opinion.

Also, what is not convincing about that page, it is pure facts, PC's are faster than Macs. I totally believe it.

[Gus]

First of all, jeff, not to be mean, but if you are going to invoke one of your rights, know which one it is man.

Second, you can make all of the analogies that you want to, and rationalize the PowerMac, but the fact is, that despite all of the advantages that we know the mac has, OS X being a big one of them, the Pentiums are smoking the G4s right now. It's plain and simple. In fact, if I were an Intel executive, I'd be remaking that old Apple commercial with the Pentium II on a snail, except it would be 2 G4s on the snail. Once again, I am an Apple loyalist, and that's why I'm worried.

Oh yeah, One last thing...

If I have to hear that stupid "Centrino" ad music one more time, I'm going to scream. Ugh. I didn't even make it through that sentence and it started.

Regards,
Gus

[scottglasser]

I've been using Macs for 10 years and I'm not ready to go over to the dark side, but neither can I justify buying a new Mac at the current price/performance point. I'll live with my iMac G3 and Powerlogix-enhanced PowerBase until Apple gets their act together!

Maybe OSX on Intel isn't such a bad idea after all? :confused:

[GregGomer]

Looking at this article, it reminded me of another bench mark I saw comparing a 1 GIG, to a Dual 867 and a Dual 1GIG, and a Dual 1.25.

All the Dual processor machines ran adobe about as well as the single processor. Their explanation was that the adobe apps don't take advantage of the dual processors.

So when you are using say Photoshop on a Dual GIG G4, it only takes full advantage of one of the processors, which basically will have the same performacne as a single processor 1 GIG.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is the case, then Adobe Apps aren't the the best apps to benchmark dual proc G4s. Unfortunately there aren't many apps that are Dual processor aware, like Final Cut Pro or DVD studio pro and those don't work on a PC, so you can't use those to get a fair benchmark.

Anyhoo, food for thought, wish I had the link that compared the Adobe apps on single and dual processors, if anyone else can shed some light on this please do.

[NavyIntel007]

Ok, first off I've heard Adobe isn't dual processor aware (forgive me if I made that up)

Second...

PC vs. Mac: which one ages faster.

Lets take a PC and a Mac that are 3 years old, put the latest OS (Win XP, OS X) in them and give them similar Hard drives, video cards and ram. Which one would perform faster?

If the Mac performs faster over time, it's a selling point saying that even though it doesn't run as fast as a PC the performance will not degrade as fast.

I don't know this for sure, I just know that people are still using 3-5 year old macs with OS X, where 3-5 year old PC's cannot handle XP.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by jeffberg
just as PC's are hard to use and can't do anything out of the box. while macs are pretty and have all the software required for the basics of everything right out of the box.


For the topic of this thread, the analogy and claims are basically irrelevant since it is about Adobe software. Neither PCs nor Macs come out of the box with Adobe software nor is the OS doing anything but starting the application.

I have used Photoshop (v5 through v7) a lot on both the PC (under NT, 2K and XP) and the Mac (under both 9 and X). With the exception of my personal preference for AppleScript over VBScript, there is no difference between using Photoshop under the two platforms.

I have not used Illustrator that much but have found the same thing there. I would assume Adobe has done the same thing across the product line.

[MacRumorSkeptic]

Crazy! Yeah Apple needs a good kick in the ass to get better hardware out but is this the way to get them to do it?

Does anyone think Adobe is doing this because their mad about the competition from Final Cut Pro?

If I were Adobe I would be careful not to step too hard on Apple's toes. Apple just might come up with some great innovative software solutions in other categories that are currently dominated by Adobe. If anyone were to come up with something better than Illustrator & Photoshop its Apple.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by GregGomer
Looking at this article, it reminded me of another bench mark I saw comparing a 1 GIG, to a Dual 867 and a Dual 1GIG, and a Dual 1.25.

All the Dual processor machines ran adobe about as well as the single processor. Their explanation was that the adobe apps don't take advantage of the dual processors.

The benchmarks I have seen indicate that Adobe Photoshop is dual processor aware but not all of the filters are aware or are helped by a second processor.

People have told me you have to be very careful about Photoshop benchmarks and making sure you understand what filters are used to see if the results are relevant. Their claim is that Apple chooses to use only filters that are benefited by a second processor and tune the file sizes for the large L3 cache to make the G4 look better. If your Photoshop use looks similar, you will get similar results. If it does not, then all bets are off.

If you go over to BareFeats.com you will see examples of filters that are helped by dual processors and those that are not.

[Stridder44]

The PPC970 is the only way I can think of to go if I were in Job's shoes right now. Sure x86 would be great and the Mac OS would get great credit and Microsoft would have some serious compition, but an x86 Mac OSX wouldn't have a single application except those made by Apple (at least in the beginning). I think PPC 970 is a better way to go for Apple.

And as for Motorola, stick with phones. The G4 WAS great at one time...but they've done so little to make it better it makes one sick. Im only hoping that Apple has something great in plan for THIS summer (any later than summer might be, well..too late).

And, for the records, go Apple. :D

[Hemingray]

Well, I voted this report as negative. Now that I think about it, though, it's more positive than negative! I agree with everyone else who says that this is a good thing, because it really is. The G4 has been trailing behind for far too long, and Apple does need a good swift kick.

But, on the other hand, if Apple already has/will soon have prototypes of the 970, wouldn't a company as big a supporter as Adobe be informed of this? And if they were informed, if the 970 is really that close, why would they put out this type of thing?

[Abstract]

Sorry, got no time to read all the posts, but I wanted to add my 2 cents:

For any graphics user/dabbler who realizes that a PC is a much faster alternative to a Mac, and goes to buy a PC as their next computer, Apple loses that user for 2-4 years, minimum. If IBM doesn't get their chips into a Mac soon, it may be years before Apple see's their older customers come back. The problem with Apple isn't that people aren't switching to Apple --- they are. However, they're losing users at a pretty quick rate, and accounts for the fact that their chunk of the market isn't growing, even with a lot of switchers, and switcher ads to entice PC users.

At least they should get the word out that they're getting much more competitive chips into their computers soon, even if it hurts sales for the next 3-5 months. It almost doesn't matter in the long run, especially if nobody knows that a next generation chip is coming. The more Mac users who know about the 970, the less people who will switch to a PC. And if we assume that the rate of incoming switchers to the Apple world is constant, their chunk of the market will begin to grow even if the 970 isn't released yet. But they need to publicize the next generation chip, at least to Mac users who really don't want to switch to a PC, but feel they must.

[QCassidy352]

I've got a question that has probably been asked here before, but I haven't seen it. :) Why can't Motorola push the clock speed of the G4 higher? I know that fundementally it will still never be as good as a 970, but why couldn't there be a 1.8 or 2 ghz G4? We'd still want the 970... but wouldn't something like that have kept the speed gap a little more competitive in the meantime? Is there a reason that wouldn't be possible with the G4?

(p.s. I like honda accords very much, thank you. They're very well built and quite comfortable, and if you like extras, how about a car that you can talk to in order to (de)active GPS/AC/CD/defrost/etc.? :) )

[maxterpiece]

I've made some posts in the past about why I think IBM/Motorola will never regain the advantage speedwise over Intel. I'm too lazy to go dig up a link, but they basically said that because there is a much greater demand for intel processors, there is more money and incentive to push them forward (as long as Apple and AMD stay around).
Anyway, I get the feeling that Apple just might be positioning itself to become a more Microsoft-like company (structure-wise, not quality-wise). What I mean is, they are moving much closer to a software company. All of the sudden, Apple has this whole software scheme - iLife stuff, possible pending new AppleWorks (iWorks?), FCP, Keynote.... With iWorks, they will be comparably diverse, software-wise, to Microsoft.
Now, there are two main reasons that I can think of for why Apple has maintained control over both hardware and software. The first reason is simple - money... they made the lion's share of their profit on the hardware end. When they licensed clones, the clone makers pushed technology and price - apple fell way behind... People stopped buying apple hardware. The second reason is that they can control make sure there are no hardware conflicts... they can choose what hardware is used and make sure that it works.
To solve the money issue, apple can do (and partly has done) a couple of things. THe first is to leave the the hardware business completely (like ms ... ignoring tablet pc and other stupid ****). The second thing, it has already begun: making a package that goes with their OS from which they can draw extra revenue/licensing fees, and just offer a more diverse software package.
Finally, regarding control of hardware - apple could build into their licensing policy, rules about using only apple approved hardware, and integrate some technology that would prevent people from getting OS X onto a system that was not put together by an apple licensee.
SO, in conclusion, Apple will announce that they are switching to intel processors when they first release iWorks. Just call me Nostradamus. Ok, they probably won't.

[Mlobo01]

Im a classical portraitist, and an avid Mac user,
it takes a while for me to finish a pencil rendering let alone an oil painting, there is no application out there nor any advanced PC that come close to what I can do with my own hands, My enjoyment never ever comes out of speed! you may render a pic quicker on photoshop but it will never come close to any artwork done by hand! my point being is that my iMac DV which is 400MGZ comes close to what I feel when Im painting, There is no PC out there no OS regardless of Mgz speed that can do what my little iMac provides for me, why is that?
I believe its because its the experience and not the end, my journey there is what counts not how fast I got there. I think this need for speed is basically a marketing ploy to exploit the general ignorance that abides today. Can anyone tell me that if they rather work on those
clunky grey boxes or black if you may, harming your eyes to what it looks like a food fight of colors over the elegance of Aqua? can anyone be so OBTUSE as to even contemplate contaminating their fingers on those nasty keyboards that looks like vomit? not me for sure. I dont care if its 3,4,5, 6ghz of speed, the box put together by Gates himself, he can keep his pathetic OS and they can keep there chips that serve the aformentioned boxes, I dont wanted I dont care for it, In the end I will come out more satisfied with my little machine. The mac has enough speed(any mac what the hec!), now for those that are just perfunctory or if allowed to use a familiar image: those people that are similar to Apple's 1984 commercial, they can have their fast PCs or chips, they will crash their machines faster! do their duties and then go home and dream of a Mac.
as for Adobe PR it just shows inpropriety, it shows lack of education and of vision, for a company that makes Visual tools they sure dont select decent mouthpieces, I can send my nephews who are in High School and they can show them a trick or two in manners or just plain courtesy, me on the other hand, I only share my experiences here which is healthier,
as for the fast pcs and chip makers who cash in on the general foolery: they dont get it!
they know how to build a chip but are not in touch of what makes a Heart tick, peace and forgive the rant.

[ELYXR]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
I've got a question that has probably been asked here before, but I haven't seen it. :) Why can't Motorola push the clock speed of the G4 higher? I know that fundementally it will still never be as good as a 970, but why couldn't there be a 1.8 or 2 ghz G4? We'd still want the 970... but wouldn't something like that have kept the speed gap a little more competitive in the meantime? Is there a reason that wouldn't be possible with the G4?

(p.s. I like honda accords very much, thank you. They're very well built and quite comfortable, and if you like extras, how about a car that you can talk to in order to (de)active GPS/AC/CD/defrost/etc.? :) )

Rumor has it the G5 "would" have been the swift kick in the pants that the Mac platform needed, but it was pulled at the last minute. Does anyone remember the link to the rumor on this site about Apple pulling prototype G5 boxes from developers?

Anyway, I think it's safe to say that Moto has given up on designing future computer processors, period. The current G4 has issues utilizing the bandwidth of the DDR memory that we've waited so long for.

I keep putting off my next Apple purchase... waiting for that "quantum leap" that I fear may never come. I'm also very disappointed in the latest 12" and 17" offerings from Apple... we got our demos at the academix reseller that I work at. The edge just before the keyboard is "razor sharp"... I almost cut myself on it. Plus the 12" PB is unbelievably hot... so much so that it has altered people who were set on buying it before they got their hands on it. Bad news... and more bad news.

Incidentally, we had a Pismo in the shop being repaired... I love and desperately miss the sleek contoured body and the sexy clicker... I wish Apple would go back to innovating.

Please Apple... give me the Pismo G4 (1 inch thick)!!!

[nuckinfutz]

Mlobo01

Good post. All too often people don't look at the full picture when comparing the platforms.

As i've said in other threads After Effects is a great program that's gotten old and slow. It's not suprise you have to throw a 3Ghz PC on it just to outdo a 1.25Ghz G4. And no I don't count the other processor because it's hardly used it at all. This is no testament to the P4. I beats a processor it outclocks by over %100..big whoop.

In the creative process the most time consuming task it using ones imagination. I assure you...the slowest part of your computer system resides behind the keyboard.

Apple will negate the speed advantage and hopefully improve on the UI of OSX. Those two must function together harmoniously for that "Computing Magic" to occur.

On a personal note. My PC's may be faster than my Macs...but I have to do way more maintenance with my PC so I guess in some cases it's a wash.

[beatle888]

delete

[beatle888]

Originally posted by GregGomer
All the Dual processor machines ran adobe about as well as the single processor. Their explanation was that the adobe apps don't take advantage of the dual processors. ....................
................................................................................Correct me if I'm wrong


ok :D photoshop is plenty dual processor aware and do a great job. concider yourself corrected.

that was an easy one.

[Grokgod]

I think that the analogy of ART in one of the previous posts was perhaps one of the best ever to describe the uselessness of making comparisons tween Mac's and Pcheese's on the grounds of SPEED.
I have had many Pcheese computers in the past and they were all very fast and the best that money could buy.

There is not one of them in the bunch that was memorable. While my Ti book will always be fondly thought of.

As an artist I still have a favorite mechanical pencil. Of course speed isnt an issue with such simple items. But I think that the point is that simplicity works!

When I draw or sketch with it there is little need to worry about various functional problems.

I have found on the MAC that there are less worries also.

ALso the process that has been made far more agreeable working with the MAC, that can never be present with the Pcheese.

I dont own a Pcheese anymore, not even to remind myself how horrible they are.

I can always go to a friends house to see his Pcheese crash or watch him search for drivers.
They all own one because they are not artists and have given in to the childish logic that speed is the best criteria that a computer can be judged by!

But its compromise, for the extra time that it may take to render, you receive real productivity! and an inspiring experience.

Yes, These Intel boxes are faster at rendering and perhaps in other areas as well. We always knew that didn't we, I am sure that Adobe is worried about FCP!

Yet still, I find this belittlement of the MAC as an act of desperation, its reiterating the obvious but obscuring the the truth.

I think that the erroneous graph was made on the Intel box, which was going too fast to create the graph properly!

[beatle888]

the posts about how the mac is more of an experience and speed is secondary dont seem to consider tight deadlines. a scream-en beast would be preferred than a nice cushy interface when it comes to the demands of the print industry.

[acj]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Ok, first off I've heard Adobe isn't dual processor aware (forgive me if I made that up)

Second...

PC vs. Mac: which one ages faster.

Lets take a PC and a Mac that are 3 years old, put the latest OS (Win XP, OS X) in them and give them similar Hard drives, video cards and ram. Which one would perform faster?

If the Mac performs faster over time, it's a selling point saying that even though it doesn't run as fast as a PC the performance will not degrade as fast.

I don't know this for sure, I just know that people are still using 3-5 year old macs with OS X, where 3-5 year old PC's cannot handle XP.

I put XP on an old dell laptop. It was a pentium 2 or 3 366MHz (I think) with just 128mb ram, and it was fast. It booted in 30 seconds, loaded photoshop, ie, and office fast. It even ran all three fine. XP is bad, but OSX is a resource pig.

You can say a three year old Mac is less out of date than a three year old PC, but that's just because Macs havn't been advancing so fast. As said before, lets hope this article proves to help the Mac platform rather than hinder it.

[Apple][Forever]

Huh, i have 2 macs and a Honda Accord. Since it's easier to sell computers than a 4-year old car with a few dents and 70,000 miles, anyone know of a good place to buy Range Rovers?

(P.S. I would rather shoot myself in the face than drive a truck.)

(P.P.S. Well, no, but I would be REALLY REALLY unhappy about driving a truck.)

(P.P.P.S. REALLY. Like, totally pissed off.)

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Grokgod
I find this belittlement of the MAC as an act of desperation, its reiterating the obvious but obscuring the the truth.


wow, i thought adobes statement was removing the obscurity and reporting the truth. they have a right to report which system runs their software the best. i would be upset if my main software vendor didnt give system requirments for optimum performance.

apple :D, they will easily make it to ten ghz eventually...in like what, five years? so who cares. we mac users will just get their a bit slower...we will still be using the wonderful mac. personaly if i had a studio, it would be easy to get by with a Dual 1.42ghz, 2ghz of ram and a bad ass SCSII raid system for my scratch disk.
change a few preferences in photoshop for the memory percentage and scratch disk and i'd be ready to roll.

[ultrafiel]

Ok, I've used Photoshop from version 4-7. I've used Illustrator, Premiere, Pagemaker, InDesign, and GoLive (before Adobe bought it out). They all are quite consistant across platforms, although I do find myself hitting that stupid windows button for shortcuts if I don't think (why is that there? No one I know uses it.) Anyway, I use Photoshop the most, everyday at work. Once you get to a G4 mac or high-end PC, you really won't see a difference unless you work with big files. Not a big deal. However, I have to use Photoshop on a 9500/132 often and then you can take a break to resize something, or rotate the canvas. I thought about buying a PC for checking webpages and playing games, but I doubt I'll do it. I hope to get a new computer next year if Apple puts out something decent. I want a 970. Still it will hit the wallet pretty bad, and I was looking to get a Civic also maybe an Accord now :). Still I might as well get a new Mac while I can before I'm married, because then I won't be able to justify it.

[Jimong5]

THe article confused me.. the graphs say its a 1.25.. but the paragraph says its only a dual gig.. am i seeing things here?

[Foocha]

etoiles, you make an excellent point. This article is clearly from the Video Production division of Adobe - whilst the stats themselves are a concern (everyone by now acknowledges that the PowerMac needs a great leap forward) I don't think this indicates anything nasty going on at Adobe - the page links through to another page where they're trying to flog Dells. It's just one business unit at Adobe, and hardly represents their corporate policy.

I hope that Apple has something up their sleeve and they're going to pull it out some time soon.

[Mlobo01]

I have considered, speed vs experience since for the last 13 years I've been doing illustration and Portraits, I've have never missed any deadlines as short as some of them have been, I always have managed my time well enough that I can enjoy my paintings while meeting the date, But if it isn't an experience that i enjoy I would never do it, The deadlines add an extra frisson to the mix,but never interferes in my enjoyment of it, but If it anyone feels that they have to sacrifice artistic integrity due to mismanagemnet of time or lack of talent then you are in the wrong business, consider that you CAN be doing things you enjoy while making a living at it, I know I do. The experience is fundamental, and a Mac provides that more than a PC. A Mac to me reflects many
aesthetic qualities that are inherent in my own
artistic nature (specially OS X) if it wasnt for OS X, I would of never gotten into computers, and started learning Photoshop etc. To me doing PS7
on XP would be like torture, no matter how fast(er,est) it is on a PC, if anyone here is in a position that they can't control your work environment and have no say in what you work with then its time for personal break-throughs
otherwise you become unconscious members of the 1984 commercial imagery I just used in my last post, AS A DRONE; you come in, sit at your workstation, do your job, wait for someone
to come running in (instead of you, cause conformity is safer,blah,blah,blah) and throw a hammer at the hum-drum of industrial ideology
which is what PCS represent, your personal key to turning you into part of the collective at the cost of your creativity and individuality! hurray that you can make your job faster on a PC just so you can have more soul-plummeting work.
My suggestion is; Follow your bliss! (quote from Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth)

[redAPPLE]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Ok, first off I've heard Adobe isn't dual processor aware (forgive me if I made that up)

Second...

PC vs. Mac: which one ages faster.

Lets take a PC and a Mac that are 3 years old, put the latest OS (Win XP, OS X) in them and give them similar Hard drives, video cards and ram. Which one would perform faster?

If the Mac performs faster over time, it's a selling point saying that even though it doesn't run as fast as a PC the performance will not degrade as fast.

I don't know this for sure, I just know that people are still using 3-5 year old macs with OS X, where 3-5 year old PC's cannot handle XP.

you might have a point there. but. the unfortunate thing is, people tend to see the short term. and not the long term.

i still have one 400 mhz g4 and i cannot say, that i am not satisfied. it is not the fastest g4 on the block, but it gets the job done.

my suggestion to Apple and Adobe, kiss and make up. Apple should make their machines more afordable and bring out the big dogs. i think it's name is 970. ;)

just a few more months guys. just a few more months.

[F/reW/re]

After 10 years with Mac i just bought my first PC before christmas. It's fast and cheap! :D

and it's got adware :(

[ELYXR]

I think this thread boils down to this:

Apple (like Dell and others) is a reseller of sorts. They buy processors from Motorola, Hard drives from IBM or Western Digital, the Superdrive's from Pioneer and Sony, memory from Kingston, Etc... They design a case which is manufactured in Taiwan or China, assembled in Cupertino (maybe) along with the rest of the components.

My point is Apple has ultimate control over their product line - more than Dell in the sense that Dell does not design their primary OS. Apple makes design decisions down to the last nut and bolt... Apple has built a beautiful and battle-hardened (yet over-burdened) OS called Mac OSX. This is juxtaposed with the fact that at the heart of the Macintosh is a processor that is essentially EOL'd by it's own manufacturer.

The Mac needs a heart transplant because the rest of the body can't survive without it. :eek:

[scan300]

Originally posted by Foocha
the page links through to another page where they're trying to flog Dells. It's just one business unit at Adobe, and hardly represents their corporate policy.


Charlie White's original article compared 2 Dells One Mac and an Alienware 2001DV Intel P4 2.53GHz, with which the Mac compares reasonably.

Adobe's rehash of the results slimmed down the list to 2 to sell Dells to Mac users.

Apple now competes aggresively with Adobe on video editing. It seems appropriate the Adobe fires a return salvo.

Watch NAB to see how Apple respond.

[VIREBEL661]

Terribly frustrating for me, a Mac user and lover for a long long time... The OS KILLS Windoze obviously, but again, the hardware is really crippled... One of the things that has frustrated me about Macs is the slowness in adopting the latest technology... I can live with the lack of Intel speeds at this point, however, why can't Apple push the envelope on the rest of the mobo architecture??? I mean, they OBVIOUSLY lead the way in industrial design; but if only they could make their machines as mean on the inside as they are on the outside... I would like to see Macs match PCs on all other specs, if not processor speed... Apple is indeed a LARGE company - they can do this...

[LordJohnWhorfin]

It's hard not to think this comparative is payback for Apple's pursuit of insanely good video editing software, resulting in total annihilation of Adobe's Mac Premiere/After Effects revenue...

[MacsRgr8]

At first it sounds very, very negative... and it still is regarding the current line up of (Power ?)Macs. If Apple doesn't feature new gr8 PPC 970 (POWER !)Macs in the very near future, then this statement by "long time friends" Adobe could really be the final nail in the coffin of DTP on Macintosh. I can't imagine this "PC Preferred" page being on Adobe's site for a whole year without Apple suffering alot!
This MUST mean that Apple is going to have a really fast processor this year. Apple have read this, and let's hope that there will be a "Mac Preferred" page posted on Adobe's website before the summer has ended!

COME ON APPLE!

[reyesmac]

Adobe knows that when Apple gets the G5, if it is as good as everyone says, Apple will be able to boss Adobe around again and they just want to kick Apple around a bit before that happens.

[groov']

hi apple-lovers (like me)

For the REAL work I had to switch to the evil empire already - it's so cheap that you can easily do that ... waiting waiting and still more waiting for better times on our preferred platform.

In the meantime wife and kids have a lot of fun with my old macs.

[Mlobo01]

have fun(macs)
real work; other system
On the serious side though, I read that Apple might be developing there own brand of Photoshop, some photo utilities already show up in iPhoto 2, Adobe has there own brand of iPhoto called Adobe Album, some jack within the company might be feeding negative vibes etc,
I dont know, but it has been within the last month or two that this animosity started, Adobe must be looking at how Safari is greatly outdoing its competitor browsers, They might be fearing a drawing or photo app, that might out-do PS7? I will also utilize the "car" metaphor to illustrate the differences in platforms, any fool with money can by a Ferrari,that does not make him a great driver, I know of a friend of mine who has a G4 and they only use it to surf the net, its like having that same Ferrari only to go get groceries!, To me PCS are like putting a Ferrari engine on a minivan, would it drive like a Ferrari? never!, thats the conundrum of pcs, its all horsepower but no handling no harmony within its sytems. now on a Mac you get less Mgz speed but much better handling and stability, have you ever tried to take a curve at 50Mph on a Isuzu Samurai? You roll over easy at 35Mphs, PC's OS are like that, a Frankestinian voyage into brute speed without thought or purpose, its OS has no stability, My iMac 400DV is like the mini Cooper;I can find parking anywhere, gets me from A to B, does not roll over at 35mph, save me gas and has speed enough!does not leave me stranded! lol, I think that the more people look at speed alone the better I feel, makes me think I know something, Ciao

[Zaid]

Originally posted by ultrafiel
Ok. They all are quite consistant across platforms, although I do find myself hitting that stupid windows button for shortcuts if I don't think (why is that there? No one I know uses it.)

I know this post was a while back, but here goes anyway...

the Win-key does actually get used a lot.

Win-M .. Min all windows (show desktop)
Win-R .. Run dialog box
Win-F .. File Search window
Win-E .. Open an Explorer window
Win-U .. Utility Manager
Win-I .. Favourites Pane in explorer
etc

[Luquado]

Originally posted by acj
I put XP on an old dell laptop. It was a pentium 2 or 3 366MHz (I think) with just 128mb ram, and it was fast. It booted in 30 seconds, loaded photoshop, ie, and office fast. It even ran all three fine. XP is bad, but OSX is a resource pig.

You have got to be exaggerating, pal. 30-second boot is just about impossible on anything prior to 800MHz for XP. Running all three "fine"? With only 128MB RAM? That's also a questionable assessment, since XP's base install eats around 70-100 megs of memory without any software running.

So, please, don't exaggerate THAT much. XP on my old Sony Vaio PCG-F390 (P3 500 notebook upped to 256MB memory) was a dismal, dismal performer. We're talking horrible, unusable Photoshop performance, OK Office XP performance, and slow slow slow rendering on IE. We're talking Jaguar on a first-gen beige G3 with low memory performance. Computers from 3-5 years ago choke on XP, period.

How can I be sure? Because I'm a lifelong PC user. I just bought my first Mac two weeks ago.

I agree that PCs have (obviously) overtaken Macs in the performance department. But, as some have mentioned, the overall experience is where Apple still wins. My Mac is not even remotely cutting edge. It's an older Quicksilver 800MHz. I've upped it to 1GB RAM and massive HD space. But it's only PC133 RAM. I'm running Jaguar.

YES my AMD Athlon PC renders faster than my Mac. But you know what? More often than not, I find myself just biting the bullet and dealing with 5-45 extra seconds of rendering time in PS or when I'm messing with 3D or audio software. Why? Because I love my Mac. Don't get me wrong, I adore Windows 2000 too, as the most stable OS Microsoft ever has released. (If you doubt me, come on over some time and I'll do some tasks then load XP and crash the computer doing the same tasks.) But it doesn't inspire me. I *want* to play with my Mac; I've been using it non-stop and went ahead and repurchased a lot of my software for it. Why? Because it's fun, it's stable, and YES, despite what nay-sayers say, it's fast.

(Give it gobs of memory and it's fast, that is.)

Not that my PC isn't fast! It just about smokes the LuqBox G4 in terms of rendering. But I'll be damned if Jaguar just doesn't seem to just fit in better with the way I think.

So, yes, I'm a working pro multimedia guy, and I'll gladly take 5-45 seconds longer rendering for the "user experience" that people seem to be minimizing. Luq out.

[Zaid]

Unfortuneately Adobe's statements highlight the sad truth, even after taking the Mhz myth into account, Macs are slow. And for those that say that speed is not everything, i agree; it isn't everything, but it is very important. If you work in photoshop, or whatever other app, for a living, time = money. All those little bits of extra time spent waiting start to add up.

While everyone here loves the mac platform, i don't think that many can still claim to be particularly enamoured with the G4 anymore. It was a great chip about a year and a half ago, but now its simply being blown away by the competition. Even Altivec isnt the saving grace that it's claimed to be because it's being starved by the slow FSB.

Here's hoping the 970 makes a speedy sweep across the entire Pro line, so that the G4 can enjoy a well deserved retirement.

[AhmedFaisal]

We will see the PPC970 in Apple desktops this summer so stay calm. This is along with the Athlon64 the only desktop CPU with 64 Bit. The Itanium 2 is as IBM well put it a science project, not a really marketable CPU.
The main reason I don't want an x86 is because its a crappy outdated chip design. It still carries all the old excess **** from the original 8086 and all the legacy crap with it. NO WAY, apple finally got rid of that! And spare me the FUD I rather take a slower Moto or IBM CPU than a GHz Monster that dies quickly because of electro-migration (as the 3GHz PVIs do) and that still can't calculate right...
Regards,

Ahmed Faisal :mad:

[AhmedFaisal]

Looking at where Moto is going with the G4 I personally would rather see Apple ditch it and use G3s again. IBM has repeatedly claimed it could come up with significantly faster G3s (2GHz & up) in a short period of time so the altivec advantage of the G4 should be easily compensated by that :D
The iBook 800 performed equally well if not better in a lot of non-altivec enhanced apps than the Powerbook 12"... :mad:
Just my 2 euro-cents,

Ahmed

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Mlobo01
The deadlines add an extra frisson to the mix,but never interferes in my enjoyment of it, but If it anyone feels that they have to sacrifice artistic integrity due to mismanagemnet of time or lack of talent then you are in the wrong business, consider that you CAN be doing things you enjoy while making a living at it, I know I do.


have you worked with files OVER a gig? tradeshows kill macs. transforms can take an easy twenty minutes. it may be fine for you but i usually have too much to do than sit on my butt for twenty minutes thinking to myself how pretty the progress bar is.

[Mlobo01]

I think we are forgetting that at the heart of these so called faster systems still lies a week
OS, if we use the premise of time=$ re-booting the sytem a couple times a day or year does add
up! how about taking the PC thats in question the shop? that requires cash aswell, the gas that is waisted in getting there etc, I only re-boot my imac DV when upgrades require it, And when it comes to rendering on photoshop Im very confident in what I do and I dont experiment too much unless its my own personall exercise,
These threads when it comes to the mac will always tend to go beyond whats technological and will tend to go to whats metaphysical, its what fuels the general mac user to keep their poise even in the face of these trivialities that seem to want to pressure an already stable technological system into unsteady emotional frenzy, that in the end will prove nothing to the
people who are looking to do more with their machines than to serve the "Man". To go on the trail of a falsehood ideal is the tale of fools, sort of a techno-el dorado.
"Its upon my will I set my mind in motion" Dune

[Mlobo01]

its meant in general, Only you know your qualities, whether this applies to you or not fall outside the field of the thread, this is my response, and no one here should take anything personal other than the responsability of their own experience, I'am not attacking no one here
nor condescending, I just read and respond, Im
backed by my experience in my field, and by my working with my computer, The point of my response should not trigger anything other than
an informed frame of reference, these threads provide many perspectives on a single idea, whether negative or positive they do provide points and show disticnt personalities and impetus towards the Machines. sometimes we are going to read things we may not like, but we read and go on, the world of computing will not
turn upside down on account of this thread, This is to express, read and move on but...
I have shot the arrow o'er the house
and hurt my friend, by this hand
it was not for you... Hamlet

[beatle888]

fine fine fine whatever.

[faustfire]

speed does matter when you have an ae project that takes 40 hours to render on your mac but would render in 25 on a pc. Thats a lot of time and money lost. If apple doesnt get their **** together this user may have to switch to the dark side. And i'm sure i wont be the only one.

[Mlobo01]

The general concensus I get is; yes there is a lot of fustration at the end of the day, due to that we are in some cases obligated to use other than what we want to use, Some here would honestly keep their Macs, but they are bound to their responsabilities, there is no fault in that, its just unfortunate. Some of the upper management changes in Apple this past week or additions may have been triggered by the lack of these decisions being made, to move to a faster processor and match intel and the rest, why stick to Moto? lack of proper leadership?bad consul? we will get switchers alright, towards MS! that is. I agree with person who says" apple needs a transplant" and quickly please, We need a new flagship Mac, hopefully there is changes around the corner, cause no matter what is out there in July im getting a G4, hopefully new stuff will be out, for those who have participated in this thread I appreciate your honesty, and opinion, and despite the differences of opinion I wish you all the oportunity to have your own Macs, and primarily to enjoy whatever you have regardless, just keep safe, And hopefully I will respond to some of you in some other threads.
"despite the chaos and separation of others in these times of war; the conflict of technologies
that we share is our own, which is what binds us" Me

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Ok, first off I've heard Adobe isn't dual processor aware (forgive me if I made that up)

Second...

PC vs. Mac: which one ages faster.

Lets take a PC and a Mac that are 3 years old, put the latest OS (Win XP, OS X) in them and give them similar Hard drives, video cards and ram. Which one would perform faster?

If the Mac performs faster over time, it's a selling point saying that even though it doesn't run as fast as a PC the performance will not degrade as fast.

I don't know this for sure, I just know that people are still using 3-5 year old macs with OS X, where 3-5 year old PC's cannot handle XP.

I believe that is a myth. I'm running XP on a dual 266 PII, runs fine. I put that machine together back in Sept of 97 so it's about 5 1/2 years old. I'm running XP on a PII 366 laptop that is coming up on 4 years old, no problems. I sold my bondi blue in February last year because OSX was painful.

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by ewinemiller
I believe that is a myth. I'm running XP on a dual 266 PII, runs fine. I put that machine together back in Sept of 97 so it's about 5 1/2 years old. I'm running XP on a PII 366 laptop that is coming up on 4 years old, no problems. I sold my bondi blue in February last year because OSX was painful.
Exactly.. that thing about macs lasting longer is completely made up by mac zealots.
On my friends 350 MHz/320MB ram PC Win XP runs just fine, interface is fast and usable, unlike Mac OS X on my 350 MHz iMac which is slow as crap.

As for Adobe, I think Apple needs to come up with application to replace Photoshop which will be faster and optimized for Dual CPU's and Altivec.

[gopher]

Adobe is nuts. They rig the test results to make it look like the PC is faster. When the

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

MTOPs ratings are taken into consideration

And developers fully implement

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html

Altivec coding

The Mac is as much as 4 to 5 times faster. Look at RC5 tests and Genentech Blast.

Look at this page:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

It is obvious that both Adobe's site, and this site can't be true.
Someone at Adobe is either:

1. Lying in their teeth.
2. Not optimizing their software for Altivec as Macdevcenter shows how above.

It is obvious to me that Adobe has basically faltered at its post as a Mac friendly developer. We should send a stern message to Adobe that while we'll buy InDesign because Quark won't make their Mac OS X native version soon enough, and we'll buy Photoshop we won't buy any of their other software until they optimize their Mac software for the Mac.

There is always Final Cut Express and Final Cut Pro.

And there is Corel Graphics Suite.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Boy did adobe start the flames, but really what they are saying is true. Macs crappy never moved forward g4 is and had been stuck in 1st gear. Just look at the fact that apple went to 2 cpu's and a heatsink that is a monster. Apple has done everything under the sun to get as much as they can out of crappy motorola crap. new architecture,2 cpu's a os that can use them but a zillion apps that dont know how. Bottom line is that the g4 is history. Thank you motorola. Sure we know the 970 machine is in the works but apple isnt talking. We also know that OSX is much better then windblows. We will just have to wait for a faster better cpu. The fact that Adobe is saying this publicly just reenforces the point. Mac hardware is again way behind. Thank god is still has the best style and software. This makes me wonder why the hardheads in the hardware division took so long to put together( the g4 was stuck and not moving.) Maybe they signed a deal with motorola saying we will buy a million g4s for the coming years even if they have no progress? If so then this is Apples fault for sticking with motorola. Maybe they need to move whoever is in charge of the software division over to the hardware division for awhile. It just pisses me off that motorola never cared about this aspect of their business and apple stayed with these clowns for so long.

[Brian24]

From the linked article:

"The computer still uses RDRAM, the same Intel 850e chipset and 533MHz frontside bus as its predecessor. But there’s more than meets the eye here, and it’s these certain modifications, along with a faster processor with its remarkable new hyperthreading feature, that are the reason for this newfound speed. "

If you check the tech specs of a last generation G4 at apple.com:

"Up to 167MHz system bus"

I would be appalled if a system with more than 3x the main bus speed couldn't win this show down. The main point is that this is not an equal comparison. The PC clearly has a major advantage. Now I have no idea what hyperthreading does to this study but on a pure hardware comparison, apples (pun intended) to oranges seems to be the way to phrase this. I would be interested at the results on comparitively speced hardware.

Yes, Apple needs to push for better harware. Now that they are working with IBM, let's hope that happens. Moto was a good partner, but they have become narrow in their focus to engage the embeded market, and that has hindered the PowerPC's progress.

The crux of this, as well as all of the post I see here is that what works for one does not for another. I have been working with PC's and Macs side by side for many years and I can say that each has their place in computing. Don't let some silly article tell you how fast a system is. Try one out. Go to the store and play. Use your friends machines. Only when you have a feel for the real time applications of what you do, will you be able to pick the machine that works best for you.

"Macintosh - we might not get everything right, but at least we knew the century was going to end. "

-Douglas Adams

[gopher]

The problem isn't the G4. It is the developers who won't code for it properly. See my prior post in this thread.

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by gopher
The problem isn't the G4. It is the developers who won't code for it properly. See my prior post in this thread.

Altivec isn't a magic wand and in a lot of instances isn't really helpful. In a recent product I added Altivec optimizations where they made sense, lots of transforms on the same set of data points. I also did Intel SSE optimizations. The G4 didn't suddenly become monster fast. It was noticably faster than before, but so was the PIII and P4. The G4 didn't gain any ground. I could have taken some more time and made the chunk of code multi-threaded, but that would have taken lots of time (probably introduces lots of bugs) and may not have resulted in any significant improvement because a couple of resource contentions. In any case the pentiums would have also seen a jump on dual boxes if it was there to see.

If a platform requires the a developer to go through major hoops to "code for it properly", it often isn't going to happen and that in itself is a weakness of the platform. To get my product to market in a timely manner, as a developer I want to write straight C++ code. I can drop that code into Visual Studio .NET and it compiles, drop it into CodeWarrior, it compiles, no hassles. For me there is no financial incentive to optimize my code for the G4 any differently than I would optimize my code for anything PIII+.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by gopher
It is obvious that both Adobe's site, and this site can't be true.
Someone at Adobe is either:

1. Lying in their teeth.
2. Not optimizing their software for Altivec as Macdevcenter shows how above.


Or possibly not all things can be sped up by a SIMD unit or dual processors. If everything could be sped up by a SIMD unit, they would be much more powerful and plentiful.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by ewinemiller
If a platform requires the a developer to go through major hoops to "code for it properly", it often isn't going to happen and that in itself is a weakness of the platform. To get my product to market in a timely manner, as a developer I want to write straight C++ code. I can drop that code into Visual Studio .NET and it compiles, drop it into CodeWarrior, it compiles, no hassles. For me there is no financial incentive to optimize my code for the G4 any differently than I would optimize my code for anything PIII+.

It is a pretty nasty double edged sword for the PowerMac G4. It has the potential to be a very fast machine. In order to tap its full potential, you have to have a problem that naturally benefits from SIMD units and dual processors. But that makes the design and implementation more complex and expensive. And you are doing it for a platform that is loosing market share and a line (the PowerMac) that is not selling well.

[kenohki]

One major problem that Apple has right now is that they've lost most of their technical advantage over the years. Now that they've faltered in performance, there is not much left for them to sell the platform on.

Back in the day, Apple had significant functionality and usability advantages over other platforms. PostScript, LocalTalk, and laser printers were common things on the Mac platform back when PCs were still using daisy wheel or dot matrix printers. LocalTalk was much easier to use and configure than NetWare over coax. NuBus offered better performance and was easier to configure than ISA. Apple offered multiple, high resolution, 32-bit color support on the Mac back when CGA and EGA were the status quo. The Mac had an arsenal of great software not to be found on the PC. And the Mac of course, at that time, had a significant usability advantage over DOS or Windows 2.0/3.1.

However, those advantages have all evaporated due to modern hardware, software vendor migration, and the advent of the Windows 9x interface. So what value does the Macintosh bring to the table in this day and age? Well, OS X is a technical marvel (and has been for a while, even back when it was NeXTstep). However, providing minor OS nicities, a good development environment, and a slick GUI won't get you all that far when software like the Adobe apps are written to accomodate the least common denominator (Windows). In cases like that, corporate IT looks at price/performance and the Mac platform falls down right now on that point. Sure, consumer sales and marketshare are great. Apple has done a good job of catering to that segment recently. But let's face it, corporate spending is where the big money is at, and as long as Apple is uncompetitive on a spend basis, they're not going to crack that market. (Not only that, most office computer users buy for home what they have for work.)

So where does this leave us? Well, considering that the processor wars are going to be neck and neck between PPC, x86, EPIC, and x86-64, it's unreasonable to assume that Apple is going to garner a huge advantage in speed. And as long as they keep using commodity PC components and standards as their mainstay, other parts of the subsystem aren't going to rev past their counterparts. What Apple needs to do is to differentiate themselves in a way that makes the price/performance issue irrelevant. They need to find the next DTP. Something that they can bring to the table that another company can't emmulate in a short period of time. DTP brought this first. Multimedia and QuickTime did it again. Granted, other companies managed to make up for lost time, but for a while, Apple provided something that you couldn't find anywhere else. And people were willing to spend to get it. I think this is what they're going to have to do again if they want to get back to that long lost two digit marketshare.

Just my .02

-K

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by razorme
Someone at Adobe is on krak. The illustrations do not match the x-axis. Apparently they couldn't decide if 0.6 means 60 seconds or 36 seconds. In the first illustration, 54 seconds = 0.54 and 1 min 25 = 1.25! (which also = 85 seconds = 0.85???)

The lamers should go back to high school!

Lol, I didn't notice that. If 1.25 = 1 minute 25 seconds the graph should go like this:
-------------------------------------------------
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.1

If any data analyst did this they should be fired post haste. Pathetic really.

[-hh]

Originally posted by gopher
The problem isn't the G4. It is the developers who won't code for it properly. See my prior post in this thread.

And yet we know that the current Mac motherboard has significant performance bottlenecks in it that are going to hamstring its performance regardless of how well/poorly coded the application is.

When it comes to the question of developers, the real problem that we have with coding is that hardware performance is cheaper than a programmer's time, so there's no real incentive to seriously optimize the code ... its slap it together in high-level code, debug it, through the compiler, onto a CD and then on to the next project.

So what really becomes significant in the big picture is in the programming support tools. Do a good job there, and "bad" programming won't be a big problem, but do a lousy job there and even a great programming job will slog along like a pig with a pegleg...unless the hardware's so blazingly fast that noone will notice.

IMO, what we probably need to come up with one of these days is some sort of "Programming Performance Quality" (PPQ) benchmarking. Afterall, 100 lines of code will always run faster than 1,000 lines. Creating such a benchmark would serve to separate the issue of coding efficiency from hardware performance.


-hh

[AmigaMac]

Well whatever Adobe says... blah! I ran various tests a week ago with a friend on Photoshop. It was my TiBook versus his HP Pavilion (laptop) and gave him a good stomp'n! I did have an edge where RAM was concerned, but other than that, he had the upper advantage on everything else (faster CPU, etc...). Oh well I'm not planning on switching ever (regardless of what FUD/RDF Intel sells)!!!

[jayscheuerle]

I remember hearing stories about how Apple had developed versions of OSX to run on X86 processors. Just how big of a gap would be needed for them to decide that it was time to migrate? 3x as fast? 4x as fast?

My beige G3 has had some problems with OSX lately & perhaps it is dying on me. I'm looking at the bottom of the line G4 towers for $1500 versus a bottom of the line PC for $400 that I could completely trick out for another $400 (over time if I wanted) and barely be past half the price of the G4.

What's stopping me?
1) The G3 still works. ;)
2) Software
3) I like OSX

But, heck, there are 14" PC laptops for under $1000...

I really don't need the power of these top-o-the-line processors, but it seems like somebody's been asleep at the wheel... - j

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by acj
I put XP on an old dell laptop. It was a pentium 2 or 3 366MHz (I think) with just 128mb ram, and it was fast. It booted in 30 seconds, loaded photoshop, ie, and office fast. It even ran all three fine. XP is bad, but OSX is a resource pig.

You can say a three year old Mac is less out of date than a three year old PC, but that's just because Macs havn't been advancing so fast. As said before, lets hope this article proves to help the Mac platform rather than hinder it.

OK, Plain and simple......you are making it up. Why?
Because you can barely run XP in a PII at 366!!!!!!

If you had a dell with a PII it probably came with a 2 or 3 GB HardDrive. Did you but a new one because XP requires at lest 1.5 GB. Also, 128 MB of RAM is a minimum requirement so you are probably confused! An IBM ThinkPad with a P4 at 1.4 GHz takes more than 30 seconds to startup XP and it has a 30Gb HD and 512Mb of RAM.
I’m sorry, I DON”T BELIVE YOU…so please support your claims and show us
some pictures!!!!

JAJA…I have this feeling that you won’t!!!!

[robd]

Geez, when we people realize that it's not always about speed! It's about the quality of the interface, the ease of use of the interface,
the ability to get work done smoothly, easily, and with the fewest reboots. And it's about the
right of all human beings to look at something that has been designed and is pleasing to the eye for 10 hours a day as opposed to something that is simply functional.

Rob

[mangoman]

Originally posted by JD!
What's to add??? The Mac got it's butt kicked and will continue to do so until SOMEBODY......ANYBODY.....in Apple will at least divulge some info on what's coming. The Pro community is changing...quickly....due to the silence at Apple. What a shame. C'mon Apple....what the Hell is going on??? Give us all a freakin hint will ya??? You can't sell slow, and people are fed up waiting on rumor and blind hope. These latest tests confirm that we are falling way behind. This loyal Apple user for one is sick and tired of waiting.....waiting..........

At first I was miffed at Adobe, but you know what, kids? You're right. Apple needs to stop playing this silly-ass game of silence and say something. ANYTHING. This goes for other products, too, beyond the pro towers. Take the iPod for example (thread suddenly slides off the tracks, killing all on board).

APPLE: WAKE UP. NOW.

[gopher]

Agreed. The ease of use, and the ease of setting up make a world of difference on the Mac. How many registry entries have you had to redo on the Mac? How frequently do you have to run scandisk on the Mac? How frequently do you have to reinstall the operating system on the Mac? How hard is navigating the multi-column finder in Mac OS X compared to trees of folders that can go on forever. Now that 10.2 includes spring loaded folders it is that much easier. If it was any easier to use a Mac I'd give it to a two year old. The fact that two and three year olds can run Macs just fine says that PCs have a long ways to go in making themselves easy to use.

When you make something easy to use and setup you save time. And when you save time you do things faster. That's irrespective of the processor speed. Oh and here is an ironic twist. By having less software than the competitor, it means you spend less time searching for the right software for the job. When you have an overwhelming number of software titles, you never know which one is the best one to do the job until you read review after review. Ease of use by making choice simpler.
Thus in at least one way the relative scarcity of Mac software titles has made our lives easier.

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html#MACOSXNATIVE shows you where you can search for Mac OS X native software and hardware.

Granted having misrepresented benchmarks by Adobe doesn't make our argument easier, but other things do.

[mangoman]

Originally posted by groov'
hi apple-lovers (like me)

For the REAL work I had to switch to the evil empire already - it's so cheap that you can easily do that ... waiting waiting and still more waiting for better times on our preferred platform.

In the meantime wife and kids have a lot of fun with my old macs.

Wow. What a sorry state of affairs this whole hardware issue has become...

Apple?

Apple?

(sound of crickets...)

Apple?

Beuller?

Beuller?

Beuller?

[RIP]

Sales of PC software is hurting and this is Adobe's way of improving sales? By backstabbing Adobe's faithful?

Scoundrels. :mad:

[backdraft]

The tests were performed in Mac OS X 10.2.1 instead of OS 9. We all KNOW that OS 9 is faster than OS X. Its also not a fair comparison either, the PC with RDRAM the Mac with DDR not to mention Windows XP has 64bit graphics while OS X has 128bit graphics, more cpu power is used to render the 128bit GUI versus the 64bit GUI.

oh well... PowerPC 970 ='s solution

[yzedf]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Ok, first off I've heard Adobe isn't dual processor aware (forgive me if I made that up)

Second...

PC vs. Mac: which one ages faster.

Lets take a PC and a Mac that are 3 years old, put the latest OS (Win XP, OS X) in them and give them similar Hard drives, video cards and ram. Which one would perform faster?

If the Mac performs faster over time, it's a selling point saying that even though it doesn't run as fast as a PC the performance will not degrade as fast.

I don't know this for sure, I just know that people are still using 3-5 year old macs with OS X, where 3-5 year old PC's cannot handle XP.
My 1999 IBM laptop can run XP just fine, if I chose to (I use linux). Apple performance does not "degrade" as fast as PC's because it takes more time for Apple to get the same speed increase as Intel/AMD does.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by GregGomer
Looking at this article, it reminded me of another bench mark I saw comparing a 1 GIG, to a Dual 867 and a Dual 1GIG, and a Dual 1.25.

All the Dual processor machines ran adobe about as well as the single processor. Their explanation was that the adobe apps don't take advantage of the dual processors.

So when you are using say Photoshop on a Dual GIG G4, it only takes full advantage of one of the processors, which basically will have the same performacne as a single processor 1 GIG.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is the case, then Adobe Apps aren't the the best apps to benchmark dual proc G4s. Unfortunately there aren't many apps that are Dual processor aware, like Final Cut Pro or DVD studio pro and those don't work on a PC, so you can't use those to get a fair benchmark.

Anyhoo, food for thought, wish I had the link that compared the Adobe apps on single and dual processors, if anyone else can shed some light on this please do.

Flip side of that coin is that it takes two G4 procs to keep up with one Intel proc. That is not a good message.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by gopher
Agreed. The ease of use, and the ease of setting up make a world of difference on the Mac. How many registry entries have you had to redo on the Mac? How frequently do you have to run scandisk on the Mac? How frequently do you have to reinstall the operating system on the Mac? How hard is navigating the multi-column finder in Mac OS X compared to trees of folders that can go on forever. Now that 10.2 includes spring loaded folders it is that much easier. If it was any easier to use a Mac I'd give it to a two year old. The fact that two and three year olds can run Macs just fine says that PCs have a long ways to go in making themselves easy to use.

When you make something easy to use and setup you save time. And when you save time you do things faster. That's irrespective of the processor speed. Oh and here is an ironic twist. By having less software than the competitor, it means you spend less time searching for the right software for the job. When you have an overwhelming number of software titles, you never know which one is the best one to do the job until you read review after review. Ease of use by making choice simpler.
Thus in at least one way the relative scarcity of Mac software titles has made our lives easier.

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html#MACOSXNATIVE shows you where you can search for Mac OS X native software and hardware.

Granted having misrepresented benchmarks by Adobe doesn't make our argument easier, but other things do.
How often do you hear about people repairing permissions? PRAM? OS X doing stupid things, some requiring re-install? iMovie 3?

Microsoft does not own the right to release buggy software. Apple does it to.

[trevorteusc]

I am an Apple fan, and I do not like Windows, but even the zealots have to see how much of a slap in the face this is to Apple. They have to start talking about the future of the PowerMac in public. They need to assure the graphics houses that there is something worth waiting for, other than another nifty update to iChat.

I am an Apple fan as well, and I hate to hear news like this, but I have to agree that it is time for Apple to address this issue head-on. Fancy eye-candyesque 'iApps' are nice, but a thousand iApps won't hide the fact that Apple's computers are rapidly falling farther and farther behind while remaining too expensive. If things don't change, sooner or later, even the most devoted fans (myself included) will have to make a change away from Apple. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that the current rumors about the IBM PowerPC 970 are true.

[3-22]

Looks to me Adobe has an agenda to sell Dell hardware (or at least push it) After the "comparison" part, the link at the bottom for "gear" takes you to a Dell purchase page...

If Adobe is getting in bed with Dell, this isn't good for Apple...

[Frobozz]

"Reason #1,576 the 970's will be out no later than September."

[jgracia]

Adobe means no harm for Apple. It´s a push to move to faster hardware... That´s all!

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by backdraft
The tests were performed in Mac OS X 10.2.1 instead of OS 9. We all KNOW that OS 9 is faster than OS X. Its also not a fair comparison either, the PC with RDRAM the Mac with DDR not to mention Windows XP has 64bit graphics while OS X has 128bit graphics, more cpu power is used to render the 128bit GUI versus the 64bit GUI.

oh well... PowerPC 970 ='s solution

OS X is not slower than OS 9. OS 9 allows one thing to happen at a time, first of all. Second, Carbon applications are slower than native Cocoa apps. Since we have ZERO major commercial applications built in Cocoa, we'll never know just how fast out machines can be. In pure performance, the difference should be slim to none.

[robotrenegade]

The specs are only seconds difference. Do you really care?:o

[ktlx]

Originally posted by 3-22
Looks to me Adobe has an agenda to sell Dell hardware (or at least push it) After the "comparison" part, the link at the bottom for "gear" takes you to a Dell purchase page...

If Adobe is getting in bed with Dell, this isn't good for Apple...

Or maybe, heaven forbid, that Adobe is looking out for its customers and trying to provide them with more information rather than myths. It probably is nothing more than Adobe saying, "if you have roughly $3K to spend and you use our software for video editing, PCs are significantly faster."

If you are a professional computer user, as opposed to a three year old, the usability differences between Mac OS X and XP are way overblown. Neither one requires a rocket scientist if you have good hardware instead of some cheap-ass cobbled together $600 PC with no name components.

[Steamboatwillie]

You know, this is a strange topic that I have visited many times with many friends and foes alike. Which is better, Mac or PC? I have both and for the most part my PC seems faster than my Mac on *some* things. However these speed differences seem minor. So what if I can apply a Photoshop filter 3 seconds faster on one box vs the other? Just to be clear I LOVE everything abou my G4 much more than any other computer I have every owned. Certainly speed becomes an issue for Video and mega-huge Photoshop files but for all the webdesign stuff I do I'll take a slower Mac than a *faster* PC anyday.

Bragging rights will be sweet when/if Mac builds a faster box but I don't think it's all that important.

Just my two cents.

[minux]

I would like to point out that since this article Apple has released new processors running at 1.42ghz. Which would mean an increase of 12% on the Mac benchmarks. Which overall would imply a much faster speed for the Mac. Perhaps enough of a difference to make the overall tests dead even. Though, a 12% increase would perhaps imply that the G4 is beating the PIV by a few seconds.

Though this still does not affect me either way. I am satisfied with my iBook 700mhz, and my 450mhz PowerMac 9600.

Mike

[ktlx]

Originally posted by robotrenegade
The specs are only seconds difference. Do you really care?:o

It depends on how you look at it. They are only seconds different or the gap is 30% to 50% of the total time. Consumers probably don't care. Professionals doing this all day probably do.

[MacusGeekus]

Adobe's source for this is from articles at Digital Producer Magazine. David Nagel over at Creative Mac has already ripped these articles apart ( http://www.creativemac.com/2002/05_may/features/g4benchmarks020514.htm and http://www.creativemac.com/2002/07_jul/editorials/smack101.htm ). I've also noticed that in the first of these negative articles the writer never gave exact specs for the machine configs. I also noticed (not sure if it was his first or second article) that the PC he tested came with a default configuration of having its 2 hard drives set as RAID 0 stripping (in specifying the PC he linked to his review of the machine). But he never said if he changed the setup of the PC or set up the G4 to have a RAID as well. He's a very bad writer and terrible journalist. Adobe's citing his article is just a duck and cover because they don't want to admit that they haven't made their software fully SMP or SIMD aware on the Mac. They also don't want to admit that they don't care about professional users anymore. They just want to pull an M$ Office style add feature bloat and sell to the PC masses who don't even know how to use their products, but will buy them because hey it's Adobe.

[GPTurismo]

Well of course the speedier processor won. You need raw power like that to get through poor coding and simply crap code, and that shows through on a unix environment. One reason Adobe dropped Irix back in the mid 90s. They have lazy, VERY lazy programmers and don't want to spend the money to fix their mistakes.

END.

[GPTurismo]

Also I think adobe is still upset that Apple is moving into their realm of software and killing sales. I think apple just needs to buy adobe, or pixar does, or apple needs to cuddle up to disney a little and get them to buy it for them as a big B'Day present or something :)

[ktlx]

Originally posted by minux
I would like to point out that since this article Apple has released new processors running at 1.42ghz. Which would mean an increase of 12% on the Mac benchmarks. Which overall would imply a much faster speed for the Mac. Perhaps enough of a difference to make the overall tests dead even. Though, a 12% increase would perhaps imply that the G4 is beating the PIV by a few seconds.

Not true. Benchmarks do not scale linearly with processor speed increases. Even if it did, your math is not very good because the Pentium 4 is beating the G4 by margins in the 30% to 50% range.

[JGowan]

Three problems:

1) The graphs are WRONG! How could a graphic software provider screw this up? Maybe they got paid.

2) They used old machines! Now with the Dual 1.45 machines out, they should redo the tests and post accurate graphs of their findings.The Dual 1.25 has been out for a long time now... why did they use DUAL 1.0GHz machines for their tests? Maybe they got paid.

3) Although they did tests with Dual 1.0GHz machines (which I already stated was unfair), they show in the graph that the tests were done with Dual 1.25 machines! Adobe, GDammit, get it together... why did you do this? Maybe you got paid.

This is really a disgrace.

The following graph is ACCURATE... ADOBE should change their data and findings immediately.And how much closer would the race be if the tests were done with DUAL 1.45GHZ machines? A much, much closer race indeed. Almost neck-and-neck, most likely.

http://www.gowan.us/graph.gif

Now, even with everything being done fairly, Apple might still be behind, but not near as far behind as the other graphs indicate. People don't read. If you give them a picture and text, they discard the text and just look at the picture. I did. I went to bed really pissed at Apple for being so far behind. Today, I see the wrongs made.

That being said, Apple DOES need to get a faster processor(s) in their machines.

[copperpipe]

Just figure I'd cheer some people up on this sad thread...

My interns room-mate had to wipe his hard drive the other day because when he installed his printer he accidentally hit the button for Swedish text. It was funny for about ten minutes, when he realized his entire computer went Swedish, and he could not turn it off. After calling tech support, he wiped his hard drive. Quite a penalty to pay, but that's how they do things in PC-land.

Now if only Apple could get those processors up to speed, we'd all be in la-la land...

[swampdonky]

I have been using macs for 12 years. I was not impressed when I ordered a shiny new 1.25 DP machine, and had to send it back twice, as a very clunky sound emitted from the guts of the thing. After a month of this I gave up. I still have no computer on my desk, and I doubt Apple can supply me with a reliable machine in a decent time. I was equally not impressed with the speed of this thing, and it really had two processors? I was hoping this machine would cut through processing and rendering times, but found that it wasn't much faster than my G4/400. I must say that I felt like I got shafted when I plugged the box in. Warning to all you serious users out there: Don't buy now- wait!

It is pretty sad when your family has a snappier machine, for cheaper, and all they use it for is email! I love Apple and the operating system, but there comes a time when speed and support do matter, and that time has passed.

Apple's "switchers" have become "bitchers"

[homeshire]

what a depressing thread. I very rarely post here. I think I'll practice the same philosophy in coming here. you guys are seriously depressing me.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by GregGomer
Looking at this article, it reminded me of another bench mark I saw comparing a 1 GIG, to a Dual 867 and a Dual 1GIG, and a Dual 1.25.

All the Dual processor machines ran adobe about as well as the single processor. Their explanation was that the adobe apps don't take advantage of the dual processors.

So when you are using say Photoshop on a Dual GIG G4, it only takes full advantage of one of the processors, which basically will have the same performacne as a single processor 1 GIG.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is the case, then Adobe Apps aren't the the best apps to benchmark dual proc G4s. Unfortunately there aren't many apps that are Dual processor aware, like Final Cut Pro or DVD studio pro and those don't work on a PC, so you can't use those to get a fair benchmark.

Anyhoo, food for thought, wish I had the link that compared the Adobe apps on single and dual processors, if anyone else can shed some light on this please do.

Yes, you are/were wrong. To handfle the file browsing crash in PS, Adobe said to disable the multiprocessor plugin. So, PS didn't support duals if you wanted stability.

Hell, Apple should do a test against FCP and Premier and post those results, hehe

[copperpipe]

I got a network printer for my 5 machine network. I had the printer up and running on every computer in the network in about an hour and a half. My intern, who has a house full of PC-heads, was utterly shocked. Literally, he was shocked. He said that would have taken him two days to get right on his home network. Apple 1.5 hours, Dell, 1.5 DAYS. So I guess I saved a lot of those 30 seconds longer to render situation there...

It's an inexact test, I know...

[ewinemiller]

Originally posted by copperpipe
I got a network printer for my 5 machine network. I had the printer up and running on every computer in the network in about an hour and a half. My intern, who has a house full of PC-heads, was utterly shocked. Literally, he was shocked. He said that would have taken him two days to get right on his home network. Apple 1.5 hours, Dell, 1.5 DAYS. So I guess I saved a lot of those 30 seconds longer to render situation there...

It's an inexact test, I know...

Bad test, you just need a better intern.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by minux
I would like to point out that since this article Apple has released new processors running at 1.42ghz.

Right. And Dells sport 3gHz instead of 2.53gHz...

Let's not even go there...:(

[p03]

Originally posted by etoiles
I think it is no coincidence that the performance test is posted in their digital video section and not in the imaging section: they want to get the DV crowd to buy PC's which will keep them away from FCP and probably Shake.

They probably don't care if if you are doing imaging on a mac or PC, since you are likely to use their products on either platform anyway...


DUH!!!

[timbloom]

I'm really glad that this article was posted everywhere, apple will have to get it rubbed into their faces. I love my mac, which probably would do those things in 5 minutes which that PC could do in 1. But in terms of pro use, apple is really going to have to kick themselves for letting them get behind. It is about time somebody that apple deals with often stepped up and said something, they won't listen to us.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by JGowan
2) They used old machines! Now with the Dual 1.45 machines out, they should redo the tests and post accurate graphs of their findings.The Dual 1.25 has been out for a long time now... why did they use DUAL 1.0GHz machines for their tests? Maybe they got paid.


Please look at the dates when the tests were made. It was 2002. The 1.42Ghz machines did not exist yet.

Granted, Adobe really screwed the pooch on this one with poorly done graphs, but if you do read the words and not rely solely on the pictures, it is clearer.

The problem still remains that as good as Apple's software is, the hardware has fallen behind in the price/performance level. If you are using Adobe's software primarily, then Apple's better software does not factor in much.

But Apple's PowerMacs are hardly obsolete. They are just higher priced that comparable PC hardware. Each customer needs to decide for themself whether the premium is worth it. For some people yes, for me no. That is why I am waiting and hoping the 970's make the comparison better enough to make the leap.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by p03
DUH!!!


hey, just pointing out since a lot of people seem to talk/worry about Photoshop on the mac vs. PC...

[Moz]

Ugh. You know, this sums up everything Apple. I've always evangelised the (or what used to be) "platform" and machines, because, they were the better product. I've always said, "I would use a PC and Windows, if it were the best option for what I need..."

Now I'm eating my own words.

Apple is such a disappointment. They always used to Lead, in the computer market, but now they're so far behind. OS X is clumsy and ackward and slow (but Oh! It's Pretty!) and now their machines are getting "slaughtered".

Serves Apple right. What do they do all day in Cuptertino anyhow? Just sit around and let the day happen and not care about progressing their machine? Moreover, there are SO MANY issues with Apple at the moment. Sure, the new 17" notebook may look sleek, but honestly, who wants to wait 4 months to get a computer?!?! That's insane! I can go out and get a Dell that's FASTER today, and have it TODAY.

God, I'm so sick of making excuses for using a Mac. Especially when it's not the best product. But let me take a deep breath: the Darling 970 may be around the corner, but honestly, do we all want to wait 4 months to get the machine, after we've ordered it?

Come on. Apple is losing. I don't even feel that they're even trying to fight this battle of attrition.

When the PCs are substantially better machines, much more supported, and cost less, why not just lose the Mac altogether? These slower machines with their pretty faces aren't worth it.

[JGowan]

Originally posted by ktlx
Please look at the dates when the tests were made. It was 2002. The 1.42Ghz machines did not exist yet.

Granted, Adobe really screwed the pooch on this one with poorly done graphs, but if you do read the words and not rely solely on the pictures, it is clearer.

Why not post the findings at that time? Did it take them 9 months to draw the BAD GRAPH. I saw the dates, buddy. They should have given Apple an even playing field. Either they should have posted their findings so that it was a current finding OR now that the Dual 1.45GHz machines are shipping, REDO the d@mn tests. How long could it take? An HOUR to run a number of tests? Seems funny that tests that take 54 seconds somehow take 9 months (or more) to wind up on their website.

And as stated, people are in PICTURE MODE if given a choice. Most people would not spend the time it would take to look at the picture, read the words and come to the conclusion that the graphs were inaccurate. They would just assume that everything was correct, when it wasn't.

[Mlobo01]

many moons ago, when compilers werent found on any desktop, the people needed to make appointments to compile there programs, that meant that applications needed to be solid way before they were entered into the big mainframe, that meant that developers solved many issues or at least worked on their programs extensibly, in order to save time.
the programers themeselves were folk that were adept on math, science,enginnering etc, nowadays any jack with a laptop can put a couple of lines together in a desktop and dares call it an App. This notion that any person with some sense of code is a developer or coder is what makes the entire world of computers
week at the knees, its the mentallity of hastilly putting something together and waiting for the compiler to spit out its error messages, ( is the compiler the star or the coder?) the kid who serves the latte at the local Starbucks is not proper feedback for any app development!, seriously! the platforms are as good as the people who collectively work on the software that runs them. now if time is money than I suggest anyone here who is a serious coder
has to put a lot of thought into what you are making, and my point is that while pcs are
"running at a lot of MGZ" they are more prone to tripping over their own speed, I prefer a system that takes me there,period! they are making the outside of the car sleek and aerodynamic but the motor needs work and will leave you stranded at the corner of Blue Screen
and Blank Blvd! its all show and no substance,
as for the folks at Adobe let them take a look at their own apps, certain things dont work in Illustrator 10.0, let them wipe their own snots before they come tell you there is dirt in your nose! I have a friend who has a Sony Vaio laptop and i was watching him try to download some MP3s from a cd that I made, he had to open I dont know what folder, close another thingy, ask something to I dont who, answer some questionaire that popped out in order for the machine not to allow him to load it all up, he didnt know how to get the mp3s in! he had it for a year already!, whats the problem? so much for the speed! when you waist time in silly protocols and trivia! hhaaah, while he gave me one of his cds and all i did was drag and drop! what a beautifull thing, I can almost seem him cry over the simplicity of my task, to read people argue over how pcs are this and that should really observe their PC friends struggle over a simple thing as saving an MP3!take a pic and post it here, thats when you know you dont have to convince anyone of anything, the evidence is in the face twitching of the PC user, later ladies and gents!

[JGowan]

Originally posted by Mlobo01
...as for the folks at Adobe let them take a look at their own apps, certain things dont work in Illustrator 10.0, let them wipe their own snots before they come tell you there is dirt in your nose!True! Very True! Most artists that use Illustrator 9 and/or 10 will tell you they are still using Version 8 because Illustrator 9 & 10 are so damn sluggish. I'll say the same thing. I'd love to use a lot of the stuff in 9 and 10 but for the day-to-day stuff, I just use 8 because the others are so DAMN slow.

I hear that VERSION 11 will fix this, but man, ... do we have to wait for 3 FULL VERSIONS to get a vector drawing program that is as fast as one 3 versions behind it?

As my boy, Mlobo01, said it most eloquantly: They need "to wipe their own snots first."

[bretm]

Originally posted by Gus
Give it up with the graph already. Who cares if the graph is misleading? The TIMES are the problem. I could give a flip about a graph that somebody made wrong, I care that the software company that millions of graphic pros use is exposing the (albeit obvious) achilles heel of Apple. People keep saying "What we have is fast enough fo what people need"--and before you attack that statement, yes it has been posted may times on these forums. The end of the Charlie White article is right: why would you buy a computer that will take almost twice as long to perform the tasks you want to do? Time=Money in the workforce. He also makes another great point; if you are working in Photoshop or InDesign all day long, why does it matter what OS you use, really?

Well, I charge by the hour. I'd lose money with a PC! :)

The OS matters immensely. Troubleshooting a network or a single system for any amount of time eats into those render times in nothing flat.

The bigger a project, the more time I spend in the OS... burning disks, rearranging files, drag and drop, making aliases, and just being anal retentive in general. The mac excels at this. I'm sure windows does just fine, but just when I think they've caught up, I end up spending some time on one of the boxes and pulling my hair out! Hell, just trying to grab a pic off the internet in IE is hard on a pc. Mac... drag image to wherever you want it. PC... get the international no symbol when you try to do anything! Argh?!?! Ok, minor example, but this is just the kind of basic stuff that ruins a day and adds up. Get a mac. Enjoy your computer!

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by JGowan

They should have given Apple an even playing field. Either they should have posted their findings so that it was a current finding OR now that the Dual 1.45GHz machines are shipping, REDO the d@mn tests. How long could it take? An HOUR to run a number of tests? Seems funny that tests that take 54 seconds somehow take 9 months (or more) to wind up on their website.


...and redo them with the P4 3gHz machine on the other end to be fair....

[rafaelperini]

Have you guys noted that Adobe is selling Dells machines? Maybe that's why they are "PCpreferred" now.

In the bottom of the page you can check the following link:

http://www.adobe.com/motion/gear/main.html

[jch200]

Have you guys noted that Adobe is selling Dells machines? Maybe that's why they are "PCpreferred" now.

man, this is like some sort of crazy twilight zone.

[Jookbox]

Originally posted by Grokgod
I think that the analogy of ART in one of the previous posts was perhaps one of the best ever to describe the uselessness of making comparisons tween Mac's and Pcheese's on the grounds of SPEED.
I have had many Pcheese computers in the past and they were all very fast and the best that money could buy.

There is not one of them in the bunch that was memorable. While my Ti book will always be fondly thought of.

As an artist I still have a favorite mechanical pencil. Of course speed isnt an issue with such simple items. But I think that the point is that simplicity works!

When I draw or sketch with it there is little need to worry about various functional problems.

I have found on the MAC that there are less worries also.

ALso the process that has been made far more agreeable working with the MAC, that can never be present with the Pcheese.

I dont own a Pcheese anymore, not even to remind myself how horrible they are.

I can always go to a friends house to see his Pcheese crash or watch him search for drivers.
They all own one because they are not artists and have given in to the childish logic that speed is the best criteria that a computer can be judged by!

But its compromise, for the extra time that it may take to render, you receive real productivity! and an inspiring experience.

Yes, These Intel boxes are faster at rendering and perhaps in other areas as well. We always knew that didn't we, I am sure that Adobe is worried about FCP!

Yet still, I find this belittlement of the MAC as an act of desperation, its reiterating the obvious but obscuring the the truth.

I think that the erroneous graph was made on the Intel box, which was going too fast to create the graph properly!

you think anyone will take you seriously when you use the work 'pcheese'? :rolleyes:

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by rafaelperini
Have you guys noted that Adobe is selling Dells machines? Maybe that's why they are "PCpreferred" now.

In the bottom of the page you can check the following link:

http://www.adobe.com/motion/gear/main.html

So Adobe's preferring PCs and Quark's been showing contempt for the Mac platform. Anybody hear from Macromedia lately?

[firestarter]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
So Adobe's preferring PCs and Quark's been showing contempt for the Mac platform. Anybody hear from Macromedia lately?

Is that the Macromedia that Microsoft are about to buy?

[bigrock]

i for one, work with after effects, illustrator, and photoshop all day long. these tests mean nothing. all they say is that you can render faster on a pc. which is NOTHING NEW. anyone in the industry has known that for years. the thing is, i don't sit here all day and wait for stuff to render. i render small pieces when i take lunch, and save the large renders for when i leave at the end of the day. so what does rendering speed matter? for me, not at all. all my renders have from 6pm until i'm in at 9am the next day, and that's plenty of time. the processors don't make the program run much faster at all, i've used after effects on our maya guy's dual 1.something P4 xeon box, and it's speed advantage inside the actual program is minimal. the fact that the mac just plain works better, i can get a lot more done over the course of a day than i would inside windows. besides, this guy has been making these judgements for years, and have you ever actually been to their website? it's pretty lame, their tutorials suck, it's just not a place where anyone with any sense of taste or any skill would spend a lot of time.

and... to whoever made the claim about os9 being faster, the main point of this topic is after effects speed, and in that case, os9 is slower that ***** compared to osX. after effects runs and renders MUCH faster in osX.

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by JGowan
Why not post the findings at that time? Did it take them 9 months to draw the BAD GRAPH. I saw the dates, buddy. They should have given Apple an even playing field. Either they should have posted their findings so that it was a current finding OR now that the Dual 1.45GHz machines are shipping, REDO the d@mn tests. How long could it take? An HOUR to run a number of tests? Seems funny that tests that take 54 seconds somehow take 9 months (or more) to wind up on their website.

And as stated, people are in PICTURE MODE if given a choice. Most people would not spend the time it would take to look at the picture, read the words and come to the conclusion that the graphs were inaccurate. They would just assume that everything was correct, when it wasn't.

Good idea, lets level the playing field. Yank one of the G4s out of the PM so that this is a single processor to single processor comparison. Don't like that? Ok, bench the G4 against a dual 3.06 Xeon workstation and see who wins then. Apple has fallen behind and they need a new processor and bus architecture badly.

[JGowan]

Originally posted by Jookbox
you think anyone will take you seriously when you use the work 'pcheese'?Do YOU think anyone will take YOU serioulsy when you use the word "WORK" when you meant the word "WORD"?

Don't strain the gnat, dude. He made a good and valid point.

[Flynnstone]

I sure looks like misleading advertisement.
I've attached a comparison of Adobe minutes versus Real minutes for the graph.
I think Adobe should rethink the use of Adobe minutes instead of Real minutes.:D
The world has a tendancy and (prebable) preference for Real minutes.
I can only imagine this is a major embarassment for Adobe and it's employees that person(s) within Adobe are so inept that they have a problem with the very basic concept of time!

[JGowan]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Good idea, lets level the playing field. Yank one of the G4s out of the PM so that this is a single processor to single processor comparison. Don't like that? Ok, bench the G4 against a dual 3.06 Xeon workstation and see who wins then. Apple has fallen behind and they need a new processor and bus architecture badly. If you read my initially post fully, I said that Apple needs to get with it and get us the speed in our machines.

I just think it is "dirty pool" for Adobe to (A) post out-&-out incorrect graphics, (B) wrong information (stating it was a Dual1GHz machine in the test, but saying Dual1.25GHz in the graph), (C) post test results when better machines existed for both platforms and now, (D) we find out that they're selling DELL machines on the their websites.

It's very easy to give out wrong information to mislead the public into buying a machine you sell on your website, only to later say "sorry, our mistake" (after making a bundle) then to just get the information right in the first place. It's still WRONG, UNBUSINESS-LIKE and very UNPROFESSIONAL.

It's DIRTY POOL. PERIOD. Whatever the findings.

Again, I'll say it -- Apple needs to get a faster processor. BUT FROM WHAT WE'RE HEARING, they are on the case. There is new processor coming and it looks like Motorola is getting dropped. It looks like we're going to get what we want.

[GPTurismo]

I say it's time we fight back for better coding and more honest reporting. :)

Who cares about render time, what is actual performance and working time?

Lets join forces with the linux community and fight! or something :)

[ktlx]

Originally posted by JGowan
I just think it is "dirty pool" for Adobe to (A) post out-&-out incorrect graphics, (B) wrong information (stating it was a Dual1GHz machine in the test, but saying Dual1.25GHz in the graph), (C) post test results when better machines existed for both platforms and now, (D) we find out that they're selling DELL machines on the their websites.

Oh, boo-hoo! Adobe misdrew, but labeled correctly, the graphs to make the PC look better. This is marketing and marketing is often misleading. I am also fairly certain that even if I drink Bud light, super models will not try to seduce me.

If someone spending over $3K does not take 30 seconds to read, shame on them.

Apple has done the same thing in the past with their graphs. They have started the normally 0 origin axis with a larger number to make the difference between 100% and 250% more dramatic than if the chart started at 0. It makes a stunning and more visually dramatic chart. BFD.

If someone is too lazy to recognize the graphs are plainly misdrawn with the data right in front of their face, they deserve to be separated, possibly unfairly, from their money.

All Adobe did was provide a paragraph talking about a shootout run in July 2002 and then provide a link to and the data from the updated shootout in November 2002. There was no way to include the 1.42Ghz PowerMac G4 in the shootout because it did not exist yet.

It does not take a rocket scientist to look at the tiny number of evaluations of the 1.42Ghz PowerMac that exist and realize at best it will improve the performance by 15% compared to the 1.25Ghz PowerMac. Most of the information seems to show negligle to 10% increase in speed.

[JGowan]

All this Anti-Apple talk is pretty sick... makes me think there's quite a few PC Trolls here.

Let's not forget:

The Apple has (arguably, of course [especially with this crowd]):

1) the BEST LCD displays (at great prices now!) 17", 20" and 23" - they work amazingly and look fantanstic.

2) the BEST Portable computer lineup (at reasonable prices) including the World's FIRST 17" widescreen edition. 12", 15" & 17" PowerBooks and a wonderful 12" & 14" iBook. Very thin, blue tooth, slot-loading DVD burners on the high end -- what more could you want?

3) Great all-in-one computers: the iMAC is AWESOME (15" & especially the 17" widescreen) and the eMAC is a lot of computer in a very small package -- great price.

4) Tower of Power - regardless of what the naysayers are yakking about - the newest release is an amazing machine and it only promises to get better.

5) The iPod - the BEST mp3 player in the world. Hands down. Period. Shut up already if you to rebutt.

6) the BEST operating system. Needs some work but much better than anything M$ has done, that's for sure.

7) the BEST software - all of the iAPPs and all of the free stuff you get when you buy a MAC is way better than anything the competition is doing.

This thread is totally focused on just speed. Apple is about WAY MORE than that. And the cool thing is that we're hearing that new CHIPS are in the planning.

If you can't wait -- buy a DELL. You might get speed, but you'll pay more in the long run trying to match Apple in every single other area.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by JGowan
All this Anti-Apple talk is pretty sick... makes me think there's quite a few PC Trolls here.

Let's not forget: ...

Sounds like Apple marketing is in the room too. ;) :p

[JGowan]

It looks like the graphics have been changed out to be more accurate (graphics created around 12:38pm today) on that page over at adobe.com ... AND ... now there is no mention of the Dual 1GHZ machines at the top. They changed it and it now says that 1.25 GHZ machines were used in the test.

What ****ING liars.

[ColdZero]

What exaclty did they lie about, its not even their test. As far as I can see the G4 is still losing. Also what does Adobe have to gain from doing this? If you use photoshop on the mac or on the pc its still a photoshop license they are getting to sell. So they made a mistake, if you read the data along with looking at the graphs it is correct. So the graphs are screwy, if you read the text, the PM is still 1:42 behind the P4 on the flying test, that hasn't changed.

It looks like the graphics have been changed out to be more accurate (graphics created around 12:38pm today)

12:38 doesn't sound like an "around" number, have you been refreshing this stuff all day? :confused:

[JGowan]

Originally posted by ColdZero
What exaclty did they lie about, its not even their test.Do you even READ before posting? OK... I'll REPEAT myself. Initially, the page said that although the graphics said "Dual 1.25GHz" it was actually tested on the slower "Dual 1GHZ" machine. Now it has been changed and makes no mention of the Dual 1GHZ machine. Also, nothing is spec'd out. We have no idea of knowing WHICH Dual1GHZ it was (Quicksilver or the new Silver Faceplate), Ram, etc.

12:38 doesn't sound like an "around" number, have you been refreshing this stuff all day? :confused:

Tueday, March 25, 2003; 12:27PM to be exact -- I was doing it from memory.

I did a GET INFO and there was the creation date.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by gopher
When you make something easy to use and setup you save time. And when you save time you do things faster. That's irrespective of the processor speed. Oh and here is an ironic twist. By having less software than the competitor, it means you spend less time searching for the right software for the job. When you have an overwhelming number of software titles, you never know which one is the best one to do the job until you read review after review. Ease of use by making choice simpler.
Thus in at least one way the relative scarcity of Mac software titles has made our lives easier.




set up? once its set up you dont have to keep doing it like everyday. you do it once. as far as lack of software titles making the mac users life easier? well, to ME that just seems lazy. plus its not like industries dont know which software to us.:rolleyes:

[Steamboatwillie]

Originally posted by JGowan
All this Anti-Apple talk is pretty sick... makes me think there's quite a few PC Trolls here.

Let's not forget:

The Apple has (arguably, of course [especially with this crowd]):

1) the BEST LCD displays (at great prices now!) 17", 20" and 23" - they work amazingly and look fantanstic.

2) the BEST Portable computer lineup (at reasonable prices) including the World's FIRST 17" widescreen edition. 12", 15" & 17" PowerBooks and a wonderful 12" & 14" iBook. Very thin, blue tooth, slot-loading DVD burners on the high end -- what more could you want?

3) Great all-in-one computers: the iMAC is AWESOME (15" & especially the 17" widescreen) and the eMAC is a lot of computer in a very small package -- great price.

4) Tower of Power - regardless of what the naysayers are yakking about - the newest release is an amazing machine and it only promises to get better.

5) The iPod - the BEST mp3 player in the world. Hands down. Period. Shut up already if you to rebutt.

6) the BEST operating system. Needs some work but much better than anything M$ has done, that's for sure.

7) the BEST software - all of the iAPPs and all of the free stuff you get when you buy a MAC is way better than anything the competition is doing.

This thread is totally focused on just speed. Apple is about WAY MORE than that. And the cool thing is that we're hearing that new CHIPS are in the planning.

If you can't wait -- buy a DELL. You might get speed, but you'll pay more in the long run trying to match Apple in every single other area.

Yup, what he said...

[ColdZero]

Originally posted by JGowan
Do you even READ before posting? OK... I'll REPEAT myself. Initially, the page said that although the graphics said "Dual 1.25GHz" it was actually tested on the slower "Dual 1GHZ" machine. Now it has been changed and makes no mention of the Dual 1GHZ machine. Also, nothing is spec'd out. We have no idea of knowing WHICH Dual1GHZ it was (Quicksilver or the new Silver Faceplate), Ram, etc.



Tueday, March 25, 2003; 12:27PM to be exact -- I was doing it from memory.

moderator note: personal attacks are not allowed...u should know this by now... :rolleyes:

Ahh the irony......AH HEM to quote: "do you even READ before you post?"

Rut roh rorge could this be the link to the page that has the specs on the machines? I think it is:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm

I guess you didn't read the article before posting. Oh yea, it was never a 1Ghz G4, that was a typo on the upper paragraph, if you read the graphs and the article Adobe so thoughtfully linked to, you'd realize it was always a 1.25 G4, which if memory serves only comes in the Flashy Door style model. Actually it was never tested on the "slower" 1Ghz model, because the test was always run on a 1.25.

ps

Please no BS on how the specs don't say hard drive and stuff like that, because all this stuff is gonna be loaded into ram before anything is even done. The important stuff like proc and mem are there.

[JGowan]

Your question: "Did I read the article that Adobe gave the link for on the initial test". No. I wish I had AND I wish I would have done a IE Scrapbook on it so I could compare. I bet since all the hooplah, original info have been changed just like the graphics. You call it a TYPO on Adobe's page. I call it "covering their *$s".

Did I read the article? Again, No. I thought I could trust Adobe with correct information.

Again, you proved me wrong... it was just a typo.... right.

===

OK people, from now, we have to READ, RE-READ and TRIPLE CHECK all of the companies out there because we have seen today that it's not enough to just trust we're going to get the right info straight from the beginning.

===

I'm out... this thread is totally lame.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Phazer80s
They're speaking out, exposing Apple's secret shame.

It isn't really a secret. Mac users have simply accepted it, for too long. I can't do much of anything with a 1Ghz iMac. To do video it will need a lot of L3. That's not what I have it for though.

It looks to me that OS X has room for a lot of optimization which can be done as well as the move to a more robust architecture.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by JGowan
All this Anti-Apple talk is pretty sick... makes me think there's quite a few PC Trolls here.

Let's not forget:

The Apple has (arguably, of course [especially with this crowd]):

3) Great all-in-one computers: the iMAC is AWESOME (15" & especially the 17" widescreen) and the eMAC is a lot of computer in a very small package -- great price.

5) The iPod - the BEST mp3 player in the world. Hands down. Period. Shut up already if you to rebutt.

7) the BEST software - all of the iAPPs and all of the free stuff you get when you buy a MAC is way better than anything the competition is doing.


I'll give you those. The others were a little far out there. Would require to many asterisks.

It's no secret Apple needs a more robust hardware platform. I don't understand why you don't demand it.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by rafaelperini
Have you guys noted that Adobe is selling Dells machines? Maybe that's why they are "PCpreferred" now.

In the bottom of the page you can check the following link:

http://www.adobe.com/motion/gear/main.html


If you were in the business of selling software in an industry where time is money and one platform ran the meat of you applications twice as fast, which would be your preferred platform?

This silliness of this thread should end. Apple is addressing the problem with the 970. All this denial and such is making me wonder if the 970 is going to live up to all the hype.

[GPTurismo]

Originally posted by ColdZero
Please no BS on how the specs don't say hard drive and stuff like that, because all this stuff is gonna be loaded into ram before anything is even done. The important stuff like proc and mem are there.

Not really, because HDD and other small things can add into the mix. Espeically with it dumping stuff to hard drive at that time, or reading off the HDD at the time. Also did they clear the memory after each test? What was the CAS relay of the memory? I remember some tests we did with a DP 533 back in the day and 222 ram beat 322 by 2 seconds and 333 ram by 5 on some basic Photoshop tests.

Everything has to match up. If you want real power test load up SuSE 7.0 on both processors and test apps compared to each other that can take full advantage of VMX and SSE2 etc. etc.

Also could it be Adobe's fault? Is the code quality the same in the products on the different platforms? If you remember they dumped irix as a platform due to what they called a lack of sales. Well, it was because PS4's code was poor, and it showed very evidently on the SGi Machines. So that, coupled with MS giving them money to support windows they decided to drop IRIX all together. Which it comes down to their own poor quality. They cited poor sales of PS for the reason, but A) with PS3 being so old on irix no one was buying it. B) PS4 Beta had been out for a while and people were using it C) people were waiting for the official release of PS4. With those three elements, plus adobes poor programming, MS buying third party support like mad, no wonder Adobe went lame duck and dropped Irix.

^_^

Just a little history lesson.

GPT

[MM2270]

I haven't read thru all the posts, so if this was mentioned already, please forgive me.
But I wonder if Apple's upcoming press conference at NAB about the future of their digital video strategy has anything to do with this? Is Apple going to present something that will definitively blow Adobe's video apps out of the ballpark? Considering FCP already beats Premiere on most tasks, it's not impossible to think that an upcoming release of FCP 4 at NAB will drive the final nails in Adobe Premiere's coffin.

I would also think that Adobe is aware of that, and this article could be a last attempt to salvage it's market - by showing users they can switch to PC's and get better performance with their apps, since, obviously FCP will NOT be available on the PC. Any outstanding new version of FCP on the Mac will effectively kill the market for Premiere on the Mac, so it would be in Adobe's best interest to tout speed as an advantage on the PC.
I'm not trying to say that speed isn't an issue, because we all know Apple's hardware is currently falling behind, but unless it took me hours longer to do things on the Mac as opposed to a PC, any features that FCP had that Premiere couldn't touch might be enough to keep me on a Mac (if I did digital video)

Just a thought... what does everyone think?

[cgmpowers]

Being the conspiracy buff that I sometimes can be... I can't help but wonder if this is an Apple led compain to help launch the new Mac's coming to us that will have the Intel chip in them.

Think about it. We have hundreds apon hundreds of Mac users who've yet leaped to dual processor, let alone those still yet to embrace OS X, with the Intel chip touting dual 2.0+ ghz machines running OS X...wouldn't you jump at that??

I just can't help but wonder if its a dual effort (pardon the pun) to recount years of PC vs Mac warfare and build energy and excitement among diehard and long time Mac users...

It's also very tempting to those who'd never consider a Mac as well... Those who whine about their Dell P4 2.4 being so much better than a Mac Dual Whatever.. Hehe...a dual is a dual afterall...heh and a dual 2.x is a very cool prospect.

Christopher Powers

p.s...but this is also a message from a guy whose still waiting for my Mac Tablet (and don't flame me, hehehe).

[dstranathan]

Originally posted by jeffberg
Analogy Time

PC vs Mac is like Honda Accord vs. Range Rover

The Accord has more horsepower, creating more speed.
The range rover has more torque, creating more power.
just as a PC goes faster, a Mac can do more at once.

The accord is basic, featureless.
The range rover is leathery, woody, beautiful, and packed with every possible emenaty
just as PC's are hard to use and can't do anything out of the box. while macs are pretty and have all the software required for the basics of everything right out of the box.

The accord is small and hard to see out of, to see what your doing and what others are doing
the range rover has high seating with low windows to allow you to see everything that happens
just as the PC can do things without you knowing, viruses etc. while a Mac tells you or at least gives and indication of just about everything that it does.

the accord is loved by environmentalists and hated by republicans
the range rover is shunned by environmentalists loved by the republicans
the PC is used by most everyone, except the ones with taste.
the mac is used by the ones with taste and hated by the jealous ones.
(I meant nothing personal about the environmental / republican stuff)

There I think that is enough.

*Disclaimer - I mean no offense by this post, it is my personal opinion. It does not have to be your opinion, but I also have the right to say this according to the 1st amendment (I think it is the 1st, its the free speech one that I am referring to)*

What about the Honda Element?

http://homepage.mac.com/dstranathan/PhotoAlbum18.html

:0)

[rjwill246]

It is clear that the speed issue for Apple is something that they must come to grips with even if it is only because of the comments now flourishing- and IMHO somewhat off track. For almost all of the world's users, the iMac is more than sufficient to do the normal taks that the average computer user needs. I too use Photoshop 7 for manipulating 3D ultrasound images and basically everything happens STAT! (its a G4 with dual 1.25s). That there are PCs capable of flooring Macs in some tasks is obviously true but the relevance of that to what? 95+% of users is immaterial, if the need for such power is limited to a few users. More to the point: bashing the Mac for its tardiness and ignoring the "bedazzling" Windows experience, indeed is a confusion of priorities of a very high order.
Apple it should be noted is not entirely to be blamed for this either and if they are in fact working with another chip maker (?IBM) then they are doing about all they can reasonably do? and if waiting until the WWDC is too far into the future for the complaining power user, then switching to the Wintel platform is the only logical thing for that person to do... though their impatience will certainly lead to an otherwordly experience that may cause them pause and rue the day they went sailing down THAT river.
So here's to Apple for fighting the good fight, for leading the industry in stunning innovations ( remember when only an idiot would use a GUI, mouse and suchlike?) and for making such great utility and revitalization of an old and stagnant OS (Linux users need not respond). This speed thing is truly an example of losing sight of the forest for the trees... and the more we go on about it, the more we might put off potential switchers who, unforunately for them, might just buy into this malarkey.

[jeffberg]

Originally posted by Stridder44
The PPC970 is the only way I can think of to go if I were in Job's shoes right now. Sure x86 would be great and the Mac OS would get great credit and Microsoft would have some serious compition, but an x86 Mac OSX wouldn't have a single application except those made by Apple (at least in the beginning). I think PPC 970 is a better way to go for Apple.

And as for Motorola, stick with phones. The G4 WAS great at one time...but they've done so little to make it better it makes one sick. Im only hoping that Apple has something great in plan for THIS summer (any later than summer might be, well..too late).

And, for the records, go Apple. :D

I was under the impression that Cocoa apps could be rebuilt for any system. Maybe Apple could create a drag and drop thing that would rebuild a cocoa app for X86, and an emulator for those installers that use Carbon. But then big apps like MS Office and Photoshop would be left in the dust because they are carbon.

[misterniall]

I read through everything and didn't notice any mention of the fact that there is a difference in video cards for these machines...
ATI Fire GL E1 and GeForce 4 Ti 4600 ... I have yet to see a comparison of each of these cards ... the FIRE is generally compared the Quadra4. This coupled with the preformance of the harddrive and a no real details on setup at all.

I haven't read such a poor , dare I call it a review, in a while. Why not give us a more detailed breakdown on the testing and let someone try and duplicate it. This is clearly evident in the fact that there is far more detail given regarding the Dell setup than the Mac.

Shame on Adobe for copying data with no apparent verification. Send the testing to someone who knows what they are doing!! I would also be very curious to see how often you need to reboot the DEll versus the Apple ... to quote the article
"time is money". I guess as long as the Dell boots fast I suppose it could balance out :). (XP vs OSX 10.2.4 maybe?)

I have done a fair bit of Video editing in both platforms.... and nothing grates my nerves more than the blue screen of death!

N.

[Vlade]

I hope in 4 weeks they post a news saying "Apples new processors are now faster than intels top Pentium 4, and we are back to prefering the Macintosh platform"

[hsilver]

After looking at this forum, I opened a copy of Film & Video magazine and there was a multipage advertising section for Adobe products leading with a pseudo article / advert in the form of a testimonial from a person in a big graphics shop touting the speed advantages of the PC and how that convinced him to SWITCH to PC Platform. Adobe is promoting the PC with a vengence.

[nuckinfutz]

Adobe's been in bed with Wintel for sometime now.

The thing is Apple will never really give Adobe it's due simply because Apple remembers Adobe as the "little" company that rose to power along with them as Desktop Publishing sprouted.

However now Adobe's portfolio is really filled with one crown jewel and that's Photoshop.

all who attempted to defeat teh reigning Photo Editor have died. Live Picture...TIFFany Xres. I'm not sure Photoshop can be beat now.

However Apple's going to kick Adobe's arse in Digital Video...mark my words. Apple wants it more.

[copperpipe]

I'm calling your bluff! Go ahead, leave the platform! Good riddance! The thing is, you KNOW that your life will decrease in value dramaticly. Oh sure, you'll be on your crappy Dell computers getting your photoshop render done 30 seconds quicker than me, but you'll be spending the ENTIRE DAY (if you work in photoshop as much as I do) on this crappy computer that you really deep down just can't like. You'll try and like it. You'll say to yourself "This isn't so bad!", but it is. Especially on those days when things go wrong (AND THEY WILL) and you're pulling your hair out and tech support tells you to wipe the hard rive . THAT is a STANDARD solution for windows machines!!! I've worked with MAC's for 10+ years and I've NEVER had to wipe my hard drive. EVER! So you guys go and save your precious seconds just so you can say your machine is faster. YOU WIN! Now, go leave, get out of here...

[Mlobo01]

thats the fighting spirit! Thats one reason I stick with my little iMac 400DV, even though Im getting to that stage that I need more speed, I will only obtain it through another Mac, hopefully by june-august. Maybe the new macs are out. I think working on a PC doing photoshop is Torture! just like my boy copperpipe said!
Its me and you buddy against them all! and whomever wants to join will be welcomed with open arms!
We few, we happy happy few, we band of brothers! Henry the 5th

[bigrock]

Originally posted by misterniall
I read through everything and didn't notice any mention of the fact that there is a difference in video cards for these machines...
ATI Fire GL E1 and GeForce 4 Ti 4600 ... I have yet to see a comparison of each of these cards ... the FIRE is generally compared the Quadra4. This coupled with the preformance of the harddrive and a no real details on setup at all.


well, actually, it would not have made much of a difference. after effects does not have any open gl support, so all the extra 3d capabilities don't matter. what matters in after effects is hard drive access speed, processor speed, and ram. at least until they put out a new version that has open gl acceleration.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Mlobo01
thats the fighting spirit! Thats one reason I stick with my little iMac 400DV, even though Im getting to that stage that I need more speed, I will only obtain it through another Mac, hopefully by june-august. Maybe the new macs are out. I think working on a PC doing photoshop is Torture! just like my boy copperpipe said!
Its me and you buddy against them all! and whomever wants to join will be welcomed with open arms!
We few, we happy happy few, we band of brothers! Henry the 5th


ok before you upset me, but now your making me smile :D

[Mlobo01]

I didn't catch any sleep yesterday so I was definetly not in my usual mode, for that I do apologize and all those who were subject to my thoughtless reaction, I know I must of misread some of you and just posted without regarding your prior posts, But after a couple of hours of sleep Im more objective today and less reactionary. This thread did take me by surprise
specially the Adobe part, but like someone else
said it can possibly be a PR stunt by Apple, it wouldnt be too far fetched, But its not an Apple style of advertising...Hmmmm...for the other topic; How did this difference in speed get out of hand? I now that convincing the general public
does not take much, you give them more numbers and basically they bait for what they dont understand but it seems more for their buck, its a sensitive matter getting caught between having to do what you like most doing and having to decide to use the other system other than your favorite Mac just cause the speed in the PC is higher, not better but
faster and economically feasible, just like Generic brand Raisin'bran is cheaper than the original, but trust me it does not taste the same! I think that as a research project for all of us that have been reading these"faster chips" posts; is that we should take a trip to the local computer store and instead of looking for the specs lets take a look at the details, craftsmanship and selection of materials, compare the obvious Dell, Gateway, Sony etc and then go the Apple side and see for yourself,
that there is thought and purpose behind every design element, I did this myself yesterday, and once you see a Powerbook 15inch, you definetly
see the difference, while the others look like plastic toy-like casings the PBook feels and looks like a well designed and developed item. remember when the first Sony Walkmans came out, their was a selection of materials, different types of materials to compliment the design, nowadays the amount of plastic used in todays Walkmans is excessive, they use metals for their Clie or MDs but eventually will become plastic as it gets more generic, they use the bait and switch. Now if you look at Apple products you can see that they have over the years improved their selection of materials, the starting point was the fruit colored iMacs and Monitors. My point is a general and objective view of any system is needed instead of just Mgz speed. Peace

[beatle888]

well i went back to view my post and realized i might have provoked your response. im just a bit sensitive about my work and having it pulled from me when im not even done with it. its happened. ive been asked many times to just sweep over images and not take the time to polish them as i like. i love the mac and i do think apple provides enough speed for the print industry so im fine...apple has already met my needs, now i just have to GET one of those top of the line systems. i know its a different story with people working in video and 3D. but within a couple of years...if we continue to support apple, speed will cease to be an issue in those industries as well. i say stick it out, we came this far. now all we have to do is wait a few years cause the day when speed is no longer an issue is on the horizon.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Adobe's been in bed with Wintel for sometime now.


If you mean 28% of adobe sales are to Mac users and 72% to Wintel users then you're correct.

It is a business. Are you suggesting they slight 72% of their paying customers?

[Rocket_J]

I just ran a comparison between After Effects 5.5 for OSX and Final Cut Pro 3 for OSX. Using the same Media 100 source video and compositing multiple scrolling text overlays to Mpeg-4, AE took 4 minutes, 11 seconds. Final Cut Pro took 2 minutes 50 seconds. Adobe not only ticks me off by publishing this comparison, but loses points for poorly optimized software. What really bothers me is that Adobe knows AE is not fully optimized for OSX, but still publishes the comparison as if it was a meaningful comparison. What is their motivation here?

[365]

I just bought PC, a Compaq Evo D510 with 2ghz P4, 512mb RAM etc.. and a 17" Compaq TFT digital screen all brand new with three year Compaq warranty for £774!! (about $1000)

Compared to Jaguar, the operating system (XP Pro) is second rate but I can live with it because the functionality is very similar, it just looks crap. Speed though is another matter, my kids have a 700mhz G4 iMac (cost me £1200 - $1700) and the PC walks all over it, I don't mean slightly faster, I mean it batters it, it's embarrasing.

Why did I buy it? because I wanted a faster machine (I had a dual 867 but the noise was horrendous and I got offered a good amount by a friend so I moved it on) but don't want to pay the premium required for the current G4 towers, which don't cut it (the Powerbook is a different matter), so this is a stop gap (I feel guily using it). Will I stick with Windows, not on your life (I don't think) but I wish Apple had a policy of telling me when I could have expected a new machine that had the horsepower to live with the work of art that is OSX.

I know that Apple rely on Motorola but are you telling me that the lack of horsepower wasn't picked up on months even years ago.

[movabi]

I have been using macs for 12 years. I was not impressed when I ordered a shiny new 1.25 DP machine, and had to send it back twice, as a very clunky sound emitted from the guts of the thing. After a month of this I gave up. I still have no computer on my desk, and I doubt Apple can supply me with a reliable machine in a decent time. I was equally not impressed with the speed of this thing, and it really had two processors? I was hoping this machine would cut through processing and rendering times, but found that it wasn't much faster than my G4/400. I must say that I felt like I got shafted when I plugged the box in. Warning to all you serious users out there: Don't buy now- wait!

It is pretty sad when your family has a snappier machine, for cheaper, and all they use it for is email! I love Apple and the operating system, but there comes a time when speed and support do matter, and that time has passed.

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

I have a very similar apple tale. Apple store/support has not made me love apple more. FASTER / CHEAPER machines NOW! I feel a 1997 deja vu moment all over...

suggestion to apple worry less about serving lawsuits & threats to small fry apple loyalists and worry more about your failing hardware line.

[Mlobo01]

I recommend we all need to read some of the prior posts here, some of the recent post have been addressed to in prior ones, We have discussed here design and speed, yes we all agree that Apple's dependancy on Moto has been overstayed, or has been complacent, however These tests are sort of like making an eating contest with an overweight man and a skinny man, lets see who eats the most fastest! the overweight man(XP) will eat faster but he will have trouble standing up, he might choke and have trouble breething, meanwhile the skinny man(OS X) might take his time, He wont have trouble getting up or need to loosen his belt, and afterwards be very comfortable, lets hope the skinny man knows CPR! The skinny man can eat, read, or do many things at the same time! which means that if your computer is properly optimized with RAM it will run multiple apps at the same time and better. you cannot do this on Windows! turn one app, off another on, on, off, on, off, this is the time that is waisted which is not taken into consideration due to it being simple tasks, these tests are no big deals since not everyone uses AE or PS7, most just use the basic apps. which in MS are still stiff and unrefined, the overweight man needs to loosen his tie! if you take into consideration that Mac users look forward to updates and are more aware of them, they spend more time on their machines because they want to! coming from work a Mac user looks forward to his desktop, and its not only about looking pretty its about quality, quality, quality! My Mac looks and feels like a design not a design from Fisher-Price, I loved them when I was a kid but now Im an adult! I need a grown-up design, sorry but I left my "Simon Says" toy a long time ago I dont need to revisit it in an MS OS or desktop, nor the other companie's tacky designs, I need more than just a box that has a TV on it.
2)In a network any Mac is a server or client, the interconnection is easy and quick, while in the overweight man's you need to do ten thousand things, theres time well spent there! or try and understand .NET, yet another concept looking for definition bahh! . Another test of time that Adobe does not take into consideration is the Crash time windows are prone too, while the Unix based OS X you can Force quit the app in question and Voila! no need to clean re-install
the hardrive, If they want to make it fare lets re-do the same tests with all apps open! and lets see whos fastest, oh Im sorry windows cant do that, that wouldnt be fare, not even if I use my trusted iMac DV 400mgz.

[Mlobo01]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=22920
these threads are from Macrumors forum, I recently ran into this thread about Adobe posting an article about PCs preferred over Macs, if you read any of the articles mentioned in the link there is a lot of shock and a sort of betrayal factor that this article has caused, Im an avid Mac user and I don't think this message was appropriate since your company is a software company, Adobe makes software for both platforms, so why the interest in these distortions?, is it that ignorance runs rampant at Adobe today? does Adobe have an ulterior motive behind these tests? It was not wise and it was also a spit in the face of mac users, If there is political melodrama from management between the two companies it should stay behind the scenes, but let your management know its not taken lightly because its not civil and its the users who are subject to these anomalies, I can understand these kinds of statements coming from folks who do not know the difference between Unix and MS platforms but from a software company? from Adobe?
also these tests cater to the Mgz misconceptions, that most people don't fully get, but they think that its only good to have more, Im disturbed to think that the makers of my favorite application have even considered taking these tests seriously.
So before we go on comparing performance issues on platforms lets take into account the things that are flaky and don't work in some of Adobe's own applications, for example
why does "magic wand" does not work in illustrator 10.0? etc. I thought that Adobe was a company of integrity but now its left me with a lot of mistrust and a sense of loss.

[groov']

hey mlobo,

i hink you have never worked with xp

my experience:

1. almost no crashes, my OSX crashes more often (especially since 10.2.4)

2. xp as an OS is faster, at least on 2.53 Ghz

3. you can do all sorts of prograams at the same time. I always have (with 512MB memory) dreamweaver, fireworks and flash open at the same time. Plus these days I look at the same time in one of my big screens corners with windows media player to tv-channels like bbc world and euronews to know whaT'S going on in Iraq. Plus MySQL server and PHP are constantly on in the background for creating database sites.

So i don't know where you are talking about.

You are right about windows 95 and 98. And yes XP is ugly, but it is a good OS in terms of getting your work done...

[Mlobo01]

no problem...I just woke up, and I think the email I sent to Adobe is what really simmered me down, I think theres enough displacement in the world right now to start with more differences, what ever gets your work done, and if your happy its all good. I dont know if you have read prior posts in this thread but there seems to be more shock that a company like Adobe who is a software company who has had a long relationship with Apple, and I means its users mainly has come up with a statement of this kind, I dont mind if it came from a neutral, non software group, but we all enjoy Adobe products no matter what platform it is,
its sort of a betrayal in our eyes. Im a classical painter and speed is never taken into account in whatever I do, it takes me at least 4-5 days to finish a pencil rendering, does the Adobe filter come close to what I do with my own hand?
I dont think so, maybe a future photoshop 25.0
so my point is speed for me is one thing but not all, and I think that the statement or test coming from Adobe is the bigger upset, at least for me.
One of my closest friends has XP, which is my closest experience of it, and you are right I should of asked him for these nuances, but for some reason I take a quick look and Im sorry
I cant deal with looking at his computer let alone pretend I wanna know what makes it tick.
Another factor that I thought was unfair about Adobe is that its aware that Apple has only a 5%
share of the market, this makes the statement
redundant but it also makes it a backstab, I know some of the XP non Apple users dont get this but I get it, and I dont like it mainly because its unjustified and unfair, I though that Adobe was a company of integrity now Im just filled with mistrust and a sense of loss, Just imagine a close friend of yours bad mouthing you just because she or he is seeing someone with MONEY! and they want to look good for them on the account of this?
once you picture this you might get a sense of what this article has provoked. Thanks all and sorry for the prior statement. Mario

[ColdZero]

Adobe and Apple aren't friends, they are in business for themselves. If going with x86 because it makes them more money then all the power to them. Adobe doesn't "owe" Apple anything and Apple doesn't "owe" Adobe anything.

Even though I think the friend thing is a bad idea, here is a senario:

What about if you and your friend Steve like to play nintendo together *cough edit DV* at your house because you have a nintendo *cough Premier*. Then one day Steve gets a new and better nintendo *cough FCP* and then starts making fun of you to all your friends in public because his is faster. What then?

Another thing about these tests. How many times does Apple do Photoshop tests by themselves and then use them as a benchmark at MacWorld or on their site to say that Macs are faster than PCs? They never give any specs save for processor speed. They are done by Apple....so you know they are unbiased. Yet people will take those benchmarks and tout them as valid evidence that Macs are faster than PCs. Here somebody has provided way more information on the tests than every Apple benchmark combined and the results are torn apart. Does anybody think this is just a little hypocritical?

[beatle888]

Originally posted by groov'
hey mlobo,

i hink you have never worked with xp

my experience:

1. almost no crashes, my OSX crashes more often (especially since 10.2.4)

2. xp as an OS is faster, at least on 2.53 Ghz

3. you can do all sorts of prograams at the same time. I always have (with 512MB memory) dreamweaver, fireworks and flash open at the same time. Plus these days I look at the same time in one of my big screens corners with windows media player to tv-channels like bbc world and euronews to know whaT'S going on in Iraq. Plus MySQL server and PHP are constantly on in the background for creating database sites.

So i don't know where you are talking about.

You are right about windows 95 and 98. And yes XP is ugly, but it is a good OS in terms of getting your work done...


your OSX crashes all the time?:eek: :eek: :eek:
that is very strange. are you talking about an APPLICATION crashing or the OS crashing? i cant remember the last time i had a system crash.

p.s. heres my application load on my ti with 512 of ram i can have Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, Safari, ichat, quickbooks AND itunes open :D and ive heard of people having even MORE then that open.

[MOM]

CreativeMac has posted their 2 cents in this matter:

http://www.creativemac.com/2003/03_mar/editorials/smack105030326.htm

Its worth a read and follows an article they published some time ago that came to the same conclusion: Adobe software doesn't take advantage of dual processors as well as other software.

[365]

Originally posted by beatle888
your OSX crashes all the time?:eek: :eek: :eek:

That wasn't what he said, his statement was "my OSX crashes more often (especially since 10.2.4)"

For me this isn't a question of which is the better operating system, Jaguar smacks XP's arse as far as I'm concerned but XP is still very usable and capable system and quite frankly my new cheap and cheerful Compaq flies compared to my old dual 867 and comparing it to the kids G4 iMac is just laughable. I wanted and still want an Apple machine that is worth the premium which I am happy to pay, sadly it doesn't yet exist, worse still Apple can't be bothered to tell me which processor it will use never mind when I can expect it.

I used to be an Apple zealot, I hated Windows and everything Microsoft and still do if I'm honest but things have got so bad as far as TOP LINE Macintosh's hardware is concerned that I'm no longer willing to blow my money just because Jaguar is a gem.

As soon as that new Apple flying machine arrives I will switch back (I still have a Ti Book so I've not really switched) but till then the speed of the PC will do me just fine and I actually like some things about Windows especially the right click and scroll wheel.

[Flynnstone]

I use:
- Dual 800 PIII running NT 4,
- PIII 650 Laptop running Win 2K
- P4 2.26 running Win 2K
- sometimes use a Celeron 600 laptop XP
- Celeron 667 running Linux
- Power Mac dual 867 with 10.2.4

Of the Microsoft OSs, I like Win 2K the best. XP, I like the feature on multiple users at the same time. You don't have to close all your windows and logout to login as another user. But XP is like too much sugar. The final reason for not using XP is the license agreement (EULA).
I wouldn't recommend using dual processors under Windows. My back up software (retrospect) was very good at locking up my dual processor NT machine.
I rate my Linux box and Power Mac as equivalent for stability. But OS X is much more usable. If I bring up a "pdf" file on my OS X and Linux box, it VERY clear to see the difference. If someone wants to run a *nix OS for a desktop machine, I recommend get OS X.
OS X vs Windows vs Linux.
I think Apple has taken a balanced approach to the OS. I think they have made the kernel more responsive. More like a Real Time Operating System (RTOS). I think Windows tendancy is to give a program (task) more priority.
The reason I think this is that is that if you run a Quicktime movie or Realplayer (or the like) (even winamp and music only).
On the Mac (or any Mac I have used), the movie plays without a stutter, even if you run something intensive in the background.
On my 2.26G P4 with Win 2K, a movie will stutter (pause for a brief but preceptable time). This I find unacceptable.

Sorry for making this so long.:eek: (yawn)

[Flynnstone]

oops, I forgot;
I've never "crashed" OS X. I've effectively hung it.
But "ssh"ing (telnet) into it from another machine, and killing the errant process cleans think right up.:D

[Mlobo01]

The article shown on the hyperlink that MOM provided shows and confirms that the testing is not done on a neutral foundation, Adobe's intentions are obscure here just as Apple's next
move, wether its a better processor or not, I agree with some of you that it can be extremely
fustrating to buy a system and then a week later new systems arrive, Apple has jolted people
this year already, first with the iBook 800 after the 700, then with the Jaguar release that you couldnt get it for free when you had purchased a desktop just 2 weeks ago, the best they could do was offer a discount, But this is life in computer age, In this moment I believe companies are going through a state of flux thats become hard to manage, its getting out of hand, rapid changes via the major OSs and a slow paced software companies are having trouble keeping up, I have been reading the IBM
progress that they might develop the 64bit architecture and mentioning that it wont be twice as fast from 32bit but even faster, if they develop this by the end of the year all computers will be extremely slow compared to the 64bit units. What if Apple is the recipient of this well endowed chip? IBM will always prefer Apple, Sun and Linux over MS anytime, IBM just to knick MS would side themeselves to Apple.
One of the big upsets with companies right now is the licensing practices of MS, they are not Happy, and in the US there a state thats looking to go linux on the account that it is free and it doesnt want to deal with MS and its licensing dilemmas anymore, but whatever happens Apple needs to stiffen their backs and make clear and conscise decisions, as for Adobe they made themeselves look foolish, since its there products they where testing.
One more thing! Its an interesting thing right now to be a developer, picture yourself finishing an application that took you months to polish off, enter your boss and tells you thats all fine and dandy but so & so just released a new version of OS, you need to do the adjustments!
its a non-stop scenario working on the same thing over and over. This might be one of the factors that might be getting Adobe moody all of a sudden.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by backdraft
The tests were performed in Mac OS X 10.2.1 instead of OS 9. We all KNOW that OS 9 is faster than OS X.No, we (at least those of us who take the time to research things), all know that most applications process at the same or better speeds under OS X. OS 9's simple GUI may make your Mac feel faster, however it's stone-age lack of pre-emptive multitasking causes multiple applications to crunch numbers much less efficently.

Case in point, I've been using Final Cut Pro ever since it was first released. I was ecstatic about FCP 3 being carbonized but was worried that it might render slower than OS 9. I ran several tests, timing large renders under both OS 9 and X (10.1 I believe) you know what? Running on OS X it took almost exactly the same amount of time.

Anther point is the RC5 distributed.net client. When I started running OS X full time I checked benchmarks between the two (RC5-64 Crunch Vec core) and they also were basically the same. Also very interesting: booting OS X into single user mode - no GUI, the client was no faster than when running in a terminal window with Aqua/Quartz running.

The only app's that should run any faster under OS 9 are Classic app's.

Originally posted by backdraft
Its also not a fair comparison either, the PC with RDRAM the Mac with DDRYes, it is fair:
1) RDRAM has not been found to be much better than DDR
2) Apple's best offering is DDR - even though the G4's FSB cannot take full advantage of it.

The fact that the G4 processor doesn't support fast FSB speeds is Apple and Motorola's fault and it is not incorrect for people to point it out.

Originally posted by backdraft
not to mention Windows XP has 64bit graphics while OS X has 128bit graphics, more cpu power is used to render the 128bit GUI versus the 64bit GUI.What are you talking about? OS X's "GUI", the WindowServer (Quartz) utilizes double-buffered 32 bit graphics (24 bit + alpha channels). I have no idea what XP uses, but from what I've seen, I doubt it's double-buffered or any better than 24 or 32 bit color. The fact that Quartz double-buffers everything is a valid performace issue, but 128 bit? Where'd you get that?

Originally posted by backdraft
oh well... PowerPC 970 ='s solutionAgreed - I sincerely hope Apple gets it, or something as good, soon. (Then again I've been waiting for Apple to get DDR FSB's since MWNY 2000 :rolleyes: )

[Flynnstone]

Its interesting to read a little of this bickering.

But it seems everyone agrees that we need a PPC 970 in the next generation Macs (and soon). :D

970s in Power Macs and PowerBooks

G4 7457 in the rest.

Apple, IBM .... make it so ! :)

[Mlobo01]

now lets get drunk!

[groov']

Originally posted by 365

I used to be an Apple zealot, I hated Windows and everything Microsoft and still do if I'm honest but things have got so bad as far as TOP LINE Macintosh's hardware is concerned that I'm no longer willing to blow my money just because Jaguar is a gem.

As soon as that new Apple flying machine arrives I will switch back (I still have a Ti Book so I've not really switched) but till then the speed of the PC will do me just fine and I actually like some things about Windows especially the right click and scroll wheel. [/B]

Amen ...

But I'm not going to switch back as soon as the new top line debutes. I'll wait for the revision that gets rid of all the bugs and will prove itself in benchmark testing to be better and faster than the windoze box.

[groov']

sorry for hitting the button twice

[MorganX]

Having just recently moved to Mac, I just got Mac versions of InDesign and Photoshop.

They're sweet. Pretty good considering OS X is still wet behind the ears. Adobe's really got their Sh**t together. Apple should really think twice about being anything other than best buddies with them.

Adobe publishes for two platforms and one significantly out-performs the other. Apple should say nothing and keep optimizing OS X, keep encouraging migration form legacy OS', and keep moving forward to a more robust platform. And that's it.

I got a kick out of the dialog that pops up tell you you have to turn off antialising at 8pt and below for the Adobe UI to function properly (read you can't read the fuzzy fonts in OS X with antialiasing). Apple really needs to work on this, if they can't do anything about it they should just say so.

[The Shadow]

Originally posted by 365
As soon as that new Apple flying machine arrives I will switch back (I still have a Ti Book so I've not really switched) but till then the speed of the PC will do me just fine and I actually like some things about Windows especially the right click and scroll wheel.

I use PCs (under major sufference) at work and a Graphite PowerMac G4 533 at home, where I also do a lot of work. I switched about the time this system came out. The main reason why I switched at that time, was VirtualPC was now running fast enough under the new system to make it practical, as a last option.

Also, I remember at that time, the fastest PCs were running 1.2 Ghz chips, so I was impressed by the fact I could buy a low end PowerMac that was about the same performance as the fastest PC's. That's the position I want to see Apple return to. That justifies a premium price, because of the better OS and the rest.

I will never have a PC in my house ever again. As far as I'm concerned the difference is mainly due to the OS and rules around development of Apps - it's HUGE. It's so noticeable to me because I use both my Mac at home and a PC at work everyday to perform the identical tasks.

Sorry, but the Windows environment is utter crap. And every PC user I know hates XP - more so than the "classic" windows UI, because it's bloatware out of control. I don't buy crap computers. Just like I won't buy a crap car or anything else, no matter how fast it is.

Oh yeah, the reason why I was making this post (sorry, i digressed) was just to point out that any Mac user can get a 2 or 3 button mouse with a scroll wheel, so I never understand that criticism of Macs - you read it in PC magazines whenever they test Macs. Like most experienced users I would never actually use the standard mouse that comes with a PC. So whenever I read that comment by a pro writing for a magazine, I think it shows a level of unashamed bias that beggars belief.

I currently use the Kensignton Studio Mouse with the cool scroll "button" thingy (I hate scroll wheels, cause I move them too fast and they spin like I've hooked a Marlin). The Kensington is great - but it doesn't come standard with any PC or Mac.

[nuckinfutz]

They're sweet. Pretty good considering OS X is still wet behind the ears. Adobe's really got their Sh**t together. Apple should really think twice about being anything other than best buddies with them.

You will never see Adobe push around Apple. They've competed in the past(Postscript vs Quickdraw GX) Apple isn't afraid to mix it up with Adobe. Even if Adobe wanted to move to PC only they'd still have to convince their plugin developers who aren't cross platform. Very nasty. Plus Apple still represents a third of their overall revenue.

Adobe publishes for two platforms and one significantly out-performs the other. Apple should say nothing and keep optimizing OS X, keep encouraging migration form legacy OS', and keep moving forward to a more robust platform. And that's it.



Now professionals SHOULD be asking Adobe why they are being so slow to optimize their apps for mulitiprocessing. Look at the below performance. Pathetic. Screw Adobe ...fix your molasses apps before you think about complaining.

http://www.creativemac.com/HTM/HomeSet1.htm


http://images.digitalmedianet.com/2003/03_mar/editorials/smack105030326/1-chart.jpg

[MorganX]

>> Now professionals SHOULD be asking Adobe why they are being so slow to optimize their apps for mulitiprocessing. Look at the below performance. Pathetic. Screw Adobe ...fix your molasses apps before you think about complaining.<<

That's a good question. Buy we don't know how many of Apple's customers use dual machines. I don't know how much development will cost them. It is somethign the should do. With regards to the Apple vs. PC performance, I wouldn't expect having the code optimized for SMP to make a difference without new hardware for Apple. For $3500 you can have a Dual 2.4Ghz Xeon workstation with 1G true DDR and DVD+R with NVidia Quaddro4.

If Adobe lights a fire under Apple they're doing them a favor IMO.

[nuckinfutz]

MorganX-

The fire needs to be lit under Adobe's rear. Intel is rapidly moving to P4 chips with Hyperthreading. By the end of this year I believe all 2.5Ghz and above P4 systems will support hyperthreading. Sure Adobe will add the support but had they prepared their applications beforehand they wouldn't have had much to tweak to support HT on P4s.

Let's hope they do quickly.

Dual Xeon or Dual 486 I don't really care. Adobe's apps should not be running like crap. Why should people have to shell out $3500 to get the performance that "should" be obtainable for $2500

I like Adobe..but they've gone without enough competition far too long. It's time for them to get their apps working smoothly. I'm sure Apple doesn't like to piss Adobe off but if they release poor performing software then Apples going to remedy that somehow.

Well at any rate the next year should be interesting. Apple should be back in the ballpark as far as Hardware and the Software is really coming into it's own. Glad to have you aboard MorganX.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
MorganX-

The fire needs to be lit under Adobe's rear. Intel is rapidly moving to P4 chips with Hyperthreading.

Well Adobe will be releasing a PC Only DVD authoring app. The Mac already has one.. DVD Stuido Pro. Being PC only, it will be interesting to see if Adobe does some real optimization for Intel. 64-bit Windows has been RTM'd also it will get interesting.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by MOM
CreativeMac has posted their 2 cents in this matter:

http://www.creativemac.com/2003/03_mar/editorials/smack105030326.htm

Its worth a read and follows an article they published some time ago that came to the same conclusion: Adobe software doesn't take advantage of dual processors as well as other software.

Definitely a very worthwhile read that shows that real world performance is measured not only by the sum of the system specs but also the software written for it. One thing I'd like to point out though about the article is that a hyperthreaded Pentium 4 would benefit from a well-threaded program nearly as much as a dual G4 power mac, so a well threaded After Effects will not change the outcome much.

It would be interesting to compare a dual hyperthreaded 3.06 ghz Xeon system, or a single hyperthreaded 3.06 ghz P4 system, running lightwave to a dual 1.42 ghz or dual 1.25 ghz power mac system running final cut pro.

Oh, and the dual 2.4 ghz xeon system is actually a excellent system for midrange workstations. Dual processors coupled with hyperthreading makes a very potent combination on well threaded programs, in Lightwave, the dual 2.4 ghz xeon system on average finished tasks in 3/4 the time it took a hyperthreaded 3.06 P4 system and about 2/3 the time of a unhyperthreaded 3.06 P4. With faster buses and higher clock speeds in current Xeons, I'd expect this margin to grow even larger.