Can anyone tell me if this post is to be correct?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by HeyMAC, Sep 29, 2004.

  1. HeyMAC macrumors newbie

    HeyMAC

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    #1
    I post in a Flash forum and one of the threaders said this.

    "Ah, so people are getting Mac information from where? From the Apple website. A great source for self-agrandising, I mean, unbiased information!

    Really people, I was banging my head on the desk throughout this entire thread. Nearly everyone sounded like they were just making up facts! Here's the case for Macs: they are great at doing one thing, and doing it well. Macs run on a large single pipeline, so if you are using them to do just one thing, and I mean just one thing, they are perfect for that. If you are just rendering 3d (and not surfing the web or listening to music), that's perfect. Mac OS is, and has always been, a single focus operating system. I did just make up that term, but what I mean is, when you change focus to another window/program, the OS will divert nearly all processing power to whatever program has the focus, even if it doesn't need it. Every single other program that is running, say, 3d rendering, Flash movie playing, cd burning, must halt for the program you just clicked on. This might seem like a benefit, but in practice, it's a horrible idea for an OS. Real world example: Dustball plays the Flash movie when he's composing music for it. He records the music in Adobe Audition. How would this even work on a Mac? On Mac OS, you can allocate memory to programs ats they need them, but that has nothing to do with it, since Flash is highly CPU dependent. On a pc, Dustball can start playing the Flash movie, click on Audition, and start recording. No CPU time is diverted away from Flash. Try doing this on a Mac and Flash is instantly come crawling to a halt, thereby defeating the purpose of scoring music to the movie in real time.

    I'd go on and list the many drawbacks of Macs vs PCs, but I think that would take pages. I'm not telling you to buy a Mac or a pc, but damnit, it's a big purchase! Do a lot of research first! Most importantly, USE the product before you buy it. If you plan to do 3d animation while listening to mp3s, having multiple browsers open, and running AIM and/or MSN, go do that on the machien you plan to buy. Don't just use one for 10 minutes and decide. Macs are not cheap. For the power you get from an equally oufitted Windows PC doing things from word processing to 3d gaming, to painting and building Flash media, a Windows PC is much much cheaper, even after all the upgrades.

    A few quick points:

    * Processor speed is only a partial measure of processing power, and even then, only among processors of the same type (e.g. an Athlon XP 2800+ cpu running at 2.133MHz is commonly faster than a Pentium 4 2.66MHz). It all has to do with processign power.
    * Macs run on a single pipeline, PCs run on multiple piplines. Both have their ups adn downs, but if you multi-task, you will want a PC.
    * Flash runs like crap on Macs. This isn't just my opinion or experience, but Flash experts will tell you that Macs perform horribly versus PCs when running Flash, and this is from many pro-Mac users. Again, it's the way the CPU handles the processing.
    * The software for Macs is very different from the software for PCs. I do mean functionally (like Photoshop on Macs is nearly the same as PCs), but the range of choices. Bottom line: you can't use PC software on a Mac or vice versa. Not many games come out for Mac OS."


    Go, do your research.


    Well of course you can have 20 programs open at once, but that is still task switching. The point is trying to run 3 programs well at a high load, and that is where Macs fall flat. Try takling to a Mac and PC expert instead of talking to the Mac salesman, someone who is TRYING TO SELL YOU SOMETHING. I'm not trying to sell you anything.

    It's like going to the Coke plant, asking them which you should buy, Coke or Pepsi? HMMM...

    I don't care anymore. You can waste your hard earned money all you want (jsut ilke right when the Intuos3 came out you got all crazy, as if the Intuos2 is ANY worse). You still haven't proven me wrong. Running 20 programs at once and running 3 of them well is very different. Although you don't often do this, try running 2 Flash movies at the same time on the Mac and see what happens. Try 3. Try 5. ALl 5 movies run fine on my mid-range PC, eithout changing any special settings. So go ahead and try it. Have the Flash movies running. Cilck on one window, then click on another. Make sure you can see all the Flash windows at the same time and that both display some kind of animation. You'll see what I'm talking about. If you let the salesman convince you by his sales tactics, I pity you.

    By the number of exclamation points in your last 3 posts, it shows you're making a decision based off initial impression, not actual research.


    posted by gel at synj.net.

    thread link
     
  2. hcuar macrumors 65816

    hcuar

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    #2
    I wouldn't give much credit to the post. Anytime someone gives that much time to rant, that's all the credit I give. Just a simple rant. The few sentences I read seemed like rubish. OS X is based on BSD which is a OS that relies heavily on multitasking. It's a server OS for goodness sake. Just buy what you want to buy, and be happy. ;)
     
  3. mms macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    CA
    #3
    Not having much personal experience with Flash, I can't say, though I am aware that OS X is good at multi-tasking, definitely more so than Classic operating systems. Your best bet would be to go to an Apple Store if you can and try it out. I wouldn't place much credibility on this guy's post though; some people are staunch Mac haters and the fact that he would spend so much time ranting about problems with Apple is a definite sign.
     
  4. budugu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #4
    Server OS has not got any thing to do with what he is saying . There is a difference between how Windows and unix handles stuff. There is a slight difference between multi-tasking and multi-threading! How the processor time is allocated and the resources. Clear Example of this is that windows allows you to tap the CPU clock as precisely as possible unix style systems donot. He definitely has a point. At best you can ask a unix system to give some priority to a thread, it is totally upto the system to decide when. But windows allows you to directly ask the system to attend a particular task at a specific time. This you might not observe in practice, but when you are running psychophysical experiments at refresh rates of over 240 Hz it does matter.

    both are good for different things, you need to use your judgement as to what is important to you. :rolleyes:
     
  5. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #5
    I can't say that I've tried Flash on comparable PCs to see how my PowerBook compares, but I notice that when a Flash animation goes into the background, it slows way down (or drops frames depending), and it's really sad. Like I said though, I can't vouch that a PC will do any better. However, this is just one example. When I have Carrara 3 (consumer 3d modeling and render app) going in the background, it barely slows down at all. It may just be Flash that is poorly coded for Mac.
     
  6. t300 macrumors 6502a

    t300

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    #6
    That makes me want to sign up over there and flame them for that. "Single focus operating system"....Are you effing kidding me!? Ridiculous. A clear Mac hater, to say the least.

    Also, I am not really sure as to why this post in the Buying section....
     
  7. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #7
    Well it's also possible that he is severely naive or hasn't used Macs since '96.
     
  8. t300 macrumors 6502a

    t300

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    #8
    Yeah, that's for sure....or '86.
     
  9. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #9
    I didn't know they could get Athlons and Pentium 4's to run that slow... :D

    And what's this "single pipeline" crap?
     
  10. angelneo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Location:
    afk
    #10
    I am not too sure about the multi-tasking part but for using Flash, it seems to me that my Mac doesn't perform that well compare to my PC. However, Adobe suite works better on my Mac than my PC. Well, its my opinion. Could it be that Macromedia software are built for Windows rather than Mac?
     
  11. earthtoandy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    #11
    seriously.. thats where it all falls to crap for this guy. single pipeline? he has no idea what hes talking about
     
  12. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #12
    Who cares what words he uses? We get the point......are the apps running in the background slower on the Macs because of the way it handles multiple tasks? He says "Yes", but if the only proof is Flash, then I'm not sure. It doesn't matter which programs run better on Macs. That's also irrelevent. Does a particular process run better on the Mac or Windows if its processing in the background while you're surfing on the web, for example? :confused:
     
  13. wPod macrumors 68000

    wPod

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #13
    if people like this guy didnt exist, then places like india would go bankrupt! its unfortunate soles like this guy that are diehard M$ fans who support the IT industry. i work in the IT dept at my university and am so happy when some dumb bloke walks in with a M$ problem. its easy for me to fix, hard for them to understand, and at the end of the week it gets me a pay check! plus i get a good laugh every once in a while when someone comes in with 200 some od ad-ware problems! (the record was just broken last week up from 400 to 1000 something!)
     
  14. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #14
    i claim to be no expert. but the guy says to talk to a Mac and PC expert. as a LAN Specialist i use Mac's and PC's all the time and know quite a bit about how they operate. and my professional opinion is that this guy has his head in his rear end. does Flash run like crap on OS X? it's a well known fact that it does. is it because OS X is built to only handle ONE task at a time? uh, sorry buddy but i'm afraid it runs like crap because Macromedia write crappy software for OS X.

    Mac's handle multiple tasks very well (now that we have OS X). Windows is also a heck of a lot better at multitasking now that it's running on the NT core. From MY experience, Windows is good at doing a couple things at once, but could never handle as much stuff at the same time as my trusty 12" PB. check out this picture from the machine in my sig. i have Lotus Notes, Mozilla, Firefox, AND Safari open (each one is a memory hog) with multiple windows, each with tabs open. on top of that i open up Quicktime and play 5 videos at the same time while i get Expose into the mix without droping a frame or a skip in the sound? The day Windows can do that give me a call.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. budugu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #15
    Why do people in the form go on tangential crap?

    These forms sort of amaze me! they are the least on technicalities or exchanging useful information, than flaming. Other than saying M$ is crap which people tend to agree to a certain extent, what else is there in this posts? Talking about dumb M$ users, i think it was also mentioned in another post that the dumbest of the people are mac users in reality. how many calls are "how do i start iphoto?", type of crap. If you donot know how a system works or not interested then please donot post this kind of nonsense. How do posts like these help a guy wanted to know about how systems work? Agreed "single pipeline" nonsense was picked up from some other place and used in a wrong context! I think every body understood what he meant or was hoping to convey.

    Why do you have to say that the other one is a crap, just to please yourself that what you have is good? which makes me think that more than a % of donot think that macs are better machines as you seem to project!! :eek: :mad:
     
  16. budugu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #16
    Unix -thinking vs windows thinking by Andrew Schetinin

    For a long long time, UNIX community lived without any thread support. Spawning a process in UNIX is a fast and efficient process, so any background task can be executed as a separate process. It is well supported by UNIX philosophy of fine-grained autonomous command-line utilities which can be combined using pipelining. A separate process runs in a separate address space thus protecting other processes from crashing, in case of any failure. A disadvantage of spawning is that any data exchange between processes requires some more or less complex inter-process communication protocol (IPC protocol).


    Windows, almost from the beginning, supported threads. Threading has an advantage of more efficient data exchange because all threads within the same application have access to the same memory. But this also can become a disadvantage as in our case - a need for coordinating multiple thread activities complicates design and may negatively affect performance and stability.


    Nevertheless, when properly used (as any other technology), threading is a very powerful feature. Many of UNIX flavors now support threading (for instance, in Linux it is quite a recent addition). A properly designed multithreaded server application in most cases will be more efficient than a similar multiprocess application (because of no need for any IPC protocols).


    On the other hand, spawned processes are better isolated one from another and do not need synchronization of internal RTL functions.
     
  17. earthtoandy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    #17
    since flash very specifically(apparently anyway) runs poorly are we to blame the computer or the code?? The G5 has the power. we know that. And for all of us that do things like video, sound, graphic design.... we know it can do these things without a sweat. So it seems much more likely to me that macromedia has themselves a ****** program. its written inefficently for MacOSX and thats the reason it sucks.

    "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth " - Spock
     
  18. JeDiBoYTJ macrumors 6502a

    JeDiBoYTJ

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    #18
    yeah ok... tell me why I was able to burn a 2GB DVD in iDVD (encoding and all), AND render a 45min project w/ graphics and effects in FCP, at the same time. WITH the computer still being usable! how is that possible with a "single-pipeline" processor? what a load of crap.

    also, I just ran his little "test" - I opened up 3 flash files from www.albinoblacksheep.com, with intense animation and such. then I ran expose. what happened you ask? well, besides a slight hiccup in expose animation, everything ran fine after that. the animation in those Flash files were smooth. (becides, i also had 2 other Firefox windows open too, along with iTunes, iChat, and Photoshop) basically it ran perfect. so where this guy it getting his facts, I have no idea.
     
  19. Josh macrumors 68000

    Josh

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    State College, PA
    #19
    Yes...OS X is most certainly a single task OS....I mean, that is why it has Expose'...right? :rolleyes:
     
  20. ExoticFish macrumors 6502a

    ExoticFish

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    The inner depths of madness, aka Kent, OH
    #20
    i completely understand your statement, but at the same time wPod isn't that way far off base, but perhaps for the wrong reasons. let's face it, Mac's generally work without as many glitches as PC's due to the fact that Apple has complete control over hardware AND software. Windows and Linux have a tough task at hand to support as much hardware as they possibly can, but they do a pretty great job at it these days. But a person running Linux is not going to be (for the most part) a person who is not afraid of getting there hands dirty learning how to use it... a little more "techy" if you will. So where are we then? Apple's "just work" so there're less problems, Linux users take care of themselves within the Linux community (Gentoo forums rock!)... then there's Windows. at this point in the computing age, Windows takes up more IT time and money than anything. If my office were running Mac's, i wouldnt' have to take time ot of my day to:

    a)clean spyware and ad-ware off machines
    b)figure what that blue screen message means
    c)figure out why is Windows not working for any other reason.

    I used to be against Microsoft years ago, but I'm over that now. I can see that although they fall way short and make a LOT of piss-poor design decisions with their OS, they are trying to put out a good OS.

    Years down the road when Microsoft doesn't have such a huge fanbase and Linux and OS X get to be bloatware like Windows then the table will turn in some other direction.

    so what does that all lead to? Windows keeps me from accomplishing the major projects i have to work on due to my having to keep them up and running (not my Linux servers, not the Mac's, but Windows).

    so now, onto more unorganized ranting:

    this is plan and simply not true at all. all and all the guy make a good point as to "buy whatever you want, just know what you're buying" but when he tries to throw in facts to skew people away from a Mac he comes off wrong.

    ok, i forgot what i was even going off about in the first place... probably a ham sandwhich or something... mmmmmm, i'm hungry... i think it's lunch time. (CAUTION: don't take me seriously when i'm hungry :p )
     
  21. csubear macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #21
    Who ever made this post is not very bright.

    ppc was one the first "main stream" superscaler cpu designs. (supescaler means more than one pipeline)
     
  22. csubear macrumors 6502a

    csubear

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    #22

    Even better! Of course your going to have task swicthing (unless you on a dual processor machine) .

    Even better is that fact that OS X's process schedular far better that windows. OS X's supports pre-emptive multitasking. Programs that need the processor get the time silces. In windows every thing gets the same time slice even if the process is waiting for IO or otherwise waiting.

    This guy is just one of the many self porcalmed "computer experts".

    Sad part is this person might acutaly have real people listneing to him for advice!
     
  23. budugu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #23
    Any and Every body do "preemtive" multitaking including OS/2 and Win95!!

    The ability to execute more than one task at the same time, a task being a program. The terms multitasking and multiprocessing are often used interchangeably, although multiprocessing implies that more than one CPU is involved.

    In multitasking, only one CPU is involved, but it switches from one program to another so quickly that it gives the appearance of executing all of the programs at the same time.

    There are two basic types of multitasking: preemptive and cooperative. In preemptive multitasking, the operating system parcels out CPU time slices to each program. In cooperative multitasking, each program can control the CPU for as long as it needs it. If a program is not using the CPU, however, it can allow another program to use it temporarily. OS/2, Windows 95, Windows NT, the Amiga operating system and UNIX use preemptive multitasking, whereas Microsoft Windows 3.x and the MultiFinder (for Macintosh computers) use cooperative multitasking.
     
  24. realityisterror macrumors 65816

    realityisterror

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    Location:
    Snellville, GA
    #24
    AFAIK, what this dude is saying was true in OS 8 and maybe OS 9... (i'm not sure as i'm a recent switcher [bought my imac one year ago today!!])
    correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this guy is just living in the past...

    reality
     
  25. caveman_uk Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #25
    If you do want an architectural comparison of the design decisions taken in the P4 and the G$ then look at this article written by someone who does know what he's talking about. A similar article for the PPC970 (aka G5) is here . Basically the G4e has "wide and shallow" execution core with more, shorter pipelines. The P4 (famously) has very long pipelines and follows a "narrow and deep" strategy designed. The G5 tries to have it both ways with many long pipelines. Both the G5 and P4 can have many instructions being processed at once (up to 200 for the G5) but each instruction is actually on the processor core for longer. The G4 is designed to have each instruction on the core as short a time as possible and consequently the design is simpler as it only needs to keep track of the at most 16 instructions that can be on the core at one time.

    Basically the original guy in this thread was talking out of his arse. All modern processors have more than one 'pipeline' in fact both the G4 and G5 have more than the P4. In any event the number of pipelines a processor has very little to do with how well it multitasks. OS X is based on BSD - an extremely well-established and respected Unix foundation with excellent multitasking. If Flash runs badly on macs it's because Flash on macs is written badly - it has nothing to do with pipelines. IIRC Mac OS 9 used co-operative multitasking which meant that apps had to ceed control of the processor to other running apps - if they didn't then the other apps didn't get a look in. This may have lead to this guys point about the app in focus only getting any CPU time. Mac OS X uses pre-emptive multitasking where apps are allocated defined time-slots and at the end of the slot they loose control of the processor. This way all the running apps get their fair share.
     

Share This Page