Adobe: PC Preferred?

[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]

Re: Uhm, Adobe doesn't support dual processors well

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.

 

[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]

Musings (sorry it's so long)

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]

on speed and adobe...its all nonsense

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]

Re: Uhm, Adobe doesn't support dual processors well

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

that was an easy one.

 

[Grokgod]

ART vs SPEED

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]

Re: ART vs SPEED

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 , 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]

about deadlines and such...

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!

and it's got adware