Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adobe: PC Preferred?

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.
 
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
 
Originally posted by robotrenegade
The specs are only seconds difference. Do you really care?:eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
BAD Journalism and Testing!!!

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.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Off Topic, but...

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...
 
sad story

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"
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
one more speed test...

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...
 
Re: one more speed test...

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...
Click to expand...

Bad test, you just need a better intern.
 
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...
Click to expand...


DUH!!!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
about coding for the Mac...

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!
 
Re: about coding for the Mac...

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!
Click to expand...
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."
 
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

...and redo them with the P4 3gHz machine on the other end to be fair....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back