Adobe: PC Preferred?

[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]

Re: ART vs SPEED

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'?

 

[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]

These tests mean nothing

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 sh*t 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]

Re: Re: ART vs SPEED

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.
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]

Apple's Lineup

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]

Re: Apple's Lineup

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.

 

[JGowan]

LIARS!

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?

 

[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?

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.

 

[Steamboatwillie]

Re: Apple's Lineup

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...

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]

Adobe and its Misinformation

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]

Re: Maybe Apple needs an INTERVENTION party

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]

Re: Apple's Lineup

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