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

Adobe: PC Preferred?

Re: Re: mlobo01 is wrong ...

Originally posted by beatle888
your OSX crashes all the time?:eek: :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
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
 
Good article...thanks MOM

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 DDR
Click to expand...
Yes, 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.
Click to expand...
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 solution
Click to expand...
Agreed - 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: )
 
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 ! :)
 
Re: Re: Re: mlobo01 is wrong ...

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]
Click to expand...

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.
 
Adobe Rocks

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.
 
Re: Re: Re: mlobo01 is wrong ...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...



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


1-chart.jpg
 
>> 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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
MorganX-

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

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.
 
Re: CreativeMac

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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