http://www.circuitremix.com/index.php?q=node/9
Anyone have any questions, suggestions or criticisms on the test or methods?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Photoshop CS3 Beta SLOWER on OSX compared to XP
- Thread starter brandonh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.circuitremix.com/index.php?q=node/9
Anyone have any questions, suggestions or criticisms on the test or methods?
That is quite a huge margin! I was expecting a difference of more like 5-10%. Bad news for people trying to justify getting a suite of macs for there design company. Hopefully this gap will shrink before the final release.
It's a good thing that the decisions on running and equipping a design studio are not based on running a filter over an image and timing it with a stopwatch.
It's a good thing that the decisions on running and equipping a design studio are not based on running a filter over an image and timing it with a stopwatch.
No, just by blindly trusting in anything apple sends us
It's a good thing that the decisions on running and equipping a design studio are not based on running a filter over an image and timing it with a stopwatch.
Hear hear. It's about total productivity, not benchmarks.
I'd like to see how they perform with the foreground application's priority set the same as other processes in Windows or set higher in Mac OS X to see how that affects the results.
It's not unusual to see Windows foreground process outperforming the background processes because of this. It's not possible to do this through the GUI on Mac OS X but it can be done.
I wouldn't be surprised that the Windows version of Photoshop CS3 outperforms the Mac OS X version but I'd be surprised if it works as well where it counts.
It's not unusual to see Windows foreground process outperforming the background processes because of this. It's not possible to do this through the GUI on Mac OS X but it can be done.
I wouldn't be surprised that the Windows version of Photoshop CS3 outperforms the Mac OS X version but I'd be surprised if it works as well where it counts.
You guys can paint these results any way you want, but in reality, this is not good. Not good at all. If you guys take the blinders off for one second, you might realize that "slower" results for a OS X when compared to XP = bad. Don't try to rationalize the results.
I thought there was an article published not long ago, when the beta was first released, that said the mac was actually faster in nearly all operations when running a script.
Edit:
http://hansv.com/cs3/
Edit:
http://hansv.com/cs3/
I thought there was an article published not long ago, when the beta was first released, that said the mac was actually faster in nearly all operations when running a script.
Edit:
http://hansv.com/cs3/
In that test they had Windows XP on a 9GB partition. I don't know much about their setup or their test suite, but that doesn't leave much for scratch disk space or page file (if necessary).
I'll try that out later tonight though.
It's not about rationalising, it's about realising that in terms of print design alone, using a Mac is the defacto standard for good reasons.
We're not going to suddenly get rid of all our G5s and purchase new hardware and software and fonts because we can shave a few seconds off running a filter (something I rarely do anyway).
Besides, if something is taking a long time to chew through something on the Mac, distilling a big PDF for instance, I can still get on and do other things. The context is overall productivity and creativity within an established workflow, something that people in the business well understand, particularly if they're smallish setups and also have to do their own tech support.
So to me, this is more 'by the numbers' thinking, isolated from context. It may come as a surprise to some but having slightly faster software doesn't make you a better designer, production artist, or visual communicator.
Perhaps. I don't have a Windows machine in front of me now.
It might make a difference here and there but it's more important for a rendering farm to have such an advantage than an individual graphic designer.
In fact I know many designers who haven't replaced their G4s yet.
True productivity has never been measured by the speed at which a computer can execute any task... it has always been measured by how well the users of those computers can interact with them to finish the job at hand.
If it was the reverse, then we'd all be buying a bunch of Linux clusters that can execute tasks at speeds unmatched by either Macs or Windows based systems.
In the end, the right set of tools for a job aren't based on horse power alone. I can do tons of things that most computer users can't on systems that range in age from 7 to 12 years old. Why? Because I have the tools needed at hand, they didn't cost me much, and I'm exceptionally productive in the Mac environment.
The fastest Windows system in the world can't offer me that, which is why I've turned down free PCs on numerous occasions. Even completely free (and faster than any Mac I own), a Windows based system isn't worth the space it would take up.
The only time that benchmarks like these are applicable is when all other factors are the same. Seeing as Photoshop on a Windows system is still an inferior product to Photoshop on a Mac, no amount of raw speed increase can ever make up for the impact to a designers productivity.