OS X on x86 Prototype Boxes

[Tall Guy]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe


I agree w/the all of yer post but this part. Apple already owns the pro video market. The post production industry runs on Apple hardware, and Apple software is gaining ground everyday. Does Apple have a finishing/compositing setup to rival Avid's Symphony, or an SGI box running Smoke/flame? Not yet. But I do agree that's why they bought Nothing Real.


Lethal

Over here in the UK I hardly see any Apple based video editing systems. When I look at any magazines about video editing, the windows based systems always get more coverage = more people use them. If I look at the number of video editing programs out there for windows and compare it with the number available for the Mac, the conclusion has to be that the market for windows based editing systems is bigger than the one for Apple based systems. I'm not discussing quality, just quantity.

Having said that, I sincerely hope Apple will continue to gain ground in the pro video market and a Tremor type of system which could compete directly with Symphony or Flame would be essential in that sort of strategy.

 

[MacAztec]

Re: Re: HOW ABOUT THIS

Originally posted by Scottgfx


Ahhh, you do know that a AMD Athlon 2600 runs at 2.13 Ghz and not 2.6, right? 2600 is a performance rating. If I add my two 1.25Ghz G4s, I think I'm a little ahead. USB2? Not interested. Faster AGP would be nice, but I'm familiar with what the 8X spec would provide.

Ok, hows Dual AMD 2600s? Or Dual Xeons? Or Dual P4s even?

Do you think your still ahead?

 

[Somebody]

Instead of you all talking about apple having an OS X that you can install on a PC and blah blah blah, Apple switches to AMD Motherboards.

Wow! What an amazing new idea! I'm sure nobody here ever thought of that before! It couldn't possibly be the case that this solution has already been brought up and discussed and had its flaws pointed out, right here in this very topic...

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Tall Guy


Over here in the UK I hardly see any Apple based video editing systems. When I look at any magazines about video editing, the windows based systems always get more coverage = more people use them. If I look at the number of video editing programs out there for windows and compare it with the number available for the Mac, the conclusion has to be that the market for windows based editing systems is bigger than the one for Apple based systems. I'm not discussing quality, just quantity.

Having said that, I sincerely hope Apple will continue to gain ground in the pro video market and a Tremor type of system which could compete directly with Symphony or Flame would be essential in that sort of strategy.

Really? I didn't know that.

Here in the states there are more editing apps for PCs than Macs, but they are all low-end consumer/home user (w/the exception of Vegas Video 3 and Premiere which hit the prosumer market), but no one looks at you seriously unless you are using a Mac and FCP or Avid. Since Avid starting going to the PC more I'm starting to see a PC here and a PC there as finishing stations but thats it. People who do corporate work and event (wedding) videographers tend to use Premiere on the PC, but anything having to do w/broadcast or film is, for all intents and purposes, Mac only (sans the finishing suites of course).

Lethal

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by Scottgfx


Ahhh, you do know that a AMD Athlon 2600 runs at 2.13 Ghz and not 2.6, right? 2600 is a performance rating. If I add my two 1.25Ghz G4s, I think I'm a little ahead. USB2? Not interested. Faster AGP would be nice, but I'm familiar with what the 8X spec would provide.

Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right? If I can get a chip at a lower clockspeed that outperforms supposedly faster CPUs at a lower price, I'd buy it.
Your dual 1.25 G4s may be ahead of one 2600+ AMD chip but not by much and definately not by price.
Believe it or not, PC hardware doesn't suck so bad anymore, it's cheap, fast, and suprisigly reliable and long lasting.
Macs and PCs almost use the exact same parts already, save for MB, CPU and video card.

The TCO may have been more for a PC a couple years ago, but that price is lowering fast.

The lines aren't so clear anymore.

 

[Tall Guy]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Really? I didn't know that.

Here in the states there are more editing apps for PCs than Macs, but they are all low-end consumer/home user (w/the exception of Vegas Video 3 and Premiere which hit the prosumer market), but no one looks at you seriously unless you are using a Mac and FCP or Avid. Since Avid starting going to the PC more I'm starting to see a PC here and a PC there as finishing stations but thats it. People who do corporate work and event (wedding) videographers tend to use Premiere on the PC, but anything having to do w/broadcast or film is, for all intents and purposes, Mac only (sans the finishing suites of course).

Lethal

Yeah, I've noticed that the perception of Apple is very different in the States compared to Europe. Maybe it has something to do with the price difference, Apple mac's are perceived as an unnecessary luxury by many people here. On the US Apple website, the top G4 at this moment costs around 4600 dollars, that same machine will sell here for the equivalent of a bit more than 6000 dollars, 30% more. And no, we don't earn more than you. I once worked with an American production company on some commercials, they brought all their kit over here and I was surprised at how Apple oriented they were, and how willing they were to buy all the best stuff, not constantly go for second-best or "good enough". It was the only time I've worked on a production where they used FCP. They even used such outrageous luxuries like AirPorts ! Which was quite a difference from one of the next companies I worked for. They would let their Dell's communicate with each other by burning CD's. They didn't know how to network their computers (sigh).

 

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by edvniow




Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right?

Yes we all know that. But you probly know from bench marks and stuff that practically any new AMD or Intel chip will beat Apples chip, without Dual.

So if you got a Dual Xeon, or a Dual P4 2.8GHz, or Dual AMD 2600+ 2.2GHz, and compared it to a Dual 1.25GHz from Apple, you would know that the PC Chips ARE faster.

heck, for the price of a Dual 1.25 from Apple, you could get Dual AMD with 2GB DDR, 80GB HD, 17in LCD, Wireless KB and Mouse, NICE graphics, Sound Card, Speakers, and STILL have money left over.

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by MacAztec

heck, for the price of a Dual 1.25 from Apple, you could get Dual AMD with 2GB DDR, 80GB HD, 17in LCD, Wireless KB and Mouse, NICE graphics, Sound Card, Speakers, and STILL have money left over.

And that's Apple's problem. It's partially their fault that they have slower chips than the competition and it's partially Moto's.
For the consumer, they're pretty competively priced, compare the specs of the 'i' line to any Dell and the Macs can usually match it. But move on up to the 'pro' line and the price/performance difference increases dramacally.

 

[naschbac]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Perhaps someone more educated in the specifics of the Compaq coupe could shed some light on what Apple could do differently to maintain a "separate but equal" Mac line of hardware/software on x86?

The difference is that Apple is also the software vendor. Apple has license control and intellectual property rights to not only portions of their hardware, but also their software.

IBM simply made some hardware that could run Microsoft's DOS. Had Microsoft been in contract with IBM to only produce versions of DOS capable of running on IBM branded hardware, or had IBM been the primary OS provider and followed such a distribution model then it would have been legal for Compaq to make "IBM PC compatible" computers, but it would have been illegal for them to use DOS on them.

-Nathan

 

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by edvniow




Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right? If I can get a chip at a lower clockspeed that outperforms supposedly faster CPUs at a lower price, I'd buy it.
Your dual 1.25 G4s may be ahead of one 2600+ AMD chip but not by much and definately not by price.
Believe it or not, PC hardware doesn't suck so bad anymore,

Ahhhhhh... I own a dual Athlon 1.2Ghz that I built myself last year. I'm very familiar with them. I almost never boot that thing. I still prefer to use my 733Mhz SINGLE PROCESSOR machine at home.

The new 1.25Ghz G4 dual is at work.

The 733 is older than the Athlon, but I bet you it's got a higher resale value. I just saw in the J&R catalog, a 733 G4 for $1100. I'd probably be lucky to get $500 for the athlon.

 

[Scottgfx]

Originally posted by edvniow




Ahhhhh...you do know that Mhz is only one way to measure a processors performance rating right? If I can get a chip at a lower clockspeed that outperforms supposedly faster CPUs at a lower price, I'd buy it.
Your dual 1.25 G4s may be ahead of one 2600+ AMD chip but not by much and definately not by price.

BTW, if you had taked the time to read the message I was replying to, the writer was trying to say that a XP2600+ processor actually ran at 2.6Ghz or was at least thinking about the possibility. And by the very fact that I brought up the term "Performance Rating" Don't you think I already know about "Megahertz Myth"? *Sigh*

 

[Pepzhez]

Sonic Foundry will be releasing Vegas Video for Linux in December/January. This will actually be quite a big deal, as it makes people like me actually consider buying one of the new Dell boxes which do smoke the current top of the line Power Mac. (Video rendering times cut in HALF!) Much as I hate to admit it, Apple just keeps getting farther and farther behind. I've long been holding out, hoping for a G5 or whatever miracle solution from Apple, but it increasingly looks like it's never going to happen. What I do know - and, again, it really pains me to say this because I do love Macs and I love OS X - is that that Dell box will be even cheaper and probably faster in six months time, while Apple will still be languishing with faux-DDR and miniscule G4 overclocking. A year ago I'd say that Apple was going to be playing catch up for a while to come, but at this point they don't even seem to be in the race. I hope this changes, but does anyone really see any indication that it will?

Believe me, in the video world right now, platform/hardware preference has less to do with Apple loyalty than it does to (understandable) anti-Windows sentiment. Many people have expressed a desire for the best of both worlds, viz. FCP for Linux, running on an ultra-fast (and affordable) Dell box. Of course no one expects Apple to ever make FCP available for anything but Mac OS, but now that Sonic Foundry has taken the plunge, I think we will see some interesting changes very quickly. Vegas Video is an evolving NLE app that, while not possessing as nice of an interface as FCP, it is constantly improving. (It's a hell of a lot better than Premiere, that's for sure). Running any flavor of Windows has always been out of the question, but running Vegas Video (stupid name, really) on ultra-stable (and free) Linux is one hell of an incentive for production houses and individuals to step away from Apple.

Like it or not, this is going to be a HUGE boost for Linux at the expense of Macs in the video industry, and even more so in university production labs.

I'm still sticking with my Macs and OS X, but I can also envision a Linux-based Dell box crunching numbers in no time flat happily churning away on the desk beside my Macs.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to see what impact the Vegas Video/Linux marriage will have on things - and what Apple's response to it will be.