Switching back to the devil?

Correct for single CPU. Incorrect for dual CPU.

umm...what? Agree that Final Cut could (and will) be better optimized for multi-core. But this has nothing to do with some limitation in OSX. If a particular software you use scales poorly, contact the developer. Well-written software that is cross platform for OSX and Windows scales equally well.

If you are talking about Adobe and After Effects, well, their multi-core implementation on BOTH platforms is horrendous.

 

I'm not entirely sure any of that makes any sense. OS X can use 12 cores just fine, it's just the software that's been hardcoded for 8 cores. Any 8 core limits you hit are going to exist on Windows as well for cross platform apps. When developers update their apps to use 12 cores, it'll be fine.

Most developers lock in an upper limit of cores they allow their app to use, it helps them optimize their code, it has nothing to do with the OS. Whoever suggested that this is an OS X problem, frankly, doesn't have a clue.

High end GPU's has been kind of an issue, although that really depends on your work. If you spend time in something like Smoke, I could see you being annoyed by it. But it's not a major deal for most people. The Radeon 5870 is just fine.

Mac Pros are pretty price competitive. Not sure what the deal is there.

 

No need to rant.
If it doesn't suit your needs, switch.

 

I agree

Apple always makes me laugh, especially Jobs they tout about great new features such as opencl and take for ever to impliment them in their software. What happened to lead by example.

I agree with the OP time for switching is upon me too.

Being a long time mac user one thing that really is beginning to put me off macs is the zeolots can take any critisism againt their beloved system as though it's their very own child.

Grow up and admit apple's software is lagging in every department compared to adobe's

 

Whenever the time rolls around to upgrade then I consider my options and I wouldn't flame anyone for doing the same. Laptops are a lot different than desktops in how I interact with them (I use the laptop screen, I use the laptop keyboard, I use the laptop trackpad, etc.). For a desktop, you may have a favorite mouse, keyboard, and monitor so there is no reason to upgrade those things "just because" you need more computing horsepower.

If you have the luxury of being focused on a single suite, like adobe, then it honestly may not make the slightest bit of difference what OS you are running on. If the most you need is a fast four-core machine you can get a i5 pc for less than $900. However, if you really think you need those 8 (or twelve) cores, then the mac pro is on par for cost with a similarly equipped pc. On the software side of things, developers, sooner or later, are going to need to build their software for an arbitrary number of cores (or have it built on install).

 

Where do you feel Apple needs to implement OpenCL in their software?

OpenCL is not something that can be used for general programming. Like CUDA, it only works in specific circumstances.

I work in both Final Cut and CS5 often, and I write software for both. I was on the beta for CS5. CS5 is a total mess, on both Mac and Windows. FCS isn't much better, but CS5 is really not great.

 

I am a member of the mac mini 123 forum since 2006 I have upgraded and sold over 100 mac mini's. I have given thousands of dollars worth of advice for free on the forum and have tested dozens of pieces of gear for free. Many of the highest mac mini xbench scores and many of the highest geekbench scores are posted be me. Some I own most were sold or built for others> My stick was super big or fast minis that can be turned back to oem in under 30 minutes. When the 2010 mac mini came out I was very critical of it. TWO reasons 98 percent cosmetic and 2 percent performance over the 2009 machines. I still maintain only a

fashion or form person would buy the 2010 mini. I have been ripped by lots of mac freaks over this. I can honestly tell you I have only owned macs and that I have run computers since 1972! My next computer will be this.

http://www.asrock.com/nettop/overview.asp?Model=Vision 3D 137B

 

Many of the quoted comments make a lot of sense. Even though I just bought a new MP for semi-professional use and really like OS X I'm not sure that Apple is committed to anything more than iOS for media sales and media/family use machines like iMacs and minis.

Based on my experience with Aperture 3 and Photoshop CS5 I would absolutely look to Adobe first for pro apps. A3 does some nice things but is a slow running mess compared to CS5. It's that way on both my MBP and MP.

Adobe and Intuit are a lot more committed to Windows platforms. My Late 2009 mini 2.66GHz runs XP Pro and Office 2003 without an OS X installation. Even though OS X uses up to 256MB of RAM for the NVidia card Windows reports that it's using 512MB! Media seems to play peppier on the mini via windows than it did under OS X. Maybe Windows utilizes the hardware more efficiently?

I'll definitely be upgrading my Windows PS CS3 to either CS5 or CS6 so I can remain in the upgrade program for that particular software license. Upgrading the mini to 8GB RAM, a WD 500GB Black HD and Windows 7 64-bit is about a $420.00 deal. I might do that just for a project as that would be a pretty nice, compact Windows machine.

 

Agreed. I was looking forward to a more usable mini, maybe a 3.06GHz i3 chip and a basic ATI GPU as in the iMac. All we got was a perversion of Ives' make-it-thinner and make-it-aluminum design, totally useless for a desktop. A taller box could have housed a real desktop hard drive and some more ports. Needless to say, I'm done with minis. I'll leave them to the Apple TV/iPod crowd.

 

Why did Finder need to be converted to Cocoa?

There is a lot of stuff in this thread that isn't really technically sound. Finder had some issues, but none of them had anything to do with Carbon.

 

If you're just looking at the computer system, this is holds true. Apple's pricing on the Single CPU systems in particular, is absolutely disgusting.

But if there's additional hardware needed, a Windows or Linux based system can end up with an advantage due to the greater availability of potential parts (i.e. hardware RAID can be implemented cheaper in a PC due to the case configurations, as it can reduce or eliminate the need for external drive bays).

Ultimately, it depends on the specific requirements of the user, so additional hardware requirements that can have a notable cost difference between Macs and PC's may or may not be applicable from one individual to another.

Ultimately, the software should be the primary factor in deciding what system to go for IMO (whether it's that a user already has a significant investment in OS X software and training, one OS version has a feature set that can't be lived without,...).

Keep in mind however, that software tends to be developed at different times for the developed platforms (available resources and scheduling). So new features may reach one platform before another, including fixes/updates such as true n core multi-threading (if possible).

Sadly, if they port one platform to another rather than truly develop from a platform specific methodology from the beginning, it tends to be a mess.

Going by recent history, they definitely seem to be more focused on the devices than the computers. And of the computer systems, more attention goes to the laptop and consumer grade desktop systems. Makes sense sadly, as there's more money in any of these areas than the Mac Pro or XServe.

The focus has shifted to devices it seems (iOS based gear), and they've limited programming resources (not seen any evidence that they've gone on a hiring binge to pick up the slack, as they've apparently too many projects and too few people to cover them all properly). So we're seeing increased lag times in product development, and an increased bug count make it into the shipping products.

 

True, but usually the scheduler is cross platform regardless of the thread technology, and it's just a constant that the developer needs to up.

I know that, for example, very little in CS5 is Mac native code. The UI is not even real Cocoa. CS5 is using an abstraction library, which just makes it awful. Software I've written for CS5 behaves much worse than it does under other apps because of this. I can't even get normal copy/paste working because Adobe isn't using native Cocoa text handling. I have a few choice words for describing CS5 suite that I can't say here... It's an awful awful program, and the only reason it's balanced out currently is because it's 64 bit, and Premiere has the Mercury playback engine. When Apple does ship a Cocoa native Final Cut, which they will, I would avoid CS5 at all costs. It's barely a native Mac program, and just watching Console when any of the apps are running shows what a half-a** port it was.

I also, separately, have it on good authority that most the After Effects/Premiere team isn't even based in the US anymore. It was mostly outsourced.

As for multicore scheduling, if the scheduler wasn't well designed. You could end up with a backup in the scheduler, resulting in a overall speed loss, which is why these sorts of things are hard coded.

It's a good example of why people should be adopting LibDispatch, actually, as this is one of the magical things that LibDispatch works to solve.

 

Yet for everything that I can do in both PS CS5 and A3 goes way faster in CS5. Sharpening, correcting CA or saving raws as TIF just blitzes in Camera Raw andr Photoshop while just plugging along in A3.

Photoshop on my 2.4GHz C2D MBP is much faster than A3 on my MP and I don't know why.

 

You can always do what I do. I use both. I have a PC that I built to use Adobe Creative Suite CS5 and I have a 12 core Mac Pro system that I use for FC Studio 3.0. I like both systems and I use both and I feel that I have the best of both worlds.

If a new FC Studio comes out, I will be ready for it.

In the PC, I use the Nvidia GTX 480 and in the Mac Pro I have the 5870.

Just my 2 cents.

Brian

 

While I agree that the differences between OSX and Windows as an application execution environment for Adobe CS are probably insignificant... OSX does seem more stable and snappy to me.

And while this is completely anecdotal, OSX seems to get more performance out of similar or even lesser hardware than Windows. For example, OSX and all my apps ran great on my 1.6GHz Mac Air with just 2GB of RAM. My Dell work laptop with a 2.5GHz processor and 4GB of RAM running XP with our corporate AV client, seems like a dog in comparison.

However, the biggest advantage to a Mac running OSX for me, really has more to do with the Apple ecosystem. As the owner of an iPhone, an iPad, a Mac Mini with Plex for HTPC, and previously an Apple Laptop, there was no comparison to the convenience offered by things like cloud syncing of bookmarks, keychain, settings, email, calendar, docs, etc. via MobileMe, Time Machine for backups, and the ability to keep my iTunes libraries in sync across several machines. That stuff is just gold for a multi-device/machine user for which Windows has no real answer that's anywhere near as simple or convenient.

 

Photoshop is also in pretty bad shape. The entire thing is custom UI. The image processing might be fast, but the app itself is falling apart.

Aperture and FXPlug, on the other hand, are in way better technically, and they're going to transition much better as Apple rev's the products.

A lot of CS5 is even based on a lot of Carbon-y emulation. It's not pretty.

All I'm saying is, long term, don't count Apple out, and certainly don't expect that CS Suite is going to hold together. The code base seems to be a lot like Windows, it's just a few patches from falling apart.

Adobe should have taken the time to do a proper recode of their Mac apps and they didn't.

 

i have to agree , and i really like that asrock mini , looks like the mini Apple should have build instead of that ugly unibody thingy
and i guess it will come lower in price despite more useful ports, so thumbs up for the asrock mini

nevertheless i am still a Mac fan , but i am more fan of older Mac's , from a time when apple did make the leaps forward and did set benchmarks
but today all is about a design that not really pretty in my opinion , but others just love it and windows switchers come in masses and buy Macs because they can run windows and still say they own a Mac , and who can blame them, if you look around all other AIO's are smaller ,and less pretty and nettops bigger out of cheap materials
and most important for most ,dont have the Apple logo ,as Apple still stands for high priced computers , and its a status symbol , nobody says "wow" if you have a acer AIO on your desk , but everyone says "wow you must do well if you can afford a iMac " even if its a 4 year old one like mine and thats the youngest among my 14 Mac's so people who visit me think i must be a multi millionaire because i can afford so many Mac'slucky they dont see my bank statements and have no idea that some are already over 10 years old
Apple sells a image now not a computer

its like in car world nobody looks at your volkswagen phaeton but everybody looks at your bentley continental despite they are the same car underneath

 

It's a sad fact that ported software tends to suffer in some way or another that the user can notice (performance, UI, or both).

From what I've seen (and heard from colleagues), is that it's always boils down to money (ports and partial re-writes are performed rather than total re-writes when they're needed <libraries, core,...>, as it's quite expensive). And as we all know, corporations are in it for the money (invest as little as possible to get something shipped = maximum ROI).

I don't follow these applications all that well, but I'm not surprised that it's happened. Always comes back to greed.... errr.... maximized profit margins.

The base code seems old from what gets posted here on MR (built ages ago, so the multi-threaded operation is all over the place, as they've been unwilling to re-develop it properly with newer tools).

If I had to guess, a good portion of the programming tools used were probably developed in-house, so switching over would mean having to re-develop the tools essentially from scratch (make sure it's able to work properly with newer libraries), as they'd have a mess when attempting to combine it with the mess they've got now.

 

I'm not quite following you. This looks like an interesting package. I don't see an OS anywhere. Are you planning on using Windows 7, Linux, or try to Hackintosh it (difficult to make the BD player work I should think)? The price seems pretty high without an OS.

 

Wish I would have seen this before buying my mini. Apple should have put at least a i3 or an i5 in the new mini. Probably my last Mac I buy. Sold my 2008 Mac pro to build my next editing machine. Close to half the price of a new Mac pro. If apple doesn't hit a home run on the next set of apps, I think allot of apple users will go back to windows. Don't get me wrong, apple does make some outstanding products. But the prices are getting a bit to high for ease of use.

 

Again, as I'm not sure what a lot of complaints in this thread are about...

Why are we disappointed the Mini does not have an i3? The Mini has never been the sort of machine that could even make serious use of an i3.

The Mac Mini has never been an editing machine. Never ever. It's totally not the market. I don't know why anyone would even seriously be disappointed in the mini not being an editing machine.

As far as the graphics, that's pretty simple... Neither the new or old mini has the case profile for one of the ATI GPU's that ship in the iMac, and the ATI GPU's don't currently do H.264 acceleration. The 9400m is more than capable for light editing. (Again, I'm not sure why anyone would be expecting to do serious editing on a Mini in the first place...)

Not to mention, if Apple used an i3, they'd have to adopt Intel Integrated Graphics. So again, I'm not entirely sure what this is about. It seems like the i3, when you think about it, would be a far worse choice for a Mini.

 

Don't think anyone mentioned using the mini as a editing machine. But the fact is apple still using older chips where most pc manufactures moved to the i series processors. A dual core chip with hperthreading would have been a nice upgrade for the mini. Another issue on the mini is why only SL server for a mini with 2 hard drives. Personally, a mini a little taller with an ssd and a 500gb and a DVD would have been almost perfect.

 

Apple do seem to be more focused on their lifestyle hardware and software rather than their pro stuff at the moment. To be honest, I think the only way it'll get better is just by virtue of mainstream tech and CPU's becoming fast enough to do pro work on....The i7 iMac is pretty quick for example, and because of it's looks, is finding itself in more and more trendy design agencies where previously only a Mac Pro would've sufficed.

I'm thinking that Apple have lost interest in the high end. They can get their share price up much quicker by bringing out a new iteration of an iPhone or iPad. They also clearly don't like the idea of pro users upgrading their systems and in the process lengthening the time before they can sell a new pro system. They'd much rather wean us onto a sealed unit that has a finite technology lifespan....To hell with the environmental issues of junking a monitor everytime you want a new Mac.

Their spat with Adobe hasn't helped matters either. I can't comment on the codebase but the creative gravity that Apple + Adobe used to carry is pretty much gone these days. Apple are stepping on more and more of Adobe's toes with Aperture, Final Cut, Logic + Soundtrack Pro etc.

Apple is about selling lifestyle goods that all work together, which in fairness they do very well. If I consider switching, it always comes back to the same thing of not having OS X...It's the main reason I couldn't switch. Windows 7 is better than previous versions but it still doesn't have the integration, functionality and ease of use that OS X does.