neo1980 Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 by David Nagel There's a fallacious line of reasoning that says that the faster a machine is, the better. We've been witness, of late, to new benchmark studies showing that current-generation AMD and Intel chips are faster than the current-generation chips found in Macintosh computers in real-world software tests running After Effects and Photoshop, not just clock speed. And this has led some to conclude that Windows-based PCs are, therefore, better machines and that the Mac is now obsolete. Wrong. Now, I'm no Apple apologist. Apple, like all companies, can make some incredibly ridiculous moves. (The .Mac initiative is a good recent example.) And I'm not going to sit here and defend everything the company does. In fact, I've written several articles chastising Jobs & Co. for some of their blunders in the past. I'm also not a big fan of Motorola. They make the G4 chip that ships in Macintosh computers. Personally, I don't care what chip my Mac runs on, as long as I get some decent performance out of it, which the G4 does provide, even if it's not the same performance as an Intel or AMD chip--at present. To me, a Mac would still be a Mac even if it were running on an AMD processor, just as a Mac is still a Mac even though it's integrated several PC technologies, like PCI, AGP, USB, ATA/IDE and PC100 SDRAM. So, as far as I'm concerned, Motorola could go out of business tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect me in the least. I simply do not equate that company with my computer platform. But regardless of my feelings about Apple and Motorola, I am, to the core, a Macintosh devotee--and with good reasons. The issue of which processor can render which file more quickly is an incredibly minor one, especially if you're only talking about a very small difference and that much of this difference has to do with a particular program's inability to use multiple processors efficiently on the Mac, as is the case with After Effects and Photoshop. (Our own "Apples to Apples" benchmarks clearly show this.) This is obviously a situation that can be rectified through better programming. But even if it were not a software issue and purely a processor issue, it still wouldn't matter. Macs and PCs have leapfrogged each other in processor performance from the very beginning. First the Mac was faster, then the PC. The PC was faster for a long time, and then the Mac caught up and surpassed Intel with the PowerPC processor. Then Intel caught up again until the G4 Macs came out. And for quite some time, even though the G4 ran at lower clock speeds, it was still faster in real-world tests than Pentiums. Recently AMD and Intel have both passed up the G4--though nowhere near enough to judge the Mac "obsolete," as some have. So guess what's coming next? Yes, that's right, the Mac will pass the PC once again, and then we on the Mac platform will be squawking about how fast our systems are, though the difference, as has always been the case, will no doubt be negligible. Clearly, no matter which system you invest in, something faster is just around the corner, whether it's on your same platform or another. Computers are still very much in their infancy, and these incremental speed increases will continue for decades until the differences are no longer meaningful. As it stands, processor speeds are already irrelevant for consumers running spreadsheets, viewing movies, e-mailing relatives and whatever else consumers do with their computers. In fact, it's beyond me why consumers ever upgrade their systems at all. There's no difference between running Microsoft Word 3 on an 8 MHz Mac SE and running Word 200x on a Pentium 4. We, as professionals in the visual arts, put more demand on our systems and are always trying to squeeze as much juice as possible out of them. But the answer to rendering speed is so simple, it's beyond me why we even talk about it. Slap together a cheap render farm, and there's no longer an issue. What is the issue--and I keep trying to hammer this home in all my reviews of hardware and software--is workflow and functionality. And here there simply is no question that the Mac outperforms the PC--not just in the way the operating system looks, as so many like to talk about, but in what it does and how well it works for you. The Mac is a tool engineered to facilitate its human operators, not to get in the way; a piece of equipment geared for the creative process; and a machine manufactured to work without fail. And, for the most part, the Mac does live up to this promise, although individual developers can and do come along to muck it up a bit. (I personally have no doubts as to why a simple text editor like Microsoft Word can cause a kernel panic in the near-infallible Mac OS X.) What does a 20-minute difference in render speed mean when you lose 20 minutes of productivity recovering from a Windows crash? If a program crashes on Mac OS X, you don't reboot. You just relaunch the program, and everything works without a hitch. What about setting up the machine? Networking? Installing third-party software and hardware? Not a problem on the Mac. What about color management? Windows produces nothing even remotely resembling accurate color. ColorSync on the Mac makes color calibration a simple (and accurate) process. And what about workflow? There is nobody in the world who could convince me or any other person who has worked on a Mac that Windows has a superior workflow. Take any two of the same programs, and you will get the job done faster on the front end on the Mac. read full here http://www.digitalmediadesigner.com/site/homeset1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravager Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 What a load of bull! Honestly NONE of the reasons stated here appeal to me. Color management? WTF? I've never encountered a problem with Windows color management. I've seen tests online where a single processor pentium beat a dual 1ghz Mac. The only reason they say the Mac will surpass the PC is because Macs are sold as packages. You have your G4, G3, iMac. With PCs, you have different components. You don't have PCs that follow a G4, or iMac line. Hell, if you want a super PC you can go out and get a 3.2ghz P4 with 512 megs or DDR ram with a GeForce 4 ti4600 and 120 gig drive. Yet that doesn't work for many because it's not sold as a single package. Too many people don't like shopping around for top-notch performance. Many people, in my opinion, prefer to grab a ready-to-go system. And for God's sake could you Mac users please stop b*tching about Windows crashing? Here's the simple and true line: Windows will not crash if you don't tweak it like hell and rip it apart. And hell, even if Windows does crash, it's because not every program out there is made or endorsed by Microsoft, like Apple does. Apple makes sure almost all programs on the Mac are compatible. Windows has the advantage that it has many programs that can further facilitate the usage. I'm using Powermenu here, and I'll be damned if Microsoft endorsed it or gave it a "seal of will not crash on your system". Through my life, since the days of Windows 95 (not including 3.1, which I also have used) I learned one thing. Windows will not crash if you don't do anything to make it crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo1980 Posted August 3, 2002 Author Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by Ravager What a load of bull! Honestly NONE of the reasons stated here appeal to me. Color management? WTF? I've never encountered a problem with Windows color management. I've seen tests online where a single processor pentium beat a dual 1ghz Mac. The only reason they say the Mac will surpass the PC is because Macs are sold as packages. You have your G4, G3, iMac. With PCs, you have different components. You don't have PCs that follow a G4, or iMac line. Hell, if you want a super PC you can go out and get a 3.2ghz P4 with 512 megs or DDR ram with a GeForce 4 ti4600 and 120 gig drive. Yet that doesn't work for many because it's not sold as a single package. Too many people don't like shopping around for top-notch performance. Many people, in my opinion, prefer to grab a ready-to-go system. Colour management meaning it shows better colours and better configured colours than PC's . where did u see that test, in the grocery store, the real tests are done by the major industry professionals and he says himself , speed isnt important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLdFuSi0n Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 i'm sorry but i'd prefer to have a PC just that fact that its way ****ing more upgradeable then the ****ing macs :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravager Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by neo1980 Colour management meaning it shows better colours and better configured colours than PC's . where did u see that test, in the grocery store, the real tests are done by the major industry professionals and he says himself , speed isnt important Not a grocery store. I saw a test posted on a respected website which has been posted on Neowin. And real and better colors. I think that solely means Aqua looks better than Windows, which I agree. But what else is there in terms of color management? If you ask me, I think that a complaint about color management is a kind of cheap shot to get people to like the Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by Ravager If you ask me, I think that a complaint about color management is a kind of cheap shot to get people to like the Mac. I'm not a professional graphic artist but I would assume that color management is very imprtant to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconman Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by Ravager What a load of bull! Honestly NONE of the reasons stated here appeal to me. Color management? WTF? I've never encountered a problem with Windows color management. I've seen tests online where a single processor pentium beat a dual 1ghz Mac. The only reason they say the Mac will surpass the PC is because Macs are sold as packages. You have your G4, G3, iMac. With PCs, you have different components. You don't have PCs that follow a G4, or iMac line. Hell, if you want a super PC you can go out and get a 3.2ghz P4 with 512 megs or DDR ram with a GeForce 4 ti4600 and 120 gig drive. Yet that doesn't work for many because it's not sold as a single package. Too many people don't like shopping around for top-notch performance. Many people, in my opinion, prefer to grab a ready-to-go system. And for God's sake could you Mac users please stop b*tching about Windows crashing? Here's the simple and true line: Windows will not crash if you don't tweak it like hell and rip it apart. And hell, even if Windows does crash, it's because not every program out there is made or endorsed by Microsoft, like Apple does. Apple makes sure almost all programs on the Mac are compatible. Windows has the advantage that it has many programs that can further facilitate the usage. I'm using Powermenu here, and I'll be damned if Microsoft endorsed it or gave it a "seal of will not crash on your system". Through my life, since the days of Windows 95 (not including 3.1, which I also have used) I learned one thing. Windows will not crash if you don't do anything to make it crash. I agree with you totally :ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravager Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 I'm not anti-mac. I just think that these bases for arguements are preposterous. *EDIT* Never mind, the other guy deleted his post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timan Veteran Posted August 3, 2002 Veteran Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by Ravager I'm not anti-mac. I just think that these bases for arguements are preposterous. *EDIT* Never mind, the other guy deleted his post. yea i deleted dont want to make this flame war bigger but i know for a fact 80% of hte people here are anti mac and the 79% of them are funny cause they make their desktops look like one :p no i was not exactly directing it at u. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deadzombie Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 There are arguements for both types of systems to be used in many types of design jobs. I disregard this guys opinion because the VERY FIRST THING a design professional learns on any computer system is to save repeatedly! I gaurantee the save keyboard shortcuts are used by design professionals more than any other keyboard combo available to any OS. Crashes happen on any OS. With PC's it's a blue screen(very rare) or a lock up, with Mac's it's a system freeze up; either way it's annoyance, but not a disaster to a true professional. Color management tools of equal caliber are available for both PC and Mac. Macs used to dominate in 2d graphics through superior imaging hardware and code; PC's have caught up and surpassed the Mac in some ares-> it's just that PC's are rarely optimized for 2d properly. PC's used to dominate 3d graphics and rendering; now Macs have more than caught up, again surpassing PC's in some areas. It's all computers people. High end Mac hardware is quality. OSX is an amazing OS. WinXP overcomes so many problems that plagued MS 9X OS's...the list goes on. Oh, and Macs can play almost all the games a PC can now. Freaking amazing...it's like comparing Apples and oranges;) Unfortunatly I predict PC will dominate the design market over the next few years because of 2 factors; They are capable of handeling quality design work. And they are less expensive to deploy. With the World Markets heading south companies are looking to save every penny. That's kinda sad...I like Macs status as a high end design machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenno Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by Ravager What a load of bull! Honestly NONE of the reasons stated here appeal to me. Color management? WTF? I've never encountered a problem with Windows color management. I've seen tests online where a single processor pentium beat a dual 1ghz Mac. The only reason they say the Mac will surpass the PC is because Macs are sold as packages. You have your G4, G3, iMac. With PCs, you have different components. You don't have PCs that follow a G4, or iMac line. Hell, if you want a super PC you can go out and get a 3.2ghz P4 with 512 megs or DDR ram with a GeForce 4 ti4600 and 120 gig drive. Yet that doesn't work for many because it's not sold as a single package. Too many people don't like shopping around for top-notch performance. Many people, in my opinion, prefer to grab a ready-to-go system. And for God's sake could you Mac users please stop b*tching about Windows crashing? Here's the simple and true line: Windows will not crash if you don't tweak it like hell and rip it apart. And hell, even if Windows does crash, it's because not every program out there is made or endorsed by Microsoft, like Apple does. Apple makes sure almost all programs on the Mac are compatible. Windows has the advantage that it has many programs that can further facilitate the usage. I'm using Powermenu here, and I'll be damned if Microsoft endorsed it or gave it a "seal of will not crash on your system". Through my life, since the days of Windows 95 (not including 3.1, which I also have used) I learned one thing. Windows will not crash if you don't do anything to make it crash. Your reply impressed me. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havyn Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 macs will probably be a niche market for quite a while, where they once dominated in the home. this is unfortunate, but it also shows that there are still some people who _require_ the use of a mac to get their jobs done efficiently. if everything could be done perfectly and with equal efficiency on a PC, macs would be no more. my family owns one of the original Macintosh's from the 1980s, and it is definitely LIGHTYEARS ahead of any Atari-type POS that DOS-based hardware or software had at the time. it is still as fully functional as when my dad bought it. the reason why PCs are so much more common is because the hardware was not a licensed part of the market. Apple chose to make it's own hardware, exclusively, and has done a _damn good job_ with it, but it makes products more expensive (when all R&D and manufacturing is internal). no, macs do not 'suck' as many people here think. they do a few things really well, better than their PC counterparts, and the rest they do acceptably well. they are designed to give people something to work WITH, not ON, when they talk about 'using a computer' they mean it - they use it to get work done, rather than trying to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explicative Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 "Macs have the greatest design ever, wow I love the imac, OSX's workflow does your work for you, when windows crashes it takes 300 days to fix it, I hate microsoft, pcs don't work for artists, steve jobs is the messiah, transparent cases make me feel good about myself, macs never crash, only my g4 understands me, macs make you feel good about overpaying, mhz ratings don't mean anything, you can't be creative unless your computer looks like a lamp, blah blah blah..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by Explicative "Macs have the greatest design ever, wow I love the imac, OSX's workflow does your work for you, when windows crashes it takes 300 days to fix it, I hate microsoft, pcs don't work for artists, steve jobs is the messiah, transparent cases make me feel good about myself, macs never crash, only my g4 understands me, macs make you feel good about overpaying, mhz ratings don't mean anything, you can't be creative unless your computer looks like a lamp, blah blah blah..." You could very easily switch that around. Windows users (not all of course) are just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deadzombie Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 My most hated system; A 400mhz Compaq PC I ran into a few years ago. *!@!!$ peice of %$#!! Most loved system; Dual 650 mhz XEON with 4GB cass1 ram/ Elsa Quadro Pro, 21" flatscreen...purely for 3d rendering. God that system was sweet...and just blazed through everything. Irony is, the guy that owned the custom dual Xeon worked for Compaq...he wouldnt buy any of his companies systems!!! Macs kinda fall closer to the high end of my favorites more than they do the low end. Although, there was that brand new G3 set up at that Kinkos a few years ago that I HAD to work on to finish a correction in a project at the last minute...they had set it up so badly, it kept having problems...probably second most hated system ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravager Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 Originally posted by deadzombie My most hated system; A 400mhz Compaq PC I ran into a few years ago. *!@!!$ peice of %$#!! Most loved system; Dual 650 mhz XEON with 4GB cass1 ram/ Elsa Quadro Pro, 21" flatscreen...purely for 3d rendering. God that system was sweet...and just blazed through everything. Irony is, the guy that owned the custom dual Xeon worked for Compaq...he wouldnt buy any of his companies systems!!! Macs kinda fall closer to the high end of my favorites more than they do the low end. Although, there was that brand new G3 set up at that Kinkos a few years ago that I HAD to work on to finish a correction in a project at the last minute...they had set it up so badly, it kept having problems...probably second most hated system ever. I don't blame you. Compaqs are the scourge of the PC world. Any sane person would stay far away from those and build their own PCs (another drawback of the Mac, you can't customize it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted August 3, 2002 Veteran Share Posted August 3, 2002 Not wanting to get into the whole Mac/PC thing for fear of insanity, but color correction is massively important in the print industry so a good combination of the hardware and software to provide this is essential, be it a PC or a Mac. Do your own research as to which platform is better at handling colours. Oh, and someone related the colour issue to the Aqua theme earlier, WTF?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deadzombie Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 Really color correction comes down to hardware and the support an OS has for that hardware. And a little helpful FYI for everyone; Macs can be customized! Fully themed, desktops, folder backgrounds, icons...you name it, Mac can change it. Even the little dock poofs in OSX can be customized! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vraa Posted August 3, 2002 Share Posted August 3, 2002 I am into PC's and not Mac's because mainly its the mainstream right now. I don't want someone to give me bullcrap that in the graphics industry or some industry macs are mainstream because you know what? I don't give a darn because i'm 14 and even though i might know how to build a computer or use a mac doens't mean my computer illiterate friend does. Psh, he uses AOL and he asks me, how do you check your mail? COME ON! By focusing my talents on PC and more specificly Windows i can help the n00bs work through the complicated world of computers. If i was in the graphics industry i would probable take a Mac mainly because they have the REPUTATION. Its not benchmarks, its a reputation that stands behind that company which makes me partial towards that company. All my friends which know stuff about computers say Mac's are more powerful. Even if they did see the new finding in which the Mac got beat by a PC they still would probably say macs are still better suited for graphics because of the reputation. It's kinda like how i choose AMD for my next systems. I choose it because i have had it before and i like the underdog, kiddie, status and the love of building it your own. Intel doesn't have the status in my eye. I love nVidia because to me it says that we are a company by gamers for gamers.. thats why we ate 3dfx. Macs are awesome, PC's are awesome. No one really give a good darn crap if i can render a friggin image in 13hours or 13 hours and 20 seconds. Its that can you even start the program to render the image and like it. Does it suit your tastes. I have respect for Mac's and its followers. I'm pretty sure a lot of you have the same vice-versa and some of yall will just think i'm another freshman thats a n00b. For the former, i salute you, the latter, well screw you :p Well thats the end of my rant and rave! Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts