Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Flyzone · Mar 19, 2003, 09:57 AM

I don't think it's nice for adobe to do this for the Mac.

http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html

Telling the costumer to move to PC?

What do u think

fly

chris v · Mar 19, 2003, 10:03 AM

If rendering videos is what you need a box for, then get a fast PC. The truth is the truth.

I personally can't stand working in Windows, and don't render videos, so for me, Macs are fine. Sheer speed is something Apple conceded a couple years ago. Mayber the IBM PPC 970 will change that.

CV

Anand · Mar 19, 2003, 10:23 AM

Yes, but this article does nothing but bash macs. And the results may be the result of poor mac optimization. The thing that would be interesting to see is how several actions in Premire compare to those same actions in FCP (on a mac of course). I think it does highlight Adobe's move away from the Mac. To that end, Apple should protect its market at buy Adobe lock stock and barrel.

bradoesch · Mar 19, 2003, 10:35 AM

It says the test PC is a 2.53 GHz Dell, but all the graphs say it's a 3.06 GHz Dell. Which one is it?

Flyzone · Mar 19, 2003, 10:36 AM

I agree, even if this is the truth, I think is stupid for Adobe to do this. If they want to compare Premiere and FC fine but why PC vs Mac.

Developer · 12:14 PM

This graph is weird. It looks like a minute has 100 seconds!

I you'd divide a minute in ten parts, with 54 seconds the Dell should be at 0.9 minutes, not at 0.54 minutes as shown. The Mac shoud be around 1.4 minutes with 1 minute and 25 seconds.

Eug · Mar 19, 2003, 11:58 AM

Regardless if it's true or not, it bad form to post this on the website. Then again, it's bad form for Apple to constantly bash Msoft.

Originally posted by Anand:
Yes, but this article does nothing but bash macs. And the results may be the result of poor mac optimization. The thing that would be interesting to see is how several actions in Premire compare to those same actions in FCP (on a mac of course). I think it does highlight Adobe's move away from the Mac. To that end, Apple should protect its market at buy Adobe lock stock and barrel.

I thought Adobe is bigger than Apple, no?

Flyzone · Mar 19, 2003, 12:28 PM

Apple can bash M$ and M$ can bash Apple. But Apple can't bash Indesign favouring QXpress or Illustrator for Freehand.

I think we should mail Adobe what we think.

SMacTech · Mar 19, 2003, 12:49 PM

In the text they say the tests are with a 1ghz dual G4, but in the graph it shows a 1.25ghz. Typical of Adobe to do something like that.

Eug · Mar 19, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Flyzone:
Apple can bash M$ and M$ can bash Apple. But Apple can't bash Indesign favouring QXpress or Illustrator for Freehand.

I think we should mail Adobe what we think.

Good point.

I agree with this way of looking at it.

MindFad · Mar 19, 2003, 01:43 PM

Well, that's lame. I agree with Flyzone. And some of those graphs look a bit off? Considering whaat the 970 will bring, and what is holding the Mac back, I am impressed with those tests. I can't wait for the 970.

Flyzone · Mar 19, 2003, 02:02 PM

Maybe Macnn should post the story on the front page so somebody at Apple will notice it and maybe they will use some pressure on Adobe.

It's really bad business for Apple to be bash from a developer and what kind of developer.

funkboy · Mar 19, 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Developer:

This graph is weird. It looks like a minute has 100 seconds!

I you'd divide a minute in ten parts, with 54 seconds the Dell should be at 0.9 minutes, not at 0.54 minutes as shown. The Mac shoud be around 1.4 minutes with 1 minute and 25 seconds.

Wow, Adobe is caught red-handed doing some very tricky graph maneuvering that is just plain wrong. Most people would not notice how wrong it is, but as Developer just showed, it's absolutely incorrect. The difference should be much smaller, with the Mac being about 33% slower (a touch over), not as much as this incorrect bar graph shows.

bradoesch · Mar 19, 2003, 03:10 PM

Wasn't it Apple that helped Adobe get started?

MDA · Mar 19, 2003, 04:40 PM

This doesn't even make any sense. Why would Adobe be in the business of comparing Mac performance to PC performance?

JB72 · Mar 19, 2003, 05:31 PM

That's just Adobe's bitter little way of getting back at Apple about FCP and iPhoto.

:XI: · 05:39 PM

Originally posted by MDA:
This doesn't even make any sense. Why would Adobe be in the business of comparing Mac performance to PC performance?

I was flicking through a software catalogue recently and noticed that the prices for mac versions of adobe products were slightly cheaper than the pc versions (�5-�10). not much, i know, but still�

also, since adobe make mac and pc versions of their software and the consumer (ok, so the article is from 'Digital Producer' indicating a 'pro' audience�) is concerned with speed, all adobe is doing is keeping it's customers informed. even if they can't make clear graphs to save their lives and mention one set of computers in the text and another set in the graphs.

to me, this article doesn't say 'pc's are faster than macs' it says 'adobe should stick to making software and not get involved in 'religious wars''

cowerd · Mar 19, 2003, 06:42 PM

Wasn't it Apple that helped Adobe get started?

No, you could say that Adobe helped get the Mac started. Adobe Postscript+Canon Print Engine+Aldus Pagemaker+Mac=DTP

Hydra · Mar 19, 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Flyzone:
I don't think it's nice for adobe to do this for the Mac.

http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html

Telling the costumer to move to PC?

What do u think

fly

My buddy has a dual Xenon box (very nice and very fast) with a nice Sony DVD burner. He hates me for letting him try my dual 800 G4 with FCP. While he thinks Premire on his box may be a bit faster on his new Dual Xenon, he thinks that FCP is much better optimized for the Mac and Premire is pretty pathetically optimized on the Mac.

If I had a newer Mac ( the dual 800 still ain't no slouch) it would probably be dead even and that he actually thinks FCP is the more polished and impressive app of the two and wishes it was available for Windows. Plus he says DVD burning on the mac wins hands down.

-Jerry C.

MindFad · Mar 19, 2003, 07:38 PM

Well, IBM ditched Xeons in their blade servers for PPC 970s (for the future, I don't know when they're coming), so I sure as gravy can't wait for a dual 970. It'll be in dual -- I know it will. [/wishful thinking] Then you can wow your friend. Well, if you get a 970.

IBM thinks the 970s are good, at least.

Athens · Mar 19, 2003, 07:56 PM

Apple has to get its butt in gear and fast, Adobe is very important to Apple, if they start telling ppl to use PC, schools will listen and then students will learn on PC...

For years Photoshop has always been better on Mac, this is a dark day for a old time mac user like me. I would have never thought it possible.

coolmac · Mar 19, 2003, 08:33 PM

Perhaps Adobe is trying to push Apple into doing what it should have done already, times going by and Apple's selling fewer and fewer Powermac's.

I know the economy isn't helping , but I feel the main reason Apple's Powermac sales are so poor is how behind the times they are with the chips they use.

Flyzone · Mar 20, 2003, 10:35 AM

Sorry, but I think there are other ways to push a company to move forward in another direction. What they did it's bad business for Apple and Adobe.

drmcnutt · Mar 22, 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Flyzone:
Sorry, but I think there are other ways to push a company to move forward in another direction. What they did it's bad business for Apple and Adobe.

Maybe Adobe is tired of taking flak for slower performance of Photoshop and Illustrator in OSX? Those programs work much smoother in OS9 and even Windows, but many people blame Adobe for the slowness when Apple might be the party to blame(Hardware and software limitations)?

DRM

hmurchison2001 · Mar 22, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by drmcnutt:
Maybe Adobe is tired of taking flak for slower performance of Photoshop and Illustrator in OSX? Those programs work much smoother in OS9 and even Windows, but many people blame Adobe for the slowness when Apple might be the party to blame(Hardware and software limitations)?

DRM

Then why does Final Cut Pro run just fine in OSX. Excuses are like ashholes. Adobe has been giving Intel and PCs one long Bravo Juliette for quite sometime and honestly the "sucking" up is quite pathetic. AE sucks for performance. There's a reason why Movies use Shake, Combustion and other Compositers. AE had excellent 3rd party support it seems but they do not have speed.

Hydra · Mar 22, 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Then why does Final Cut Pro run just fine in OSX. Excuses are like ashholes. Adobe has been giving Intel and PCs one long Bravo Juliette for quite sometime and honestly the "sucking" up is quite pathetic. AE sucks for performance. There's a reason why Movies use Shake, Combustion and other Compositers. AE had excellent 3rd party support it seems but they do not have speed.

I agree, Apple has the best NLE in FCP and the best compositor in Shake IMHO. If Adobe had a bake-off of Photoshop showing Macs doing poorly I would be more worried. I think in the end that if Adobe worried more about improving the performance of their products under OSX then maybe they wouldn't need to show how poor the performance of their OWN products are on the platform that many in the field choose to use.

Maybe Apple should threaten to release a FCP/Shake integrated package for Windows to knock Adobe out of the video editing/compositing business once and for all so they can concentrate on their photo editing software. (I think PS7 under OSX is no all that bad- but for a flagship product that took soo long to get native in X it really boggles the mind)

-Jerry C

idyll · Mar 23, 2003, 10:24 AM

I don't understand why Adobe would do such a thing. Are they trying to make customers stop buying the Mac versions of their products?

Superchicken · Mar 23, 2003, 02:10 PM

hmm this really is dumb... good thing i just bought PS Elements with a student discount

After that I really don't need to buy any more adobe programs and I'm not likely to if they're gona bash my platform of choise!

alset · Mar 24, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Flyzone:
I don't think it's nice for adobe to do this for the Mac.

http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html

Telling the costumer to move to PC?

What do u think

fly

People keep saying that they are surprised Adobe would post test results that damage Apple... But what about when Steve stuck his thumb in their eyes about PS being late to OS X at MacWorld SF last year? Steve didn't exactly come off very warm and cuddly, that morning.

Dan

eevyl · Mar 25, 2003, 04:30 AM

I really think this is a stupid move by Adobe.

If I develop software for Windows and Macintosh, I want to sell as much software as I can in both platforms, so I don't go and bash one of them.

Maybe Adobe is suddenly interested in writing software only for Windows (�Microsoft involved? I would not be surprised at all) and is trying to switch their customers to Wintel machines.

However, this is the wrong path to choose I think, if they are pissed about iMovie, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Pro, they should do better instead of crying loud "PCs are faster, it is not our fault".

If this goes on, expect something like "iPhoto Express", and maybe "iPhoto Pro", to show

DBvader · Mar 25, 2003, 06:17 AM

"In the text they say the tests are with a 1ghz dual G4, but in the graph it shows a 1.25ghz. Typical of Adobe to do something like that."

reread. i thought that was pretty intresting. i know t hat ps runs pretty well for the mac, and is optimized well (both CPUs compute their hearts out). that said my Dual 867 is less responsive than my 2000+.

of course my 2000+ blew itself up lasts week...i gotta fix that...

DBvader · Mar 25, 2003, 06:19 AM

btw, guys, adobe isnt bashing anyone, they are posting an article. i always thought tests like this were retarded, becuase it presents one side of a story. PCs, though, do have faster srchitecture right now...maybe that will change once the 97 and panther roll around.

Mark Tungston · Mar 25, 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by DBvader:
btw, guys, adobe isnt bashing anyone, they are posting an article. i always thought tests like this were retarded, becuase it presents one side of a story. PCs, though, do have faster srchitecture right now...maybe that will change once the 97 and panther roll around.

in this side of the video story....

macs lose hand down because it's true.

KidRed · Mar 25, 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by DBvader:
btw, guys, adobe isnt bashing anyone, they are posting an article. i always thought tests like this were retarded, becuase it presents one side of a story. PCs, though, do have faster srchitecture right now...maybe that will change once the 97 and panther roll around.

Really? Look at the link, the file/web page is titled PC PERFERRED. Ah, that says to me, on Adobe's site that they preferr PCs. If Macromedia had a MACS PREFERRED page with article on a mac trouncing a Dell, how do yo think that would be received?

Maybe Apple should do a FCP PREFERRED page, or a QUARK PREFERRED page or something. I prey we get the 970 and it's as fast as we are being told. I prey, because then we will be able to spit in a lot of PC reporter's faces, Adobe's face, Dell's face, that Video magazine "macs trounced again' article and everyone else who talked crap. We need this bad.

Laurence · Mar 25, 2003, 11:06 AM

The graphs are definitely incorrect, it seems like whoever created them was working under the assumption that a minute is composed of 100 seconds.

Anyway, since I have two computers in front of me at work, I decided to test a few Photoshop filters and see if the difference was really that great. The Mac is the new 1GHz G4 with 512MB RAM stock from Apple. The PC is a Dell Optiplex 260 2GHz P4 with 512MB RAM. Both have Photoshop 7.0.1 installed on the newest OS. (10.2.4 vs XP w/SP1)

I created an new image at 10000x10000 pixels and applied the Render:Clouds filter. The Dell took 2:10 and the Mac 2:15. Next I applied Distort:Ripple. After 4 minutes the PC said it couldn't complete the filter due to lack of RAM. The Mac finished after about an hour. (This was due to HD paging as PS seemed to be using around 850MB of VM. It seems clear that if anything the Mac came out on top.

These aren't the top of the line machines on either side, but they are typical of what is in use in most businesses. I do agree that Apple needs to get the 970 machines out as soon as possible, but the situation is not anywhere near as bad as some people would like you to think.

rafaelperini · Mar 25, 2003, 11:25 AM

They published that page because they are selling DELLs!!!

Look at the link at the bottom:

http://www.adobe.com/motion/gear/main.html

Easy explanation!!!! It's all money! Nothing to do with performance!

CharlesS · Mar 25, 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Developer:

This graph is weird. It looks like a minute has 100 seconds!

I you'd divide a minute in ten parts, with 54 seconds the Dell should be at 0.9 minutes, not at 0.54 minutes as shown. The Mac shoud be around 1.4 minutes with 1 minute and 25 seconds.

Probably they used Pentiums to do their math. That would explain it.

Gee4orce · Mar 26, 2003, 01:47 AM

The graphs look OK now - have they been modified ? Looks like we caught Adobe with red hands there...

IFLY2HIGH · Mar 26, 2003, 02:15 AM

What's funny to me is that the pc is running 2.4 times faster as the mac, and you only have to wait 31 seconds longer to complete it's task. Really the PC should be doing this alot faster than advertised.

Mac's Rule!!

Hi I'm Ben · Mar 26, 2003, 03:37 PM

lol.

give me a break guys. "The mac is only 30 seconds slower" and only 700$ more.

30 seconds more for each one of those operations.
So. Lets say I own this huge company and PC is not only WAY Cheaper per unit BUT It's also faster. Which would you choose? The sad thing is i think most of you out there would still say mac with dumb reasoning like "They never break down" or "The PC has an ugly and hard to use interface", Well let me tell you, if you were going to be in my designing company and found the interface of our computers too confusing for your liking I would fire you, because I don't need trash employees.

Who cares how bias those graphs look just read the numbers and it still shows that the PC is faster, even the 2.5 is faster then the mac in EVERY CATAGORY. Don't be blind to the world right now mac just isn't on its ballgame as far as processors go. I think that's the reason I sold my Cube and am buying a PC. I'm also going to buy an ibook, because i like the design and I don't need speed on a laptop.

Yes OS X is nice, It's a very "pretty" OS and also very powerful. Is it really that much better then windows to me? No, not really it's got a dock and cooler icons. Maybe a few slick programs that i'll miss.I think i can deal with that for the money I just saved and the speed I'll have with less frustration. Oh the joys of having functional web browsers, good chat clients and overall compatibility again.

No i'm not a troll. I'm just not blind to the obvious and I'm always open to what is the best in the market.

zubro · Mar 26, 2003, 04:46 PM

I agree with you 100%!
I am working in the video industry in a studio where we make menus for DVDs...
and we got a RenderFarm with fat pentiumz to work on our animations.
But where you are wrong, is that I work on a Windoz2000 ("the most stable of all"(4 years old technology?)) based PC and it is fast ok but not stable at all!
So, instead of waisting my time with such a machine, I prefer to have a good slow mac that can insure me a correct workflow.
Yes! "Workflow" keyword in a pro environment isn t it? ;o)

That s why the slow but stable macs will always be there!

(I m writing this on my iBook! ;o)

rustyclockwork · Apr 1, 2003, 11:10 AM

GUYS GUYS GUYS

don't you realize, those tests are inaccurate? The adobe test showed a mac against a pc, the person operating the mac was probably also jamming to some iTunes, watching a Quicktime movie, Rendering and Burning a DVD, chatting with someone on AOL, and doing some AutoCad work via VirtualPC. Of course the PC would be a little faster this way, but I wonder how many times they had to reboot it from the weird lockups...

us mac users, I tell you... busy busy busy...

I switched last year, I'll never go back, the time I spent rebooting and fixing my winblows machines are all used on productivity. PS- I used windows 3.1, 95, 98's, NT and 2000... I've heard XP is a really good OS, but I wouldn't know, Gates has made too much money off of me, and now I'm giving Steve a chance, so far I'm NOT dissapointed.

Jason

Cipher13 · Apr 2, 2003, 07:03 AM

Heh. PS7 on OSX blows. I'd recommend a PC for it too.

voodoo · Apr 2, 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Heh. PS7 on OSX blows. I'd recommend a PC for it too.

I only recommend a PC to someone I don't like

Hi I'm Ben · Apr 2, 2003, 10:53 AM

um no? no one does a benchmark for a program with a ton of othercrap running to show maximum preformance. Just face it, the mac is slower.

Originally posted by rustyclockwork:
GUYS GUYS GUYS

don't you realize, those tests are inaccurate? The adobe test showed a mac against a pc, the person operating the mac was probably also jamming to some iTunes, watching a Quicktime movie, Rendering and Burning a DVD, chatting with someone on AOL, and doing some AutoCad work via VirtualPC. Of course the PC would be a little faster this way, but I wonder how many times they had to reboot it from the weird lockups...

us mac users, I tell you... busy busy busy...

I switched last year, I'll never go back, the time I spent rebooting and fixing my winblows machines are all used on productivity. PS- I used windows 3.1, 95, 98's, NT and 2000... I've heard XP is a really good OS, but I wouldn't know, Gates has made too much money off of me, and now I'm giving Steve a chance, so far I'm NOT dissapointed.

Jason

idyll · Apr 2, 2003, 03:06 PM

Hi I'm Ben has a few good points. It all comes down to what you prefer working on, though. I could get away with both, as I have been a PC user for quite some time (4 years or so) and use a Mac at work. But I know a few people who have never worked on a Windows machine and thus are a lot faster working on their preferred platform, the Mac.

Windows XP is stable, fast, and most of all snappy. It lacks in the aesthetics department but it'll have to do until Apple releases something to surprise us all. I have always been a fan of Apple and always will. But time = $$$ and since the PC even costs less than a PowerMac there's nothing I can do. This is a fact that frustrates me, and hopefully WWDC will change things.

hmurchison2001 · Apr 2, 2003, 07:21 PM

Yes OS X is nice, It's a very "pretty" OS and also very powerful. Is it really that much better then windows to me? No, not really it's got a dock and cooler icons. Maybe a few slick programs that i'll miss.I think i can deal with that for the money I just saved and the speed I'll have with less frustration. Oh the joys of having functional web browsers, good chat clients and overall compatibility again.

Yes you are trolling. That's quite alright though. We all do it on occaision. Judging from the importance of Browsers, Chat Clients and "whatever" you've tossed into the "compatibilty" catagory I can understand why you see little difference between OSX and Windows. My experience have always been in the middle. PC's are never THAT much faster and Macs are NEVER that much easier. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

MindFad · Apr 2, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
30 seconds more for each one of those operations.
So. Lets say I own this huge company and PC is not only WAY Cheaper per unit BUT It's also faster. Which would you choose? The sad thing is i think most of you out there would still say mac with dumb reasoning like "They never break down" or "The PC has an ugly and hard to use interface", Well let me tell you, if you were going to be in my designing company and found the interface of our computers too confusing for your liking I would fire you, because I don't need trash employees.

In my experience, I'm much more comfortable working on the Mac OS, and I do -- which is hard for people to believe, though I don't know why -- get things done faster. In some cases it does down to seconds, minutes, or perceivable speed when browsing the damn web. Like people have said before pick the tool that's right for you, what you're comfortable with. I'm going to need a new machine for more major 3-D work and rendering, which is why I will just go ahead and hold out for the 970.

Really, though, I agree with Cipher on Photoshop for OS X. It really needs some work. It's pathetic in OS X, even on my dual 800. My GF's G3 in OS 9 makes Photoshop feels more responsive compared to mine in X. Adobe needs to kick the problems in the nuts for the next release. And Apple needs to speed up X a whole lot more, especially in the area of scrolling. I'll whine about it until they fix it; it's sad.

drmcnutt · Apr 3, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Then why does Final Cut Pro run just fine in OSX. Excuses are like ashholes. Adobe has been giving Intel and PCs one long Bravo Juliette for quite sometime and honestly the "sucking" up is quite pathetic. AE sucks for performance. There's a reason why Movies use Shake, Combustion and other Compositers. AE had excellent 3rd party support it seems but they do not have speed.

Final Cut Pro and now Express is sold and developed by Apple. Do you think Apple would work with Adobe to build a better video editing package at the expense of it's own software?

It may be sour grapes on Adobe's part, but as I pointed out before their software (Photoshop-Illustrator) works pretty well on one of the OS's that Apple turns out (hint-OS9). I think they're responding to Apple's sudden interest in software development for everything from photo editing to presentation software. Maybe if Apple would return it's focus to Os development and hardware they might make software companies happier to work with them.

Adobe isn't the only one either. Intuit just returned to the Mac with Quicken after five years of no development. Macromedia regularily debuts products for the PC before the Mac like Contribute. It's happening all over. So maybe that's why Apple is developing it's own software, a catch-22.

DRM

icruise · Apr 7, 2003, 08:15 PM

Is it just me, or is the page in question no longer on the Adobe site?