Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Codename · Jul 6, 2002, 07:30 PM

Since <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205" target="_blank">Macs are no longer the fastest at Photoshop</a>, I guess that means Steve will have to go back to Bytemarks? Athlon MP systems are almost twice as fast as a dual 1GHz G4 Mac.

Edit: It seems like new dual 1GHz benchmarks are catching up due to better testing methods. However, they are still behind compared to cheaper x86 PC's.

[ 07-09-2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Codename ]

MacGorilla · Jul 6, 2002, 07:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Since <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205" target="_blank">Macs are no longer the fastest at Photoshop</a>, I guess that means Steve will have to go back to Bytemarks? Athlon MP systems are almost twice as fast as a dual 1GHz G4 Mac.<hr /></blockquote>I am skeptical of all benchmark and what processor is faster than another. Remember, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · Jul 6, 2002, 07:43 PM

Meh.

Codename · Jul 6, 2002, 07:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacGorilla:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Since <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205" target="_blank">Macs are no longer the fastest at Photoshop</a>, I guess that means Steve will have to go back to Bytemarks? Athlon MP systems are almost twice as fast as a dual 1GHz G4 Mac.<hr /></blockquote>I am skeptical of all benchmark and what processor is faster than another. Remember, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.<hr /></blockquote>Typical Mac user response. If the benchmarks said the opposite, I'm sure you'd be jumping with joy for your Mac.

[ 07-06-2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Codename ]

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · Jul 6, 2002, 07:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /><hr /></blockquote>Typical Mac user response. If the benchmarks said the opposite, I'm sure you'd be jumping with joy for your Mac.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Will a fast processor help you land a date or get porn faster?

smacintush · Jul 6, 2002, 07:58 PM

Well, this is pretty much pointless considering that Apple has NEVER staged a bake-off against an Athlon system, only Intel's.

Besides, that's NOW, you have to consider what may be coming in Apple's NEXT release, not months old hardware.

rampant · Jul 6, 2002, 08:01 PM

Apple always has months-old hardware. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

Codename · Jul 6, 2002, 08:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
Well, this is pretty much pointless considering that Apple has NEVER staged a bake-off against an Athlon system, only Intel's.
<hr /></blockquote>Look through that thread more carefully. Every Intel system tested beats the dual 1GHz G4. And these are single processor P4 systems. Apple plays it unfair with two versus one and still can't beat them?

And this isn't some rigged test like Steve might run. This is a comprehensive and systematic run of all major Photoshop operations.

[ 07-06-2002, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Codename ]

smacintush · Jul 6, 2002, 08:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
Well, this is pretty much pointless considering that Apple has NEVER staged a bake-off against an Athlon system, only Intel's.
<hr /></blockquote>Look through that thread more carefully. Every Intel system tested beats the dual 1GHz G4. And these are single processor P4 systems.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry dude, I was actually replying to your post only. I never really bought into Steve's bake-offs anyway.

Millennium · Jul 6, 2002, 08:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
Well, this is pretty much pointless considering that Apple has NEVER staged a bake-off against an Athlon system, only Intel's.
<hr /></blockquote>Look through that thread more carefully. Every Intel system tested beats the dual 1GHz G4. And these are single processor P4 systems. Apple plays it unfair with two versus one and still can't beat them?

And this isn't some rigged test like Steve might run. This is a comprehensive and systematic run of all major Photoshop operations.<hr /></blockquote>...except that no Mac has run the tests yet, if I understand this correctly. They're comparing old benchmarks to their new ones.

This isn't to say that Apple doesn't need to dump Motorola. Not that they should move to the royally inferior x86 architecture; what they need to do is buy out Moto's share of the AIM alliance and then license the AltiVec and related specs to IBM or NVidia or AMD or someone with a decent process. Then have them make the chips, and I guarantee you the MHz gap will be gone within two years.

Not many people know this, but IBM had G3 prototypes at 1-GHz back before they'd even started mass production (also, I might add, before Intel broke the barrier). If they could do it with a G3 back then, just think of what they could do with the G4 or G5 now.

The problem is not with the PowerPC architecture, which on paper demolishes x86 in every single aspect, including price. The problem is the company which is currently making the chips. That has to change.

Codename · Jul 6, 2002, 08:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
Well, this is pretty much pointless considering that Apple has NEVER staged a bake-off against an Athlon system, only Intel's.
<hr /></blockquote>Look through that thread more carefully. Every Intel system tested beats the dual 1GHz G4. And these are single processor P4 systems. Apple plays it unfair with two versus one and still can't beat them?

And this isn't some rigged test like Steve might run. This is a comprehensive and systematic run of all major Photoshop operations.<hr /></blockquote>...except that no Mac has run the tests yet, if I understand this correctly. They're comparing old benchmarks to their new ones.
<hr /></blockquote>Read through the topic carefully please. It's three pages long.

Here's a graph from page three.

<img src="http://www.pegasus3d.com/ps7bench3.gif" alt=" - " />

MikeM32 · Jul 6, 2002, 08:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I am skeptical of all benchmark and what processor is faster than another. Remember, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.<hr /></blockquote>Statistics don't prove anything, 14% of people know that

Actually it really doesn't matter what's faster at Photoshop, the majority of the graphics industry isn't going to dump millions on hardware and software to make the switch to PC's. It's not economically viable, nevermind the excess techs you'd ned to troubleshoot x86 hardware which would most likely be running some flavor of windows or another. It's not worth it just for the luxury of a 1 second faster motion blur filter application or whatever. The next waves of Mac hardware will undoubtedly catch-up.

So the argument is moot, nobody is being "converted" to x86 systems here. Perhaps this is better posted in a forum dedicted to Athlon processors or x86 boxes? I think so. People will continue using what they're comfortable with, and most graphics pro's are very comfortable with the Mac platform.

Mike

[ 07-06-2002, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]

AKcrab · Jul 6, 2002, 08:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Read through the topic carefully please. It's three pages long.<hr /></blockquote>I could not make out the "information" through all the noise in the thread. How can anyone sit and try to read through all that BS?

Codename · Jul 6, 2002, 08:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MikeM32:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I am skeptical of all benchmark and what processor is faster than another. Remember, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.<hr /></blockquote>So the argument is moot, nobody is being "converted" to x86 systems here. Perhaps this is better posted in a forum dedicted to Athlon processors or x86 boxes? I think so.

Mike<hr /></blockquote>Yes, lets bury this topic away and put our collective heads in the sand. Steve will show us the light at MacWorld.

The best tool for the job is what most professionals believe. Photoshop and other creative professionals care about performance. Time is money, especially in this tight economy.

And, contrary to what you say, plenty of people are converting. Look at Adobe's most recent sales figure�for the first time in all of Adobe's history, PC's versions of Adobe's software accounts for a larger percentage of its revenues than Mac versions of it's software.

[ 07-06-2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Codename ]

Codename · Jul 6, 2002, 09:32 PM

Why don't some of you who have Photoshop 7 go over there and post results for the benchmark suite.

Show 'em what your Mac has got! ::snicker::

smacintush · Jul 6, 2002, 10:25 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MikeM32:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I am skeptical of all benchmark and what processor is faster than another. Remember, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.<hr /></blockquote>So the argument is moot, nobody is being "converted" to x86 systems here. Perhaps this is better posted in a forum dedicted to Athlon processors or x86 boxes? I think so.

Mike<hr /></blockquote>Yes, lets bury this topic away and put our collective heads in the sand. Steve will show us the light at MacWorld.

The best tool for the job is what most professionals believe. Photoshop and other creative professionals care about performance. Time is money, especially in this tight economy.

And, contrary to what you say, plenty of people are converting. Look at Adobe's most recent sales figure�for the first time in all of Adobe's history, PC's versions of Adobe's software accounts for a larger percentage of its revenues than Mac versions of it's software.<hr /></blockquote>You're right, time is money, but unfortunately many graphic depts. have few or NO techs to deal with their problems. Switching to PC's would mean ADDING staff to upkeep them. That counts for a lot.

MacOSR · Jul 6, 2002, 10:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Since <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205" target="_blank">Macs are no longer the fastest at Photoshop</a>, I guess that means Steve will have to go back to Bytemarks? Athlon MP systems are almost twice as fast as a dual 1GHz G4 Mac.<hr /></blockquote>Interesting tests...I haven't waited on my dual 1GHz G4 to do anything in PS7 but I don't do any large actions.

I should point out that we just helped switch a graphics center (~40 cpus) over to macs and they cut their production costs by 75% in 9 months <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> There's more involved than how quickly you can run staged filters.

If I have time to play maybe I'll install windows and PS7 on my dual PIV Xeon 2.4 machine I have coming in (RAID 5 on SCSI 160 | 3GB RAM)...should be interesting results <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Millennium · Jul 6, 2002, 11:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
The best tool for the job is what most professionals believe. Photoshop and other creative professionals care about performance. Time is money, especially in this tight economy.<hr /></blockquote>It is patently obvious, Codename, that you have never been a creative professional.

If you were, you would understand that there is much more to time than a couple of seconds on Photoshop benchmarks. Here are a few other bits of time which are important:

Downtime - Unlike most other kinds of time, downtime is really bad. You don't want downtime. Macs have less of it, both due to a lower failure rate and a much faster recovery time.
Training time - This one's also pretty bad. You can never completely get around it, of course; new versions of software come out all the time. But you can minimize it, and converting platforms is not a good way of doing that.
Productive time - Processor speed is not the only kind of speed. Navigating around clunky or unpredictable interfaces can more than negate the advantage of one or two seconds that a faster processor might provide. Time and time again, Macs have won in studies about this.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And, contrary to what you say, plenty of people are converting. Look at Adobe's most recent sales figure�for the first time in all of Adobe's history, PC's versions of Adobe's software accounts for a larger percentage of its revenues than Mac versions of it's software.<hr /></blockquote>Break that down package-by-package, please. Honest challenge, because I want to see exactly where this claim is coming from. I don't believe you, and even if you may be correct on gross, I want to see exactly where this is coming from. My personal guess is that this difference is coming almost entirely, if not entirely, from GoLive and Distiller. Only two of many products, and perhaps the least creative-oriented.

Also, software sales and hardware sales do not necessarily correlate, except perhaps for OEM versions of software, and Adobe doesn't do many OEM deals (and none at all with Macs, so the point is moot).

There are legitimate PC advocates on these forums. There are also trolls. Guess which one you are. I'll give you two tries, and any guesses for the former don't count.

starman · Jul 7, 2002, 12:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Will a fast processor help you land a date or get porn faster?
<hr /></blockquote>No, but it would help if my laserdisc->DVD transfers would take less than 3-1/2 hours to encode.

Mike

Subzero Diesel949 · Jul 7, 2002, 04:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Codename:
[qb]*SNIP*

If you were, you would understand that there is much more to time than a couple of seconds on Photoshop benchmarks. Here are a few other bits of time which are important:

Downtime - Unlike most other kinds of time, downtime is really bad. You don't want downtime. Macs have less of it, both due to a lower failure rate and a much faster recovery time.
Training time - This one's also pretty bad. You can never completely get around it, of course; new versions of software come out all the time. But you can minimize it, and converting platforms is not a good way of doing that.
Productive time - Processor speed is not the only kind of speed. Navigating around clunky or unpredictable interfaces can more than negate the advantage of one or two seconds that a faster processor might provide. Time and time again, Macs have won in studies about this.

*SNIP*
<hr /></blockquote>Finally, after getting through all of the noise, someone finally hit the nail on the head. Thank you; your points were well said.

theolein · Jul 7, 2002, 04:47 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Why don't some of you who have Photoshop 7 go over there and post results for the benchmark suite.

Show 'em what your Mac has got! ::snicker::<hr /></blockquote>You wouldn't by chance be trolling , now would you?

I agree 100% that Apple has slower processers. I think that most of us Mac folk are dumb to be arguing this point. It *is* a problem. In real world getting-the-job terms it doesn't matter as much, but it is a problem and trying to argue around it or deny it is a waste of time.

I think (I'm not sure) that one will have less grief in a production environment running Mac OSX. This is one of the places where Apple really shines. The OS is good and rock solid and PC people at work who were used to having a good laugh at Mac OS9 clumsiness are constantly amazed at the fact that the OS let's you do everything that Linux can do(Apache/PHP/MySQL/Perl/Shell/CC etc etc etc), connect to smb shares, have an amazing GUI (there are so any PC people who are pi-ssed about this and won't admit it) *and* do the Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash bla bla bla trip.

OSX combined with the good quality hardware is nothing to be ashamed about. But, as I said in the first paragraph, the processors are slower than the x86 crop and they *are* falling behind more and more with each iteration of the newest AMD and Intel proc. AMD/Intel seem to be following a four times yearly upgrade cycle and Motorola is following a once or at most twice a year upgrade cycle. I have a personal theory that this is the reason behind Apple's heavy handed tactics with the rumour site for MWNY. Apple probably has no big upgrade coming at the moment or coming in the near future. I think it would be unrealistic to expect G5's or even G4's running at 1,5 GHz at MWNY. 1,2 GHz perhaps. 1,5 GHz no. Apple knows this will bring in bad press. Every single MW where there has been no huge improvement or great new innovation has been hit heavily by the PC oriented press (cnet etc). Jaguar will almost certainly be announced and will cover things for a while (I haven't played with it but we've all read about the improvements - QE/Ink/iChat/CUPS/Rendezvous etc etc) but sooner or later the topic and trolling will come round to the G4/G5 speed debacle and the Adobe/Macromedia PC slide.

Anyone who has tried out the MX verions of Macromedia's might agree that the apps have been written for Windows. The overall integration is much higher on the Windows platform than on the Mac (the view cutomsations single panel/floating menu options). I would also argue that the latest Adobe stuff is also better optimised for PC than the Mac (PS7 looks as if it has been designed for Windows IMO). Flash has much better performance on the PC than on the Mac for no obvious reason other than lack of optimisation for PPC.

These are real problems. Apple will eventually run out of steam and face some heavy quarterly losses unless they do something about Motorola, be it either buying out the PPC dvelopment process from them or the Altivec patents which they can then rent/sell/licence to IBM. Going with x86 is not an option for Apple. It would mean porting everything over once again. No one will do that. Apple could have gone down that road in 1998 but not now any more. They simply need to get better preformance out of the G -series. Motorola has been bleeding money for years now and was considering selling it's semi-conductor division last year. They do not have the motivation or the resources to improve their performance. Since Apple is busy buying out software companies left, right and center, which is a good thing, they also need to look at the continuation of the PPC and wholly owning the G4/G5 production and development would put them in a position to finally gain some traction in that area.

BRussell · Jul 7, 2002, 10:59 AM

1. Has the Mac ever been faster at Photoshop overall, or just in specific tasks chosen by Jobs for bake-offs?

2. When was the last time Jobs did a Photoshop bake-off anyway? He hasn't done a bake-off in a while (dual-Ghz machines were announced in a press release), and last one I remember he used Cleaner.

M�lum · Jul 7, 2002, 11:53 AM

OK. pc's are faster.

1- what's new?

2-How much time does this speed difference save you daily? Or, how much more work can you do a day due to this speed difference?

3-How many drink/sigarette/talk/walk/whatevere breaks are you missing due to this? What is the impact on your eyes and brains if you sit more infront of you pc daily?

4-Does it make you more artistic? Or do you produce better products due to this difference?

5-In a few weeks these benchmarks will be stale, what then? Should one buy the newest computer ever few months because if not ....

6- Are there morte important things in life?

DNA man · Jul 7, 2002, 06:00 PM

Stop moaning and groaning. We all have a choice . :o

I chose Mac ALL the time at home and as much as I can at work.

If you don't like the offering from Apple. Vote with your feet (or pocket) in this case. No one is holding a loaded gun to your head.

Blah, blah, PC is better than Mac, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,Mac is better than PC
,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah.

nealconner · Jul 7, 2002, 06:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DNA man:
Stop moaning and groaning. We all have a choice . :o

I chose Mac ALL the time at home and as much as I can at work.

If you don't like the offering from Apple. Vote with your feet (or pocket) in this case. No one is holding a loaded gun to your head.

Blah, blah, PC is better than Mac, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,Mac is better than PC
,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah ,blah,blah.

<hr /></blockquote>Why do idiots always fcuk up forum pages?

Ken_F2 · Jul 7, 2002, 09:33 PM

The PC has outperformed the Mac in Photoshop benchmarks for a long, long time. However, the PC usually won Photoshop benchmarks by destroying the G4 in the filters that didn't matter, or those that weren't used as often. The dual 1.0GHz Mac would outperform the PC on those filters that really mattered.

As an example, the P4 2.0GHz beats out a dual G4 1.0GHz in Photoshop benchmarks by a good margin, but it only does this by pounding the Mac in filters that nobody cares about. The dual G4 1.0Ghz slightly outperforms a P4 2.0Ghz in most Photoshop filters that really matter.

Starting at about 2.26GHz with a 533MHz bus, the P4 now outperforms the top G4 configuration in all tests, but the results are still fairly close in those filters that matter. At 2.4Ghz and 2.53Ghz with a 533MHz bus, the P4 starts to distance itself from the dual 1.0Ghz Mac in all filters. With the P4 2.8GHz coming next month, Windows should outperform the dual G4 1.0GHz by a significant margin in those functions that matter (and by a HUGE margin in those that don't). The Mac is clearly in need of a faster bus and memory; it's PC133 SDRAM just can't keep up with the DDR333 and 533MHz bus used on the latest PCs. Apple is expected to have a new bus and memory under wraps for MacWorld to go with a new dual G4, so that may restore parity (or come close to it) in the Photoshop functions that people use most often.

What I found very interesting about those Photoshop 7.0 tests by Mac users on Arstechnica...is the revelation that there is a 10% to 15% drop in Photoshop performance under OSX as compared to OS 9.2.2. You'd think that with OSX's improved support for dual processing, there would be some benefit (even if minimal) for Photoshop 7.0 under OSX.

Codename · Jul 8, 2002, 12:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ken_F2:
The PC has outperformed the Mac in Photoshop benchmarks for a long, long time. However, the PC usually won Photoshop benchmarks by destroying the G4 in the filters that didn't matter, or those that weren't used as often. The dual 1.0GHz Mac would outperform the PC on those filters that really mattered.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, whatever Macs perform poorly at is useless while anything the Mac wins at is important.

[ 07-08-2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Codename ]

anarkisst · Jul 8, 2002, 11:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Since <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205" target="_blank">Macs are no longer the fastest at Photoshop</a>, I guess that means Steve will have to go back to Bytemarks? Athlon MP systems are almost twice as fast as a dual 1GHz G4 Mac.<hr /></blockquote><img src="http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/events/images/troll.jpg" alt=" - " />

Mac Zealot · Jul 8, 2002, 11:50 AM

So now the mac looks much less attractive then it used to?

Was about to say, if you want a fast system then look around, go to compusa maybe, etc, when I bought my g4 the first thing I thought was "this doesn't feel like a $3500 computer" and boy was I right.

*shrug* But everyone makes mistakes, you can always switch to PC and get windows xp... it's what everyone uses and if 98% of the world uses it.. there has to be a reason.

I don't care what you say.. PC is better in almost every way but innovation and design, which isn't really important.

If Apple wasn't there we wouldn't have had such a big boom on USB, CD-R, firewire (of course!), colored computers, silver computers, a unix based GUI, pretty aqua interface, and we still wouldn't have a unix for 'the rest of us'. But I suppose propretary OS and what THEY want you to use is better :-\

Ca$h68 · Jul 8, 2002, 11:55 AM

OH NO PCS ARE FASTER BY A FEW SECONDS! AHHH I GUESS I'll just completley ABANDON my computer with a superior OS, easy of use, reliablity, exterior, and coolness.

Oh wait. No I won't. PCs might be faster but they still run WINDOWS.

- Ca$h

TNproud2b · Jul 8, 2002, 12:16 PM

My peecee runs a unix-based OS.

voodoo · Jul 8, 2002, 03:05 PM

YOU-nicks. Hmm. My Mac runs a UNIX based OS as well. The majority of PeeCees runs WINDOWS, and I would have to run that technologically challenged OS for apps and games. LINUX doesn't run Photoshop.

Codename · Jul 8, 2002, 03:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ca$h68:
OH NO PCS ARE FASTER BY A FEW SECONDS! <hr /></blockquote>No, they're faster by 18 months.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />AHHH I GUESS I'll just completley ABANDON my computer with a superior OS...<hr /></blockquote>OS X is not superior, it's bloated junk. It requires 384-512MB RAM to run decently. It's also behind, just like the rest of Apple's class. Java is slow, flash is slow, 3D is slow and 2D is slow. Accoding to users on this webboard, most things are slow in OS X compared to other OSes

<blockquote>quote:<hr />easy of use<hr /></blockquote>Unless you're a brain dead moron, I don't see your point. My Palm IIIc running Palm OS 4 is pretty easy to use, therefore it's better than your Mac.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> reliablity,<hr /></blockquote>Yea...more reliable than OS 9, but nothing compared to a good linux distro.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />exterior, <hr /></blockquote>Oh yes, the exterior! Paperweights must be aesthetically pleasing, correct?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />coolness.<hr /></blockquote>QuickSilvers are loud. Louder than most retail PC's, and certainly louder than Mobile P4 laptops which will manage to kick their ass.

Ohh, I see, you mean the other coolness. Again, most paperweights you can buy are aesthetically pleasing in nature.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
PCs might be faster but they still run WINDOWS.
<hr /></blockquote>

[ 07-09-2002, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Codename ]

scottiB · Jul 8, 2002, 03:19 PM

Well the ars thread is now 6 pages long, and here's some points from all the commentary:

Regarding the test, itself (which does complement Ken_F2's comment here):
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Since you are asking this to evaluate the eventual performance of the PS box, I would think that the psbench is an indication, but not much more. In this bench, each operation (filter) is tested at the same rate as the other. But some filters are really much more important than other, and much more used daily. You would have to check for exemple, if the RGB to CYMK number is not too heavy in the evaluation, as it's not used as often as some other operation. Or just ask "who use watercolor filter"? The proportions are not those of real work. PS7bench may give an indication, but may be a false one for your case.
<hr /></blockquote>On OS X and PS7:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Results from the Mac camp will be interesting, but I will be very surprised if Photoshop 7 on OSX is competitive with the top PCs with a mature OS.....<hr /></blockquote>More on the test:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have to chime in with the crowd bringing up the usual complaint: WHY is Watercolor in the filter set for PSBench?

There isn't a pro in the world who uses it even semi-annually. How did it get into the test?

While I'm not really defending the Apple bake-offs, at least their test set is built from real world uses.
<hr /></blockquote>On page 5, the 2x1000 G4's score was replaced with this one (emphasis mine):
<blockquote>quote:<hr />284 - 2x 1533 Athlon MP
2?? - 2x 2000 P4 Xeon (prediction of its position)
260 - 2x 1000 G4 (OS 9)
254 - 2x 1000 G4 under OS X
239 - 2340 P4 (overclock)
211 - 1667 Athlon XP
197 - 1x 1533 Athlon MP
186 - 1x 2000 P4 Xeon
167 - 1508 Celeron (overclock)
147 - 1333 Athlon TBird
146 - 1800 P4
123 - 466 G4 (OS 9)
100 - 1000 Athlon TBird (PS 6.01)
86 - 750 Duron
<hr /></blockquote>Most of the posters comment on what we Mac users already knew: that the G4+, while being the most efficient chip clock for clock cycle, is memory starved by the 133 mhz board. If a new, DDR-memory based PowerMac is introduced, Steve may trot out the PS7 comparos (with 10.2--even).

voodoo · Jul 8, 2002, 03:21 PM

Stuff it codename. You are a boring troll. You express your opinion as if it is the truth. It's not. It's just your opinion. Either you *get* Macs or you don't. You fall in the latter category. Either you are bored or stupid. Doesn't matter to me. Just shove it already.

Sine · Jul 8, 2002, 03:22 PM

The article also forgot to mention the tons of font and color management problems that infect Windows on a daily bases in pre-press houses. Who cares if it is a few seconds faster when it's just going to dump that **** on you? Really. No one on either side will switch because of a few seconds.

Lets get back to reality here.

theolein · Jul 8, 2002, 03:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
My peecee runs a unix-based OS.<hr /></blockquote>A wise informed decision.

Codename · Jul 8, 2002, 03:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
Either you *get* Macs or you don't. You fall in the latter category.<hr /></blockquote>No, I think it's quite the opposite. Most people here are blind to Apple's survival strategy of appealing to conspicuous consumers and aesthetes. Most of Apple's products are like hyped big budget movies with a plot that absolutely goes nowhere.

voodoo · Jul 8, 2002, 04:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
Either you *get* Macs or you don't. You fall in the latter category.<hr /></blockquote>No, I think it's quite the opposite. Most people here are blind to Apple's survival strategy of appealing to conspicuous consumers and aesthetes. Most of Apple's products are like hyped big budget movies with a plot that absolutely goes nowhere.<hr /></blockquote>Again this is YOUR opinion. Just like a movie critic has his opinion. The thing is, one has to earn respect as a critic.

I stick to my original comment: either you *get* Macs or you don't.

That was my experience, so I relate it onto others as well. I passionately *hate* the windows PeeCee look and feel. I can work with it if I have to, but I sure as heck won't choose it as my personal system!

istallion · Jul 8, 2002, 05:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If Apple wasn't there we wouldn't have had such a big boom on USB, CD-R, firewire (of course!), colored computers, silver computers,<hr /></blockquote>These were all available on PC's first(except for maybe silver cases) it wasn't a boom there because customers have options. Even when apple goes 100% firewire capable for instance, that 3-5% isn't that big of a boom. Apple has a habit of being an early adopter of some things. Whether customers want it isn't always clear. <blockquote>quote:<hr />a unix based GUI, pretty aqua interface, and we still wouldn't have a unix for 'the rest of us'. But I suppose propretary OS and what THEY want you to use is better :-\<hr /></blockquote>Definitely the best move apple has made in a while. Without a real OS apple would be clinging to a dwindling niche for a relatively brief time.

Jul 8, 2002, 06:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by istallion:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />If Apple wasn't there we wouldn't have had such a big boom on USB, CD-R, firewire (of course!), colored computers, silver computers,<hr /></blockquote>These were all available on PC's first(except for maybe silver cases) it wasn't a boom there because customers have options. <hr /></blockquote>Nobody said Apple was first. Apple made USB a success. By putting it in the iMac, peripheral companies realized they could make Mac/PC devices without having separate hardware interfaces for each platform. If not for that, PC users would still be using the slow, non-plug and play, serial and parallel peripherals.

MacOSR · Jul 8, 2002, 10:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
Either you *get* Macs or you don't. You fall in the latter category.<hr /></blockquote>No, I think it's quite the opposite. Most people here are blind to Apple's survival strategy of appealing to conspicuous consumers and aesthetes. Most of Apple's products are like hyped big budget movies with a plot that absolutely goes nowhere.<hr /></blockquote>I couldn't disagree with you more! Apple is attempting to design products that are useful to the general public (iPhoto, iMovie, etc). OSX is making HUGE strides in user interface/ease of use and the applications Apple is giving with them are tremendous. The general public does not need a dual 1Ghz G4 machine. Also *most* people here do see what Apple is doing. There are just a few vocal people here that think macs are slow because of their Mhz rating and that is all they will continue to complain about.

So, I guess you were incorrect whith your first post <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

Codename · Jul 9, 2002, 01:09 AM

After some further research, I have gathered that Adobe's Mac/PC sales have been favoring PC's for quite some time now, shifting more and more toward's PC's in recent months.

Bottom line is fewer mac users are buying Photoshop and other Adobe products than PC users.

theolein · Jul 9, 2002, 02:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
Either you *get* Macs or you don't. You fall in the latter category.<hr /></blockquote>No, I think it's quite the opposite. Most people here are blind to Apple's survival strategy of appealing to conspicuous consumers and aesthetes. Most of Apple's products are like hyped big budget movies with a plot that absolutely goes nowhere.<hr /></blockquote>I love this. Another person mad at the world because Apple is doing well and Gateway isn't. The question isn't if one *get's* anything. It's a matter of what one wants. I *want* preferrably a computer that has an OS that is easy to use, has a nice GUI and is relatively open. I also want a computer that looks good if I can afford it and has a good reputation as far as quality goes. A Mac with OSX fits in there quite well with me. On a PC, the only company that makes Laptops that I like is Sony, and they are in no way any cheaper than Macs, BUT even though it goes counter to so many enthusiasts arguments, Vaios sell like hot cakes. However there is no way on earth I'm going to run Win XP. Win2000 or Linux or both but not XP. Win2000 sadly doesn't have much of a future and although I like Linux, it's a lot more difficult to configure than OSX.

I am not interrested in people who run around claiming that their PC has x.x GHz or whatever. Up until now I have been unemployed for almost a year and have been running all my stuff on an old 333MHz G3 and an old 450MHz K6II. Now I have a job I am certainly not going to waste my money on something that will not last me for years. I can get a very good deal on a Mac Powerbook here in Switzerland where I can pay it off in 6 monthly installments. This fits my pocket and I will have a quality machine after that. I can get a PC laptop for much less (about half to a third) but I have no intention of going through again what I went through with my Dell, where Dell refused to fix it after the motherboard melted.

Beyond Redemption · Jul 9, 2002, 05:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
 LINUX doesn't run Photoshop.<hr /></blockquote>Gimp it up.

nonhuman · Jul 9, 2002, 10:21 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacGorilla:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Since <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205" target="_blank">Macs are no longer the fastest at Photoshop</a>, I guess that means Steve will have to go back to Bytemarks? Athlon MP systems are almost twice as fast as a dual 1GHz G4 Mac.<hr /></blockquote>I am skeptical of all benchmark and what processor is faster than another. Remember, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.<hr /></blockquote>Typical Mac user response. If the benchmarks said the opposite, I'm sure you'd be jumping with joy for your Mac.<hr /></blockquote>Actually you should be sceptical of the benchmarks. Not because they weren't run by Apple, but because benchmarks in general are a very shifty, not particularly trustworthy business. If you actually look into the way that they are usually run, you find out that companies generally won't allow their products to be benchmarked except under very strict cirumstances or by certain people. The result of this is that they can ensure that they're products will be benchmarked only in the most favorable situation available. Apple is guilty of doing this, as is AMD, Intel, and pretty much every other company out there. Benchmarks are less about discoving how well a product performs, and more about discovering how well a companies lawyers can ensure that a product will only be tested in an environment where it will perform well.

Joshua · Jul 9, 2002, 12:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
 LINUX doesn't run Photoshop.<hr /></blockquote>Gimp it up.<hr /></blockquote>GIMP is neat, but you'd have to be delusional to consider it an equal to Photoshop.

.

Codename: out of curiousity, do you actually use Photoshop in your day to day work?

MacOSR · Jul 9, 2002, 05:59 PM

[Double post]

[ 07-09-2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: MacOSR ]

MacOSR · Jul 9, 2002, 06:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
After some further research, I have gathered that Adobe's Mac/PC sales have been favoring PC's for quite some time now, shifting more and more toward's PC's in recent months.

Bottom line is fewer mac users are buying Photoshop and other Adobe products than PC users.<hr /></blockquote>Did you figure this out all by yourself

Nonsuch · Jul 9, 2002, 11:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Codename:
Typical Mac user response. If the benchmarks said the opposite, I'm sure you'd be jumping with joy for your Mac.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I'd like to think most Mac partisans will emerge from this yawning performance disparity (assuming it is ever corrected) with a newfound humility toward artificial standards of computer prowess. But then I'm an eternal optimist.