[seanyepez]

http://www.dv.com/magazine/2002/0102/hones0102.html

The Mac will be slower and more expensive at every level, but I still buy Mac. Why? For all intents and purpoes, the Mac is unpractical, but I still buy Apple because it's great to use an actually viable alternative to the Windows PC.

[SirCastor]

Originally posted by seanyepez:
<STRONG>http://www.dv.com/magazine/2002/0102/hones0102.html

The Mac will be slower and more expensive at every level, but I still buy Mac. Why? For all intents and purpoes, the Mac is unpractical, but I still buy Apple because it's great to use an actually viable alternative to the Windows PC.</STRONG>

As Many others have pointed out, the fact that the mac is running 9.2 instead of X is going to make an impact. So it's more reasonable to say "Their Mac is slower and more expensive at every level". Although almost always the mac will be more expensive..

[Chuck LaHaye]

Originally posted by seanyepez:
<STRONG>http://www.dv.com/magazine/2002/0102/hones0102.html

The Mac will be slower and more expensive at every level, but I still buy Mac. Why? For all intents and purpoes, the Mac is unpractical, but I still buy Apple because it's great to use an actually viable alternative to the Windows PC.</STRONG>

Actually, if you look at the price of the systems tested, the Mac was one of the cheapest of the tested systems. Imagine that!!!!

Also, some complain that win 98 or me should have been used. By using win2000 they used the most stable, not latest OS release i.e. not XP just as they did on the mac side 9.x vs X. Overall, the mac benchmarks were pretty good and I agree that OS X 10.1 will probably change some of the outcomes. Using XP, MS latest probably won't help the wintel scores.

my 2 cents

[seanyepez]

XP is actually faster than 2k in my experiences.

The Mac was the cheapest, but those PC's were vastly overpriced.

[Christopher]

I wish I could understand....Apple Computer has Billions of dollars and incredible credit line...the best engineers,Motorola has fantastic engineers.We are in the year 2001 and the Holy Grail of Computing was broken 8 years ago.Motorola had a PowerPC
in their Labs at 2 GHz over one year ago.They came up with technology months ago that would make CPU's of the future 100 times faster.They would
license the technology to Intel.Did not any of you read the headlines not too long ago?The consumer rules...we MacPropeller heads are the ones that go out and spread the gospel.We put the money on the line...We are hard-core.What is Up with Apple Computer, Inc.???I work for uncle sam here in FL and they just placed an order for Dell Edge 1 GHz etc.Yuck..
for Big Time Bucks...I am talking alot of money...Do the executives at Apple want to kill its share holders?Does Steve Jobs only think of greed and power?They have the technology and money what is the excuse?G-4 Apollo
over 1 Ghz???Give me a break.I will wait until the 3rd Quarter of 2001 and
see what Apples has up its sleeve.They will not get one penny from me.I sure hope the LCD iMac sells and Apollo G-4 with faster bus etc..Or they can simply blame it on the economy and Sept.11, etc.Enough excuses... Apple
needs to put out its goods.The latest technology or else....We can all have a wait and see attitude.The Apollo is too similiar to the G-4 for sale.
It is not fast enough and O/S X still needs patches to correct the system which will not be ready until Summer.Release the beta MPC 8500 or else...Change the casing on the G-5.. do not wait until Summer?Rely one iPod,Powerbook,Apollo, and New iMac?That is not enough to kick ass like Jobs says.How will Steve Jobs sleep at night before the MacWorld..knowing...it is half assed.The CEO owns 51 percent of the stock correct?Check on yahoo for Motorola MPC 8500...Corona Beer and the wait until Jan.7, is alot.Especially ...when I have the Cash to buy..but not what I want.I already have a G-4 450 Mhz etc. and the iMac will not cut it.Especially with the G-3 processor.The New Year is to go forward not backwards.Most 3D studios do indeed use NT Pentium etc.,64 Megs of Vram.Apple needs to get it together soon.I feel sorry for the developers.
Now you why they jump ship.

[seanyepez]

Originally posted by Christopher:
<STRONG>I wish I could understand....Apple Computer has Billions of dollars and incredible credit line...the best engineers,Motorola has fantastic engineers.We are in the year 2001 and the Holy Grail of Computing was broken 8 years ago.Motorola had a PowerPC
in their Labs at 2 GHz over one year ago.They came up with technology months ago that would make CPU's of the future 100 times faster.They would
license the technology to Intel.Did not any of you read the headlines not too long ago?The consumer rules...we MacPropeller heads are the ones that go out and spread the gospel.We put the money on the line...We are hard-core.What is Up with Apple Computer, Inc.???I work for uncle sam here in FL and they just placed an order for Dell Edge 1 GHz etc.Yuck..
for Big Time Bucks...I am talking alot of money...Do the executives at Apple want to kill its share holders?Does Steve Jobs only think of greed and power?They have the technology and money what is the excuse?G-4 Apollo
over 1 Ghz???Give me a break.I will wait until the 3rd Quarter of 2001 and
see what Apples has up its sleeve.They will not get one penny from me.I sure hope the LCD iMac sells and Apollo G-4 with faster bus etc..Or they can simply blame it on the economy and Sept.11, etc.Enough excuses... Apple
needs to put out its goods.The latest technology or else....We can all have a wait and see attitude.The Apollo is too similiar to the G-4 for sale.
It is not fast enough and O/S X still needs patches to correct the system which will not be ready until Summer.Release the beta MPC 8500 or else...Change the casing on the G-5.. do not wait until Summer?Rely one iPod,Powerbook,Apollo, and New iMac?That is not enough to kick ass like Jobs says.How will Steve Jobs sleep at night before the MacWorld..knowing...it is half assed.The CEO owns 51 percent of the stock correct?Check on yahoo for Motorola MPC 8500...Corona Beer and the wait until Jan.7, is alot.Especially ...when I have the Cash to buy..but not what I want.I already have a G-4 450 Mhz etc. and the iMac will not cut it.Especially with the G-3 processor.The New Year is to go forward not backwards.Most 3D studios do indeed use NT Pentium etc.,64 Megs of Vram.Apple needs to get it together soon.I feel sorry for the developers.
Now you why they jump ship.</STRONG>

Someone had a little too much to drink...

[MacGorilla]

I am skeptical of benchmarks; there are so many factors than affect them: The OS, the software, RAM, disk speed, bus size, etc. What is most important is this: Is the system fast enough to do the work you need to get done.

[tullamore]

Motorola doesn't make chips because of Apple. Apple is a SMALL part of their chip market and so Apple doesn't really have a choice of what chips it can get

[kbbaucom]

I wonder why they configured the G4 with an IDE drive and GeForce2 MX when all the others tested had Ultra SCSI and Quadro video cards. They could have at least given the G4 the SCSI and GeForce3. Most of the tests are dependant on hard drive speed or video speed.

[slipjack]

OS X won't be faster than 9 anyway.... OS X is... DOG SLOW. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. The PDF rendering engine slows everything down. Apple is going to have to optimize X more to make it truly viable. I agree that X is the future, but I have a feeling that 9 is where power users will want to continue to live for a while yet.

I don't think anyone should be suprised that a dual 1.5 ghz PC beats out a dual 800 Mac, even though the article SUCKS and has no numbers posted. "I ran the test many times..." Um, ok... where are the charts? Bah...

Anyway... it will be fun to see the test run again after the next round of Macs come out, then there will be more parity: DDR Ram, Rapid I/O, etc. Rapid I/O should really help in bake-offs like this because it will keep both processors fully fed with information all the time, making the whole system more efficient. (Internal bandwith is often a problem in multi-proc. systems)

SO... what I'm saying is that the present isn't so hot for Mac heads, but for once, the future truly does look bright.

[oscar]

Originally posted by tullamore:
<STRONG>Motorola doesn't make chips because of Apple. Apple is a SMALL part of their chip market and so Apple doesn't really have a choice of what chips it can get</STRONG>

true but apple is a major customer, thus apple can be influential to moto/ibm in there chip making process

[seanyepez]

Obviously, they aren't a priority customer; they are not able to get the G4 research they so desire. Slowly, we are falling behind. Even the G5 will most likely not pull us out of the hole we are digging ourselves deeper into day by day.

yeah, this benchmark is kind of stupid. They should redo it again after MWSF with the latest goodies and the latest versions of all the apps. Also they should use reasonably current hardware on the x86 side as well like a dual Athlon XP 1900+ system and a Northwood P4 2.2GHz. People always seem to mess up these sorts of benchmarks. =/

[Vsx1]

Although the PM got creamed in this comparison, it did so with honesty. using 9.x as the OS the PM was back to a single CPU mahcine (1.1 CPUs at best) not a dual CPU as intended. Only OS X takes full advantage with multiple processors.
As for DVs definition of "workstation" I'm appauled. A workstation is a very serious high end ultra expensive machine (a fully loading PM G4 costs over $11k). A "wokrstation" should not have ATA drive: SCSI only! My iMac has more than 512MB RAM! They should have used @ least 768 if not a GB.
The machines DV tested are expensive desktop boxes not workstations. If they had thrown in an SGI or a SUN (real workstations) the outcome would be quite different. My 2 cents.

[Matsu]

Little things that pepper the article suggest that the writer has quite a bit of niggling anti-Apple bias. Just a couple of examples: His quip about the CD eject button, and the availablity of CD-r media suggest that either he's a hermitt or an idiot. There is no way that it's easier to find a Zip disk, than a CD-r disk lying around. If you have to make a trip to the store to get a CD-r, you're just not prepared to work today. That's all. I keep a couple of CDrw discs for small file back-up on my PC, and for files I take with me -- the rest goes onto CDr, no problems. I haven't used my floppy in ages. Zip is irrelevant now. Any place, like a copy house, that uses Zips, uses CDs too. He even got the matket wrong, Zip were never useful for DV work, and they never will be. A CD is useable in a pinch, even for video.

[lee vieira]

Originally posted by Chuck LaHaye:
<STRONG>

Actually, if you look at the price of the systems tested, the Mac was one of the cheapest of the tested systems. Imagine that!!!!

</STRONG>

Yup.

It's amazing how many ppl just assumed the Mac was the most expensive machine in the test, when actually most of the Wintel machines were $300-900 more.

Old perceptions die hard, eh?

--lee

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: lee vieira ]

[olePigeon]

seanyepez, for a while I actually thought you were sincere. But now I know you're just being a dipsh*t. Give up the act.

As this has been covered already in two other threads, and the test was completely flawed, see my other two posts:

Here.

And here.

[real]

Vsx1
said it. And I ve said it over and over where are the SGI's the SUN's. If those machines where tested in with the Windows machines and MAC, both the Windows users and the mac users would cry. We would get trampled on then trampled on again as they came around again on the nexted lap. then yet again over and over.( whern DV test workstations they put the SGI's in a seprate section like they are different If you are benching workstations then where are they) HAnds down bottom line. If you you truly need the fastest machine out there get a SGI. if that s the only thing you care about is speed the an ONYX 3 with Do you very well.I buy MACS because I have work to Do. And I dont Do any 3d rendering
Dont worry about the PC world And there PC of Sh&t machines yeah So what there are running at 2.2 or whatever Ghz who cares I love my mac's and that the way it will stay.


REAL

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: real ]

[seanyepez]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
<STRONG>seanyepez, for a while I actually thought you were sincere. But now I know you're just being a dipsh*t. Give up the act.

As this has been covered already in two other threads, and the test was completely flawed, see my other two posts:

Here.

And here.</STRONG>

Act? What act?

There is no need to get centimental.

The test was inherently flawed. Performance, to me, does not play a giant role in using a Mac; that's why I can stand having a slower machine. I think the Apple platform has a more vibrant, creative connotation to its usability, and I don't mind using a Mac to escape the sterility of Windows.

[olePigeon]

I've yet to see you post anything posotive about the computer or the platform, outside it being an attractive paperweight. In any event, I apologize for my previous remark.

Originally posted by seanyepez:
<STRONG>Obviously, they aren't a priority customer; they are not able to get the G4 research they so desire. Slowly, we are falling behind. Even the G5 will most likely not pull us out of the hole we are digging ourselves deeper into day by day.</STRONG>

uh..Motorola did create the 7450. a big and hot chip that is almost directly targeted ONLY at desktops although Cisco does plan to use them in routers.