Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Says PCs Are Preferred
Father Of Free Choice writes "Abobe has picked Windows as the preferred platform for running Photoshop, After Effects, and Illustrator. I don't know how many Mac people this will upset, but given the large hold Apple has on design pros and film, this seems like a bad move on Adobe's part."
Is it only me, or isn't ironic that they move now when UNIX (include MacOS X) is gaining ground at all fronts including the desktop users.
If anything can get Apple to ditch its current arcitecture, this it it. Who knows if they will go Intel or IBM, but blood is in the water now, and they have to make some switch.
It's not like Adobe hadn't hinted at that. How long did it take them to get a decent OS X version of their software out?
Surprise, you're not first!
it just shows graphs that say the PC is faster than the mac doing stuff in after effects..and at the end it says, "While the computers used in this study are no longer the fastest in their respective classes, the information is still valid"
------ Work is so much easier when you don't
Actually, I would disagree with the ongoing perception that Macs have a strangle-hold on the graphics design market. PCs have been making a lot of headway in my experience. Now, I find that the more technically competent - er - easy to work with - designers are largely using PCs now. Most Mac based designers I deal with at work are definitely behind the curve -- ON AVERAGE.
With Apple increasingly separating itself from Microsoft, creating their own browser based on Konqueror's KHTML technology, perhaps this move by Adobe will prompt Apple to create imaging software to compete with Adobe based on open source like GIMP?
The images appear to be incorrect.
If you look at the first image, it has two times, 54 seconds and 1 minute 25 seconds. The second time is shown at well over double the length of the first, even though it only took ~50% longer. If you look closely, you will see that 1:25 got placed at 1.25, and 0:54 got placed at 0.54, hence the error.
Any of the images where the minutes are different are going to be skewed a fair amount. The error will decrease as the minute difference increases.
Adobe wants to embrace commodity (PC) hardware-- think about it-- which makes more sense? a user base of 500 mac users or 5000 PC users?
Letting customers spend less money on hardware means there is more money leftover for buying pricey Adobe software. Moreover, Adobe may soon abandon one of its development team to shave costs-- guess which one won't survive: the one not making that much money.
davejenkins.com |
This is the article (at www.digitalvideoediting.com) they get those pretty little pictures from. Haven't had a chance to read it yet but it is near at 5 months old.
"If a quarter is two bits, then a dollar's a byte." -R Deric Miller
How is it a bad move? They know which platform they sell more copies of their software for. Hint, hint.. it's not the Mac! So it makes perfect business sense for them to say what they prefer their users to use their products on.
"Upset Mac people.." Come on! As if they aren't used to it by now.
I'd be upset knowing I spend 2-3 times as much for my computer to do the same work a PC will do.
That's just dumb.
Wouldn't it be cool if Apple made a native port of The GIMP for OS X?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Well, I guess I would have to say that one is more productive within their platform environment of preference in general. Yes, my dual Ghz G4 with Cinema display is not as fast as the P4 system it replaced, but it is generally a much more productive environment in that I can run on one workstation, code originally written for SGI, Office for Mac, Adobe products galore, remote sensing code, the website for our lab etc...etc...etc... and I could not do all of this nearly as well or as easy with the three systems my OS X workstation replaced including an SGI Octane, a Wintel system and an older Mac.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Is raw processing power the only consideration? Granted, an editor with more time is more productive. There are other cosiderations, however.
In any case, the article referenced didn't exactly state what effect this pronouncement (of sorts) would have on Adobe's products. I don't think that they'll bag their Apple lines, but is Adobe going to use this to nudge their customers onto an platform? Somehow, I just don't see that happening.
GF
Lots of petrified grits
At the end of the day it's the users who are going to decide what the 'preferred platform' is, and I know that a large proportion of graphic/web designers who could not be separated from their G4s without a crowbar and tub of Vaseline. Whatever Adobe say.
However, does this mean Adobe are going to start favouring Windows in terms of releases and support? I suppose that could make more of a dent . . .
"If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
Woohoo! Perhaps the Mac zealots that keep saying their platform is faster, despite all the evidence to the contrary, will finally shut up.
Nah, I guess that is too much to hope for.
Microsoft decides that photo rendering is properly a part of the operating system. Say hello to Netscape, Adobe.
Well, it seems what Adobe has actually done is a bit less inflammatory than what the headline suggests. On the hyperlinked page, they simply display the results from a performance benchmark that indicate a 3.06Ghz P4 outperforms a dual 1.25Ghz G4 by a wide margin on some tests, which is a little confusing as the article said the P4 was a 2.53Ghz. Whatever.
This changes very little and seems hardly worth the effort sensationalizing.
Perhaps part of the reason that Apple has a hold on these sectors of the market is that a lot of the software has (until now, apparently) been better on the Mac?
For what it's worth, I'd like to see properly optimised code run on both PC and Mac, to see which really is faster for Photoshop et al. Would be a nice real-world comparison, which is worth a lot more to me than a benchmark...
Game dev and music blog
It's not exactly Adobe proclaiming a preference for PC's, but rather they are simply presenting the results of one expert's analysis. Is this really surprising, however? Mac's haven't exactly been all about the data-crunching race between Intel and AMD, so it's hardly surprising to see it lag behind a PC in this sort of benchmark. There was a similar article a month or so ago in Maximum PC that had a similar theme...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Latest Update: Al Gore is said to be contesting the Adobe benchmarks and appealing to the Supreme Court for an immediate recount.
--
Dreamweaver Templates
OK, so Adobe links to one article showing that PCs are faster at certain tasks. How do you make the leap that Adobe "prefers" PCs? Have they never before shown any benchmarks between the two? Adobe may prefer PCs, but that's not at all what the mini-article on Adobe's site says. It's just ammunition for people wanting to use PC's, so they can say to their boss (or employee), "see, PCs are better." I bet they have stuff that goes the other way, too. Every platform switch is money in the bank for Adobe.
"Abobe has picked Windows as the preferred platform for running Photoshop, After Effects, and Illustrator. I don't know how many Mac people this will upset, but given the large hold Apple has on design pros and film, this seems like a bad move on Adobe's part."
The article linked says nothing like that at all. It just states that in a test performed in July 2002 a Pentium 4-based workstation outperformed a G4 workstation. It does not say that Adobe has picked Windows as the preferred platform.
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
for releasing a digital video editing app that kicks Premiere's ass. Hard.
You have to wonder if this is linked to Apple moving to OS-X. I like OS-X as much as the next person however to port an appliction surely can't be a quick process to get a native application. Also I would expect that it would take a few versions to get the best performace.
With Windows it normally seems quicker and easier to move from one version to another as there is still binary compatibly and as such authors think they can get away with just adding things rather than having to rewrite. I'm not a fan of feature bloat but you can see why it is easier.
As a decision for Adobe I can see this as much as a no brainer for expanding market share. Do MAC's still have much market dominance in the DTP market as they use to?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
This is pretty nasty stuff, particularly for Apple. Those graphs are showing something like 50% extra speed for using a PC, and a clock speed which is, oh look, 50% higher. And the Mac was running dual proccessors, which is even worse.
It almost makes you think Apple pissed Adobe off over something, and this is a poke in the eye in response.
Last night there was a post about office depot only selling Windows XP preferred products. Maybe this is a software step in that direction, or maybe they're complying just for office depot type retailers.
Obviously, the mac copy of adobe isn't going to work on windows.
~~~
Despite what the HTML file is named, the page itself is not a claim from Adobe that users should be running PCs instead of Macs. The page merely highlights a benchmarking test that was found on another website, digitalvideoediting.com. This test compared rendering performance between P4s and dual-G4s on apps from Adobe commonly used by those of us who do digital video editing and post-production work.
Slap me if I'm being silly, but how much do we know about the internals of these products, and how they're implemented between platforms?
That is, could it be that the Windows Adobe team simply writes better software than the Mac Adobe team? How much of this can be put down to the underlying operating systems on both machines?
Just thoughts
Score:-1, Funny
I love "metric time" as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't trust any review that equates 47 seconds with 0.47 minutes [from the review].
Mark
is it just me or has the site gone all photoshopped & shiny just now? are the slashdot graphics monkeys eating redmond pie?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Photoshop and Illustrator are the most annoying programs to use under Windows. They both use the MDI (Multiple document interface) model for drawing their windows which makes it very difficult to utilize the avalible screen space.
MacOS and even the UNIX versions of Photoshop/Illustrator do not suffer from the same design flaws.
The clockspeeds of the computers mentioned in the introductory paragraph on that page don't match up with the clockspeeds of the computers in the charts. I'm wondering what other errors are present as well.
Also, this doesn't look like an Adobe recommendation so much as Adobe showing one group's results of a comparative test. There is more to a computer than render speed, just as there is more to a computer than compile speed.
mbbac
Please stop pissing us off. You've created products to compete with us in photo management. You've added nonlicensed PDF capabilities to your new OS (which we had to update for OS X!) and you've utterly stolen the video editing market from us - which was quite profitable, despite the absolutely abysmal Premiere.
We will continue to promote PCs as the better machine on our website, despite the fact that we ship for both platforms, because you've stepped on our toes. We recommend you go back to making machines and stop with the polished, useful, FREE software.
Thanks,
Adobe
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Either 250 pirated copies vs. 2500 pirated copies. But then again, that still is more copies sold...
The link doesn't say anything about Adobe preferring one platform over another, in the slightest. It's just some graphs indicating that PCs as a class perform better than macintoshes, which is something that i don't think anyone is denying at this point.
While that kind of does seem like an endorsement of the PC on adobe's part, it also is just good business sense to explain to your customers what hardware your software runs best on.
Speed at raw data-crunching is just one of the factors in which computing platform you are going to use, though if you're using AfterEffects or Photoshop or something it's going to be a much, much larger factor.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It's possible to slant the results either way you want with a careful selection of filters. His credibility is pretty much shot by the long tirade about how great the Dell is, and this quote: "Further speeding up the Dell entry is new gigabit Ethernet and USB 2.0 support."
This has nothing to to with the tests he's running! It's also very possible that what he was doing wasn't taking advantage of both processors in the Mac. Given the sketchy information on the actual testing, we don't know.
Granted, both camps do this kind of stuff - it proves nothing.
man, that is just completely untrue. We run a shop of 20 macs and 10 PC's. Top end G4's and reasonably fast piii's. The differences in rendering complex filters is virtually nonexistent.
The differences in interface: negligible.
The differences in speed: imperceptible.
The differences in cost: the pc's are cheaper.
Which do you think we are buying more of next year?
Our ENTIRE business rides on our ability to turn high end photoretouching (PS) and layout and design (AI). And there is no longer a big enough difference between macs and PC's to warrant the cost diff on our budget.
All of our PC users were forced onto their PC's having been hardcore mac users. They complained, they spent a week getting into "natural" mode with XP, and then no problems at all. Two of them are looking at upgrading their apples and they are looking at the new line of Vaio's.
...if you like chartjunk.
The choice of red for the PC is interesting in that it draws your eye to it. I downloaded one of the graph and switched the colors of the bars. Then on first glance the eye is drawn to the Mac and your first thought is that it won whatever the test was about.
If they really wanted to show info rather than a predetermined conclusion they would have done both bars in the same color.
Interesting jpeg artifacts in the gif files, too. Probably resaved as gif from jpegs done on a Mac!
They chose the PC platform because they see the direction Microsoft is going in (and already has gone in.) They know that they can assure themselves more sales by preferring, and developing to, a platform that is controlled largely by a monopolistic corporation with exclusive licensing practices.
It's only going to get worse for consumer choice (read: more profitable for Adobe) in the PC market. They'll also ensure that their product is "Windows Certified" right away and stays that way.
.. all the sad mac faces today. Maybe even some mac people "bombs".
Girls are strange. They don't come with a man page.
-- Michael Mattsson
The pc is 54 seconds, around 0.5 on the scale. Mac is 1min 25 seconds, which they wrongly put around 1.2 on the scale. Makes it seem like the mac is more then twice as slow when you look at it, when in fact the difference is not as much.
Just yesterday I tried this on a 2.6 Ghz P4/WinXP and got Mr. Hourglass for about 45 seconds 80% of the way through the render...
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Adobe is just using the superior metric system, which has 100 seconds / minute.
Does *anyone* read the article before they post -- including pudge? This is totally not what the link is all about. It's a single comparison, not a corporate shift, you knobs.
I guess those Adobe folks are on crack... have you seen PS run on a Mac vs Windows??? It is SO much faster doing nearly all filters. The 3rd party ones even show considerable differences. - RR
;).
In fact, I have. In addition to systems administration, I've also worked as a professional graphic designer (and sometimes still do for side cash). And pound-for-pound, the newest versions of Photoshop run better and faster on Windows than on Macintosh.
Personally, I find myself more and more using The GIMP on Linux because it's faster than Photoshop on *any* platform (and it's open source
My journal has hot
is people who claim there is no difference without trying both. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. my mac runs photoshop for WEEKD at a time without problems, memory leaks, etc. my peecee is lucky to get a few hours, IF i don't push it too hard, run too many other things, etc.
Isee it all the time, and you would too, if you werent so cheap that you sacrifice quality in the name of following the crowd. (everyone does it, it must be better. yup, the ford escort is the best car in america, because it sells the most.)
I'll tell you why Adobe is making a big deal about this: M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G.
Adobe realizes that a commodity PC box costs less. This is important to people that, at the end of the day, have to make the numbers work. Adobe also realizes that a faster platform that costs less leaves more room in the budget for their software. A company saving money on the hardware is much more likely to spend on pricey software.
-ted
You have to realize that most Mac users are really just Windows haters. Throughout the 90's Apple put out some of the worst computers and OSs ever. They finally have started getting things right recently and all of sudden they are forgiven for the years of torment they gave to their once loyal customers. I personally think that Apple was far more negligent than Microsoft ever was.
Okay, okay.. we're in a PC world... big deal. However, being a student of computers, journalism, statisitcs, and analysis, there are some glaring omissions from these reports as well as the press release. One of the largest is about which OS each was running. Given the lag time of when articles are written and published, I'm guessing this benchmark article was done actually around the April timeframe, well before Jaguar (OS 10.2) was released, and was welcomed as a mature version of the OS. Same thing goes for whatever windows version was involved. Truly, you still can;t compare apples to oranges because of the actual underlying operating system layer because they still function quite differently. I would recommend anybody to read, as well, the article mentioned a few months ago on processor architecture over at I believe ARSTechnica. It's pretty lengthy and technical, but it'll explain why ceratin procedures WOULD take less/longer time on the two different machines. I hate supposed application benchmark testing because it's never really comparing the true speed (and ease of use) of the whole experience of the application, if you want to complain or compliment computing architectures and the OSes that run on them, use the tried and true benchmarking rather that this type of subjective review... geez.
If there ever was a definition of lies in statistics, that's it.
Have you looked at the link
http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
I tend to agree - we do video compression in the main here and we are now 6 PC workstations (All Athlon XP) vs 3 Macs, whereas 3 years ago it was 3 PCs and 6 Macs. Still, we have are looking forward very much to new PPC 970 based Macs and have fond OSx to be a big gain for networking issues that long existed with the Macs. Apple isn't dead (and WinXP is a BIG fuck-up usability wise) and I STILL prefer to work on a Mac - and that makes a Mac for me more productive.
That was classic intercourse!
This is a sad day for Mac users, but this is nothing more than business reality.
Adobe gets most of their money from the PC market, and the truth is that regardless of all the hype Steve Jobs has made recently regarding the Mac G4's, almost all benchmarks comparing a top of the line G4 to a top of the line PC simply give the PC a winning mark by a landslide in graphics and video tests.
Now let's not get into a flame war over this, I love Macs too, but hey, if I have to render a large project, and it takes half the time to do so on a PC, then I will use a PC even if its user interface is not as nice as the Mac.
This is why for some time now I've been advocating that Mac OS/X be ported to the x86 architecture. It's the only way Mac OS/X will be able to run on equal footing to Windows. Let's face it, Apple being the only major consumer of Power PC chips for consumer (I know, IBM uses them on large servers too) is not a good incentive to innovate, while on the PC market AMD, Intel, and Transmeta are always killing each other to come up with the fastest and "bestest" processor, and at the cheapest possible price.
Macs either move to the x86 architecture or they are dead. And *please*, I know many fanatics will argue that "what makes Macs great is the amazing integration between hardware and software, something which cannot be acchieved or guaranteed in a commodity-based PC market", however not only is this not true (Apple for example could publish open APIs to have hardware vendors support in order to support all needed integration, and it could also build Mac PCs itself if it chooses to), but simply getting stuck with the past. Yes, it'd be great to control the hardware and the software, but right now business reality is telling Apple that this is not the time to do so.
So, let's get on with it: I know this is a blow to Apple, and I know many Mac users will cry foul to Adobe, but I also think this is a necessary blow to Apple (and mostly, Steve Jobs) to let them know that things are simply moving really fast in the PC world in comparisson to Apple.
Heck, you can already buy WiFi "g" for PCs much cheaper than on the Mac already, plus all PCs nowdays come with USB 2.0, and FireWire is almost standard or really cheap to add (20 to 40 bucks or so). About the *only* things Apple has going for itself right now is (1) FireWire 800 (and I bet you'll eventually find it cheaper on PCs), (2) the iApps, which are very easy to use, but I bet Microsoft or someone else will copy them soon enough, (3) the iPod (competitors are getting close also on copying it and improving it as well), and (4) Mac OS/X, which is a nice piece of work.
So Steve: Port Mac OS/X to x86 *soon* before you let Apple die in obsolescence. It's just you versus *thousands* of companies making products for the PC commodity market, a market which due to competition is making products better and cheaper all the time. The choice is clear, evolve or die.
Even if it's true, why would they announce something like this that would be sure to upset Apple users that happen to be a large sum of their business? Unless there was external persuasion involved. *coughmscough*
But seriously, apple has been having *SERIOUS* issues with respect to quality and support. The powermac/powerbook isn't so bad for quality, but the flimsy plastic iMacs and iBooks are, well, flimsy as anything. Also, their hardware is lagging behind more and more. Maybe IBM will turn this around with the 970, but right now the FSB and processor clocks of the PowerPCs they use really hurt them. You can only cry 'MHz myth' so long before the clock speed gaps overcome any inherent architectural advantage the PowerPC architecture may have. Despite all this, Apple charges a significant premium on all their hardware. OSX is certainly a beautiful thing, but by itself falls really short of justifying the pricetag of the systems. Windows 2k/XP actually makes an acceptable workstation platform, and servers ideally are run by people who can understand Linux or another reliable system.
Now for my personal rant...
It seems from my experience that their support is getting crappier and crappier. I have to fight like crazy to get warranty service. Now I call after running diagnostics and determining the issue (VideoRAM test fails with disp/13/2, and no, it is not a GeForce4) and they refuse to even listen unless I agree to pay 49.99. I interupt and actually give exactly what I did and the result, that should be good enough, but no, they insist I pay. A good company does not try to get the customer to pay 50 bucks to give the servicing company a chance to weasel out of warranty service. If Apple truly wants to make sure it is a warranty issue before servicing, they should be willing to walk through the hardware diagnostics for free while under warranty. That doesn't help if it is not a warranty issue. Any company that demands money before even considering warranty service is a company that will not receive repeat business. I thought maybe it was a fluke support guy, but three different reps I reached said the same mantra about making sure it was a hardware issue and I would have to pay, otherwise they wouldn't send a box. I have never dealt with such horrible support in my life, and they are kidding themselves if they think I'll send them another dime of money for anything.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Hahahaha.. right.
I call "BS"
Anyone else notice that while the Dells were 3.06GHz P4s, the Macs were only dual 1.25s???
Where are the dual 1.42s??? How much of a difference would that make??
Also, they mention the machines are 'similar', but never state the configurations. Mac OS X chokes on anything less than 384MB of RAM, and when running the apps they were benching, the machines would be better maxxed out...
Microsoft announces new emoticon product ratings, gives latest Windows and Office products XP
Look at the graph showing the comparison between 56 seconds and 1 minute 25 seconds. It is showing seconds like there are 100 in a minute. If this was built by someone at my company and was getting this much pub, I'd berate their ass.
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 1.0 1.1 1.2
Their scale:
123456789123457 Mac
12345678912345678912345678912345678912 PC
How it should be:
123456789123456 Mac
12345678912345678912345678 PC
Morons.
BTW I hate these slashdot filters isn't that what the moderators are for?
Ok, so the Slashdot take is a bit sensational, and not fact-heavy, but Adobe does have a rather strong hold on the Mac-using image and publishing market. It seems to me that there's only a few things that have to happen for The Gimp to all but replace Photoshop for this purpose. All it really needs is some company to come along and give it a) plugins for dealing with patented color-management for ready-for-print applications (no problem as plugins with licensing, as long as you pay Adobe and the few other companies a royalty) and b) a Mac-native UI that fixes some of the basic brokenness of The Gimp's poor UI choices (e.g. the nearly un-navigatable menus).
Both of these tasks are many orders of magnitude smaller than rolling your own Photoshop replacement, and The Gimp has a far more flexible plugin architecture and tons of people who are happy to write plugins in C, scheme, Perl, Python and other languages!
Anyone have the money to kick something like this off? Consider this you Make Money Fast wakeup call!
And, if you need more of a push... there's CinePaint (ne "Film Gimp"), which you could integrate into your product and add a whole other market.
The opening part of that page states;
;-)
"between a single-processor Dell 2.53GHz Pentium® 4 -- the Dell Precision Workstation 340 -- and the fastest Macintosh then available -- a 1GHz dual-processor G4. "
The graphs then go on to show a "Dell P4 3.06Ghz" versus a "Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz" without a mention as to why. Have the test been re-run by Adobe on new hardware? Double-typos?
When you can't get something as simple as the CPU speeds right it doesn't inspire much confidence in any of the other figures.
[)amien
LightWave 3D has a Windows, Mac, and (brand new) Linux renderer. It seems that Mac users are more interested in the Linux renderer than Windows users are, in large part because of the savings in hardware costs.
it seems that there is more attention brought to simple fact that they have choosen the PC. Shouldn't we really be looking at what advantages/disadvantages this provides. Emotional attachment to brands aside.
"We deal in lead" - Roland of Gilead
The article linked to doesn't come out and say that the PC is the preferred platform for Photoshop, but the name of the file in the URL is "pcpreferred.html". On the other hand, the focus of the benchmarks, and the subdirectory of the URL, is "motion". Rather than advocate the PC for all Photoshop purposes, the page in question appears to advocate the PC for motion-based effects based on the benchmarks.
It's still noteworthy for Photoshop users, but hardly represents Adobe taking sides for overall use of their software.
Naked.
"but given the large hold Apple has on design pros and film, this seems like a bad move on Adobe's part"
Or a death blow for Mac.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
You are on Crack and so are your "PC users" because the new line of Vaio's are the same price or more expensive than a comparable DP MAC.
Look at the graphs. They error dramitcally, giving the PC a huge false lead.
The testers are assuming a minute has 100 seconds. This gives the PC a 40 sec per minute advantage over the Mac. I am sure they used Excel on a PC for these graphs.
For example the first graph should be 54 vs 85 seconds. The graph makes it look like 54 to 120. This is WRONG!
>>> While the computers used in this study are no longer the fastest in their respective classes, the information is still valid.
Sure the information is still valid.. for *those* test machines only!
Adobe should be embarassed for publishing these mistated graphs and dated tests.
I don't know how many Mac people this will upset, but given the large hold Apple has on design pros and film, this seems like a bad move on Adobe's part.
It doesn't really matter whether the Mac people are all upset or not... until somebody comes along with a viable alternative to their products, Adobe can say pretty much anything they want.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Or they could go for the 64-bit IBM PowerPC 970 with 32-bit backward compatibility and AltiVec that has "APPLE, USE ME, I'M YOUR NEXT PROCESSOR" written all over it.
Flamebait? sheesh...
Musta pissed off an Apple user.
Apple has always been lagging on hardware performance. You thing those stability problems with the G4 architecture scaling to higher mhz and Motorola's unwillingness to support the PowerPC beyond fabrication has been HELPING the Macintosh? Hell no!
Maybe this will make Apple get off its ass and make some real changes to it's hardware instead of superficial ones like "dual processors." Maybe they'll speed up the transition to the 64-bit PPC by IBM since moving from 32-bit to 64-bit isn't as difficult as it sounds. It's just convincing everyone else to move their stuff over, too.
I've tried Photoshop on somewhat comparable Windows and Mac boxes several years in a row, and the Windows was always faster.
Intel-and-friends make better, more easily and cheaply upgraded hardware. That's great, but makes it more difficult for OSes to keep up. Which explains both why Macs are slower and why Windows crashes.
That being said, is it really fair to compare "Mac", which is OS AND hardware, to "Windows" which is OS only? You'll never get a true comparison- it's like comparing apples and really cheap easily upgraded fast apples. =)
I was just about to buy a IMac and eventually replace my workstation with a Mac. I'll most likely buy a upgrade from photoshop 6 pc to photoshop for Mac. Any body that does print graphics will know how much easier it is to do print work on a Mac than on a PC. It's only now that PC monitors come calibrated, so that what you see on the screen matches a pantone swatch. Speed means absolutly nothing, if you end up spending 4 hours to fix the color on your files so that it will print out correctly at the printing press. And as CPU get faster, it becomes more irrelevant. Being able to show a customer a screen that is 99% accurate to the printed product saves a butt load of time.
I've been using Photoshop for . . .um . . . about eight years now. Initially, all I used it on was a Mac, because quite frankly, Photoshop for Windows in 1995 was a gross, nasty piece of software.
.things I'm not even sure I can call to mind - the way menus lay out, the lack of some standardized interface items (like a save button) . . .have always left me feeling like the PC version of Photoshop and other Adobe apps are kind of afterthoughts - that Adobe must view the Mac version as the REAL version, and the Windows version as the weaker sister.
For reasons mostly related to my profession (Landscape Architect, at the time), I switched to a PC, and began the task of using Photoshop in a Windows environment. At the time, version 3.0 or so was getting better, but still pretty nasty. Now we're up to 7.0, and it is a remarkably better piece of software. I love it. I now do 3D work and image editing, and Photoshop work probably comprises 25% of my time. I'm extremely happy with it, as I am with the copies of Premiere, Pagemaker, and Illustrator that I use in the course of my work, as well.
That being said, I have never been able to escape the notion that it has seemed that Adobe has never quite gotten the knack of porting the software over to the PC. Granted, it runs like a champ, but just little things . .
I fight this battle with my cluster of close friends, most of whom are designer types, about once every three months. I think I've finally got them convinced that you CAN run Photoshop and Illustrator on a PC. For years, they assumed that you couldn't. But that opens up a whole different can of worms that I'm not even going go get into. Use what you want.
So, I'd say this is a surprising development, given my experience with Adobe software over the years.
anything i tell you will cloud your opinion.
Here here.
I'm using Gimp on all of my platforms (Windows, Linux, & OS X). Can't beat the price, and it is more than sufficiant for all of my photo-shopping needs.
the PC used may be a helluva lot faster than the Mac in the study...but they are of comparable price. ...it might just be me, but I'm not going to pay a steep hardware price premium for the priveledge of running candy-coated bloatware of on OS. i'll pay for my cheap and comparatively blazing fast commodity hardware and run an infinitely configurable OS that's *cough* free.
now if you work in a professional print or design shop, the font management on Mac trumps ALL cards. Who cares how fast your frames render or layers get filtered if the system gets your fonts confused!!!
point made: hardware and software choices are dependent on use. there is nothing "better" overall, only "better" in certain situations.
It is SO much faster doing nearly all filters. The 3rd party ones even show considerable differences
Hello? This is the year 2003 calling RevRagnarok!! Come in RevRagnarok!!
Where the hell have you been? I've used PS on fast Macs and PCs and believe me, there is no real difference from a user's point of view. In fact, the PC versions certainly felt snappier to me, and this seems to be confirmed by the benchmarks linked from this article.
Maybe this is why we don't see Jobs bending reality while claiming the G4 is still 6 times as fast as a Cray 5 by running a PS filter any more...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Yeah, something like that very likely happened. It is impossible to shoot down Apache with rifle fire. Let's hope this war won't turn out to be like the operation in Mogadishu, Somalia.
What if Apple would help GIMP with the documentation and usability the same way Sun helped GNOME ?
I don't know how many Mac people this will upset, but given the large hold Apple has on design pros and film, this seems like a bad move on Adobe's part.
Do you really think that someone at Adobe just decided to announce this on a whim? Or that maybe the interns are playing a practical joke on the webmaster perhaps?
Please. If Adobe is going to say something like this, I'm quite certain they've had their financial and marketing braintrusts run the numbers more than a few times, to see what kind of impact this could potentially have on their business in a "worst case scenario" (i.e., Mac users get all bitchy).
In other words, your righteous indignation has been accounted for and factored into their budget, thank you very much.
yup, hes not biased- thats why at three different loadings of the page, i got three p4 3.06 ghz advertisements. can you say 'paid shill'?
also, for a real education, see the 933mac vs. the dual 1.0gig mac tests w/ AE. the 933 is almost as fast as the dual-- clearly showing that AE is NOT programmed well enough (like Final Cut Pro IS) to take advantage of the second processor.
lemmings and suckers all.
Adobe is just pissed at Apple for purchasing Final Cut Pro from Macromedia and then competing against Adobe's Premiere (and some say After Effects). Not only did Apple purchase something from Adobe's main competitor but they also made Premiere look like an embarrassment.
Have you ever compared FCP to Premiere? FCP wins no-contest.
Huh. I'm a professional photographer, and I just bought one of those 17" powerbooks (sweetest computer I've ever owned). Obviously, Photoshop is my #1 App. This pisses me off.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I am in full agreement that a high-end wintel box will out-render any mac, and I run a mac-oriented media production unit. But...
I read said article in a copy of some trade mag. I was annoyed and immediately recycled it, because:
1. Focus on hardware alone misses the point and causes people like me extra unnecessary work.
2. The 'article' in question is being used as a large advertorial insert partnered by adobe and intel, IN DISGUISE.
3. The 'article' and all the surrounding 'information' leaves out crucial issues like uptime, human interface, Return On Investment, training time, technical support, h/w-s/w integration, and other minor economic factors that add up significantly over a year's production. These factors more than make up for the difference in render time. [Ask any of my friends who've tried and tried to make Premiere do what it promises how much time they've saved...]
I keep telling my interns [and anyone else who will listen]: it doesn't matter how fast your hardware is if your wetware is lagging. Speed requires optimization all the way down the signal path, starting with ideas.
Damn those pesky terrorists
Overall, I suspect Adobe is looking at their sales figures and making rational decisions based on that.
First of all Adobe on windows is a horrible clumbse experience, second of all "PC's" have a upfront cost that's much reduced, bu: they might not come with a modem, ethernet card, CDR, DVD player or compatible components. Theirs a good chance if some part goes wrong you have to contact that part maker who may or may not own up to the faults of his/her/its product. Apples are enormously easier: something goes wrong call 1800 APPLE, within twenty minuts: Hello this is apple, your NVIDEA GeoForce 500000 talks french, no that's not normal, ok here's what to do...
Why? The survey doesnt reflect that Photoshop is only using *ONE* of the mac CPUs at any time during their tests, so it's quite understandable why it lags behind. ** However, If Adobe/3rdparties got their finger out and actually wrote their filters to take advantage of multi-cpu systems then you might be suprised at how well a dual-g4 does against an x86 system. Do the math, it shouldn't be too difficult.
Now all we have is... breakout... super-breakout... photoshop
Uh oh, looks like somebody thinks that the platform tail should be wagging the applications dog. Sorry, it works the other way around. An OS is nothing without useful applications. The other way around, not so true, considering that the two OSes in question provide basically the same functionality. And, frankly, Mac hardware is slow and overpriced when compared to PC hardware. As someone who has used Photoshop both on my home PC and the (very high end, dual proc) G4s at school, I have to say that there is no noticable difference in performance on any image that I've worked on (going from web-sized stuff all the way up to high-quality print media).
--sdem
While I know a PC is faster for any Adobe app, the actual page that links to that page has the context reveresed. It's not "ADOBE Prefers PCs." It's "If you Prefer PCs, read this!"
The inferrence I made was that MAC was still the de facto standard.
How can this gorgeous woman [anncoulter.org] be such a heartless right-wing bitch?
I think that makes her sexier! That photo of her with Ronnie, WOW!!!
I remember when applying a filter to a 24MB image took overnight, now they happen in a minute or so. Have we reached the point where it doesn't really matter how fast your computer is at PhotoShop/Illustrator because everything is fast enough? Or has the image size/filter complexity gone way up since the mid-1990s?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
To make the tests fairer they should have used dual 1.25 GHz pentiums as well and then see what results came out
How long did it take them to get a decent OS X version of their software out?
With respect to Illustrator, I'm still waiting. Illustrator 10.0.3 in OS X can be annoyingly slow, while Illustrator 7 in the Classic environment (or when booted into OS 9) on the same hardware flies. I don't know where the blame lies, but it's irritating.
Every rule has an exception (except this one).
Maybe they simply prefer Windows XP over MacOS X Hey, who knows?
As a Mac user, this is great. Now other companies will have the ability to create better, easier to use, and snappier programs that do the same thing as Photoshop for half the price.
Wait, I just described MacGIMP.
Wow. This is a really tasteless and tactless move by Adobe. Unbelievable. So what you want, how you want, regardless of it's effect on your cutomers and your business partners.
They must be taking cues from the Dubya 'diplomatic' core...
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
What where you expecting? Adobe is getting is ass kicked by FinalCut Pro, FinalCut Express, Shake, etc. The truth is that the Mac market for Adobe "video" is almost zero.
Also this results are heavilly based on "After Effects". Photoshop is not as big of a difference.
Wonderful benchmarking for After Effects - completely forgetting that AE doesn't make use of the mac's second processor.... No wonder it's slower, but not twice as slow. If Adobe got off their corporate butts and made AE work well with MP on the mac, then the results would be a little differrent.
Ofcourse, my wife tells me about the new PC AE setup they installed at their TV station - it crashes all the time - completely taking down the whole system....
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
PC stands for Personal Computer. A Mac is a Personal Computer. A Windows box is a Personal Computer. PC should be use not to distinguish OS but to distinguish the ROLE of the computer (ie: PC vrs Server vrs Mainframe)
"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
Why would this be a bad move for Adobe? It's not exactly a secret that the P4 3.06ghz is the fastest consumer level desktop cpu at the moment. Seeing as there is a larger market for Adobe in the x86 market (despite the large percentage of macs in design/video/etc) this makes quite a bit of sense. Besides Adobe sells software, for both platforms, they're not a hardware company. Basically it's a personal preference what platform you use, both are *fast enough*. It might not be personal in the case that your company has to decide what platform to choose, in which case how much raw processing power you can get for a certain amount of money is vital. And I can't imagine why publishing benchmarks would enrage the mac community, it's not like they're making them up. Having factual information is always good, even though you prefer one platform over the other.
Err, needed to fix the title
"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."
As a professional graphic artist who uses Adobe products on both platforms, I'm not quite sure I agree with the findings of the author. I always find benchmark results from either side to be suspect. I judge by user experience. I find that my results are better, and much easier to achieve, on either of my Macs. I have grown to accept Windows as a sometimes necessary evil, and am quite functional with it. However, and maybe some of you out there have noticed this, tools in Photoshop seem to work much more reliably on the Mac. For instance... color correction, minor adjustments to position, hotkeys, and anything done freehand seem to work less consistently in the Windows version. Strange stuttering, having to hit hotkeys twice, taking forever to place items exactly where you want them... these add up in a business where you are constantly playing beat the clock. Now, before you all start flaming me about being a newbie, or checking my manuals, getting a new keyboard... I have been using Photoshop since the beta for version 2, and Premeire since the very first betas. I've been making a living with CGI for over 12 years. Again, this is my experience with these products, YMMV. I suggest that Adobe is promoting stories like this to teach Apple a lesson. Apple has really put the hurt on Adobe with Final Cut Pro, and with their purchase of several other effects software companies, will soon start to hurt sales of After Effects. This is not to say that Adobe's products are inferior... I think they got lazy with their stranglehold on the market, and don't appreciate Apple filling the gap. What they should be doing is making better products for Mac users. We are largely responsible for supporting them up to this point, and would continue to do so if they kept up the good work. Taking so long to get Photoshop for OSX out did not make them any friends, and suggesting that they were going to stop releasing Premeire for the Mac didn't help either. Ask any of the "Mac Faithful"... Adobe runs a close second as a company that we would break a bottle on the edge of the bar and cut you for badmouthing. Bottom line: their Mac products are slipping, but in general still (IMHO) get the job done better. Let the flames begin...
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
This would:
In short, this could be a good thing for Free Software.
Or not.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Can a mercedes beat out a souped up rice burner in a race? Not a chance. But I would choose the mercedes over the rice burner and day. Its all about the experience.
I don't think they care Mac -vs- PC, they just want to port less and sell more. Look at the link at the bottom of the page - a whole page of redirects to hardware (mostly PC). Probably a nice kickback for each clickthrough.
Adobe's banking on Photoshop as a platform, that people don't care what they run, as long as Photoshop screams on it. Why can they do that? Photoshop has no competition. (no, not the GIMP either). If the PC makes up the majority of their market, they can slack on the Mac version parity.
The big problem with all of the "Photoshop Filter" benchmarks is that they're all true. Pick a filter, any filter, it's going to run on one thing better than another. There are dozens of filters, each optimized for a different environment, hence some are faster on mac, some faster on windows, maybe even some faster on unix. Choose your filters carefully, and you can 'prove' any performance claim.
The other thing they're doing is pushing print production to InDesign. I firmly believe that they're delaying Acrobat 6 to take full advantage of the angst over Quark's delays with version 6 for OS X. "No native Distiller? Well, switch to InDesign, and you don't need that old Distiller!"
I doubt Adobe is the actual source of the stupid axis-labeling error -- Adobe attributes the images to Digital Media Net, the parent of the site that published the article this is based on -- so I'd imagine it more likely that the error's on DMN's side.
It's interesting to look at Digital Video Editing, the site that published the original article entitled "Macs vs. PCs III: Macs Slaughtered Again".
I'm not enough of an editing guru to comment on the validity of the tests, but the writing is strikingly unprofessional: "Mac stalwarts will cling to the notion that Mac OS X is so much better and easier to use than Windows XP". He's obviously got an axe to grind. Writers who compare Macs and PCs and *start out* with a chip on their shoulder kind of piss me off.
It seems quite possible that Adobe asked the author for a couple of images, and he came up with these worthless, mis-scaled pieces of junk to force his own point. But maybe it was an accident, and I'm just a pessimist.
Well, maybe true, although I trust the test and believe the PC is indeed faster. Moreover you forget that in this test a single processor is compared to a dual processor.
Anyway, you forget the maintainance costs of the workstations - and I think that the MAC is quite cheaper on this side. Their hardware tends to be more reliable and OS/X as any UNIX is easier and less time consuming to administrate.
Moreover OS/X is "better" and simply has less bugs, so overall the productivity on the OS/X could be better than on XP.
Moreover I would think about the difference of the power consumption - maybe current is very cheap in your country but I would believe that the MAC needs less power - this could sum up to ~ $50.- to $100.- / year, these are costs that are quite often forgotten in calculations - this way a flatscreen can be a lot cheaper than a power hungry cathode ray screen.
They pissed. Apple's Final Cut Pro has killed their Premiere product.
Solution: Hey Adobe, write some better code and may you'll be on top again.
It's called competion and Adobe appantly doesn't lie it.
Hey, look, no doubt Windows PCs are faster for a lot of "look and feel" things. But as somebody who uses, and is his home's and his small office network admin, there is no comparison.
Windows is a big pain in the @ss when I install, remove or update anything. I figure that Windows "down time" more than makes up for the fact that my Mac has delays when manipulating the GUI, renders PS stuff more slowly and occassionally has a "spinning color wheel" for minutes. Additionally, I have had no catastrophic OS failures with OS X since switching from 9 and I have at least every few months some major problem with Windows that ends up being hours of downtime! Add to that the well-known and well-exploited security issues with Windows and, for me, the choice is clear.
Yet, I would love Apple to put this Megahertz myth to rest by getting away from Motorola (since they seem not to be able to deliver) and move to IBM, or better yet, move to AMD. Still, I think OS X will always come up slower than Windows because (a) I don't think software companies know how to optimize code (or don't want to put the time and money into it) for the Mac and perhaps more significantly, OS X will always be more secure than Windows. And security generally puts a hit on speed. I'm willing to live with that.
-A
I heard a general on the radio this morning talking about how the current sandstorm could take out an Apache. Lets see bullet vs. grain of sand. I'll bet on the bullet (of course the chances of the sand getting in the right spot to gum the works is more likely); I think many more things are impossible: Like Bush telling the truth about this war having nothing to do with OIL. Why then is there such a huge deal about defending the pipelines and oil fields in Iraq?
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
the link shows the results of a test and says absolutely nothing about Adobe declaring any platform "preferred."
Whats with this description.
... since we all know how well Adobe optimizes it's products. :-) Adobe also admits that people use Illustrator 7 or 8 for most of the critical work because Illustrator 9 and 10 are so slow. Hmmmm. Given that the PowerPC architecture is based around efficiency instead of brute force, these graphs do not really surprise me.
They just don't take into account the 20 minutes of fu**ing with their PC on each bar.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
Now you know how us Linux guys feel. I'd be nice run photoshop on Red Hat. Certainly there should be portable code that provides native implementation of applications on several major platforms : Windows, Apple, Linux and Unix. Why hasn't this happened? I suspect it's a matter getting Microsoft angry. Apple is a victim of their own medicine here. For years Apple has insisted on "exclusivity" for helping developers. Now Microsoft, having defeated the Justice Department and getting a walk on antitrust charges, is insisting on exclusivity. Your Apple Juice doesn't taste very good, does it. Give me Quicktime on Linux and I'll cry with you. Until then ... oohhh well : join the club.
I guess those Adobe folks are on crack... have you seen PS run on a Mac vs Windows??? It is SO much faster doing nearly all filters. The 3rd party ones even show considerable differences. - RR
In fact, I have. In addition to systems administration, I've also worked as a professional graphic designer (and sometimes still do for side cash). And pound-for-pound, the newest versions of Photoshop run better and faster on Windows than on Macintosh.
The reason PhotoShop was much faster on Classic (Mac OS 9.x and earlier) for many fucntions was due to the way mutlitasking and memory management were handled.
Multitasking was "competitive" multitasking, meaning that the process in focus could, in theory, steal as many CPU quantums as it wanted and ignore interrupts from other programs. To demonstrate this, start a large network download or upload in an application (Netscape, Finder, and Fetch all work). Now load a large image in PhotoShop, and resize the editting window so horizontal and/or vertical scroll bars appear. Now scroll and hold the mouse button down for about 90 seconds. Go back to the application that was responsible for the download. Notice that it has timed out because it stopped receiving data. The application and its IO interrupts were ignored while you held the mouse button down to scroll. Obviously this is more advantageous when running one process "that matters", such as a filter benchmark.
The memory management on Classic is also pretty simple. First, there is no protected memory in Classic. An application has a preset "Preferred" and "Minumum" amount of memory setting attached to its binary. At runtime, Classic attempts to find as close to the preferred memory setting as possible, down to the minimum amount. It allocates all of that memory at run time, or fails to launch if the minumum memory setting is unavailable at that time. Throughout runtime, memory management really only consists of using that memory and possibly swapping some of it out. This vastly reduces memory management overhead.
With OS X, these advantages are erased. The processing capabilities of the system (especially AltiVec) still help vastly with some filters. However, handling other processes, context switching, memory allocation and of course the more complicated Quartz graphics engine offset the advantages. You can run filters faster in the background, the application and OS is vastly more stable, but you cannot run them them as fast as when they are in the foreground in Classic.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
It's been -160 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
Last time I checked 160 seconds was more than 2 minutes... unless that "-160" isn't a typo and I'm really going BACKWARDS in TIME!!!
"How can this gorgeous woman [anncoulter.org] be such a heartless right-wing bitch?"
She has a brain, perhaps?
So, someone ran some benchmarks and then Adobe posted a bogus graph showing that a PC was faster than a Mac doing something. Perhaps a little oversimplified, but I think anyone who picks a PC over a Mac based on that one page is missing a few things.
What about a consistent, well-design user interface that isn't always one step behind?
What about superior color management and a truly WYSIWYG pdf-based display architecture?
What if design pros don't want to have to deal with linear mouse acceleration that makes fine adjustments akin to slow torture?
What about the fact that most design pros don't want to have to spend a day every month or so troubleshooting some nonsensical Windows problem?
What about Microsoft's increasingly oppressive product activation and upgrade policies? What about their draconian approach to DRM?
What if people don't want to use an OS that is still built upon the blasphemy that is the Windows Registry?
What about the 50,000+ virii that affect Windows only, and the handful that affect OS X?
What if creative pros don't want to deal with a welter of Windows-only spyware?
What about Microsoft's seive-like security?
I could go on. I know all those things add up to more lost time for me than the time saved on a few select operations.
Remember the opening scene of Air America? It happened before, too.
Isn't there some version of Godwin's Law that states when someone claims 'Apple is dead' the thread comes to a complete halt?
Seriously. The Mac x86 argument has been flogged, flayed, stepped on, dismembered, burned, and then danced upon. Apple would be slitting its own throat. It'll never happen.
We all know the G4s are lagging, that is old news. We know. Everyone knows. Wait for the G5. It's very close now (3-4 months away). Then let's talk. I don't know if the PPC 970 chip will beat whatever Intel has in July but I bet it'll be a lot closer.
Incidentally, I'm surprised no one else had the same reaction I did... there's nothing stopping you from having your cake and eating it too. Doing video work myself, I prefer the Mac interface. I do my editing and compositing (project mode) on the Mac, and then send it to a cluster of headless PCs for network rendering. Cheap PC hardware is a bonus.
The Mac OS and interface is the best.
The Intel/AMD CPU speed is the best.
Media work that relies on rendering is time-sensitive (and therefore money sensitive) so I hear the plight of the Mac people who want to speed things up. For video work, a day's worth of billables will buy you at least 1 stripped-but-fast PC easily. I just use them as 'spare brains' and continue with my Mac. After Effects has great network rendering, so does LightWave, etc.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Looks to me more like Adobe is pushing Dell hardware. At the end of there "in-depth comparison" they have a Buy Gear link which *gasp* links to an order form for a Dell PC. The MHz stuff aside, Adobe's snub of Apple and pushing Dell hardware is not good...
The webpage doesn't say Adobe "prefer" PCs at all, that happens to be a word in the page URL, if the page was pcfish.html it wouldn't mean Adobe thought PCs were fishy now would it. Seems to me all this topic is is a huge troll.
Are usually pretty hard on Apple. I mean, they have to have beat Intel on hardware and Microsoft on software. Now, OSwise, I think they've done the software part with OSX. I really like it and even if it's a touch bloated it's nothing like XP. More than anything, that's the real strength of the Mac.
Sadly for Apple, it's hardware is reliant on Motorola to manufacture a processor faster than Intel, and Motorola doesn't have a lot of interest in that level of competition. That's why we get articles like this and this. The grim truth is that Macs ARE slower than PC's. Everyone who's not a zealot knows it, and bs like the "Mhz Myth" and "Oh, I personally KNOW they're faster" is propaganda and delusion. Even if more is done per clock cycle, the PC's are DOUBLING the cycles the G4 can do, and it's taking it's toll. This is not new, not hidden, not rocket science.
This isn't unique to the G4. Computer rooms across the country are having their PA-RISC, Sparc, MIPS and more yanked in favor of cheaper Intels. Sure there are niche applications you'd never use an X86 on, but by and large you can use a PC with Linux/FreeBSD and beat anything else on price, speed, power consumption, heat, and rack space. These are essentials for businesses, and this is where economies of scale really start to push new technology.
So, Apple needs to get better hardware. They either need to get IBM/Motorola to make them a better platform to run their excellent software, or they need to port to X86. There is no existing platform in the market now that has the economy of scale as X86 and it's really starting to show. The company has reinvented itself many times in the past, so I have confidence in them to do *something* to boost their standing, but this is certainly a dark moment in Apple's production cycle.
Does the speed difference really make up for the lost time from crashing applications and constant reboots of windows? I don't know about you guys, but I've been a hell of a lot more PRODUCTIVE since I got my iBook.
Any chance this is some sort of retalliation for Apple producing iPhoto?
-- Charles A. Plater
Let's hope that Apple can figure out a way to get some more performance so people will have a choice once again.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Of course the PC is preferred, when you have a one button mouse, you can't use those nifty right mouse button context menus! ;-)
People who use Macs don't use them because they're faster.
Adobe has for a long time now achieved feature and interface parity between their Windows and Mac products. That's no mean task, and they should be applauded for it. But it seems a little short sighted of them to name Windows the "preferred" platform just because it's faster. Photoshop may be the same on Windows and OS X, but Windows and OS X are very different. And no matter how graphically productive you are, you are still going to end up spending a large amount of time outside of Photoshop's isolated interface.
If speed were really the end-all and be-all of graphic design (or computing in general) Apple would have died a long time ago and PC users would still be using DOS.
--
no it's not 'FREE', why do you think a Mac costs more than a PC? because you pay for the software.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You clowns (mac nuts) sound like the creationists I've been listening to on the radio; denying the existence of dinosaurs before 10,000 years ago "I've seen carbon dating on the same Mamoth with dates of 13,000 and 50,000 ON THE SAME MAMOTH?" ...I mean come on carbon dating? As if!!!!
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
...wasn't trying to clone Adobe's apps (like Premiere and Photoshop), Adobe would like Apple more!
Anyone bother searching for the word "preferred" in the article? I even searched for "pref" and didn't get a single match.
Why would slashdot post such a misleading and sensationalist headline?
Hmm...lets see...Could it be....ad revenues!?!?
Anyway, you forget the maintainance costs of the workstations - and I think that the MAC is quite cheaper on this side
And this is based upon what empirical metrics?
Moreover OS/X is "better" and simply has less bugs, so overall the productivity on the OS/X could be better than on XP.
And this is based upon what empirical metrics?
Moreover I would think about the difference of the power consumption - maybe current is very cheap in your country but I would believe that the MAC needs less power - this could sum up to ~ $50.- to $100.- / year, these are costs that are quite often forgotten in calculations - this way a flatscreen can be a lot cheaper than a power hungry cathode ray screen.
And this is based upon what empirical metrics? Your entire post is entirely based upon completely unsubstantiated claims, going so far as deriving some bogus power consumption values based upon bogus (non-existent) power consumption values. I'm not saying that these numbers don't exist somewhere out there, but my impression is that you're just giving the Mac entirely the benefit of the doubt and just presuming that it must be better at everything.
Yikes!
What you call gorgeous I call 'morgue quality anorexic transvestite', but then again, I'm 100% heterosexual and only turned on by 100% feminine real women.
Other people may have slight "tendencies" that make them prefer slightly less feminine 'women'.
Adobe may be mad at Apple for FinalCut Pro, which is in a higher class than Adobe's premiere, yet at a good price point. What might have angered them even more was the one-third-as-expensive FinalCut Express, which does almost all semi-professional stuff - with ease.
They may also be mad at Apple for waiting for Quark, rather than just recommending their InDesign.
In either case, realize the page merely refers to an obscure benchmark test by an author who has shown himself less useful by providing such wonderful articles as "top 10 reasons for a mac - top 10 reasons for windows", ridiculing a mac without providing much insight.
I think enough people already pointed out Adobe's imcapability of understanding our time system...
They absolutely hate every version of Windows, and they've tried them all. The viruses, the defragmenting, the maintanence, the networking funkiness, the PITA Word file formats, the crashes, the outrageous fees PC vendors charge for reviving dead PCs.
They won't even run QuickBooks on Windows because of the hassles. I know several that run QB Win on the Mac/PC emulator, it's easier.
This will be ill received by the layout people.
This "pcpreferred" page is part of the "DV" or "motion" section of the Adobe web site and I think that context is important. In the video space Adobe is having a real tough time competing against Apple's Final Cut Pro. Most Mac based video editing is now done on FCPro and Adobe's Premiere is losing market share. However, in the x86 arena Adobe doesn't have that competition. So it is in their commercial interest to try and move video professionals over to x86 because that is their only guarantee that Premiere get sold. I personally believe that x86 currently has the raw performance edge over PPC but that is not the only basis on which professionals make their choice. Final Cut Pro is not only a superior product than Premiere ii is also far better optimised to make use the dual-processors of the Mac platform. I think Adobe is just miffed and want to lure video professionals away from FCPro and the only way they think they can do that is by diverting the attention away from their relatively weak Premiere by emphasising the speed of x86 and some other Adobe products. Basically they are admitting that Premiere isn't cutting it against Final Cut Pro!
PC means "personal computer". You can have a Mac PC, a Dell PC, or a homebrew PC. (or many other options).
That link means "Which PC is preferred", not "PCs are better than Macs."
Tempest in a teapot. Must be a slow news day.
On the single/dual proc issue, the G4 may be "better" at some things (floating point math is all, really), but the fastest processor is 1.3 Ghz or so. No matter how good it is doesn't change the fact that is terms of absolute speed (which is all that really matters when you're trying to get work done) the P3/P4/AMD processor is the better choice.
Maintainance? Meh, OSX & Windows are about the same. There is this great myth about Windows requiring so much more maintainance but most of that has been propagated from the server side of things. On the desktop Windows has been fairly good and stable since NT3.51. Many times desktop issues are caused by crappy hardware. There is plently of high quality PC hardware out there that rivals Mac quality. The only reason I use Linux as my primary OS is because of Microsoft's invasive licensing terms and business practices.
Power consumption? Gimme a break. There's no way even a small company cares about saving a couple (literally, as in $2 per month, if even that) bucks on "green" computers. LCD's work fine on PC's, what's your point? The power consumption difference is so small its pointless to even think about it.
Two things.
Adobe wants folks off of Macs. There are two reasons.
The first is that Final Cut Pro is killing them on the Mac. Their Mac market is drying up for video and for good reason. FCP is much faster on a G4 than Adobe, and cheaper. These tasks comparing FCP Mac with Adobe PC would show the Mac winning in many instances. That's a fair comparison in terms of productivity since you will never be able to get FCP for the PC.
The second is that switching brings in revenue. Upgrading isn't working as well anymore, so switching is the next great hope. Microsoft makes more money when most folks switch to Mac than they do if they buy another PC (not that they recognize that as being in their best interest - but maybe they do). Adobe makes more money if someone switches to PC than if they buy a new Mac.
Maybe in another year or so they'll be encouraging switching back.
Adobe doesn't hurt its business one bit.. Who else will people switch to? Photoshop is like the Windows of the design world, and I hardly think there's another piece of software as good as After Effects. Further, it probably helps their profitability to have their business narrowed down to one platform anyhow.
www.lonseidman.com
It's a shame. I'm a PC user because of the cost and availability of MAC programs and Hardwear, but I always thought the MAC to be a superior computer. It seems far less buggy than M$. I don't know Adobe's purpose behind this. It may just be a marketing ploy for them to get more PC users to buy their products. That may be why they didn't use state of the art equipment. Again it's not the best product, look at Sega Game Gear. Color stereo and with a backlit screne but failed to the B &W mono gameboy that finally released a version that's up to the game gear's caliper.
All spelling mistakes are intentional and done to enhance the creativity of the submission.
The Lunatick, Carpe Corpus!
Vaio's? Ick. Those are like wannabe Apple machines. They are certainly more pricey than a typical PC as well, and when you load them up with all the goodies you wind up almost (not quite) paying as much for a Vaio as you would have for an equivalent Apple.
Furthermore, I think there are a lot of hidden costs with running Windows. Sure, a good Mac user won't have too many problems adjusting to Windows XP, but I have typically found (especially with Windows XP) that Windows is quite annoying. Every few seconds some new baloon or alert comes up as if it really required my immediate attention. After using a PC for a few hours I literally start feeling stressed out[1]. In other words, you say that the switch was easy for your users, but I think you're only looking at the surface.
There are also other more technical hidden costs. Networking Windows PCs is a chore. I don't care how great Microsoft thinks Active Directory is, it's a pain in the ass. A better directory system is Novell's NDS, although that has problems because it does not integrate as smoothly with Microsoft Windows (gee, wonder why).
When you look at the total cost of ownership that Microsoft is so fond of pointing out, I think you find that in general an Apple machine is going to be equivalent to a Windows PC. A Linux system will be cheaper because of the lack of software licenses, though the lack of a really solid desktop interface (bad clones of Win32 do not count) really hurts Linux. Don't get me wrong, the desktops are getting there, and in many respects the Linux desktops are better than Win32, but they don't compare to OS X by a long shot.
Couple that with the fact that the next generation Apples will be coming out Real Soon Now and I'd say the better long term choice is to stick with Apple.
Footnotes:
Anecdotal evidence, granted, but nobody I know who uses Photoshop on their PC actually paid for their copy. All the mac users who do, did.
For the home user, when PainshopPro costs £30 and offers similar functionality, you'd be mad to pay for Photoshop. In the professional world I sure most copies are licenced, but I'm sure Macs still represent very significant proportion of commercial users.
okay i don't have a spiffy new shiny supermachine of a pc, but no f**&ng way that the gimp is faster than photoshop. and there's less functionality.
;).
i love the gimp, it's a very cool & successful OSS project, but don't make people believe this. it's just not true.
i mean, just loading time, and drawing upon moving is extremely slow...
[quote]
Personally, I find myself more and more using The GIMP on Linux because it's faster than Photoshop on *any* platform (and it's open source
[/quote]
Where does it say in the article that Adobe prefers or has picked anything? It is simply a presentation of PC vs Mac benchmarks. PC wins, duh, it's faster. What's the news? I think Slashdot's headline is a but misleading!!
I agree very much. My two PCs are running Linux, though they are still x86. The arrogant assertion that PC == Windows on x86 is no surprise, considering for example that M$ wants us to equate their OS with a graphical windowing UI in general. It's just depressing to see that even the Slashdot folk has been fooled into this M$ marketing ploy.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
So where can I get a NetBSD (or Linux :)
version of FrameMaker?
- Hubert
As both a computer and graphic arts professional. One's choice of imaging platform boils down to workflow and the Wintel platform is just not there yet. I use Photoshop 7 on both the Mac and WinXP platforms and yes Photoshop renders more quickly on the WinXP it is useless for finished work because of the virtual nonexistance of Color management for the PC platform. On the MAC calibration is easy so the Pantone (tm) color you see on the monitor is what comes off your proof printer and eventually comes off the phototypesetter. There are far more people with digital cameras and scanners on the PC platform BUT for professional use the Mac is the preferred platform due to the tight integration of color management into it's OS's whereas Wintel thinks color management is a add-on product and the results reflect this view
Letting customers spend less money on hardware also puts pressure on software vendors to reduce their prices. Anybody else remember when software shipped on various flavors of Unix and PC, and the software on the PC was always cheaper? Even after PC hardware started to outperform Unix workstations? The software did the same stuff, but people wouldn't buy it for the same price on PCs.
Adobe should run the other way from commodity hardware, unless it plans to aim its software at the mass market rather than the graphics pro market.
The mass market is hard to make money in, given that most of the buyers can't tell the difference between their options and will thus buy based on price, and most of the competition is free (software bundled with scanners, the Gimp, etc.).
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
All I know is that something needs to happen soon with the Mac's processors, or Apple might go out out of business. Wait a minute ...
-- (Score:i, Imaginary)
Why, if one may ask, would Adobe miff a huge established user base by "choosing" one platform over the other, especially when they keep the Mac and PC versions more-or-less concurrent anyway? What possible motive would they have for declaring one platform "preferred"?
On the other hand, I can think of a trolling motive for someone to see if they could get this thing posted. This "news" appears to date to 11 november of last year, to boot.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
That's the problem with graphic designers doing statistics.
Thanks for the link to the bogus graph;o site .gif
That is a hilarious mistake, there at
http://www.adobe.com/motion/images/video_comp
Your explanation is technically correct, up to the point of "With OS X, these advantages are erased".
The Mach kernel provides two thread scheduling schemes that Adobe could take advantage of: a simple thread priority scheme, and a real-time scheme in which an application specifies n of the next m processor cycles a thread expects to consume, and wether or not it can be pre-empted.
I have experimented quite a bit with the latter, and I am very impressed with thread latency and the level of control afforded to developers with the Real Time scheduler.
Adobe needs to take advantage of either of these thread scheduling schemes. Of course, the filters should be implemented on a separate thread, since you wouldn't want to run the entire app at an elevated thread level, or (even worse) on a RealTime thread. Also, because most Carbon API's are not thread-safe, these elevated/RT filter threads are quite restricted, although they can use std memory, file I/O, and POSIX thread synchronization libraries.
It sounds to me (just speculating here) that Adobe's apps are threaded, but these threads make carbon calls, and therefore can not take advantage of elevated/RT threads.
The most hated company in all of Macdom is not the beast from Redmond, who makes the tasty, lickable Office, but Quark. User-hostile doesn't even begin to cover its marketing and support... user belligerent is more like it. They flat-out refused to port to OSX (they still haven't), and they openly despise the Macintosh platform and insult its adherents at trade shows.
They are this way because they believed they had an unbeatable product, a single killer app the world could not do without: Xpress. The Mac dweebs would buy and keep buying, because there was no credible choice.
Until Adobe came up with InDesign, which is easier, faster, every inch as powerful, compatible with Xpress "Xtensions" and runs on OS X. Adobe shows their users lots of lovin', with trade shows, rational support, and deep Mac roots. Now InDesign is poised to topple Xpress into irrelevancy.
Adobe does not have the only pro-caliber image editing app out there. If they're upset that iPhoto killed ImageReady, and incensed that FinalCut destroyed Premier, wait until Apple decides to buy the TIFF-any codebase, or Avisa Image, or just roll their own Photoshop killer based on the GIMP.
Adobe is playing a very dangerous game. If Quark can be dethroned, you better damn well believe Photoshop can be, too. Apple's got pockets deep enough to do it, and marketing savvy that put FinalCut Pro on a Powerbook in the news vans of every TV station in the civilized world.
You don't take on Apple and win.
SoupIsGood Food
The same guy who did this benchmarking wrote this, not exactly unbiased. Trackback at MTG.
The Ipod has a better UI, but when you consider cost an Archos is hard to pass up for an Ipod.
I think it's reflects poorly on Adobe, to be honest. Bad coders....
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
Maybe you think this is a relatively fresh idea that you are presenting to Mac users. But for those of us who are Mac users and keep up with different forums and whatnot, this is just more of the same uninformed dribble that is just teeming with holes.
Does anybody else feel like there should be a "Why moving to x86 is not a good idea, and would not be what you think it is FAQ"? That way, we can just refer posts like this to the FAQ and keep from repeating ourselves over and over.
How many mac users are buying Photoshop Album or Photoshop Elements now that they get iPhoto for free? With iMovie, FCP, and now Shake and Rayz, Apple has been storming Adobe's turf for quite some time now...
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Next time you are sitting at home, lamenting your lack of friends, think about what kind of annoying twat you are and how you might go about fixing that.
I haven't seen anybody mention it yet (probably missed it) but this is pretty clearly a shot against Final Cut Pro's bow. FCP runs only on Macs and it has been eating Premiere for lunch. Many in the industry consider FCP to be way ahead of Premiere in features, usability and interface. FCP's weakness is Adobe's main selling point: PC flat-out render faster than Macs. Period. They just have more raw power. The G4 chip has been orphaned by Motorola for the last 3 years. If Macs had the equivalent processing power of PC's, FCP would be a no-brainer for those deciding between the two packages.
Do some backtracking from that link. Go to http://www.adobe.com/motion/ and there you will see a link called "Prefer a PC for DV".
This does not mean Adobe preferrs PCs or Macs-it just means that if you prefer a PC-here are some tests by a 3rd party that shows you what they found when they tested.
It isn't that Adobe comissioned these tests-only that they are relaying to a user what was already reported in a magazine.
Because the average Mac owner is more likely to be able to afford Adobe's software.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
The 'video composite' chart actually adds 40 seconds to the minute and the Mac score. The graph portrays the PC's as 131% faster than the mac, when in reality it's 37%. Along with using an older version CPU make me wonder how else the study was manipulated. [troll] Obviously the retard that made the graph was a PC user using Excel [/troll]
We've been moving from Win2K -> OS X to save costs. When my little business expanded from 4 people to 12, I was looking at getting a PC Support person. The NT servers break randomly, and the desktops explode at times. All of a sudden, 2K/XP refuses to recognize VPN settings, or other oddities.
/Network/Applications.
:(
:)
I spent a few days learning my way around OS X Server, and now all the machines are centrally controlled. I run non-default applications off
When I look at the cost of the person, the $200/seat different in price is pretty insignificant. A low-end "business class" machine (that comes with XP Pro and non-shitty hardware), will cost around $1200 w/ LCD monitor and a support plan. For $1300, I get a 15" iMac... that's not a major cost difference. On top of that, I can get Office v. X on the Mac for $200 when I buy a workstation, so for normal personel, I have a machine for $1500. I then add the machine to the Support iMacs computer group, and the login permissions and settings are set.
To each there own. If you aren't comfortable learning to use OS X Server, however, I wouldn't bother. While you could do the whole thing with Linux + OpenLDAP, it would be a bit more painful.
At the lowend, the costs are pretty similar for me. At a the high-end, I can see the difference spreading to $500-$800 (dual G4 1.43 vs P4 vs dual-Xeon), so that might affect your decision...
The Adobe decision collection costs me $1000/seat though...
OTOH: putting my designers on BBEdit instead of Dreamweaver... Priceless.
Alex
Do you have a study showing that PCs have a lower TCO? :) Do we really want to get into that whole discussion? What OS are the PCs running? :)
I am a heavy Adobe user on Windows. I publish books, and in my experience, Adobe products are expensive and sometimes difficult to get working properly. (For example, PageMaker and various fonts.) Adobe does not even publish a support email address!!! As Adobe shows its true colors, Apple users may get the message and move on to other alternatives, like GIMP. I wish there were a painless (easy transition and friendly usage) PageMaker-like application for Linux. Suggestions, anyone?
How fast does Final Cut Pro work on your PC? Got numbers?
"While this is true moreso today than in years past, the Mac market still constitutes a large enough percentage of Adobe's bottom-line that they would have to be mad to alienate this constituency... " A person uses a PC, but from the Mac standpoint, they are a constituency not to be offended. Ie, adobe be careful or we will declare jihad upon them! Long live the leader!!!!!! -Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Did you try it on Linux, or just Windows? Notice that I said "GIMP on Linux". The Windows port is (still) not nearly as stable or fast as the *nix version. There have been *dramatic* improvements in the Windows version since it was first released, mind you, but peformance is not up to par, at least in part, due to the usage of GTK+ on Windows and other code ported from *Nix instead of native Windows code.
My journal has hot
Apple had a great relationship with Adobe, and had them at I don't know how many keynotes to tout how well Adobe worked with (name any model of apple) and that worked out well for both Apple and Adobe. But now, Apple is designing a lot of free or low-cost software that is in direct competition with Adobe's products. I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe hadn't already discussed this announcement with Apple as a sort of a "quit shoving us out of the market, or we are going to stop committing to it."
Apple is playing with a double-edged sword here. Consumers like to have free software bundled with their computer, but its presence makes it more difficult for software producers to find a proffitable niche in the market, and ultimately results in a decline of available software. This hurts the consumer it was intended to benefit, and ultimately the strategy backfires on the computer/OS vendor that supplied the free software in the first place.
Case in point: how many web browsers do you see for sale nowadays? That market is no longer economically viable for any software publisher. I remember when Netscape was a pay product, with a "free for educational or home use" license, but I somehow doubt they made any money on it.
In some ways, Apple's strategies are just as harmful as Microsoft's. M$ has its wonderful "embrace and expand" tactic they use to hijack new technology, but Apple just plain embraces and gives away for free, which have the same result - lowering the viability of a software niche. In that respect, Apple's producing the operating system AND software titles is just as harmful as with Microsoft doing it. (who are often criticized and periodically endited as a result)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
"Yeah, I used to run Illustrator on my mainframe and look at the result on my 3270 and it worked pretty well," said a former IBM customer, "But now I hear you can get a computer where the whole thing will fit on one normal-sized desk, and the screen is capable of displaying text in less rigid columns. This will do wonders for my publishing!"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
They cost like workstations, they are supposed to be used by workstation users, then they need to have the CPU of a workstation:
64-bit
VERY fast
Get with the program, and get Itanium 2 or something before it is too late.
It was in the slashdot headlines just a day or three ago.
Take a look at the tax software firm, Intuit, who installed drm, pissed off a great many of its customers, and announced that they are not taking it out.
Adobe and most other software firms have internal estimates of "piracy" costs. By moving to PC only, they get to ride on the drm bandwagon, thereby getting a handle on "piracy". It's that simple.
Macs have problems going forward. Once this Adobe move goes through, don't be surprised when you start seeing sec notices about future existence being in doubt for Apple. Adobe has looked into the shaky future of Apple, due to the processor problems. They have made a calculated move. If they can move a large number of their base to PC, why would anyone else move to Apple? Once that happens, and Apple is on even shakier ground, why would anyone buy a Mac? By taking this step, Adobe has in effect sped up the demise of Apple. Once Apple is gone, does Adobe lose their customers? No. The customers move to PC, Adobe gets drm control on "piracy", Adobe short circuits the processor problem/indecision of customer equipment purchases, gets everybody on one platform, and buys a year or two of profits before they are swallowed whole by gnu/linux.
It's the smart move. Somebody at Adobe must be a godfather fan.
I'm not a big user of photoshop. Or was. I basically used to use photoshop for png/jpg creation/touchup for images for web sites, which was about 90-95% of my use. Since I no longer use windows (haven't booted into it on my workstation in many months, probably closer to a year), I am restricted to using Gimp, which I don't know much about. No big deal, as from what I've been shown, and what I've read, Gimp can mostly replace what I was doing in Photoshop.
It is the daily users, and those that rely on Photoshop for a living that will have problems. But when pushed up against a wall, something will give. I can foresee Apple throwing some money behind the Gimp now. And other companies as well. Add the widespread development work going on with other gnu applications due to their use in cinema and other related fields, and it looks like Apple users using OS X will be the big winners, not the losers.
It is only a matter of time that everything migrates to Linux/Unix/OS X/whatever you want to call it, due to the disruptive effect of gnu/linux. There is no way around this. The video/artistic tools are going through a profound change now because Hollyweed and television tools moving from Unix to gnu/linux. Because of foreign governments/businesses widespread adoption of gnu/linux. It is under fast development now, and only snowballing in nature.
With all of the above, one part of the slashdot article, and the referenced article, is on speed. This is another strength of gnu/linux. Gnu/linux already has distributions supporting AMD's 64 bit offerings. AMD has announced that they will be bringing 64 bit to the desktop. How long do you think it will take Dreamcast and other Hollyweed development firms to start porting the gnu applications to 64 bit when they can get low cost desktop 64 bit processors?
Want to put an AMD 64 bit processor up against a desktop Intel processor? Forget Itanium. Itanium, if not dead, won't be affordable for graphics designers. And let's not forget clustering.
Think a 3 Ghz Intel processor is fast? How about a cluster of $200 computers running openmosix, Beowulf, or whatever clustering application would be applicable. Even Apple announced a clustering solution recently. What does a 3 Ghz computer cost when they made the comparison? $2,000? $2,500? $3,000? Let's put that up against a cluster of ten, fifteen, or twenty $200 computers with 1.3 Ghz Durons, running a clustering program, and Gimp.
The best part of
I've been holding off posting until I read through to see if a post like this existed. It seems most people who are posting are baseing their argument on the world of three years ago. But I would go even further than this poster to say that Premier isn't only struggling to Final Cut Pro it has all but lost the battle. From what I hear (admitidly I've fallen out of the loop... but I still have friends who are well in it) in most edit shops people don't even consider Premiere any more. Final Cut Pro is the professional standard in the same way that Photoshop is the professional standard. I don't know if it's deserved or not... I was always one of those brats who said "I know how to use Premiere, I like Premiere, I'm staying," so I never had the chance to try FCPro. But I hear that even people who had that outlook have all made the jump.
I see nowhere on that page showing anything about Adobe choosing the PC over the Mac. All I see is that they show that the PC is faster. So? The PCs have always outperformed the Mac, especially when you compare dollar for dollar.
I don't really like Adobe all that much, but the link from the above story doesn't make me feel at all like they have "gone PC."
Please, editors, be more choosy next time. (But don't choose GIF.. pun!)
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Actually, this is far more likely to cause Apple to start working on The Gimp and adding the features that Photoshop has that The Gimp lacks.
And GM will switch to hovercraft designs because Goodyear said nice things about Ford.
The GIMP is no competitor to Photoshop. Sure, it's an impressive piece of free software, but graphics professionals are not going to switch from Photoshop. On average, each user has years of experience, probably has taken courses in using Photoshop's advanced features, and may have a considerable investment in plug-ins on which they rely to do their job. They would sooner switch personal computers before they would switch image processing software.
Allow them to add features that Adobe does not see fit to add
Apple's software developers don't work for free. The GIMP is under the GPL which means that Apple would have to give away all of the code that they develop for it. They would not be able to sell it (they could try -- and become the next Mandrake). Thus, they would be paying software developers to add features to a Free Software program so that Apple could have a substandard Photoshop replacement that would still run faster on PCs. That's hardly going to result in massive sales of Macs.
In short, this could be a good thing for Free Software.
This has nothing to do with Free Software. There are only three possible outcomes for this and neither of them involve Free Software:
1. Graphics designers switch to PCs.
2. Apple switches to x86 architecture CPUs.
I don't know a single serious designer who hasn't switched from Macs to PCs some years ago. It's just that Windows is more stable these days.
Slashdot strikes again. What Adobe did: link to that pc/mac comparison that one guy did that showed a Dell 3Ghz outperforming a Mac dual G4 1.24 Ghz, under the title "Prefer a PC for DV?" The link is in the "digital video products" page -- Premiere and After Effects. (Fair enough too -- if you were doing heavy video editing, it's a useful reminder of performance.) It is *not* under any of the other product pages that I can see.
So how does this justify the slashdot interpretation: "Abobe has picked Windows as the preferred platform for running Photoshop, After Effects, and Illustrator"? I don't see it.
A.
Honestly people who are serious about graphic design, movie editing, and or modeling use BOTH macs and PC's PERIOD.
When it comes to my client wanting me to either A) work on a specific platform so when I give them my files they know it will run on there machines fine or B) Needing an APP that only runs on one particular platform - Argueing over which is faster doesn't matter, it comes down to the FACT that as a graphic designer I NEED to have both my Apple Dual 500 AND my P4 1.6ghz Windows XP machines.
Having one or the other ONLY in these fields WILL limit you.
Ave Molech Setting
Not at all...intelligent people choose PCs.
OK, first read this... taken straight from the page:
In the July 2002 issue of Digital Producer Magazine, Charlie White reported on a head-to-head duel between a single-processor Dell 2.53GHz Pentium® 4 -- the Dell Precision Workstation 340 -- and the fastest Macintosh then available -- a 1GHz dual-processor G4. The contest compared renderings of files created in Adobe® After Effects®, Illustrator®, and Photoshop® software that are typical to the video post-production workflow. The graphs below show some of the results, which were consistent. While the computers used in this study are no longer the fastest in their respective classes, the information is still valid. The PC outperformed the similar Macintosh machine, at an impressive rate.
And this above all the pretty graphs:
Graphics courtesy of DMN - DigitalMediaNet.com
Listen up, dumbasses... this was an article written entirely external of Adobe and most likely was on Adobe's website simply because it was an Adobe product in the press. This has nothing to do with Adobe's own preferences.
Furthermore, you can't take a single set of benchmarks as indesputable proof of anything. Different benchmark tests can get widely different results.
Finally, if you look at the page one directory up, you'll see one of the links that says the following:
Prefer a PC for DV? - See what an industry expert says about PC vs. Mac for digital video editing."
It really has little to do with Adobe's preference for platform and more likely was put there because the sales of the PC versions are trailing behind the Mac versions. Adobe is at it's best when both platforms sell products evenly.
8==8 Bones 8==8
If speed matters more than software quality, then you're right. I should switch to the PC straight away.
But around the time the 500mhz processor came to be, a funny thing happened. Most people don't need more speed than that. Sure, it's nicer to have a faster computer, but other things are more important past roughly that point.
I do video editing with Final Cut Pro on my 1ghz PowerBook G4, and speed is more than ample for my needs. It's all cuts-only anyway, so there's no rendering time involved and everything happens right away. Switching to the PC would mean using lousy PC software (like Adobe Premiere) or tackling the exceptionlly high learning curve of an Avid.
Macs are beautifully designed and engineered, from the cases to the software. PCs are, well, PCs. Am I willing to deal with a 50% speed decline to have a more pleasing computer experience, with less confusing administration and fewer crashes?
When put that way, well, of course I am.
Would I like to have a faster computer? Sure. But it wouldn't make such a huge difference that I'm willing to use lousy Windows software in exchange.
D
The images appear to be incorrect.
If you look at the first image, it has two times, 54 seconds and 1 minute 25 seconds. The second time is shown at well over double the length of the first, even though it only took ~50% longer. If you look closely, you will see that 1:25 got placed at 1.25, and 0:54 got placed at 0.54, hence the error.
Any of the images where the minutes are different are going to be skewed a fair amount. The error will decrease as the minute difference increases
Tish tish...
What's a little graph between friends? Besides, consider it payback for that benchmark Apple pulled where they ran a version of BYTEmark compiled for the 486 on a Pentium II, but optimized the crap out of it for their CPU.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I'm working right now on both a dual-GHz PowerMac G4 with 512MB RAM running 10.2.4, as well as a 1.8GHz P4 laptop with 512MB RAM running XP. (I have a KVM switcher for the middle shared screen of 3.)
I have used MacOS since late versions of System 6. I have only recently, in the last couple years, been using Windows full-time.
I feel like a traitor, but I have to say that, personally, I too prefer Windows when using Adobe apps. I don't know if it's the OS itself or shoddy programming for OS X, but Photoshop and Illustrator both seem slow to interact with uder OS X, whereas they seem snappy on XP.
I prefer OS X over XP in almost all other areas, but I feel that someone (probably a combination of Apple and Adobe) has seriously dropped the ball for Photoshop and Illustrator under OS X. It's just not as usable, IMO.
"Twat"? Who uses the word "twat" apart from ugly fucking retards straddling the human/primate divide. Go kill yourself you fuckhead, though one of your drug dealing buddies will likely do the service for you soon enough.
Adobe says nowhere in that article that they prefer the PC over Mac. It's simply a page about how the P4's 3x faster processor loads stuff 3x faster than the G4. They say nothing about preferring the PC, or focusing on the PC or any of that crap.
Don't let the topic spin out of control...that was simply a page showing performance comparisons.
If PCs are preferred over Macs, why are used Mac auctions on eBay so hot? Take a look, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of buyers for used Macs and peripherals. Comments? I dare ya ...
It's hard to trust anything from someone who shows 85 seconds as more than two times as long as 54 seconds. Then again, you have to be stupid to equate Microsoft with PC and even dumber to trust your future to M$. Shame.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
still does not change.
Many comments I see here are complaining about the graphs. Fine, whoever made that graph is a bit confused about metric and 60-based time. However those who complain are blindly ignore the fact: the time is still less.
Also the other whining type of comments is "just you wait" for the G5 which will come out in ... well whenever, and will be available for consumers in .. well who knows..
And in the mean time, the earth still turns and the world still goes on. Intel and AMD still continue to churn out faster and faster chips, with cheaper and cheaper prices.
[FLAME ON] All of these comments prove again, that the Apple followers are some special bunches of people, who are very "devoted" if not fanatical and far away from reality who will make up any excuses to ignore their shortcomings. [FLAME OFF]
I wish, however, that one day Photoshop and other fine products in media manipulations can be available on Linux so we can actually crow about the potential gains. (-: Unfortunately, we have no numbers and no real fact to compare how these applications run our beloved OS.
Just you wait,
Give us faith, :-)
I won't be buying anythng from Adobe for my MAC. GIMP, here I come. Never liked most Adobe software anyway. Too clumsy.
..large number of people at Adobe, who actually know where their software is run, I'd have to say they've chosen more wisely than any random Slashdotter could.
Picking the underdog as your platform of choice doesn't make much sense in the business world. *snort*
I officially *HATE* Motorola. Motorola always made better chips than Intel, and that dates back to the 68000. The 68000, the 68020, the 030, and the 040. All better than their x86 (and x88)equivalents. But then a few years ago, Motorola started slacking. Look what they did to Palm. They (Motorola) thought they could just make minor modifications to the 68000, now a 24 year old processor, and they thought Palm would continue buying from them forever. All the while Intel kept on increasing the clock speed on their ARM processors for the big joke that was the WinCE market. 200 mhz Intel chips versus 16/33/ and now 66mhz Motorola Dragonball chips (ie Motorola 68000). Why didn't Motorola help Palm adapt the PowerPC chips for the Palm platform (or even a Dragonball based on a 68040 or 68060)? Obviously, there would be less emulation problems with going from a 68000 based chip to a PowerPC then to switch the platform to Intel and Texas Instruments ARM based chips. Even IBM just announced a PowerPC based reference design platform for Linux based PDAs. How did Motorola (and IBM) drop the ball on this? The PowerPC was also the most suitable choice because they offer low power consumption to begin with. PowerPC chips run in the Nintendo Gamecube and the Series1 TiVo. It would've been perfect. But instead of being a chip powerhouse, Motorola prefers to focus on building inferior cell phones. Such a dramatic decline from a company that used to make great television sets.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Nope.
Perhaps I should have said lower total purchase cost. (for hardware and software)
I have been fighting this since the early late 90's, and it all goes back to adobe's (and other companies) poor code. That's one reason companies are able to push lareger processors on users so quickly, and that's because they constantly bloat their code and do half the job. That's one reason the high end unix community doesn't need super fast raw powered processors, their code is clean. *sighs* People never look at the real problems, they just look at what seems more easily fixed / explainable.
It is indeed empirical in some ways but I always said "could", "may be", "would think", I just wanted to point out that hardware costs alone mean nothing to the overall costs of computer solutions.
Re:Supporting the Mac has got to be costing Adobe money, considering the development dollars invested compared to the number of installed units out there.
O.K., so Bruce Chizen, et. al run a huge corporation, make profits, answers to stockholders but support ing the Mac COSTS them money. Did you pull Adobe's financial statement out of your ass? Or is there only room for your small change? (your $0.02US)
I don't know how many people here have been doing Highend Video editing for a while. But Apple used to be the preferred platform for Avid products also. Until apple tried to push avid around and force them to not support any format other than quicktime. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/nov98/110 2-0598.asp I wouldn't be suprised if something similar happened here. For all of you that think Steve Jobs is your savior from Bill Gates, you better keep looking. Because Apple is the least open system in existance. You may not like Microsoft but at least you have some options on what hardware and software you can use on your own computer.
If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
If you think
It doesn't run more slowly on a Mac, It runs more carefully and with love.
Think different. Avoid adverbs.
But nobody in the PC press, none of my Windows-using friends, *nobody* would believe that this excellent machine was anything but the last, dying gasp of Apple as it sputtered to oblivion.
This was when Apple's marketshare was higher than it is now. Mosaic and Netscape products were released for the Mac at the same time as their Windows bretheren. Apple hadn't blown its lead in schools.
My point is not that things are worse for Apple now than they were then. I'd say that Apple is moving forward quite well. But there is this continuing background murmuring, of which eyefish's comments are an example, that say Apple is doomed.
Taken point by point:
WiFi "g" for PCs much cheaper than on the Mac: That may be true, but it seems to me it wasn't until Apple released its line of AirPort products that "b" started moving. I think the same thing is true of "g". Everyone was on the fence until Apple announced support.
all PCs nowdays come with USB 2.0, and FireWire is almost standard or really cheap to add: Apples and oranges. USB 2.0 is only slowly catching on, and FireWire is the standard for consumer digital media, particularly DV. It's cheap to add on to a PC, but some folks don't want to have to add it on. Time and effort equal money and frustration.
FireWire 800 (and I bet you'll eventually find it cheaper on PCs): This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. "Sure, it's on the Mac, but soon it will be on the PC, so pay attention to how fast my PC's CPU is now, but when discussing FireWire, pay attention to what *may* be on my PC in six months."
the iApps, which are very easy to use, but I bet Microsoft or someone else will copy them soon enough: More of the same, but even worse. Building applications isn't like painting by numbers. The iApps could have been built a long time ago by Microsoft or someone else, but they weren't. Apple is continuing to upgrade the iApps, while Microsoft talks about computer watches.
iPod (competitors are getting close also on copying it and improving it as well): Let's see. The iPod has been out since October, 2001. It made everyone's "best of" lists that holiday season. It made everyone's "best of" lists for the 2002 holiday season. Apple keeps improving it. So how far in the future does something have to be before it's just vapor?
Mac OS/X, which is a nice piece of work: I agree with you there. And it's no small feat, bringing your installed user base into a completely new OS, while attracting new UNIX users and a few Windows converts.
One more thing. Apple's business model is built around innovation, rather than building the cheapest systems. Dell's model of selling commodity hardware more cheaply than the competition works for them. But the thing is, that model only works for one or two companies at any given time, because anyone else who competes with that model will eventually die because they won't be able to continue operating on razor-thin margins.
The Information Superhighway is littered with the remains of companies that tried the one size fits all model of commodity hardware sales. In the mean time, Apple, the company that started the ball rolling, is still very much alive and providing some sweet (non-vapor) products.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This is the page that shows the actual comparison.
A 3GHz PC vs a 1.2GHz (albeit dual proc) Mac.
So, even if you add the processor power, the comparison is between a 3GHz PC and a 2.4GHz PC.
How about some more information on the rest of the system hardware? Lots of factors play into this.
Check out the Adobe Motion Gear Page to see if they may have other motivation...
2 words: Ask Experts
Go visit your local professional publishing houses and ask them what they use and why.
I'm always seeing people get so upset and flame each other on stuff like this. Look at yourselves, people. IT'S A BOX FULL OF ELECTRONICS! Jeesh. don't put so much of your ego into it. Pretend just for a moment that computers just *poof* went away. Do you have a life? If not, maybe you should re-evaluate your values. But don't replace it with another penis extension or something to strut your intellectual plumage. Get over being angry about being a 'geek' and find some inner peace. Bitching and moaning about which computer sucks more is so unproductive. You think that all your technical minutiae some how gives you superiority over another but it does nothing more than show how timid and afraid you really are --afriad of being nothing or not being significant. Find something of real substance in your life. Get a life. Get married and have children. Go scuba diving and enjoy the creatures of the sea. Go hiking in a National park. But stop bitching and moaning and venting anger and hostility about freaking dead objects that blink. Care about something bigger.Gosh--was that my outside voice again?
The entire theory that Adobe is now "preferring" the PC platform is based on the fact that there's a page called pcpreferred.html on Adobe's site.
:)
Oh, you mean it's
PCpreferred.html
and not
PCPreferred.html
There goes my theory that it was a page set up for referrals to Adobe software by your Primary Care Physician.
Adobe products use hardware acceleration, right? They don't even bother mentioning the video card, ram, or any other details about the computers. I think this is definitely a M$ payoff.
I love to read this kind of post.
I agree 100% - it's not the TOOL - it's how it feels that influences you. Yes, Intel is faster, but the interface is not something I enjoy using. You've really found the middle ground there! Bravo!!
Has anyone noticed how screwed-up those graphs are, especially the first one? It says the PC took 54 seconds and that the Mac took 1 minute and 25 seconds. If you measure them both in seconds, then that is 54 seconds versus 85 seconds, but the Mac bar on the graph is more than twice as long as the PC bar.
.54 according to the lower index. Is this index supposed to represent seconds or minutes? If it's seconds, as suggested by the fact that the PC bar lines up with .54, then why is there a marker at 0.9? And more importantly, why does the Mac bar line up with 1.25, and not .85?
The PC bar lines up with
Tricky! (But not as tricky as the incredibly misleading title on this SlashDot posting.)
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
network admin. who is responsible for solaris, aix, linux, win2000, 98, xp,mac os x, os 9, and an old hp1000 terminal system.
/.'ers want, desktop unix with a kick-ass gui?
proper configurations all around. the mac runs better than anything but solaris (as a server, not a desktop.)
so how does going against the windows grain make me a follower?
by being part of an elite minority?
or by having the 'holy grail' all
just jealous suckers here.
Scratch disks, hard drive kind, size make huge differences for some reason on Macs, also lots of RAM, same kind fastest machine can take RAM matters too.
Further, lots of geeks will disagree but to an artist it makes a huge difference - INTERFACE = PRODUCTIVITY - even XP is pixelated and ugly, there is little that is not pleasing to the eye on a Mac.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The link says "Prefer PC for DV". Don't forget that Apple is a prime competitor for the DV editing market with Final Cut Pro, Shake, etc. As for Unix codebase, don't forget that while Adobe is on a unix with Mac OS X, the code certainly isn't *nix as easily portable in all it's carbonness.
Well, that makes me glad I use SURFER SERIALS to get BOOTLEG SERIAL NUMBERS for my FREE copy of PHOTOSHOP 7 (and every other version before that)
Adobe is suckin Bill Gates Dick.
Pros and film people account for a small portion of adobe's market. It makes sense for them to devote more resources to the PC market, where most of its customers are.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
no body
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Designers are a very non technical bunch. I have trouble getting a VERY talented designer I work with to even move up from Netscape 4. It is my perception they do not want to be computer savy and are quite pleased to use an alternate platform from what the IT people use (one that they "get"). Apple has done a very good job establishing their brand this way. They know and trust the Apple brand, so I don't think to many will make the PC their platform of choice any time soon.
eh... it should be pretty clear that thats not really miguel, just a joker making a point.
personally i think miguel and his mono cohorts are woefully naive
Everytime you see a reference to Apple's marketshare, you have to realize it has nothing to do with its userbase. Decreased marketshare refers to new sales only. It doesn't mean current users are abandoning the platform. Mac users hang onto their machines and use them productively for longer than the average PC/PC user. I use this 5 year old Mac to run Jaguar and all the latest Adobe and Macromedia apps and then some.
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
from the adobe page, the link reads
"Prefer a PC?"
not
"We Prefer PCs!"
as in,
"Do you prefer a PC? well, we support them, too"
and the time scales in the graphs are screwed up.
Between it and LAME, OSS has some serious marketing issues!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Apple makes video editing software:
Final Cut Pro/ Final Cut and imovie.
These have become very popular even though they are very different the adobe video editing software.
Adobe can't complain about preferential pricing as Final Cut Pro is about $900 although Apple does give away imovie with macs.
It would make sense for Adobe to steer people to PC's where apple's video software is unavailable.
They might be shooting themselves in the foot though because apple uses PDF rendering and I assume pays adobe for the privledge. Also makes PDFs more popular (on osX you can save any document you can print as a PDF with no additional software)
laziness? The are only 2 reasons a 'Platform of Choice' ever exists for a particular piece of software.
1: Bribes and payoffs - aka 'partnership'
2: Developer laziness.
Adobe is probably so inflexible that porting it to other platforms takes significant time/effort.
I have a suggestion for everyone else:
USE GIMP!
Why does the article say 1Ghz, but the picture say 1.25ghz? Geniuses..
--Doug
"Please don't sigh like that, maam"
Man o man. If only your mom could have afforded $.15 for a clothes hanger...
It's all your fault. Releasing a shitty carboned version 5, and interminable delays on cocoa'd version 6, have forced the design and publishing industry into staying with Classic, delaying the adoption of OS X, and causing Steve to pull his little remaining hair out.
And there you've got adobe, with OS X native Photshop 7, and a good chunk of their market is not upgrading because of this. And until all the print shops upgrade, none of the designers will... I'm a designer myself and i'm still using Classic because I need quark, and all the servers in our environment are running classic as well.
Must of been a flame posting, can't be for real. Mac / SGI are undisputed leaders in graphic manipulation.
I'm making an exception this time because I can save a lot of people time before they delve into the over 500 posts of reaction to this story (at least for those who read /. in threaded mode).
Adobe is not expressing a preference for Windows PC's
The linked page is called "pcprefered.html" because it is the page which is brought up on the Adobe Digital Video Products page when you click on a link that says: "Prefer a PC for DV? See what an industry expert has to say about PC vs. Mac for video editing."
In other words, those who followed the link from The Adobe DV Products Page are indicating a preference for PC's. Since it's a page for those who prefer PC's, it's called "pcprefered.html".
There is nothing in the body of the page to indicate that Adobe has any preference for PC's, reccomends PC's over Macs, or even likes PC's. The page is a mirror of some Dell vs. Mac speed tests that some guy did. That is all.
By deep-linking to this page out of context, the person who submitted this was obviously trolling... perhaps hoping that the article would not go up until a little closer to April 1.
You may now safely ignore all of the responses below and move on with your life. No need to mod up this post, I'm already posting it at 2. Save your mod points for a real article.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Mac users hang onto their machines and use them productively for longer than the average PC/PC user. I use this 5 year old Mac to run Jaguar and all the latest Adobe and Macromedia apps and then some.
And the cynic in me has to point out that there are three significant *negative* contributing factors to using the same, unchanged box for years:
(a) Macs cost more. A new Mac is a larger investment than a new PC. At the low end (where most sales these days are happening) a new Mac can be almost twice as much as a new x86 box. This tends to make users buy new computers less often. A Dimension 2350 from Dell, for instance, has twice as much RAM, a processor that's over twice as fast as the eMac, and costs $499 instead of $999.
Remember when the iMac came out? It was far more sanely priced than Macs up until that point. There was a *huge* spike in sales of "second computers" to existing Mac users. Mac users are currently overwhelmingly price-constrained in purchasing new Macs.
(b) Macs tend to be much less upgradeable. You don't save your case, your monitor, your video card, your sound card, your Ethernet card and your hard drive, and build a new computer around what's left. As a result, you're stuck with "throwing out" what you already purchased if you upgrade.
(c) Lack of games on the Mac. Most people upgrading their computer do because games are squeezing it, not because Office runs slowly. And yes, even on the Mac, there are more home users than there are graphic pros doing lots of Gaussian blurs.
On a lighter note for Apple, the grandparent poster was hideously wrong in trying to claim that Apple is losing a customer for each new customer they get. That's nuts. Assume that new users go to Macs and PCs in equal proportion (not a bad win for Apple, since they have to convince people to go with a less common, more expensive platform). Furthermore, assume not a single existing Mac users switches. In that case, market share remains absolutely flat, yet Apple is gaining users. As long as none of those users buys a new computer for five years, for five years the "new user ratio" will rise. Apple can do just fine with a flat market share.
May we never see th
The data on the page is messed up and the article it refers to sucks/is erroneous/whatever. And the URL does say "PCpreferred.html" in it. BUT just for kicks, I looked at the referring page "http://www.adobe.com/motion/", which uses this set up for the link:
"Prefer a PC for DV?"
See what an industry expert has to say about PC vs. Mac for digital video editing.
So, you're all reading a bit too much into this. It was a question, not a statement. And it never says anything about announcing an official Adobe position. That's what press releases are for....
(Resume reading less deeply now.)
What does a "Primary Care Physician" have to do w/ hallucinogens??
.
Direct competition with MS, which is a software company while Apple is a hardware and software company. Apple loses its shirt on hardware competing with cheaper x86 boxes. No more huge r&d budget for Apple software and hardware - can't afford it. Then no more Apple.
ok, we've hashed over the raw speed differences to death on this board. I would just like to say that after looking at the page for 3 seconds, I realized that the graphs were drawn by an idiot.c omposite .gif .54
http://www.adobe.com/motion/images/video_
Take a look, and see if you can tell what's wrong? As drawn:
Dell P4 3.06 GHz: 54 seconds =
Dual G4 1.25 GHz: 1 minute 25 seconds = 1.25
In case you didn't catch it, go look at the labels on the graph & the axis, because here's what the real values equal:
54 seconds = 0.9 minutes
1' 25" = 1.4 minutes
So, instead of a difference of 57% it should only be 35%.
This does not mitigate the fact that the Pentium was faster, but rather than someone is making pains to make things look even worse then they are . . . . or (if I was feeling generous) that they are simply mathematically illiterate.
If you look at the first graph, as you point out, it compares 0:54 seconds vs. 1:25, but they just blindly did this:
0.54 vs. 1.25
This gave the Dell an advantage on the graph.
But, in the second graph, it gets funnier. 2:05 vs. 3:47 becomes:
(real) 125 sec vs. 227 seconds = Dell is 45% faster
(Adobe) 2.5 vs. 3.47 = Dell is 28% "faster"
So in their second graph, the Dell looks a lot slower than it actually is. I guess that evens out then. Whoever did that charge clearly forgot that 1.00 in "time" is sixty seconds, not 100 seconds.
after skimming it a bit more, the opening paragraph says that it was comparing "a 2.53GHz Pentium 4 and a 1GHz dual-processor G4", but the graphs are labeled with a "Dell P4 3.06GHz" and "Mac G4 dual 1.25GHz". So which is it?
Proving you can run a productive office without any Microsoft products. BSSH
They are getting cozy...
..k
The Mothership
reading through the comments, it's amazing what's getting blurred from already mucky story. Here are some things I'd like to point out:
A few months ago, we reviewed a Dell system that packed the fastest PC processor available at the time, the Pentium 4 2.53GHz. Since then, the chipsters at Intel have topped themselves twice, and this time, the newest chip runs at an unprecedented 3.06 GHz.[www.digitalvideoediting.com]
The Dell machine used in these tests was, in fact, a 3.06 GHz machine. The 2.53GHz machine mentioned is in reference to a machine they recieved a few months ago. I have no idea why this was referenced in the article.
Mac OS X 10.2.1 was the OS used on the Mac in these tests [www.digitalvideoediting.com, p.2], and Windows XP Pro was running on the Dell. (also p.2)
Further speeding up the Dell entry is new gigabit Ethernet and USB 2.0 support. [www.digitalvideoediting.com]
Can someone tell me exactly what Ethernet has to do with image rendering? Are they testing this over a network???
And you people complain about the EDITORS not reading the aritcle!
Now that you realized that you should by a new PC, at the bottom of the page is a link. Go ahead and click on it. Note the dell for sale, dude.
Stickers seen on a box with a familiar logo:
Intel Inside
Mac Outside
Okay, it looks like they fixed the graphs, 54 seconds is now at .9 on the scale and 85 seconds is now at 1.4 minutes.
From all the other articles, I thought you all were smoking something, but they must have recently updated them.
-- John
try reading the post below saying the same thing as you...
Adobe makes a product called After Effects. They also make a product calld Premier. Well, products from Apple such as Final Cut Pro. iMovie, iDVD and DVD Studio Pro compete directly with these products.
Since you can now buy a Mac and get iDVD and iMovie for free, Adobe stands to make little money on the sale of Macs for video editing.
So, they need to show the world that the PC is a faster platform. If you buy a PC for DV, you way more likely to buy After Effects and Premier.
It's all marketing hype. Adobe is no better than MS when it comes to skewing statistics.
it's completely true that PCs are much faster than Macs. I just put together a PC the other day:
Asus Motherboard: $200
2.4 Ghz P4: $170
512 MB 3200 ddr $60
120 GB 8 MB 7200RPM hd $150
enlight case $80
3com 10/100 nic $30
SB Audigy 2 sound card $100
Plextor CD-writer (48x) $95
Toshiba DVD/CD-rom $30
ATI 9700 Pro $300
Total $1215, just add shipping and a few more things (floppy, mouse keyboard and it's $1400)
$1400, now compare that to the high end G4
$3700!!!!!!
Let's see what it has:
10/100/1000 ethernet, big deal gigabit ethernet is not used by 99% of people and can be easily purchased for the pc too.
2 GB of ram, ok 3x$60=$180 so my pc would come out to about $1600 (the asus motherboard goes up to 2GB), with much much faster memory.
Firewire 800, the asus motherboard has firewire 400, but I could easily upgrade to 800 later if I needed to (very few devices support it now anyway).
the HD is the same capacity, but it's most likely
faster in my pc (maxtor special edition, 8 MB cache.)
videop card: my PC beats it by far:
ATI radeon 9700 pro against nvidia geforce 4
I could also have added a DVD-Writer for $250
(the latest Pioneer) which brings the amount of optical drive to 3, very convenient for copying cds.
I forgot the modem, but that's only $50.
In the end, what do u have?
a $3700 mac that's slower or just barely as fast
as a $1600 pc, well I think that's sad, not to mention the fact that I can upgrade anything at any point very inexpensively, which is not the case with the mac AT ALL.
what does the mac have that my pc doesn't have?
The mac case is really cool looking and extremely well designed, mine is ugly at best, but I don't care.
And OS X, I use Windows XP but I changed the interface completely and make it look like linux,
as plaiun and fast as possible. I don't like unecessary decorations and special effects everywhere. OS X looks very nice and is cooler,
but my stripped down XP gets the job done and
has a lot more applications and games (I play a decent amount of games).
I just wanted to share my thoughts about this subject.
I used to have a mac (a PowerMac 7600/132)
and I have always liked macs, but right now
they just are not a good deal at all.
Once Apple finally catches up to the PC speed,
then I'll switch back.....
its funny to me how everyone tries to compare the platforms. it's like trying to compare apples and oranges. the architecture isn't even close to comparable. i know that in our 'hurry and get there' world speed appears to be everything. no one mentions how often photoshop crashes, though. it has never crashes on my mac, but crashes frequently on my work machine, and my pc at home.
thanks for the info.
I write code.
Did you even look at the text inside the graphs? The scale of the graphs is in minutes, not minutes.seconds. 1.5 minutes is one and a half minutes, which is about where the 1:25 bar extends to.
Damn, if this is what gets modded Insightful, no wonder nobody takes /. seriously.
Too late to be known as Bush the First, he's sure to be known as Bush the Worst.
yeah..but it still looks like shit on Windows. period. next.
Loosing= NO
Losing= YES
Loosing is not a word, LOSING, and LOOSENING ARE words.
TROLL! TROLL!
I have plenty of options as to what software I use on my Macs. I have plenty of options for peripherals. Too many!
How much choice do you people need? Why don't you just admit that you simply want CHEAPER hardware and software and leave it at that.
I have several dozen programs on my Mac that I almost never even use on a regular basis and about 2 dozen that I use on a fairly frequent basis and about 10 that I use daily if not hourly.
Why would I possibly want more than this? I have more than I could possibly need! Yeah, some of the games on the PC side would be nice, but they're simply distractions that delay my real work.
Pooty tweet
obviously, the graph was made with photoshop on the Mac. Had they used the preferred platform, it would have been more accurate.
Looks to me like Adobe doesn't handle Mac multiprocessor systems well. If it handles them at all. This is NOT a sane graph. Look for benchmarks of adobe software involving remotely similar hardware.
Looks to me like Adobe doesn't handle Mac multiprocessor systems well. If it handles them at all. This is NOT a sane graph. Look for benchmarks of adobe software involving remotely similar hardware.
With Apple's Final Cut Pro and Shake taking Hollywood by storm and killing After Effects while challenging Avid from top to bottom, Adobe is simply a non-player in this market, which might be why they prefer PC - there is just no chance for their products on the Mac.
Given that Adobe still gets nearly 50% of their income from the Mac platform, this might be perceived as Adobe biting the hand that feeds them by many Mac users and a very bad move for them in the long run.
GRRRR.
What's I find interesting is that the performance of the dual system is about half of the single processor. Looks like Adobe doesn't do multiprocessing well.
For some time I was behind the idea that Apple should move to x86, but I then came to the conclusion that if they did so, they'd be chopping themselves off at the knees. Apple is able to innovate on the software side because of their hardware sales.
Imagine if anyone could build an Intel or AMD box and run OS X on it. Because Apple doesn't enjoy the monopoly position that Microsoft does with Office and Windows, they'd have to raise prices on OS X itself, just to recoup the losses from the rampant piracy of OS X that would result.
Microsoft is still able to make money (their two only truly profitable divisions are the Office and Windows divisions) because they can charge monopoly rents on their software, and consumers just put up with it. Apple would not be able to do this, so when they raised prices on the OS itself, consumers would be driven even more torwards pirated copies of the OS.
So Apple would lose its hardware revenue base and deprive itself of the opportunity to make any money off of OS software.
If you can find a way around this dilemma, I'd seriously love to hear it, because the idea of a Mac running a scorching Athlon is very enticing. I just can't see how Apple can move into the x86 environment without slitting their own throats.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There are plenty of good uses for your old G4 Mac: 1). A internet/email computer for your mother-in-law 2). A Word Processor 3). A doorstop or paperweight 4). Uh.... I've run out of ideas - anyone else? :P
When MS has to "buy" companies like Adobe, you know that the end of their command and control structure is crumbling.
Besides, anyone knows it's trivially easy to fudge benchmarks. Using a single-threaded app on a multi-CPU machine is an old trick, and a "good" benchmarker never varies parameters, nor report them, nor say if the app was even deliberately locked onto one CPU. This is unscientific crap (A.K.A. marketing )
Microsoft will probably buy Adobe. ( and HP )
Windows is particularly vulnerable to the "Photoshop Filter Virus".
Macromedia is my preffered system for all things graphical...well, okay, everything but photo manipulation...
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
maybe my old school can FINALLY get rid of the Macs that no one can support well and have a cost burden on a thin IT dept.
Your use of the term, "PC supremacy" pretty much
lumps you in the zealot category too, Johnboy...
Oh, and change your underwear.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
I have long maintained that a computer is only as fast as it seems to the end user. In my experience, Celerons have been woefully slow for DTP apps. I have even been in settings where a G3 was more effective than a P III of twice its Mhz speed. I have nothing against x86, but have never seen anything that would make me favor them. If Apple switched to an Athon or Pentium or Itanium or whatever, I wouldn't care as long as my user experience doesn't change. Just don't make me use Windows.
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
As I re-read your post, you seem to be one of those who likes to build your PC from scratch and when you cannot build a Mac that way, they are suddenly more expensive. Compare a similarly configured Dell to an Apple and then tell how much more the Apple is. Usually not much. As for white boxes, we had an office full of them and I have never seen so many hardware failures. You get what you pay for and for me that means a machine that has yet to have a part fail.
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
Well, let's do a little calculation:
.
At least here in Europe, 1 kWh costs 0.18.-
Let's just assume (no clue if that's true), the MAC uses 80W less than the PC.
Ok: ((80*24*365)/1000)*0.088 = 61.- / year.
Well, it's not *that* much but it's at least something that should be taken into account.
If it is true that Adobe is going to support the PC over the Mac in the future, does anyone else wonder if this is in relation to piracy issues that Adobe has had in past (they've had a lot of trouble with China)? Specifically, I wonder if they would be supporting the PC/Windows market because of the promised "increased security" of Palladium. However, I'm not sure if there is a larger amount of software piracy done with Mac software compared to PC/Windows software. My intstincts tell me that there is more piracy done with respect to PC/Windows.
Perhaps Microsoft has secretly invested in Adobe, and this move is yet another to rid the world of all things not Microsoft.
Again, can we all say "greed"?
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Charlie White article and the website appears rather crude and unprofessional. His so called DV benchmark is mostly about After Effects with imported Photoshop or Illustrator files.
There are several points that render the benchmark meaningless:
(1) AE is not designed for multi-processor system, so the second CPU is most likely unused, and he could easily confirm this by turning on the CPU Monitor if he has acted with a bit more professional journalism. Why hasn't he tested some better designed programs like Maya or LightWave?
(2) Adobe is being driven out of the DV market by Apple's own Final Cut Pro and Shake which are taking Hollywood by storm and challenging Avid from top to bottom, so an AE benchmark is hardly relevent.
(3) He gave very little details about the Dell box and the price comparison is pure nonsense - a dual 1.25 GHz G4 costs as little $1999 (nearly $1000 cheaper than the $2964 Dell box, not $629 more expensive as he repeatedly suggested) and still comes with more features such as Firewire 800.
(4) We all know that benchmarks can be designed to confirm whatever we want to believe, which is particularly true when they are based on a single application. So why should anyone care about this one?
The guy talks like a Dell marketing person, and 30% of the article is essentially an interview with a Dell product manager, which could almost make you believe that Dell has invented the PC. But we all know that Dell is just a cheap box maker and parasite that profits from other's R&D and has contributed zero to the industry, while Apple has ignited the PC revolution and continues to lead in both hardware and software innovtions.
To put things in balance, here is an article from Mac Night Owe:
THE MAC NIGHT OWL NEWSLETTER
*** Issue #139***
July 27, 2002
THE STRANGE CASE OF THE DUELLING BENCHMARKS
Benchmarks are probably little different from statistics. You can manipulate them any way you want, and let the buyer beware. But recently I decided to succumb to benchmark mania and put a dual-gigahertz Power Macintosh G4 up against one of those 2.2Ghz Pentium 4 PC boxes to see if Apple's claims of superiority had any merit.
Yes, it's true that the Pentium 4 has reached 2.53Ghz and is growing, but I used the hardware I had at hand. If the more powerful Pentium 4 computer scales up in a normal fashion, the differences wouldn't be that great, right? The first installment of this "smackdown" appeared in my Mac Reality Check column, carried by Gannett News Service online and in a number of the chain's daily newspapers, and later at usatoday.com.
My goals were modest, and that was to demonstrate whether Apple's benchmarks were real or not. That, of course, required running the exact tests myself. Apple sent me a CD containing a Photoshop file, a set of Photoshop Actions and an Adobe Acrobat file explaining how to perform the benchmarks. Now there is a silly rumor out there, which some folks buy into, claiming that Apple uses a specially designed version of Adobe Photoshop and somehow cripples the PC so it won't perform at full efficiency. Worse, some folks feel the tests are really tricks to make it seem as if the Power Mac is faster. However, my experience showed no evidence of any such thing.
In fact, there is nothing controversial or strange about Apple's methods. The file they use is a perfectly ordinary color photograph and the nine Photoshop filters used perform perfectly normal functions, such as resizing, changing color modes and so on. In fact, they are remarkably unsophisticated. Since I acquired the Windows box for my test directly from its manufacturer, Sony, there was nothing Apple could do to manipulate the results.
Regardless, I got scores of e-mails from folks who managed to misrepresent every element of the test. The excuses were silly and sometimes outlandish, such as the suggestion that a Photoshop Actions file can only run on a Mac, in which case how does one explain how it ran perfec
"... this seems like a bad move on Adobe's part."
I don't think this is the case. Adobe are saying what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has every owned or used a macintosh.
Macs are slower.
Well, of course they are. My Powerbook G4, which is only a year old, has only an 800Mhz CPU. My Athlon XP 2200+ kicks the hell out of it in gaming and heavy processing tasks, such as recompiling linux kernels, etc.
This is not to say that Macs are useless to do work on - quite the contrary. I use mine for all manner of daily work, writing scripts, running xterms, writing documentation, browsing the web, whatever. It's perfectly fine.
All adobe are saying that is on computationally expensive tasks, the PC platform is currently faster. This is correct and accurate. I also believe this is an intential rocket up Apple's backside to try and encourage Apple to design some faster hardware.
Sadly I do believe the 3GHz PC is faster than a twin 1.25GHz Mac RUNNING OS X, however, I believe I can match or surpass the equivalent PC with my Mac by simply switching back to OS 9.
On my particular Mac, Photoshop runs probably 1.5 to 2 times faster on OS 9 as it does on OS X.
My question is: Does this reflect poorly on Adobe's port to OS X or does it reflect poorly on OS X?
I dunno.
If so, why don't I see a matching increase in quality of printed materials? I thought DTP folks were working in relatively fixed constraints. If I'm making a magazine no page is going to consume more than (pixels wide)*(pixels tall)*(bitdepth).
All the shops I see are still using the same resolution and bitdepth that they were five years ago, but the computers at the desks are easily three or four times the speed.
Are you folks jacking up your working resolution way above what it should be just to spin your (virtual) wheels? I can't see a reason to run a resolution more than 2x the printable resolution (which is what, 2400dpi these days?).
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
By their own admission, Adobe started out on the Mac and continue to get a very large portion of their revenue from Mac users.
It is really a very sad saga and a shameless and risky tactics for major software company to openly take side, particularly when Apple is making solid progress in all fronts with Mac OS X and Xserve and many other pieces all falling into places.
And Adobe know damn well the benchmark is bogus, because After Effects is not optimized for Altivec or multiprocessor system.
A common and unfortunate misconception, as far as I've seen. Sorry, guys, but USB 2.0 and gigE do not make a PC faster, just like Airport Extreme and Firewire 800 give the Mac no added advantage. This goes hand in hand with the whole Intel marketing gimmick about the P4 "Making the internet faster!" It drives me nuts. </rant>
Seriously, though, I could care less about this article. If the computer I choose to buy is half as fast as a similarly-priced Dell workstation, so be it. I don't mind one bit. If I choose to buy a PC because I want to have faster render times in Premiere and a host of other apps, fine. If I choose to buy a Mac because I want to use a UNIX-based OS that has good commercial app support (like Bryce and Photoshop), that's my choice. In fact, I have both - a PC for games and renderfarming, and a Mac for day-to-day work. I'm not significantly biased either way. Each type of machine has its place. Let the PCs do what they're good at (raw power, more apps, games especially), and let the Macs do what they do best (elegance in form and function, and having a nice shiny stable OS).
I mod this article (-1, clue police will be dispatched)
Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
I use some Adobe products (PhotoShop especially) on both platforms. While they are feature-equivalent, the Mac version has, IMHO, better feel than the PC version.
The magnetic lasso, for example, technically works on both versions. With the same mouse on equivalent modern hardware, the lasso on windows jumps all around and is almost impossible to use on a detailed photo. On the mac version the lasso is smooth and follows the edges more reliably.
Go figure..
to be something like "Speed is not everything!"
and hear switchers say "Photoshop was actually *too* fast on my Windows machine"
>> Two of them are looking at upgrading their apples and they are looking at the new line of Vaio's. But the Vaio is more expensive than the Mac.
OS X is the darling of the computer world among scientists, engineers, and researchers. Apple is in a key position because of standards compliance, compatability, ease of use. I do not care that the Dell is $629 less or 15% faster in certain operations because it costs me less to own the mac, I don't deal will the security problems of windows, and one box supported by one company. At universities Apple is becomming the choice of students and professors alike. I have spoken with so many people who have purchased macs, you see more and more apple laptops. You go into a lab and you see all the apples and suns filled, but the dells are vacant. Once apple gets the speed up it is over.
I'd mod myself up to get this read, but oh well....
This computer cretin was simply out of place while making this review, so bear it no weight. In the following blocks, I provide sufficient information to prove that the "tester's," Mr. Charles White's, review neglects important information, is not thoughtfully written, and is irresponsible.
First, notice the title in the article. It is definitely biased based on his word choice. He is obviously a pro-pc "I hate mac" person considering all the time he spends describing the PC. Ars Technica does a much better job at keeping tests objective and posting all tests completed. The tester probably left out a few tests for the sake of his article, adding to his irresponsibility.
Major errors in this article, including, but not limited to....
1. On page four, he indicates that the graphics card was a newer ATI Fire card (a back of the pack pro graphics card, NOT a consumer one as he claims. The same NVIDIA card in the apple can be put into the pc, but was not. Dell gives buyers several options, and he could have picked the same card for both.), and the mac had a consumer grade NVIDIA whatever Ti with 128 VRAM.
2. The Apple hard drive the tester used has only 2MB of onboard cache, while (rather cutely) the hard drive tester substituted for the PC has 8MB onboard cache.
3. Tester talks about hyper-threading. He obviously has not read the documentation Intel provides, as I have, because he mentions:
Without boring you to tears, I?ll tell you that hyperthreading is a new technology from Intel that makes one processor act like two. It doesn?t double the speed of a processor, but makes it able to do most operations faster, and is particularly effective if you?re doing more than one thing at a time with your computer (multitasking).
No, he is incorrect. Hyperthreading on average makes the processor 30% more efficient on a Xeon processor. That percentage drops a lot when one adds as many pipeline stages as the P4. I would estimate that he got less than 10% in performance gains with his hyperthreading in a P4.
Intel does not provide lots of Hyper-threading on a P4, not because of patent issues, as the reviewer claims, but because it is simply inefficient. His own two tests with other computers and with the Dell 350, hyperthreading off, make that clearly evident. Intel itself would rather have someone buy Xeon processors, for they are much more efficient.
4. He claims a bunch of other nonsense about how certain hardware (RAM, Logic board throughput at the processor bridge) makes the PC faster, which is not the case. In fact, much of what he talks about is totally unrelated to the specifics of his tests.
5. Several of his tests rely more on the graphics card and less on the processor. That skews results massively since tester uses a Fire-class card. He should have gone with a 3DLabs wildcat 4 if he really wanted to differentiate the scores.
6. Again, vector operations being performed in all these tests are not the same as floating point operations. Few of his tests used the floating-point abilities of AltiVec. The tester is a "hardware kiddie" if such a thing does exist, and there is a difference between a processor and a graphics card.
7. Many of the tests he posted were tailored for the PC. The tester probably did other ones, but the Mac must have done a decent job on those. How about opening (oops, 8MB hard drive cache), a 150MB Photoshop file in 2400dpi resolution. That file must contain anti-aliased text and a few high-resolution photos.
Finally, I would say from my experience at building workstation hardware and writing reviews for other hardware, that Mr. Charlie White has extremely limited knowledge, provides much "bs" to fill the article, and that he is unqualified for making his review. The site he posted on was digitalvideoediting.com. It is out of the scope of his review to even touch on Photoshop, other 2D, or non-digital video sources. Mr. White has neither the knowledge, expertise- check his credentials on the primary source article -nor the objectivity to make this review. His article is simply irresponsible journalism.
Unforfortunately this becomes more difficult with carbon software seriously attach the thread viewer on a cocoa application it will spawn a ton of threads, where as most carbon apps, not as many. There is os level threading and reentrancy in the OS and frameworks but on all OS's programs have to be written with this in mind. In large products like Adobe builds thes are huge code bases from a platform that did not support threading. Adobe obviously could not or did not try to make most of their programs threaded.
Why is the fucking mouse always so damn jumpy on Windows?
People need to realise that apples early systems are what Adobe started on and would not have been able to make products until the mid 90's if it were not for apple. Windows up until the mid 90's was a nightmare for graphics designers, color matching, font organization, seriously. Why would any mac designer with years of using great products from 2 companies switch for a small speed up. Productivity from retraining would suffer. I agree adobes problem is that besides photoshop and GoLive, none of their other software works well in OS X. They can not expect apple to sit there not making better products in areas were Adobe has made a mess. If Adobe wants apple to stay out it is simple make your products better, apple only enters a market when it can be the undisputed best. Yeah Acrobat really needs to be fixed it is a pile in OS X
I'm not sure who this is more of a statement on, but when I see PCP, doctors aren't the first thing I think of.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Being so l337 at 6AM in the morning, I'll suggest that Apple write the Photoshop and Illustrator killer apps. That will drive Adobe into a flat fucken panic, and I will laugh my butt off. I haven't used AE for years and Premier for longer and am using Photoshop and Illustrator on a PC, but I'll say this:
Calibration is a huge fucking pain on Windows but most Windows joes are so fucking stupid that they don't even know what it is (I have to sys admin a bunch of morons using Corel Draw). These people are too stupid to have ever heard of a Mac and/or ColorSync and would probably complain when given one... because it's too easy.
Adobe used to stand for high quality graphical software (except Premier and Pagemaker, which have always been pisspoor products) but Adobe seems more interested in colourful icon and gimmicks these days than in keeping their customer base.
Fuck em. Apple, make some competition here!
I asked why TIFFany was so expensive, and why they weren't actually doing any marketing.
The answer I got was that their price suited their "high end customer base in industry and science" and that these people didn't need marketing.
Shows you where acting like an arrogant baboon gets one.
...to find a similar comparison in which a mac wins - the only requirement is that reasonable benchmarks (and a good sampling of them) are used... no "MacMark2002" benches. Seriously, I'd actually like to see one if it exists. My experience with apple products and intensive applications has not been very good. Simply not enough memory bandwidth, and not nearly enough crunching power for my tastes.
You might notice the speed difference if the PCs you used were "top end" like the G4s. Heck, they would still be cheaper too. How's that sound? The differences in interface: negligible. The differences in speed: PC > Mac The differences in cost: the pc's are cheaper.
See that was one common counter argument to Mac zealots that wanted to say that higher Photoshop scores proved that Macs were faster, cooler, gave you a bigger dick, and so on. Now, it appears, teh tables have turned. Wether its because Adobe's Windows team is now better than their Mac team, Windows doe a better job than OS-X, the P4 is faster than the G4, or a combination, doesn't really matter.
shut up conjecture fag. fuck you. you have been babbling about this 970 which is FUCKING VAPOR buttfuck. meanwhile, most people have been using chips that are faster than this vapor 970 when it comes out. you fucking know nothing puke. 64 bits this. you have need for more memory thatn 4GB per process? what a fucking loon tune.
Pak chooie unf !!!!!! Pak chooie unf unf unf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are the Apple Zealots We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are the Apple Zealots We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are the Apple Zealots We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
I am the pusher apple-robot I shove around the blind people We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
I am the shover apple-robot I push bread down their throats We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
We are the Apple Zealots
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
We are the Apple Zealots
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
We protect you.
Apples have a terrible low power * We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks Apples has a terrible low power Do you have stairs in your house?
Do you have stairs in your house? We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
Pushing will protect you Pushing will protect you
From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
That is incorrect Shoving will protect you Shoving will protect you
From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
Do not trust the shover apple-robot
Shoving is the answer
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
Do not trust the pusher apple-robot
He is malfunctioning **
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are the Apple Zealots
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
We are the Apple Zealots
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
We protect you.
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
Shoving is the answer Humans must be shoved They must go down the stairs
You are mistaken Pushing is the answer Humans must be pushed They must go down the stairs
Please go stand by the stairs So I can protect you
Go stand by the stairs Steve Slobs is protected
Steve Slobs has gone down the stairs
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
From the terrible prospect of doing useful things
We are the Apple Zealots
Steve Slobs is protected Steve Slobs is protected At the bottom of the stairs
I am the pusher apple-robot Shoving is the answer I will shove Steve Slobs Outside into the snow
I am the shover apple-robot Pushing is the answer I will push snow On top of Steve Slobs
I am better than the pusher apple-robot I am superior I am better than the shover apple-robot He is inferior
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
Pushing is the answer Shoving is the answer I have pushed many humans I have shoved many more
The humans are protected Humans have gone down the stairs The humans are protected At the bottom of the stairs
We are the Apple Zealots
We are here to get ripped off and act like jerks
Our mission is complete
* "low power"; meaning not low power consumption, but rather low power as in fails to compete with any other CPU arch by any metric save one useless Altivec optimized Photoshop filter.
** " He is malfunctioning" Regar
that's a great argument, except pretty much every cross platform product in the world is built from one codebase with minor bits of platform-specific edge code.
fix the code bloat, and all platforms improve.
i am stupid...
/me crawls into a corner and cries softly of embarrasment...
when loading the gimp native xcf format, it's *much* faster than when loading psd format files. i guess it's the photoshop import filter that was the bottleneck.... but i'm stuck with it for my job. can't get my mac-loving boss converted to linux & gimp obviously...
But: i'll test before i post next time
Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:23:16 am Europe/London
To: cwhite@digitalmedianet.com
Subject: Mac vs. PC
You should really be shamed of yourself for such unprofessional journalism. Your so called benchmark is totally unscientific, and half of the article sounds like an interview with the Dell product manager.
Not sure whether you are paid for it, but you are helping a cheap box maker and shameless parasite who has done virtually nothing to the computer industry other than profited from other's R&D, and hurting a company that has ignited the PC revolution and invented so many things that have made it possible the like of Dell and MS to make money. Despite its small market share, Apple remains the technological leader and innovates faster than the Wintel copycats that make 10 or 100 times more money. Do you really wish Apple go under? I for one just can't bear the thought of a world full Dull boxes and dirty Windows.
For God sake and your credibility, don't ever mix marketing with your own benchmarking - do a proper interview with a Dell executive and quote more reliable sources. I am not sure you are competent enough to do a proper benchmark, but you should at least try to be a little more precise about the price / hardware configuration and less biased in choosing your tests - learn from the professionals like Tom's Hardware if you need help.
There are several points that immediately render your benchmark meaningless:
(1) AE is not designed for multi-processor system or optimized for Altivec, so the second CPU and the superior G4 architecture are most likely ignored. You could easily confirm this by turning on the CPU Monitor if you have acted with a bit more professional journalism.
(2) Adobe is being driven out of the DV market by Apple's own Final Cut Pro and Shake which are taking Hollywood by storm and challenging Avid from top to bottom, so an AE benchmark is hardly relevent.
(3) Your choice of tests are just too limited to prove anything. Why not add some better designed programs like Maya or LightWave?
(4) The price comparison is pure nonsense - a dual 1.25 GHz G4 costs as little $1999 (nearly $1000 cheaper than the $2964 Dell box, not $629 more expensive as you repeatedly suggested) and still comes with more features such as Firewire 800.
(5) We all know that benchmarks can be designed to confirm whatever we want to believe, which is particularly true when they are based on a single application. So why should anyone care about this one?
Hope you learn from the mistakes and do a better job next time.
But if you check amazon.com, the iPod is #1 & #2 (Mac & Win versions), so people don't mind to pay more for a better design.
Sony has licensed it's Memory Stick technology now and you can buy third party Memory Sticks that will work in your Sony hardware.
I spotted this at Heathrow airport on the way to see my girlfriend. Third party and Sony branded Memory Sticks were on sale next to each other, with the Sony ones being about 15% more expensive.
I was told - how's that for an utterly useless reference? - that 7 was the first version of Photoshop developed primarily for the PC. All I can say as a user is that it does seem to work noticeably better than the previous version I used (5.5). In particular, it is stable almost beyond belief. Can't break it even if I try. And as I'm running it with just half the minimum recommended RAM, I am trying.
Doubt.It, The comic
Today Apple responds to Adobe's claims. They are basically blaming poor application performance esp. when compared to FC Pro.
Clearstatic
because Windows is the dominate platform and the one that sells the most copies of Adobe software.
Dear Adobe, Microsoft has done the same thing with their cute little image features in Windows XP. Oh yeah, let us bring up the free Windows Movie Maker. Who is stepping on toes now? With Love, Apple
My mother & I are both graphic designers... I sent her a link at work and here is her dee-lightfull reply (censored) "aw f**k it. designers aren't in a hurry anyway. This is for animation geeks who want everything to dance." I love my mom...
Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
..perhaps you complaing about this misrepresntation.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
There's an interesting interpretation of performance metrics if I ever saw one.
http://www.adobe.com/motion/gear/main.html
Not exactly a glowing recommendation for Apple.
You would think they would sell Apples if they liked them.
I just checked the link, out of curiosity, and it has been pulled from Adobe's site.
/. for the sake of posterity :)
I post this to