processes but fast in terms of the actual work you get done.
There is no need to take an either or attitude to PC vs Mac. They play well together...
I do a certain amount of video editting. Doing the actual editting is faster on the Mac with Final Cut Pro vs Premier / Pinnacle / Ulead on the PC ( I've tried them all in an effort to stay with only one platform.)
Now doing the actual rendering on the Mac is slow....... Check out mac vs HT PC The above article far understates the true advantage of Intel hardware. To truly match the Apple architecture with Intel hardware. Go to Dell and configure a dual 2.8 Ghz Xeon Workstation with Hyperthreading on each chip. Now you have 4 processors working for you , two real and two virtual per CPU. For $3200 you get two 2.8 Ghz Xeons with 1 gig of RAM, 2 80 gig harddrives (separating the system disk from your video disk is important) and a 4x dvd+rw drive.
Still think the G4 dual processor Mac is great? Why not use the industry standard to measure your chip of choice. In the supercomputing world how fast your machine runs is more than just bragging rights, it's job security. For that reason the SPEC benchmarks were created to get standardized validated results on any hardware. Mac OS X has a SPEC suite see Mac SPEC
Now that you've looked at that go to SPEC and look at the CPU benchmarks. Note the scaling factor for the Xeon 2.8 Ghz with two processors SPEC CPU Excerpt of CPU INT multiprocessor Chip Result 2.8 GHz Xeon 10.2 2 CPU 2.8 GHz Xeon 18.0
The SPEC is designed to show good scaling with parallelism (multiple CPU) and here shows a 1.8 scaling factor.
So your Dell machine with HT will have a greater than 2 scaling factor for highly parallel processes.
NB: I only have a 2.4 Ghz P4 as my rendering machine and it's still faster than the Powermac by enough to make me stick with the mixed network approach.
So work on the Mac -> DV over gigabit ethernet to a multiprocessor Intel dual processor machine that renders AND burns the DVD, VCD, SVCD faster.
We all know Macs are better at what matters during the creative process. Let the Intel hardware bear the drudgery;-)
Normally I refrain from commenting during such PC vs Mac flamewars, but...
1) Macs are as fast as PCs.
False. (For the majority of tasks)
Check out this comparison of Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 vs single 3.06 HT P4.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/r ev iews/cw_macvspciii.htm
In fact the Mhz metric largely holds true for comparing G4 to P3 and slightly less for P4 secondary to it's pipeline design.
2) Macs total system architecture is faster.
False.
Again reference to above article.
Firewire 400 is faster on PC depending on the PCI card.
3) Macs are beautiful, intuitive, and easy to use.
True.
Try editting multiple hours of video and music on your PC using Premier/Ulead/Pinnacle software vs Final Cut Pro.
Macs are great at what they do, and 90% of the time they are fast enough that you will not notice a significant difference in daily use.
BUT, when rendering video, editting photographs, running 3D simulations etc they are slower than the cutting edge Intel hardware as shown in multiple head to head comparisons.
I felt forced to respond to the ad hominem attacks of the OS X afficianados. I use both OS X and Linux in my work as a physician and sometimes write code. (buzz.sourceforge.net)
Bottom line is that KDE3 with Mosfet Liquid, Connectiva Crystal Icons, Freetype2 with antialiasing turned on is more functional and aesthetic than OS X for most things.
When comparing make sure you compare Apples to Linux Apples;-) OS X: iMac G4 800mhz with 1 gig of ram, GeForce 2 MX 32 meg DDR - Nvidia drivers KDE3: Dell 4100 1.13ghz PIII with 1 gig of ram, GeForce 2 Go 32 meg DDR - Nvidia drivers
Where Aqua Wins:
Final Cut Pro, MS Office
Where Aqua Loses:
GUI:Closing all the windows of a program does not close the program. Clicking the
Dock for a running program with all windows closed does nothing other than bring
up the menubar at the top of the screen. Hence a one click operation in any other GUI
is a 3 to 5 click operation spread out out over the screen.
Browsing the web is slow or incompatible (IE or Omniweb). Fizzilla may change this.
Where Linux/KDE3 Wins:
Konqueror Browser
Kmail
OpenDX
Where Linux Works:
Codeweavers Office
Codeweavers Crossover
Where Linux Fails:
Editting Video at the level of Final Cut Pro
Software testing: Bugs that you must avoid live in more Linux programs than in OS X.
That said, there are many bugs to avoid in OS X.
If you don't believe me, see screenshots at buzz.sourceforge.net
Slashdot Mirror
processes but fast in terms of the actual work you get done.
;-)
There is no need to take an either or attitude to PC vs Mac. They play well together...
I do a certain amount of video editting. Doing the actual editting is faster on the Mac with Final Cut Pro vs Premier / Pinnacle / Ulead on the PC ( I've tried them all in an effort to stay with only one platform.)
Now doing the actual rendering on the Mac is slow....... Check out
mac vs HT PC
The above article far understates the true advantage of Intel hardware. To truly match the
Apple architecture with Intel hardware. Go to
Dell and configure a dual 2.8 Ghz Xeon Workstation with Hyperthreading on each chip. Now you have 4 processors working for you , two real and two virtual per CPU. For $3200 you get two 2.8 Ghz Xeons with 1 gig of RAM, 2 80 gig harddrives (separating the system disk from your video disk is important) and a 4x dvd+rw drive.
Still think the G4 dual processor Mac is great? Why not use the industry standard to measure your chip of choice. In the supercomputing world how fast your machine runs is more than just bragging rights, it's job security. For that reason the SPEC benchmarks were created to get standardized validated results on any hardware. Mac OS X has a SPEC suite see
Mac SPEC
Now that you've looked at that go to SPEC and look at the CPU benchmarks. Note the scaling factor for the Xeon 2.8 Ghz with two processors
SPEC CPU
Excerpt of CPU INT multiprocessor
Chip Result
2.8 GHz Xeon 10.2
2 CPU 2.8 GHz Xeon 18.0
The SPEC is designed to show good scaling with parallelism (multiple CPU) and here shows a 1.8 scaling factor.
So your Dell machine with HT will have a greater than 2 scaling factor for highly parallel processes.
NB: I only have a 2.4 Ghz P4 as my rendering machine and it's still faster than the Powermac by enough to make me stick with the mixed network approach.
So work on the Mac -> DV over gigabit ethernet to a multiprocessor Intel dual processor machine that renders AND burns the DVD, VCD, SVCD faster.
We all know Macs are better at what matters during the creative process. Let the Intel hardware bear the drudgery
Normally I refrain from commenting during such PC vs Mac flamewars, but...
r ev iews/cw_macvspciii.htm
1) Macs are as fast as PCs.
False. (For the majority of tasks)
Check out this comparison of Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 vs single 3.06 HT P4.
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/
In fact the Mhz metric largely holds true for comparing G4 to P3 and slightly less for P4 secondary to it's pipeline design.
2) Macs total system architecture is faster.
False.
Again reference to above article.
Firewire 400 is faster on PC depending on the PCI card.
3) Macs are beautiful, intuitive, and easy to use.
True.
Try editting multiple hours of video and music on
your PC using Premier/Ulead/Pinnacle software vs
Final Cut Pro.
Macs are great at what they do, and 90% of the time they are fast enough that you will not notice a significant difference in daily use.
BUT, when rendering video, editting photographs, running 3D simulations etc they are slower than the cutting edge Intel hardware as shown in multiple head to head comparisons.
I felt forced to respond to the ad hominem attacks of the OS X afficianados. I use both OS X and Linux in my work as a physician and sometimes write code. (buzz.sourceforge.net)
;-)
Bottom line is that KDE3 with Mosfet Liquid, Connectiva Crystal Icons, Freetype2 with antialiasing turned on is more functional and aesthetic than OS X for most things.
When comparing make sure you compare Apples to Linux Apples
OS X: iMac G4 800mhz with 1 gig of ram, GeForce 2 MX 32 meg DDR - Nvidia drivers
KDE3: Dell 4100 1.13ghz PIII with 1 gig of ram, GeForce 2 Go 32 meg DDR - Nvidia drivers
Where Aqua Wins:
Final Cut Pro, MS Office
Where Aqua Loses:
GUI:Closing all the windows of a program does not close the program. Clicking the
Dock for a running program with all windows closed does nothing other than bring
up the menubar at the top of the screen. Hence a one click operation in any other GUI
is a 3 to 5 click operation spread out out over the screen.
Browsing the web is slow or incompatible (IE or Omniweb). Fizzilla may change this.
Where Linux/KDE3 Wins:
Konqueror Browser
Kmail
OpenDX
Where Linux Works:
Codeweavers Office
Codeweavers Crossover
Where Linux Fails:
Editting Video at the level of Final Cut Pro
Software testing: Bugs that you must avoid live in more Linux programs than in OS X.
That said, there are many bugs to avoid in OS X.
If you don't believe me, see screenshots at buzz.sourceforge.net