I think Quartz and generally the Carbon-Part of Chimera (Chimera is called like that due to it's "two-fold" nature: Carbon-body & Quartz-head!) and all the other Apple-specific stuff could pose a problem..
Omniweb is the *only* OSX-browser to get Drag & Drop right! Yes, it beats Safari by a large margin! I've tried them all, Safari, Chimera, IE and Omniweb, and OW is by far the best integrated with the nicest features, there's so much stuff that Chimera got from Omniweb you wouldn't believe it: Shortcuts, Linebreak/Tab/Space-Filtering in the URL bar, opening of a new browser window when there's none or all are minimized, a largely enhanced contextual menue that almost matches OWs Menues now (only in the latest nightly builds!) and much more! But Drag & Drop is really bad with Chimera, i can't drag URLs or Text into Editfields, if i drag an Image (read: just a rectangle of the image's size!) onto the desktop it makes a TEXT clipping of it! Why? This is why i still prefer OW as my primary browser, even though it may be the slowest and (besides iCab) most incompatible (hint: Setting the Browser-ID-String from "Omniweb" to "Netscape 6" helps with alot of lamely programmed Browsercheck-Javascripts!) and you bet i'm looking forward to OW5 featuring Apples WebCore..
He changed it right after MacWorld (for obvious reasons), not a week ago. Plus he quit the Chimera-Project quite some time ago, so that doesn't tell anyone anything!
Actually, QT plays just about anything that doesn't involve rigorous patents or huge licensing fees! For MPEG2 you need to upgrade unfortunately, that's correct.. And some Indeo-Codecs also don't work because they're covered by Intels Patents! Other than that, QT plays any AVI that uses official M$-Codecs! I even was very pleasantly surprised to find it could play my 6 year old.FLC files from 3D Studio 4 (DOS!) without a hitch! Then again, there seem to be some really old.MOVs (and.QTs!) that will not work with current Quicktime Players! Now THAT is really lame!;-) For pr0n-mpegs VLC (OSX only) works perfectly for me (also (S)VCD!), and Mplayer for OS X has incredibly broad codec-support, even WMA (and certain WMV/ASF-subsets!) plus that Indeo Codec from above!;-) The latest version is really nice, with sleek GUI!.. I miss the advanced settings and information though that are available on the commandline!
Oh, come off it already. The speed problems of OS X have been well publicized, so stop acting like I'm the first person to mention it to you.
Ofcourse there were complaints, but 10.1 brought quite some improvements and 10.2 brings even more now! That's a fact and you can read pretty much any 10.2 review you want and will find many people that say it feels like they have a new computer! No CPU-Load with the GUI compositing anymore! Hugely improved Application launching (just compare Omniweb bounces on 10.1.5 to 10.2!)..
Neglecting all these improvements and still blowing the "OS X is slow as hell!"-horn is just plain ignorant!
Could you just please stop comparing OS X to Win2k? Apples and Oranges!.. If you want to compare, compare the respective current offerings! Which means WinXP! M$ doesn't even sell Win2k anymore to regular customers, so there!..Just imagine how fast the GEOS-GUI would run on your machine compared to Win2k!.. Wow!... Get my point?
Weird.. What Machine? Runs just fine here on a 3 year old G4-400 with gf2mx if you ask me, but i guess tastes differ!;-)
I don't care about XP. It may be slow, also. Fine. If so, I'm glad I haven't used it.
That's okay.. It just seems that loads of people don't have a problem with XPs GUI even though it's just as slow!.. Usually people are comparing top PCs to Macs that are about 3 years old, which is simply an unfair comparison! Don't forget that Quartz Extreme already has 3D-Hardware-Acceleration, something Windows will be lacking for another.. urm.. 3 years atleast?:-)
Actually, Photoshop is widely known to be more heavily optimized for Macs than for PCs, nevermind the plugins.
Hmm, i wonder why Intel keeps praising it as a Posterchild-example for P4-optimized software! Same goes for Quake3 btw!
I agree with you on the renderfarm bit below btw!.. Macs don't make that much sense for a renderfarm, although a few xserves do the job just nicely, although a bit more pricey for this job, but cheaper for others! (Large & fast HDs!;-)
That's what Apple-Users have been answering the "Apple's soon dead [again?:-] because the P4/Athlon is sooo much faster!"-nerds for ages!;-) Great to see it gets some hard proof!..or DO each of us drive 400hp cars? No? Why not? If we can't live without 2.8GHz, why should we "punish" ourselves with cars below 100hp?
Oh my, everyone chooses the benchmarks that suit his point best, right? Please tick what you consider more CPU-intensive: [ ] Raytrace [ ] Textures
Point is: the Macs Performance is not nearly as bad as professional Mac-Flamers like yourself want to make people believe all the time! Thanks btw for the selective quoting, totally neglecting the point that one can (normally) not buy Dual Athlons or Xeons in the shops anywhere!
Those are your words.
No, actually not (Notice the gains with both and then go on claiming SSE2 is 'superior'!). But go on believing that the Mac is totally inferior if that makes your penis seem bigger!;-)
Which means you can buy 3 dual athlon machines instead of a single G4 tower and not just double the G4s performance, but render frames 6 times as fast for a given cost.
Taking the Dual GHz above as a Basis, please do tell where i would find a Dual Athlon for $833, which is a third of that Macs cost! Oh, and make sure it has GBit-Ethernet, 64bit-PCI, a DVD-burner, Indesign, a DVD-authoring software, DV-Videoediting-Software, an Office-package and loads of other goodies, too!.. Oh, damn, i forgot: Software doesn't count cause 1337oes like you get that for free anyway from the FTPs and the donkey!... Too bad that Software needs to be developed and the costs of that are a significant part of a Macs price, and too bad ignorants like you always fail to get the big picture and look at the machine as a whole!..
btw: here's one of your ex-soulmates!.. Age should be roughly the same!
a) can you specify in how far they're slower? GUI, network performance, Application launching?
b) If you're referring to the GUI (likely!), well, that's because the Quartz GUI is actually a whole new approach that's simply more demanding than Win2k's old-generation GUI! They did, however accelerate it alot in 10.2's OGL-accelerated Quartz Extreme, you should really check that out! I can run the iTunes Vizualizer and 2 transparent browserwindows and a transparent terminal on top of it with no fps-drops whatsoever.. on a 700MHz G3 iBook with a measly 16MB Radeon M6! Windows still need to be rendered by the CPU initially, but all the compositing is offloaded onto the 3D-Hardware! That's something that's due for Longhorn somewhen after 2005!
c) If you really wanna compare, be fair and compare to WinXP, which has GDI+ (non-accelerated yet!), which is a classic blatant M$-steal (again!) of Apple's Quartz concept! And XP's GUI sure is just as slow as Aqua was before 10.2, just be fair and don't compare G4-400s with 1.8GHz Athlons or 2.8GHz P4s!
Look up the Lightwave-Results I posted in the other Thread and see that a Dual-GHz G4 can very well keep up in CPU-crushing Raytracing even with a top notch (single, granted!) P4! And Dual Xeons aren't buyable in Shops just like that and they're definately not the cheapass PCs you guys say trounces any Mac easily! And yes, Newtek optimized for both for Altivec and SSE2! Ah yes, concerning optimizing: You do know that every CPU-consuming program is optimized for some CPU? Some are for both, others are just optimized for one (=usually the one they're made on!) There's no such thing as a simple compile! Intel's Compilers do auto-vectorizing for SSE2 because the P4s single CPU is so bad (see: First Benchmark-results when the P4 was released and the new compilers weren't used!) sparing the programmer of quite some work f.ex., that's compilers Apple doen't have yet! Stuff that's just optimized for x86 is e.g. Unreal, stuff that's optimized for both is Lightwave, Quake3 and Photoshop, and oh my, that's exactly the Applications where Macs perform pretty good if not superior in some cases! See f.ex. the Quake3 comparison in 640x480 on the very same barefeats page you quoted! It's still doing pretty well in 1024x768, but isn't it ironic that the G4 excels especially in resolutions that are more CPU- than bandwidth-bound?
Ok, so clock frequency != performance. We know that. However, by any reasonable performance metric (no, Photoshop tests don't count because Photoshop is highly AltiVec optimized but not very well SSE/MMX/SSE2 optimized), the Athlon/P4 creams the PowerPC. Look up the benchmarks for yourself. Artificial benchmarks, real world benchmarks. It doesn't matter. The G4 always pulls ahead in one or two benchmarks but loses in most of them.
Compare here or here (or here! to here..and no, there's simply no single-CPU Config for the big Workhorses anymore!;-)
Oh my! I can't hear the fan in my computer! Is it broken? Will it go up in flames soon like that Athlon at Tom's Hardware? Or maybe.. wait!.. Now, look at that lovely Apple on the front!:-)
But according to you guys I'm not allowed to blame M$ when word crashes on Windows, too!:-)
You always say I am to blame the hardware manufacturers!
So why is it that i am never allowed to blame M$? Do they have some special status that does not allow users to blame them? Hello?
..and to the guy with the N64 lauging about the PSX: Your sig goes on about endianness, i just thought that was pretty funny cause in contrast to your comment, cause the N64 and the PSX both share the same MIPS-RISC-Architecture!:-)) R3000 vs R4300
Oh wait, it's Microsoft, right? So surely if they screw up with ANYTHING, it's got to be good news for everyone!
Exactly! 8) You got it, dude!.. It's Microsoft, the company that has tortured me with their buggy crash-prone software for five years until i finally bought a Mac! >:-)
> Pay attention to what Apple is doing! They're in their own little world and they don't want to talk to anyone else!
Yeah rite.. I bet THAT'S why OS X is based largely on open Standards like XML, TCP/IP, NFS, POSIX, Java etc and ships with stuff like Perl, Apache, SMB, PHP etc preinstalled! >:-(
And i guess THAT'S why my Mac can mount FAT16-drives and other PC-media (ZIP, CDs etc) and read Windows-Fileformats (even under OS9!)
When will the pawlovian Mac-Bashers finally realize that elementary approaches DO change at Apple sometimes?
Urmm.. If you really feel like comparing to the No
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 1
How about considering
a) battery life (4 hour vs frigging TEN in the iPod!)
b) Uplink: Snail-USB at 1.x MB/s (how long would that take you to fill it up? Let's be nice and say 1-1.5 hours!) vs Firewire (10 mins to fill it up, 10 seconds for an album!)
c) Firewire-HD functionality: Pretty damn nice bonus feature I'd say!
d) Automatic recharge via Firewire! Neato!
e) size: Man, that thing is like HALF as big as the Nomad!
Now, one can always argue about design and UI, so i'll leave that out.. The Nomad has a slightly bigger HD and costs $100 less, which rocks, still the iPod is anything but lame compared to it if you look at all the pros up there!
..and all the PC-people out there: Yes, His Jobsness announced they WILL support Windows eventually! >;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I think Quartz and generally the Carbon-Part of Chimera (Chimera is called like that due to it's "two-fold" nature: Carbon-body & Quartz-head!) and all the other Apple-specific stuff could pose a problem..
Omniweb is the *only* OSX-browser to get Drag & Drop right! Yes, it beats Safari by a large margin!
I've tried them all, Safari, Chimera, IE and Omniweb, and OW is by far the best integrated with the nicest features, there's so much stuff that Chimera got from Omniweb you wouldn't believe it: Shortcuts, Linebreak/Tab/Space-Filtering in the URL bar, opening of a new browser window when there's none or all are minimized, a largely enhanced contextual menue that almost matches OWs Menues now (only in the latest nightly builds!) and much more!
But Drag & Drop is really bad with Chimera, i can't drag URLs or Text into Editfields, if i drag an Image (read: just a rectangle of the image's size!) onto the desktop it makes a TEXT clipping of it! Why?
This is why i still prefer OW as my primary browser, even though it may be the slowest and (besides iCab) most incompatible (hint: Setting the Browser-ID-String from "Omniweb" to "Netscape 6" helps with alot of lamely programmed Browsercheck-Javascripts!) and you bet i'm looking forward to OW5 featuring Apples WebCore..
He changed it right after MacWorld (for obvious reasons), not a week ago. Plus he quit the Chimera-Project quite some time ago, so that doesn't tell anyone anything!
Actually, QT plays just about anything that doesn't involve rigorous patents or huge licensing fees! .FLC files from 3D Studio 4 (DOS!) without a hitch! .MOVs (and .QTs!) that will not work with current Quicktime Players! Now THAT is really lame! ;-) ;-)
For MPEG2 you need to upgrade unfortunately, that's correct.. And some Indeo-Codecs also don't work because they're covered by Intels Patents! Other than that, QT plays any AVI that uses official M$-Codecs! I even was very pleasantly surprised to find it could play my 6 year old
Then again, there seem to be some really old
For pr0n-mpegs VLC (OSX only) works perfectly for me (also (S)VCD!), and Mplayer for OS X has incredibly broad codec-support, even WMA (and certain WMV/ASF-subsets!) plus that Indeo Codec from above!
The latest version is really nice, with sleek GUI!.. I miss the advanced settings and information though that are available on the commandline!
Oh, come off it already. The speed problems of OS X have been well publicized, so stop acting like I'm the first person to mention it to you.
..Just imagine how fast the GEOS-GUI would run on your machine compared to Win2k!.. Wow!... Get my point?
Ofcourse there were complaints, but 10.1 brought quite some improvements and 10.2 brings even more now! That's a fact and you can read pretty much any 10.2 review you want and will find many people that say it feels like they have a new computer!
No CPU-Load with the GUI compositing anymore! Hugely improved Application launching (just compare Omniweb bounces on 10.1.5 to 10.2!)..
Neglecting all these improvements and still blowing the "OS X is slow as hell!"-horn is just plain ignorant!
Could you just please stop comparing OS X to Win2k? Apples and Oranges!.. If you want to compare, compare the respective current offerings! Which means WinXP! M$ doesn't even sell Win2k anymore to regular customers, so there!
Yes, I've seen 10.2. It's still slow.
;-)
:-)
Weird.. What Machine? Runs just fine here on a 3 year old G4-400 with gf2mx if you ask me, but i guess tastes differ!
I don't care about XP. It may be slow, also. Fine. If so, I'm glad I haven't used it.
That's okay.. It just seems that loads of people don't have a problem with XPs GUI even though it's just as slow!.. Usually people are comparing top PCs to Macs that are about 3 years old, which is simply an unfair comparison! Don't forget that Quartz Extreme already has 3D-Hardware-Acceleration, something Windows will be lacking for another.. urm.. 3 years atleast?
As the end user, I don't particularly care WHY it's slow. I only care that it IS slow.
I understand the technical reasons why the GUI is slower. That doesn't make it okay.
a) Have you seen 10.2's Quartz Extreme? If you haven't, don't judge unless you know the current state!
b) If you compare Quartz, then compare it to the way slower XP GUI! Be fair, that's all i'm asking for!
Actually, Photoshop is widely known to be more heavily optimized for Macs than for PCs, nevermind the plugins.
;-)
Hmm, i wonder why Intel keeps praising it as a Posterchild-example for P4-optimized software!
Same goes for Quake3 btw!
I agree with you on the renderfarm bit below btw!.. Macs don't make that much sense for a renderfarm, although a few xserves do the job just nicely, although a bit more pricey for this job, but cheaper for others! (Large & fast HDs!
That's what Apple-Users have been answering the "Apple's soon dead [again? :-] because the P4/Athlon is sooo much faster!"-nerds for ages! ;-) ..or DO each of us drive 400hp cars? No? Why not? If we can't live without 2.8GHz, why should we "punish" ourselves with cars below 100hp?
Great to see it gets some hard proof!
[Textures Benchmark]
;-)
Oh my, everyone chooses the benchmarks that suit his point best, right?
Please tick what you consider more CPU-intensive:
[ ] Raytrace
[ ] Textures
Point is: the Macs Performance is not nearly as bad as professional Mac-Flamers like yourself want to make people believe all the time!
Thanks btw for the selective quoting, totally neglecting the point that one can (normally) not buy Dual Athlons or Xeons in the shops anywhere!
Those are your words.
No, actually not (Notice the gains with both and then go on claiming SSE2 is 'superior'!). But go on believing that the Mac is totally inferior if that makes your penis seem bigger!
Which means you can buy 3 dual athlon machines instead of a single G4 tower and not just double the G4s performance, but render frames 6 times as fast for a given cost.
Taking the Dual GHz above as a Basis, please do tell where i would find a Dual Athlon for $833, which is a third of that Macs cost!
Oh, and make sure it has GBit-Ethernet, 64bit-PCI, a DVD-burner, Indesign, a DVD-authoring software, DV-Videoediting-Software, an Office-package and loads of other goodies, too!.. Oh, damn, i forgot: Software doesn't count cause 1337oes like you get that for free anyway from the FTPs and the donkey!...
Too bad that Software needs to be developed and the costs of that are a significant part of a Macs price, and too bad ignorants like you always fail to get the big picture and look at the machine as a whole!..
btw: here's one of your ex-soulmates!.. Age should be roughly the same!
a) can you specify in how far they're slower? GUI, network performance, Application launching?
b) If you're referring to the GUI (likely!), well, that's because the Quartz GUI is actually a whole new approach that's simply more demanding than Win2k's old-generation GUI! They did, however accelerate it alot in 10.2's OGL-accelerated Quartz Extreme, you should really check that out! I can run the iTunes Vizualizer and 2 transparent browserwindows and a transparent terminal on top of it with no fps-drops whatsoever.. on a 700MHz G3 iBook with a measly 16MB Radeon M6! Windows still need to be rendered by the CPU initially, but all the compositing is offloaded onto the 3D-Hardware! That's something that's due for Longhorn somewhen after 2005!
c) If you really wanna compare, be fair and compare to WinXP, which has GDI+ (non-accelerated yet!), which is a classic blatant M$-steal (again!) of Apple's Quartz concept! And XP's GUI sure is just as slow as Aqua was before 10.2, just be fair and don't compare G4-400s with 1.8GHz Athlons or 2.8GHz P4s!
Look up the Lightwave-Results I posted in the other Thread and see that a Dual-GHz G4 can very well keep up in CPU-crushing Raytracing even with a top notch (single, granted!) P4! And Dual Xeons aren't buyable in Shops just like that and they're definately not the cheapass PCs you guys say trounces any Mac easily! And yes, Newtek optimized for both for Altivec and SSE2! Ah yes, concerning optimizing: You do know that every CPU-consuming program is optimized for some CPU? Some are for both, others are just optimized for one (=usually the one they're made on!) There's no such thing as a simple compile! Intel's Compilers do auto-vectorizing for SSE2 because the P4s single CPU is so bad (see: First Benchmark-results when the P4 was released and the new compilers weren't used!) sparing the programmer of quite some work f.ex., that's compilers Apple doen't have yet!
Stuff that's just optimized for x86 is e.g. Unreal, stuff that's optimized for both is Lightwave, Quake3 and Photoshop, and oh my, that's exactly the Applications where Macs perform pretty good if not superior in some cases!
See f.ex. the Quake3 comparison in 640x480 on the very same barefeats page you quoted! It's still doing pretty well in 1024x768, but isn't it ironic that the G4 excels especially in resolutions that are more CPU- than bandwidth-bound?
Ok, so clock frequency != performance. We know that. However, by any reasonable performance metric (no, Photoshop tests don't count because Photoshop is highly AltiVec optimized but not very well SSE/MMX/SSE2 optimized), the Athlon/P4 creams the PowerPC. Look up the benchmarks for yourself. Artificial benchmarks, real world benchmarks. It doesn't matter. The G4 always pulls ahead in one or two benchmarks but loses in most of them.
..and no, there's simply no single-CPU Config for the big Workhorses anymore! ;-)
Compare here or here (or here! to here
Oh my! I can't hear the fan in my computer! Is it broken? Will it go up in flames soon like that Athlon at Tom's Hardware? Or maybe.. wait!.. Now, look at that lovely Apple on the front! :-)
But according to you guys I'm not allowed to blame M$ when word crashes on Windows, too! :-)
:-)) R3000 vs R4300
You always say I am to blame the hardware manufacturers!
So why is it that i am never allowed to blame M$? Do they have some special status that does not allow users to blame them? Hello?
..and to the guy with the N64 lauging about the PSX: Your sig goes on about endianness, i just thought that was pretty funny cause in contrast to your comment, cause the N64 and the PSX both share the same MIPS-RISC-Architecture!
Oh wait, it's Microsoft, right? So surely if they screw up with ANYTHING, it's got to be good news for everyone!
Exactly! 8) You got it, dude!.. It's Microsoft, the company that has tortured me with their buggy crash-prone software for five years until i finally bought a Mac! >:-)
> Pay attention to what Apple is doing! They're in their own little world and they don't want to talk to anyone else!
Yeah rite.. I bet THAT'S why OS X is based largely on open Standards like XML, TCP/IP, NFS, POSIX, Java etc and ships with stuff like Perl, Apache, SMB, PHP etc preinstalled! >:-(
And i guess THAT'S why my Mac can mount FAT16-drives and other PC-media (ZIP, CDs etc) and read Windows-Fileformats (even under OS9!)
When will the pawlovian Mac-Bashers finally realize that elementary approaches DO change at Apple sometimes?
How about considering
a) battery life (4 hour vs frigging TEN in the iPod!)
b) Uplink: Snail-USB at 1.x MB/s (how long would that take you to fill it up? Let's be nice and say 1-1.5 hours!) vs Firewire (10 mins to fill it up, 10 seconds for an album!)
c) Firewire-HD functionality: Pretty damn nice bonus feature I'd say!
d) Automatic recharge via Firewire! Neato!
e) size: Man, that thing is like HALF as big as the Nomad!
Now, one can always argue about design and UI, so i'll leave that out.. The Nomad has a slightly bigger HD and costs $100 less, which rocks, still the iPod is anything but lame compared to it if you look at all the pros up there!
..and all the PC-people out there: Yes, His Jobsness announced they WILL support Windows eventually! >;-)