The final test was a Premiere rendering, where almost all the systems tested did the job in 3 or 4 seconds. The fastest was 3 seconds, the G5 did it in 4. This is Premiere which no longer exists as a current ongoing product for OSX.
Does anyone see just how biased and unscientific this all is?
Oh, and I didn't mention that most of th PC's had double the graphics memory, and had RAID as their primary storage.
Let's get Apple to port Safari to Windows just like it is doing with iTunes.
It's a bloody great browser... although having thought about it, theres no reason for Apple to let the hoardes have its pretty software for nothing...
I can tell you this though... if you think your browsing and computing experience is slowing down in terms of innovation and invention, switch to the OSX platform... my god, there's enough new stuff every week to make you do a sex wee.
FWIW, my XBench results under 10.2.6 were 69.99. Under 10.2.8 I have 76.3.
A nice little improvement even if it is a synthetic benchmark it's nice to see Apple striving for optimisation. Hopefully this mindset will be seen in Panther to a much greater degree seeing as being a full.x update the changes to the underlying OS have much greater license.
It does seem to me that MicroSoft is reaping the problems of putting out crusty code.
Their software is obviously poorly designed and developed compared to other alternatives such as Apple and Linux, so I think it's fair not to put too much faith in their actual internal organisation, or in the modularity and quality of expandability of the code itself which is probably (speculation) just as poor.
It's that old saying about Windows being...
a patch release for 32-bit extensions and
a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
I believe there is a lot of truth in the above, and now Microsoft are getting to the point where their crusty foundations are giving them hell in trying to cobble more bits on at the top.
I mean, look at what Apple has done with OS X, a huge refresh pretty much every 12 months or less. Yet it's going to take us over a year just to get our copies of XP 'significantly' updated? Seems like the dev process is struggling over in Redmond.
apple is, and always will be doing crappy financially
Hmm... last quarter they were profitable to the tune of 19 million, although not a vast amount, it is still very significant to even be anywhere near profitability in this current climate (see many of your favourite manufacturers for proof of this).
Now factor in the fact that this 19m profitable quarter came from the three months where Apple had perhaps its most pathetic lineup of the last few years - the PowerMacs were selling terribly due to their underperformance etc. There were no big software announcements to carry them through, all they had to live off was the iPod really, and to a lesser extent the PowerBook line.
They also have over 4.5bn USD in the bank.
A lot of enthusiasts would do well to note that Apple is quite significantly larger than AMD in terms of revenue and turnover, a comparison that will probably surprise many that are used to writing Apple off.
Mac had better come up with a dual processor Notebook.
'Mac' would do bloody well to come up with *anything* considering it's a product name and not a company... have a lot of experience with Apple products do you?
I am demoing a shoebox AVID field editor that has 2 P-4 processors
I think you mean 2 P4 Xeon processors seeing as vanilla P4's are not SMP capable, and you are probably paying through the nose for this privilege, and it's likely not gonna be anywhere NEAR as portable as a notebook so you're not really comparing like for like are you?
Current Apple notebooks compare rather well in both price and performance (and ALWAYS in functionality) to modern PC notebooks. Show me a PC notebook with dual processors? The performance delta is negligable on the notebook front, unless you're thinking about the companies who put desktop chips into their PC notebooks, and then you had BETTER be able to do your work a lot faster because you've got 15 mins of battery life on the thing. Show me a comparable machine with a 17 inch screen, 4.5 hour batt life, gigabit ethernet, superdrive, in an enclosure as portable as the Mac at a price not far from the Mac.
MAC's used to be the thing for Video....
Hmm, strange, I never knew that Media Access Control was so capable it could entirely take the diverse strains of Video PP. The abbreviation for the Macintosh platform is Mac, not MAC, this error really pisses off a lit of people and shows the poster as ignorant, someone in the industry would have known that I would have thought.
it looks like they are starting to lose with the big companies moving away from them...
What a gem of wisdom... you've wonderfully neglected to mention any of these companies you refer to... unless you mean your own, which judging from your post has never/rarely touched the Macintosh platform seriously.
Well, from past knowledge of how Apple has done things recently, I'd say...
PPC 970 Single 1.4 Ghz shipping July.
PPC 970 Duallies shipping within 4 weeks of the single.
OSX 10.3 Late August... and I would bet my kidneys you WILL have to pay for it (~$129), but don't moan... apparently there is a LOT of new/improved stuff, and this is only the beginning as Apple have found that they can build on the code very easily *indeed* due to the quality and clenaliness of it... exactly the problem MS seems to have with Windows ATM.
I love Bluetooth, but I think the reason that so many people see it as pointless is becasue of the things they are able to do with it.
I have a PowerMac G4, and with the Bluetooth dongle from DLink I sync my contacts between my PC and phone, sync my schedule too (very handy) and also, when I'm around the Mac (as I am a LOT of the time) text messages will appear on the screen instead of the phone, and I can reply via my keyboard (heaven!).
I love Bluetooth, I use it every day, and NO it is not the same as having cables. Windows users I feel sorry for, as MS seems to be ignoring all this great functionality.
Ok, it's NOT going to revolutionise your life, so STOP EXPECTING IT TO! But it is very handy and useful, and *cheap* too. Which is a big factor.
There are a lot of people crying out about personal rights etc. on this, but I have to say I really don't see what the problem is.
At all.
So the store knows more about what you buy, can much more accurately track your purchasing habits, sees which things you like, and which you don't, knows how much you spend every month in the store etc.
What's the big-ass problem for crying out loud?
I *want* the stores to know my buying habits so that they can do a better jobs of providing me with more of the things I like!
Ask yourselves WHY the store wants to know this? It's so that they can tailor themselves to YOU, to give YOU a better service and more of the things you want to spend your money on. Why on Earth would Walmart put money into something that would frustrate, irritate or otherwise turn away customers?!?
I say bring it on! I say, yeah, let's see my tastes and purchasing history take their place in the big database so that I become a future dynamic of the store!
All these privacy advocates going nuts are well off the mark... get some common sense in your head... these people don't want to take away your life... they're not like the common fictional evil genius with a mad plot to eradicate privacy from the face of the world (muhahaha).
I genuinely see this as a *service*, cannot wait for it to be implemented and have absolutely NO worries about the scheme at all. Stop watching too much X-Files!
Hmm... so I can spend around $550 on this thing, which, with all the extras is much mre likely to be around $700.
OR
I can spend a little more and get a nice iBook [or insert your favourite budget notebook here] which is a thousand times more capable.
I don't think the features vs price really pays off to be honest. Things like the iPod/MP3 players work because they offer an awful lot your PC can't (portability, battery life, simplicity, PRICE).
This device would be a pain in the ass to look at for 20 mins let alone an entire movie! The battery life isn't all that great, the HDD space is only acceptable - nothing stellar, and the cost is really pretty damn high.
Can you see Joe Public or your boss ripping and encoding his own DiVX's from his DVD'a? I can't... I love DiVX but I'm a geek, this just doesn't seem to appeal to the masses.
I think these guys are afraid that the iPod got a jump on them in the MP3 arena, and now they're trying to enter/create a product a couple of years before the stability and market is there to support it ut of fear from being left behind again.
If we assume Linux never existed, and therefore the 90% cut price offer never made, making Munich pay full whack for 14,000 copies of Windows, how much would this cost (on this scale - obviously i doubt they would pay the full ~$300 permachine?)
Or put more directly... how much has this shaved off the MS bottom line for this financial quarter? If anyone knows what the purchase rate for both WINDOWS and OFFICE on this scale... please... let us know the math!
Perhaps I should have put more emphasis on MS's perseverance... but the fact still remains... MS has a LOT of cash... SURELY it is an abuse of their position (illegal?) just to muscle into other markets by way of financial attrition?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...
So this is how we benchmark two different platforms these days?
For everyone's information, I should not have to point the following out, but here we go... the benchmarks were taken from the following apps -
Quake III, developed on, and for, x86 over 5 year period of programming research and enhancement. Later ported to OSX in a week by OmniGroup.
Word, developed on, and for, x86, by the developer who also wrote the operating system running on the PC's. Ported by MBU to OSX.
Photoshop, Adobe develops Photoshop in a very balanced way for the two platforms, and these are the results for this test -
Fastest 50MB image = 17 seconds, G5 = 18 seconds
Fastest 150 MB image = 47 seconds, G5 = 51 seconds
The final test was a Premiere rendering, where almost all the systems tested did the job in 3 or 4 seconds. The fastest was 3 seconds, the G5 did it in 4. This is Premiere which no longer exists as a current ongoing product for OSX.
Does anyone see just how biased and unscientific this all is?
Oh, and I didn't mention that most of th PC's had double the graphics memory, and had RAID as their primary storage.
This article is FUD.
-Nex
I do agree...
Buuuut, Safari is only a few weeks out of beta.
Lets give it some time, it sure is shaping up veeery nicely.
-Nex
Let's get Apple to port Safari to Windows just like it is doing with iTunes.
It's a bloody great browser... although having thought about it, theres no reason for Apple to let the hoardes have its pretty software for nothing...
I can tell you this though... if you think your browsing and computing experience is slowing down in terms of innovation and invention, switch to the OSX platform... my god, there's enough new stuff every week to make you do a sex wee.
-Nex
Also have a 12" PB, and on reading your post checked the Display settings and found my display set to Thousands of colors too.
I am embarassed to think that I didnt notice for a full day!
So a note to PowerBook users - Check your display settings
-Nex
FWIW, my XBench results under 10.2.6 were 69.99. Under 10.2.8 I have 76.3.
.x update the changes to the underlying OS have much greater license.
A nice little improvement even if it is a synthetic benchmark it's nice to see Apple striving for optimisation. Hopefully this mindset will be seen in Panther to a much greater degree seeing as being a full
-Nex
Which 'company spokesman'?
It does seem to me that MicroSoft is reaping the problems of putting out crusty code.
Their software is obviously poorly designed and developed compared to other alternatives such as Apple and Linux, so I think it's fair not to put too much faith in their actual internal organisation, or in the modularity and quality of expandability of the code itself which is probably (speculation) just as poor.
It's that old saying about Windows being...
a patch release for 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
I believe there is a lot of truth in the above, and now Microsoft are getting to the point where their crusty foundations are giving them hell in trying to cobble more bits on at the top.
I mean, look at what Apple has done with OS X, a huge refresh pretty much every 12 months or less. Yet it's going to take us over a year just to get our copies of XP 'significantly' updated? Seems like the dev process is struggling over in Redmond.
-Nex
apple is, and always will be doing crappy financially
Hmm... last quarter they were profitable to the tune of 19 million, although not a vast amount, it is still very significant to even be anywhere near profitability in this current climate (see many of your favourite manufacturers for proof of this).
Now factor in the fact that this 19m profitable quarter came from the three months where Apple had perhaps its most pathetic lineup of the last few years - the PowerMacs were selling terribly due to their underperformance etc. There were no big software announcements to carry them through, all they had to live off was the iPod really, and to a lesser extent the PowerBook line.
They also have over 4.5bn USD in the bank.
A lot of enthusiasts would do well to note that Apple is quite significantly larger than AMD in terms of revenue and turnover, a comparison that will probably surprise many that are used to writing Apple off.
-Nex
Your analogy is deeply flawed.
Try factoring in the fact that when you buy your Ford, with your 'cheap radio' you can only listen to Ford radio stations.
-Nex
I'm on a crusade...
MAC = Media Access control.
Mac = abbreviation for Macintosh
Get it right.
"Apple rumors aren't tasty"
Don't you want to know what your Windows box is going to look like in 2009?
-Nex
Man... I REALLY love Apple...
But boy are you gonna be disappointed in a weeks time.
-Nex
GB = The landmass of England, Scotland, Wales.
UK = The above plus Northern Ireland
Hence the proper name for the UK is - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
-Nex
Mac had better come up with a dual processor Notebook.
'Mac' would do bloody well to come up with *anything* considering it's a product name and not a company... have a lot of experience with Apple products do you?
I am demoing a shoebox AVID field editor that has 2 P-4 processors
I think you mean 2 P4 Xeon processors seeing as vanilla P4's are not SMP capable, and you are probably paying through the nose for this privilege, and it's likely not gonna be anywhere NEAR as portable as a notebook so you're not really comparing like for like are you?
Current Apple notebooks compare rather well in both price and performance (and ALWAYS in functionality) to modern PC notebooks. Show me a PC notebook with dual processors? The performance delta is negligable on the notebook front, unless you're thinking about the companies who put desktop chips into their PC notebooks, and then you had BETTER be able to do your work a lot faster because you've got 15 mins of battery life on the thing. Show me a comparable machine with a 17 inch screen, 4.5 hour batt life, gigabit ethernet, superdrive, in an enclosure as portable as the Mac at a price not far from the Mac.
MAC's used to be the thing for Video....
Hmm, strange, I never knew that Media Access Control was so capable it could entirely take the diverse strains of Video PP. The abbreviation for the Macintosh platform is Mac, not MAC, this error really pisses off a lit of people and shows the poster as ignorant, someone in the industry would have known that I would have thought.
it looks like they are starting to lose with the big companies moving away from them...
What a gem of wisdom... you've wonderfully neglected to mention any of these companies you refer to... unless you mean your own, which judging from your post has never/rarely touched the Macintosh platform seriously.
Go find somewhere else to post your FUD, Troll.
-Nex
Well, from past knowledge of how Apple has done things recently, I'd say...
PPC 970 Single 1.4 Ghz shipping July.
PPC 970 Duallies shipping within 4 weeks of the single.
OSX 10.3 Late August... and I would bet my kidneys you WILL have to pay for it (~$129), but don't moan... apparently there is a LOT of new/improved stuff, and this is only the beginning as Apple have found that they can build on the code very easily *indeed* due to the quality and clenaliness of it... exactly the problem MS seems to have with Windows ATM.
For years I thought that all Unix machines involved hovering around in 3D over a virtual landscape of your files and folders...
Fuck, should learn to
a. Preview
b. Close tags
I love Bluetooth, but I think the reason that so many people see it as pointless is becasue of the things they are able to do with it.
I have a PowerMac G4, and with the Bluetooth dongle from DLink I sync my contacts between my PC and phone, sync my schedule too (very handy) and also, when I'm around the Mac (as I am a LOT of the time) text messages will appear on the screen instead of the phone, and I can reply via my keyboard (heaven!).
I watch a lot of DiVX on my nice big screen and when I found that I can use as a remote control I was hooked! My Mac now plays music when I come back from a lecture and shuts up when I leave the room.
I love Bluetooth, I use it every day, and NO it is not the same as having cables. Windows users I feel sorry for, as MS seems to be ignoring all this great functionality.
Ok, it's NOT going to revolutionise your life, so STOP EXPECTING IT TO! But it is very handy and useful, and *cheap* too. Which is a big factor.
-Nex
There are a lot of people crying out about personal rights etc. on this, but I have to say I really don't see what the problem is.
At all.
So the store knows more about what you buy, can much more accurately track your purchasing habits, sees which things you like, and which you don't, knows how much you spend every month in the store etc.
What's the big-ass problem for crying out loud?
I *want* the stores to know my buying habits so that they can do a better jobs of providing me with more of the things I like!
Ask yourselves WHY the store wants to know this? It's so that they can tailor themselves to YOU, to give YOU a better service and more of the things you want to spend your money on. Why on Earth would Walmart put money into something that would frustrate, irritate or otherwise turn away customers?!?
I say bring it on! I say, yeah, let's see my tastes and purchasing history take their place in the big database so that I become a future dynamic of the store!
All these privacy advocates going nuts are well off the mark... get some common sense in your head... these people don't want to take away your life... they're not like the common fictional evil genius with a mad plot to eradicate privacy from the face of the world (muhahaha).
I genuinely see this as a *service*, cannot wait for it to be implemented and have absolutely NO worries about the scheme at all. Stop watching too much X-Files!
-Nex
Like waiting for a bus...
You're waiting for one for years (~3), and then two (970 & this) come along at once.
Hmm... so I can spend around $550 on this thing, which, with all the extras is much mre likely to be around $700.
OR
I can spend a little more and get a nice iBook [or insert your favourite budget notebook here] which is a thousand times more capable.
I don't think the features vs price really pays off to be honest. Things like the iPod/MP3 players work because they offer an awful lot your PC can't (portability, battery life, simplicity, PRICE).
This device would be a pain in the ass to look at for 20 mins let alone an entire movie! The battery life isn't all that great, the HDD space is only acceptable - nothing stellar, and the cost is really pretty damn high.
Can you see Joe Public or your boss ripping and encoding his own DiVX's from his DVD'a? I can't... I love DiVX but I'm a geek, this just doesn't seem to appeal to the masses.
I think these guys are afraid that the iPod got a jump on them in the MP3 arena, and now they're trying to enter/create a product a couple of years before the stability and market is there to support it ut of fear from being left behind again.
-Nex
Well it's lost on me... perhaps you could tell me what my supposed statement is?
I've not stated anything in my post - go back and read more carefully.
I'm asking for more information from people who may be privy to such things exactly what this is likely to cost Microsoft.
-Nex
Anyone want to do the math on this one?
If we assume Linux never existed, and therefore the 90% cut price offer never made, making Munich pay full whack for 14,000 copies of Windows, how much would this cost (on this scale - obviously i doubt they would pay the full ~$300 permachine?)
Or put more directly... how much has this shaved off the MS bottom line for this financial quarter? If anyone knows what the purchase rate for both WINDOWS and OFFICE on this scale... please... let us know the math!
-Nex
Perhaps I should have put more emphasis on MS's perseverance... but the fact still remains... MS has a LOT of cash... SURELY it is an abuse of their position (illegal?) just to muscle into other markets by way of financial attrition?
-Nex