Er... what extra overhead? If an application is single-threaded, it will run on one CPU, while the OS offloads background tasks to the other. OSX does have pretty good support for SMP, AFAIK, and I don't think it would waste time switching a process back and forth between the two CPUs.
And no-one said it should double the performance (even if a program made perfect use of both CPUs, they would still have to share the same bus, the same memory, etc.). I have a couple of Athlon MPs and I know some programs don't benefit at all from the second CPU (but they're not slower, either, and the system is much more responsive than a single-CPU system, because the OS has the other CPU all for itself).
But the point is: this is the fastest Mac you can get. How can you say someone is "biased against the Mac" when they pick the best Mac, and compare it to a (fast, but still) consumer-level PC? Can you imagine the results if they had compared it to a (dual) Xeon DP, a (dual) Athlon MP or (god forbid) a (quad) Xeon MP...?
Note that I'm not saying the Dual G4 isn't a great machine. It's overpriced, IMO, but it's still more than enough for 99% of people. But it is not faster than a high-end home PC, as some people (mostly Mac users still living 15 years in the past) keep saying. This sounds like the Amiga story all over again. But unlike Commodore, Apple was smart enough to re-invent itself as a home computer manufacturer, and has survived thanks to that. Mac users should be glad that Apple's management has some notion of reality. And, if possible, they should try to get some themselves. You don't have to be better than other people to be good. If you're happy with what you have, great, that's what matters.
Photoshop on the Mac looks, feels and behaves just like Photoshop on the PC. Mac bits are exactly the same as PC bits; they're not sharper or smoother or better polished. The OS and the hardware are just a means to an end. When you spend all day inside After Effects, or 3DS MAX, or whatever, the OS is irrelevant, and so is the CPU brand; you just want it to be as fast and as stable as possible (and you want a good monitor, good tablet, etc., but those are - or can be - the same in both cases).
One of my company's Athlon MP / Windows 2000 Pro workstations (which is used to run Photoshop and After Effects, amongst other programs), has been on for 584 hours as I write this. I would say that's stable enough. It's also ridiculously fast (faster than the 3 GHz Pentium 4 they tested in this article, and possibly cheaper, if it was bought today).
In the fable of the tortoise and the hare, the tortoise won because the hare overslept (remember?). If anyone has overslept (and thus lost its advantage) here, it's Apple. Fifteen years ago, they were miles ahead of the PC in every department. Ten years ago, they were more or less matched in hardware, but Apple still had the software edge (both in terms of OS and applications). Five years ago, the PC matched that. And now, it's hard to find anything Macs do objectively better (some people may say they look better, but that's a matter of taste, personally I hate the Aqua look nearly as much as I hate the Windows XP look).
I think Apple lost "it". They haven't come up with anything really new for ten years or so. They're just refining, making things look prettier, rounder, smoother, but deep down it's the same thing they had a decade ago (when they copied a lot of ideas from Xerox and IBM).
For the last 5 years, Microsoft, Apple (and Linux) have just been copying each other ad nauseum. If Longhorn does introduce a database / property-based file system, it will be the first truly new thing in a long time. And it's a bit depressing that it's coming from Microsoft.:-/
> benchmark using Adobe AfterEffects, but that app does > not use both processors on the Mac,
So you're claiming it's unfair because somehow it uses both processors on the single-processor PC...?
> and is not Altivec optimized, > but AE is optimized for Intel.
Is it? Then why was the dual Mac equally crushed by the Athlon, in the previous test? Let me remind you the Athlon does not support SSE2, so it has no Altivec equivalent.
> He further stacked the deck by running the benches > on dual processors, where a fair test would > have benched a single-proc app on single-proc macs > and PCs.
So you're saying a single-processor Mac performs better than a dual-processor Mac? Now I'm definitely confused. He pitches a Mac with two processors against a PC with one processor and you say that's biased towards the PC...?
I agree that it wasn't fair. Personally I think he should have used a dual- or quad-Xeon, instead of a single-CPU "consumer" Pentium 4.
> He used codecs that are also optimized > poorly on the Mac,
Could you please make it clear what codecs you're talking about?
> I suggested he do the benches with a program > that is equally optimized for both platforms, > like Cleaner 6 or Shake.
Cleaner is about the slowest, crappiest encoder ever created (this applies to both the PC and Mac version). Shake (as you well know) is no longer being sold for the PC. And neither of those programs is in the same market as After Effects. If you want an alternative in a close (though higher-end) segment, you have Discreet's Combustion 2.
Personally, I would have liked to see a comparison of 3D rendering, too. Since 3DS MAX doesn't run on Macs, they could use Lightwave, for example. BTW, you can see tons of Lightwave benchmarks here.
> In response to my polite letter,
If your letter was anything like your post above, then, it wasn't "polite", it was "deranged".
> why would anyone believe this idiot?
Hm... tough one... I got it! Because it's true...? Because anyone can get the files he used and run his or her own benchmarks? Because Photoshop is the most important image editing program in the market (including the Mac market)?
I have something very important to say: My GeForce2 MX is the fastest graphics card in the world. People who benchamrk cards using Quake III or AutoCAD are biased because those programs are not properly optimized for my GeForce2 MX. If anyone tells you that ATI's AiW 9700 Pro or nVidia's GeForce4 Ti4600 are faster than (or in any way superior to) my GF2 MX, they are either idiots, or liars, or both.
> Apple's first advantage is OS X. It's UNIX, which means > that it blows Windows out of the water, performance-wise.
I see. And you are basing this theory on what advertising leaflet? Please define:
a) What does "UNIX" mean (this is not a trick question).
b) What kind of benchmark are you using to conclude that "performance-wise, OSX blows Windows out of the water".
> Plus, it has the amazing Aqua interface, > which makes things easy to use
Aqua is not an interface; it has no influence on how easy programs are to use, only on the way they look. The interface of programs such as Photoshop, After Effects, Combustion, etc., is almost exactly the same on Mac and Windows.
> Mac hardware was built for video editing, with > Firewire ports on every machine
Most PCs come with firewire ports, too (even laptops). When they don't, you can add them for about $50. As to the rest of the hardware, PCs use the same drives as Macs, the same memory as Macs, and they have faster CPUs (therefore they render the video effects faster, as this article shows). So how exactly are Macs "built for video"...? Is there a new model that comes with a tape drive, per chance?
> Final Cut Pro on Macs for more than a year, and I > have to say that it is quite clear why it is the > professional industry standard editing software for > digital video.
I am a professional video editor and I never use FCP. I know several video editiors and several companies, and none of them uses it, either. I'm not saying it's not good, but it's definitely not "the standard".
> I pity the people stuck with PCs to do their video > editing. I've tried it on my Pentium III before, and > it is slow as all hell.
Maybe your Pentium III was not "built for video". Or maybe it was built by someone who didn't have a clue about building PCs.
Please, when you state your opinion, or your wishes, don't present them as facts.
Macs are excellent home computers, especially for people who are new to computers. Even Apple itself has pretty much given up pushing Macs as "faster" or "better" and is instead focusing on "prettier", "simpler". Why isn't this enough for Mac users? Why do you feel the need to keep shouting that Macs are faster and more powerful when very clearly they're not? It only makes you look like a bunch of fanatics.
I have a GeForce2 MX graphics card. It has good image quality, it works fine in video editing / animation / 3D modelling software and it runs nearly all games at an acceptable speed. But it wouldn't cross my mind to say it's faster (or even "better", as subjective as that may be) than a Quadro 4 or an ATI AiW 9700 Pro. You see, for something to be good enough it doesn't have to be better than everything else.
The tools are not the computers; the tools are the programs. Here, they compared the same tools, therefore the "quality" is the same. Of course, some people may prefer other programs, but this is as fair a comparison as you can make (in fact, they probably should have compared it to the fastest PC, instead of the fastest single-processor PC (ex., an Athlon MP, or a quad Xeon).
It has to be embarrassing for Apple to be systematically beaten by PCs in areas where, traditionally, they had the edge. I think they are right to try to push Macs more as home computers ("look, it's simple, it's pretty, it's fast enough") than as high-end DCC machines. At least until they manage to get better hardware.
If they're waiting for the new IBM chip, that could be a long time.
Yes, they do. I never said they stopped optimising the Mac version; just that they started optimising the x86 version.
The Windows version of Photoshop 5.0, for example, was basically a port of the Mac version, with no extra tweaking. But 6 and 7 were written for x86 from the ground up, and so is After Effects since version 3.
Which gives you a better picture of the hardware difference between Macs and PCs (to put it bluntly, an Athlon XP 2200+ is almost twice as fast as a dual G4 in Photoshop or After Effects). This is obviously not in the best interest of Apple if they want to convince people their systems are faster than PCs.
BTW, care to present any evidence to sustain that theory that "half of all Adobe sales are for Macs"? Let me just remind you that Macs are approximately 3% of the personal computer market, while PCs are approximately 90%. If Adobe only managed to sell the same number of units in the PC market as they sell in the Mac market, they would immediately sack their PC marketing department. They sell more copies of Premiere than Apple sells computers. So unless all Mac users buy several copies of each Adobe program, I find that theory a bit unlikely...
> Developers already develop only for PC as it is; > Corel killed Wordperfect for Mac, Half Life was > never released for Mac, etc, etc, etc.
And ISS Pro was never released for Windows, which is a shame because FIFA sucks. But your point is...? You can't force developers to port software when porting that software is not economically viable. Valve is a small company, they don't have the staff to port their games to a market as small as the Mac (they took forever to make console ports, and those sell nearly as much as PCs).
And neither was released for Linux, by the way, which has more users than Mac (although most dual-boot or use Windows emulation).
Take a look at one of the few companies that always made Mac versions: Adobe. What does Apple do? They start competing with them, releasing their own alternatives (some of them included in the OS). Result? Adobe gets pissed off and they start optimising their software for x86. Result of that? Some Adobe software (ex., After Effects) now runs twice as fast on an average x86 than on a top Mac. Result of that? Macs look less and less attractive to the high-end market.
Not that I'm saying Apple shouldn't make alternatives; just as I think it's great that Microsoft makes a web browser. Is just don't think it's great that they bundle it with their OS hoping that people won't even try the other ones (and most people won't, because they're lazy or because they don't even know there are alternatives to what came bundled with their OS).
> Mac versions for many products just don't exist.
Neither do Linux or OS/2 or BeOS versions. Again, what does that have to do with Microsoft's or Apple's way of doing "business"...? It's pretty hard to find Beta tapes, although Beta is much better than VHS. Maybe Beta would have been more successful if Sony had made it public instead of proprietary. Maybe OSX would be more popular if it could run on non-Apple hardware (ex., x86).
> Why is it economically unjust for Apple to stop producing > an unprofitable PC version (since it doesn't sell Macs > and since it's only got 500 licenses compared to Linux)
Oh, it's not "economically unjust". It's just immoral. And stupid. They're not going to sell more Macs. The high-end professional market doesn't care what software or hardware they're using, they care only about money and deadlines. If it's cheaper and gets the job done faster, then it's better.
And it shows that Apple knows it can't compete. If they're keeping the x86 Linux versions, they could easily keep the Windows version too (it's the same code, just a different GUI).
If they just wanted a "starting point", to build their own compositing / post-production program, they wouldn't need to buy Shake and RayZ. They did it to kill the competition, pure and simply. Imagine Microsoft bought Macromedia or Adobe and stopped making the Mac versions. What would you say then?
> when it's okay for Corel to stop producing an > unprofitable Mac version?
I think that even you can see the two situations are totally unrelated. The Windows versions of Shake, etc., were clearly profitable, otherwise Nothing Real would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. It was certainly a lot more profitable than the Mac version, because it sold a lot more, and at a higher price. Apple is hoping to make up for the lost sales by selling more hardware, but they won't. The people who really profited from Apple's move were Discreet (makers of Combustion) and Eyeon (makers of Digital Fusion). It doesn't matter that the Mac version is cheaper. x86 is faster, and that pays for the difference over and over. They also lose a ton of 3rd party plug-ins that only run on x86.
> Or are you complaining about Apple *buying* good > software, instead of producing it from scratch?
I'm not complaining about anything. One the contrary. I use Digital Fusion and I know that from now on I'll have a lot more plug-ins and a lot more industry support, because the Shake and RayZ user base has taken a major hit, and plug-in makers are starting to look for alternatives. I just feel sorry for all current Shake and RayZ users.
> and always release IE years behind on the Mac version,
And your point is...? Does Apple make Windows ports at all? If they're not happy with IE, why not use Mozilla or Opera instead? Or why don't they make their own (better) browser?
> as well as killing Netscape in the process?
I don't think they bought Netscape, did they? Yes, what they did was against the market rules (losing money on a product just to eliminate the competition), but at least they did make a competing product, they didn't just buy NS and killed the *nix versions to force people to move to Windows. In fact, they even make IE for Macs. And Microsoft doesn't force you to buy their hardware, either.
BTW, I used Netscape for a long time and it pretty much killed itself (bugs, bugs, bugs, and I don't mean just the page renderer). I moved from NS to Opera and I occasionally use Mozilla (less and less, now that Opera 7 is out).
RMN ~~~
It's the business of doing business.
on
The Apple Name Game
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's actually possible for people to mistake their mouth for their asses, but I think that if we assume that's the norm, the standards for the human species have dropped pretty low.
If a telecom company is "in the same business" as one that sells computers, then a farmer is in the same industry as a supermarket and a photographer is in the same business as a lamp manufacturer.
Did you see Windows go after AMD (or the other way around) for using "XP"...? Did you see Stanislaw Lem go after Sun for using "Solaris"...? Or do you think the catholic church will go after Apple for using, well... an apple? That's not just trademark infringment, it's also probably a sin.
I can understand Windows going after some products with "Windows" in their name if they are operating systems created after MS Windows or if they are products such as "Windows MegaBackup" (which they usually ask to be changed to "MegaBackup for Windows", just to make clear that it's not a part of MS Windows). They are not going after companies that make real windows, or window-cleaners, or movies with the word "window" in their title. Because they have some respect for their consumers' ability to distinguish between them and because they have some sense of ridicule.
Once again (after buying Nothing Real, RayZ, Spruce Tech, etc., just to kill the Windows / Linux versions), Apple has out-microsofted Microsoft. In fact, they have the advantage of making you buy their hardware as well as their software.
You said "saying most Linux users don't use any MS software is complete bull". Since I don't think Microsoft makes any Linux software, I don't think that any Linux user can - while using Linux - run Microsoft software (except under emulation - see below). He may, of course, run Windows on a different machine (or on the same one), just as he may run BeOS or OSX or Solaris. Of these, I think OSX is the only one with native Microsoft software.
Linux has alternatives to most home / office software (browsers, office suites, media players) and also to most server softare (servers, databases, scripting). It lacks DCC software (video and image editing, music, etc.) and games. Some of these (both games and DCC) can run under emulation, some cannot. I doubt most Linux users use Windows for anything besides serving as the kernel for specific applications. Once you're inside 3D Studio or After Effects or Cakewalk, it's irrelevant what operating system you're using.
What annoys me about Linux (and many Linux users) is that they're trying to copy Windows, instead of actually coming up with something better. In fact, for the last 7 years or so, Microsoft, Apple and Linux have just been copying each other ad nauseum.
The natural order of things used to be:
Xerox or IBM would come up with a new concept (mouse, GUI, windows, etc.). Apple would copy it almost immediately and make it look prettier. Microsoft would copy it two years later and make it look uglier. Linux would try to do the same thing in text mode.
Xerox and IBM are now pretty much dead (or at least hibernating). Apple just kept making things look prettier and prettier until they arrived at something that looks like a shampoo bottle (I hate the iMac / Aqua look). Microsoft tried to out-Mac Apple and came up with XP, that looks like something out of a committee formed by Macromedia and Chicco. I think it looks even uglier than Aqua. Aqua is for girls, XP is for baby girls. Linux, as usual, is trying to copy both of them (they're not using text mode anymore, which has made it lose that 'retro' appeal).
Personally, I'm sticking to Windows 2000 Pro. It's stable, it's fast, has tons of software, supports tons of hardware and has a sober, functional interface (especially when you complement it with a few command-line tools). Apart from the OS, the only MS software I use is Visual Studio and Word. As more software is released for Linux (and as Windows emulation under Linux improves), I might consider switching. But I really doubt I'll ever switch to a Mac. If I leave Windows it'll be to get rid of a software monopoly, so I'm not going to plunge into a software and hardware one.
On the hardware choice / speed / price side of things, x86 wins too, so that's another point against Macs (from my point of view).
Hopefully, the next version of Windows will introduce something new and useful (a property / database-oriented file system). Something that both Apple and Linux had years to develop and bring to end users but somehow didn't (too busy making anti-aliased icons). Don't get me wrong; I don't like Microsoft. Which is even more depressing when I look at the alternatives.
If they decided to stop making the Mac version, it's probably because they weren't selling enough to justify the expenses. Doesn't OpenOffice run on X...?
Of course it was an investment. That way Microsoft can say to the judge, "see, there's competition - Apple - we're not a monopoly", when in fact they control Apple too. Over 98% of Mac users use MSIE as their browser and over 90% use MS Office for word processing / spreadsheets / etc.. So the OS isn't sold by Microsoft. Big deal. The OS by itself doesn't do much. As Apple used to say, "it's not what the computer does, it's what you can do with it". And most people with Macs use Microsoft software too. In fact, MS Office and MSIE are more dominant in the Mac market than in the Windows market.
With 'enemies' like these, MS doesn't need any friends.
I'm not saying the Linux community is entirely consistent, either. They say Microsoft sucks but then they spend all their time trying to copy Microsoft's look & feel. But at least they're just trying to make a copy, they're not using (and paying for) the original.
How is this redundant? Had anyone asked the same question before? You do know what 'redundant' means, don't you? Maybe Slashdot's editors should just add a new moderation "-5, I don't like what he said", and then use that one over and over gain.
It probably has something to do with the "seams" mentioned in the second sentence, or with the "obsticals" mentioned at the end.
We're always learning new things. For example, I always thought that an editor's job was to check for errors (spelling, grammar, factual, etc.) in articles before publishing them...
The 3D effects is only possible because the games render two different points of view, and the glasses sync to the monitor and make sure each eye only sees the point of view it should be seeing.
Some graphics cards come with a 3D-glasses port (which is basically just a sync signal), others sync directly to the VGA connection. Technically it's even possible to sync to the screen, without any connection (but there's no point in doing that here, since the connection is easily available).
Either way, they work fine as long as your monitor can refresh at a decent speed (remember, each eye will only see half the images, so if the monitor is doing 100 Hz, each eye is seeing 50) and your graphics card can render the frames fast enough (same thing - if the card renderes 100 FPS, each eye will only see 50). Also, these glasses only work if vsync is on (ie, frame updates must be synchronised with monitor refresh), so if you're used to about 70 FPS at 100 Hz, you will now see only 50 FPS in double-buffered games, which means each eye will only see 25.
So if you really want to use this for games, make sure your monitor can do at least 120 Hz at the resolution you're planning to use (150 Hz or above would be preferable), and make sure your graphics card can surpass that frame rate at that resolution. Otherwise, you're in for some serious headaches.
Also, your graphics driver must have support for 3D glasses (ie, they must be able to shift the point of view in alternate frames in 3D applications). Fortunately, most drivers do.
Finally, eDimensional claim you can use their glases to see movies in 3D. This is obviously not true. Or rather, you will see some "depth effects", but they will obvioulsy not match the real depth of the original images. And when the depth effect from stereoscopic view clashes with the depth effect from spatial perception, you are very likely to get a major headache, which is your brain's way of saying "I refuse to process this junk".
AMD is saying that besides desktop chips, they are also moving into workstation and server chips. How exactly is this "pulling out from competition with Intel"...? Quite the contrary, they will now be competing not only with the Pentium and Celeron, but also with the Xeon and Itanium (and with chips from Sun, HP, etc.). And judging from the support they're getting before even releasing the Hammer, I'd say their future looks quite bright indeed.
I'm sorry for the rant, but for the last couple of years Slashdot has become a swamp. Half the articles are from someone pushing their personal agenda ("Microsoft sucks", "Apple rules", "Person X is a bastard", etc.), and the other half are simply wrong. The readers then comment on the Slashdot "news items" without even bothering to read the original articles (thus propagating the ignorance) and finally the moderators mod things as "interesting" or "insightful" without bothering to see if they're even remotely true.
This sort of reminds me of the issues related to on-line cheating in games such as Quake, Counter-Strike, etc. When you find an exploit, should you keep quiet, or should you tell everyone about it?
Well, I found a few exploits in the early versions CS (0.3, I think), and, "responsibly", I sent a message to its authors, detailing the problem and proposing a couple of solutions. I never even got a reply. A new version was released, and the exploit was still there. So I posted some (incomplete) information on the CS user forums. A new version was eventually released, and the exploits were still there. Eventually, websites started to post instructions on how to exploit those holes in the code, and cheating became generalised. Still it wasn't fixed. It wasn't until "cheat packs" (complete with InstallShield) became widely distributed that the CS team actually decided to work on the problem.
CS was free, though.
Microsoft has absolutely ludicrous profit margins, and that money comes from their clients. I think those clients are entitled to expect reasonably secure software and (failing that), at least a quick response to the problems. This problem has been known for some time and MS still hasn't fixed it. Something this serious needs to be dealt with quickly. If Microsoft won't do it, then the users should at least be given a chance to, by switching to a different browser, either temporarily or permanently.
You don't have to use IE. There are alternatives. The alternatives are free and they're available to anyone who uses IE.
But the only way to warn those users it through the media. And the media won't give this problem due coverage unless they understand how serious it is. And they won't understand how serious it is unless there are real exploits. And it should be made pretty clear to the media that this problem affects MSIE, not "computers" or "the internet".
The point is not to "punish Microsoft" (or IE users). The point is to make people realise that they are not safe while also showing them that they can be safe. Or at least a lot safer.
Try reading the posts above; other people have made the same mistake. Most of the screen doesn't change between frames, therefore it doesn't need to be updated. You only need to transmit parts of the screen that have changed, and even then, the display is probably able to handle some high-level commands, so it doesn't need to receive actual pixel data for most of the updates.
Just as programs such as PC Anywhere don't need to transmit every single pixel of the screen for every frame, here too you can simply transmit the parts of the screen that need updating (ie, parts that have changed since the previous frame). Windows already does this internally (partial screen redraws), so it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Most of the time, you'll only need to update a small area around the cursor. If you don't have a cursor, and instead use a finger or pen, you don't even need to update that.
Of course, you probably won't get brilliant performance in action games, but I doubt any action game fanatic would use a touchscreen (or even an LCD) anyway.
Oh, and you can transmit a lot more than that using wireless, but using partial updates you will probably never need to.
Actually, when I submitted the item, I called it "Mozilla patched" (to indicate that some of those security bugs had been fixed in the new version(s)), but apparently the editor decided to change the title ("the good and the bad"), and did not mention that on the text.
RMN ~~~
What I really want to know is...
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 2
What I really want to know is: who is selling these electronic voting machines and how can I get a share of the profit?
Slashdot Mirror
Er... what extra overhead? If an application is single-threaded, it will run on one CPU, while the OS offloads background tasks to the other. OSX does have pretty good support for SMP, AFAIK, and I don't think it would waste time switching a process back and forth between the two CPUs.
And no-one said it should double the performance (even if a program made perfect use of both CPUs, they would still have to share the same bus, the same memory, etc.). I have a couple of Athlon MPs and I know some programs don't benefit at all from the second CPU (but they're not slower, either, and the system is much more responsive than a single-CPU system, because the OS has the other CPU all for itself).
But the point is: this is the fastest Mac you can get. How can you say someone is "biased against the Mac" when they pick the best Mac, and compare it to a (fast, but still) consumer-level PC? Can you imagine the results if they had compared it to a (dual) Xeon DP, a (dual) Athlon MP or (god forbid) a (quad) Xeon MP...?
Note that I'm not saying the Dual G4 isn't a great machine. It's overpriced, IMO, but it's still more than enough for 99% of people. But it is not faster than a high-end home PC, as some people (mostly Mac users still living 15 years in the past) keep saying. This sounds like the Amiga story all over again. But unlike Commodore, Apple was smart enough to re-invent itself as a home computer manufacturer, and has survived thanks to that. Mac users should be glad that Apple's management has some notion of reality. And, if possible, they should try to get some themselves. You don't have to be better than other people to be good. If you're happy with what you have, great, that's what matters.
RMN
~~~
Photoshop on the Mac looks, feels and behaves just like Photoshop on the PC. Mac bits are exactly the same as PC bits; they're not sharper or smoother or better polished. The OS and the hardware are just a means to an end. When you spend all day inside After Effects, or 3DS MAX, or whatever, the OS is irrelevant, and so is the CPU brand; you just want it to be as fast and as stable as possible (and you want a good monitor, good tablet, etc., but those are - or can be - the same in both cases).
:-/
One of my company's Athlon MP / Windows 2000 Pro workstations (which is used to run Photoshop and After Effects, amongst other programs), has been on for 584 hours as I write this. I would say that's stable enough. It's also ridiculously fast (faster than the 3 GHz Pentium 4 they tested in this article, and possibly cheaper, if it was bought today).
In the fable of the tortoise and the hare, the tortoise won because the hare overslept (remember?). If anyone has overslept (and thus lost its advantage) here, it's Apple. Fifteen years ago, they were miles ahead of the PC in every department. Ten years ago, they were more or less matched in hardware, but Apple still had the software edge (both in terms of OS and applications). Five years ago, the PC matched that. And now, it's hard to find anything Macs do objectively better (some people may say they look better, but that's a matter of taste, personally I hate the Aqua look nearly as much as I hate the Windows XP look).
I think Apple lost "it". They haven't come up with anything really new for ten years or so. They're just refining, making things look prettier, rounder, smoother, but deep down it's the same thing they had a decade ago (when they copied a lot of ideas from Xerox and IBM).
For the last 5 years, Microsoft, Apple (and Linux) have just been copying each other ad nauseum. If Longhorn does introduce a database / property-based file system, it will be the first truly new thing in a long time. And it's a bit depressing that it's coming from Microsoft.
RMN
~~~
> benchmark using Adobe AfterEffects, but that app does
> not use both processors on the Mac,
So you're claiming it's unfair because somehow it uses both processors on the single-processor PC...?
> and is not Altivec optimized,
> but AE is optimized for Intel.
Is it? Then why was the dual Mac equally crushed by the Athlon, in the previous test? Let me remind you the Athlon does not support SSE2, so it has no Altivec equivalent.
> He further stacked the deck by running the benches
> on dual processors, where a fair test would
> have benched a single-proc app on single-proc macs
> and PCs.
So you're saying a single-processor Mac performs better than a dual-processor Mac? Now I'm definitely confused. He pitches a Mac with two processors against a PC with one processor and you say that's biased towards the PC...?
I agree that it wasn't fair. Personally I think he should have used a dual- or quad-Xeon, instead of a single-CPU "consumer" Pentium 4.
> He used codecs that are also optimized
> poorly on the Mac,
Could you please make it clear what codecs you're talking about?
> I suggested he do the benches with a program
> that is equally optimized for both platforms,
> like Cleaner 6 or Shake.
Cleaner is about the slowest, crappiest encoder ever created (this applies to both the PC and Mac version). Shake (as you well know) is no longer being sold for the PC. And neither of those programs is in the same market as After Effects. If you want an alternative in a close (though higher-end) segment, you have Discreet's Combustion 2.
Personally, I would have liked to see a comparison of 3D rendering, too. Since 3DS MAX doesn't run on Macs, they could use Lightwave, for example. BTW, you can see tons of Lightwave benchmarks here.
> In response to my polite letter,
If your letter was anything like your post above, then, it wasn't "polite", it was "deranged".
> why would anyone believe this idiot?
Hm... tough one... I got it! Because it's true...? Because anyone can get the files he used and run his or her own benchmarks? Because Photoshop is the most important image editing program in the market (including the Mac market)?
I have something very important to say: My GeForce2 MX is the fastest graphics card in the world. People who benchamrk cards using Quake III or AutoCAD are biased because those programs are not properly optimized for my GeForce2 MX. If anyone tells you that ATI's AiW 9700 Pro or nVidia's GeForce4 Ti4600 are faster than (or in any way superior to) my GF2 MX, they are either idiots, or liars, or both.
Thats is what you sound like.
RMN
~~~
> Apple's first advantage is OS X. It's UNIX, which means
> that it blows Windows out of the water, performance-wise.
I see. And you are basing this theory on what advertising leaflet? Please define:
a) What does "UNIX" mean (this is not a trick question).
b) What kind of benchmark are you using to conclude that "performance-wise, OSX blows Windows out of the water".
> Plus, it has the amazing Aqua interface,
> which makes things easy to use
Aqua is not an interface; it has no influence on how easy programs are to use, only on the way they look. The interface of programs such as Photoshop, After Effects, Combustion, etc., is almost exactly the same on Mac and Windows.
> Mac hardware was built for video editing, with
> Firewire ports on every machine
Most PCs come with firewire ports, too (even laptops). When they don't, you can add them for about $50. As to the rest of the hardware, PCs use the same drives as Macs, the same memory as Macs, and they have faster CPUs (therefore they render the video effects faster, as this article shows). So how exactly are Macs "built for video"...? Is there a new model that comes with a tape drive, per chance?
> Final Cut Pro on Macs for more than a year, and I
> have to say that it is quite clear why it is the
> professional industry standard editing software for
> digital video.
I am a professional video editor and I never use FCP. I know several video editiors and several companies, and none of them uses it, either. I'm not saying it's not good, but it's definitely not "the standard".
> I pity the people stuck with PCs to do their video
> editing. I've tried it on my Pentium III before, and
> it is slow as all hell.
Maybe your Pentium III was not "built for video". Or maybe it was built by someone who didn't have a clue about building PCs.
Please, when you state your opinion, or your wishes, don't present them as facts.
Macs are excellent home computers, especially for people who are new to computers. Even Apple itself has pretty much given up pushing Macs as "faster" or "better" and is instead focusing on "prettier", "simpler". Why isn't this enough for Mac users? Why do you feel the need to keep shouting that Macs are faster and more powerful when very clearly they're not? It only makes you look like a bunch of fanatics.
I have a GeForce2 MX graphics card. It has good image quality, it works fine in video editing / animation / 3D modelling software and it runs nearly all games at an acceptable speed. But it wouldn't cross my mind to say it's faster (or even "better", as subjective as that may be) than a Quadro 4 or an ATI AiW 9700 Pro. You see, for something to be good enough it doesn't have to be better than everything else.
RMN
~~~
The tools are not the computers; the tools are the programs. Here, they compared the same tools, therefore the "quality" is the same. Of course, some people may prefer other programs, but this is as fair a comparison as you can make (in fact, they probably should have compared it to the fastest PC, instead of the fastest single-processor PC (ex., an Athlon MP, or a quad Xeon).
It has to be embarrassing for Apple to be systematically beaten by PCs in areas where, traditionally, they had the edge. I think they are right to try to push Macs more as home computers ("look, it's simple, it's pretty, it's fast enough") than as high-end DCC machines. At least until they manage to get better hardware.
If they're waiting for the new IBM chip, that could be a long time.
RMN
~~~
Yes, they do. I never said they stopped optimising the Mac version; just that they started optimising the x86 version.
The Windows version of Photoshop 5.0, for example, was basically a port of the Mac version, with no extra tweaking. But 6 and 7 were written for x86 from the ground up, and so is After Effects since version 3.
Which gives you a better picture of the hardware difference between Macs and PCs (to put it bluntly, an Athlon XP 2200+ is almost twice as fast as a dual G4 in Photoshop or After Effects). This is obviously not in the best interest of Apple if they want to convince people their systems are faster than PCs.
BTW, care to present any evidence to sustain that theory that "half of all Adobe sales are for Macs"? Let me just remind you that Macs are approximately 3% of the personal computer market, while PCs are approximately 90%. If Adobe only managed to sell the same number of units in the PC market as they sell in the Mac market, they would immediately sack their PC marketing department. They sell more copies of Premiere than Apple sells computers. So unless all Mac users buy several copies of each Adobe program, I find that theory a bit unlikely...
RMN
~~~
> Developers already develop only for PC as it is;
> Corel killed Wordperfect for Mac, Half Life was
> never released for Mac, etc, etc, etc.
And ISS Pro was never released for Windows, which is a shame because FIFA sucks. But your point is...? You can't force developers to port software when porting that software is not economically viable. Valve is a small company, they don't have the staff to port their games to a market as small as the Mac (they took forever to make console ports, and those sell nearly as much as PCs).
And neither was released for Linux, by the way, which has more users than Mac (although most dual-boot or use Windows emulation).
Take a look at one of the few companies that always made Mac versions: Adobe. What does Apple do? They start competing with them, releasing their own alternatives (some of them included in the OS). Result? Adobe gets pissed off and they start optimising their software for x86. Result of that? Some Adobe software (ex., After Effects) now runs twice as fast on an average x86 than on a top Mac. Result of that? Macs look less and less attractive to the high-end market.
Not that I'm saying Apple shouldn't make alternatives; just as I think it's great that Microsoft makes a web browser. Is just don't think it's great that they bundle it with their OS hoping that people won't even try the other ones (and most people won't, because they're lazy or because they don't even know there are alternatives to what came bundled with their OS).
> Mac versions for many products just don't exist.
Neither do Linux or OS/2 or BeOS versions. Again, what does that have to do with Microsoft's or Apple's way of doing "business"...? It's pretty hard to find Beta tapes, although Beta is much better than VHS. Maybe Beta would have been more successful if Sony had made it public instead of proprietary. Maybe OSX would be more popular if it could run on non-Apple hardware (ex., x86).
> Why is it economically unjust for Apple to stop producing
> an unprofitable PC version (since it doesn't sell Macs
> and since it's only got 500 licenses compared to Linux)
Oh, it's not "economically unjust". It's just immoral. And stupid. They're not going to sell more Macs. The high-end professional market doesn't care what software or hardware they're using, they care only about money and deadlines. If it's cheaper and gets the job done faster, then it's better.
And it shows that Apple knows it can't compete. If they're keeping the x86 Linux versions, they could easily keep the Windows version too (it's the same code, just a different GUI).
If they just wanted a "starting point", to build their own compositing / post-production program, they wouldn't need to buy Shake and RayZ. They did it to kill the competition, pure and simply. Imagine Microsoft bought Macromedia or Adobe and stopped making the Mac versions. What would you say then?
> when it's okay for Corel to stop producing an
> unprofitable Mac version?
I think that even you can see the two situations are totally unrelated. The Windows versions of Shake, etc., were clearly profitable, otherwise Nothing Real would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. It was certainly a lot more profitable than the Mac version, because it sold a lot more, and at a higher price. Apple is hoping to make up for the lost sales by selling more hardware, but they won't. The people who really profited from Apple's move were Discreet (makers of Combustion) and Eyeon (makers of Digital Fusion). It doesn't matter that the Mac version is cheaper. x86 is faster, and that pays for the difference over and over. They also lose a ton of 3rd party plug-ins that only run on x86.
> Or are you complaining about Apple *buying* good
> software, instead of producing it from scratch?
I'm not complaining about anything. One the contrary. I use Digital Fusion and I know that from now on I'll have a lot more plug-ins and a lot more industry support, because the Shake and RayZ user base has taken a major hit, and plug-in makers are starting to look for alternatives. I just feel sorry for all current Shake and RayZ users.
> and always release IE years behind on the Mac version,
And your point is...? Does Apple make Windows ports at all? If they're not happy with IE, why not use Mozilla or Opera instead? Or why don't they make their own (better) browser?
> as well as killing Netscape in the process?
I don't think they bought Netscape, did they? Yes, what they did was against the market rules (losing money on a product just to eliminate the competition), but at least they did make a competing product, they didn't just buy NS and killed the *nix versions to force people to move to Windows. In fact, they even make IE for Macs. And Microsoft doesn't force you to buy their hardware, either.
BTW, I used Netscape for a long time and it pretty much killed itself (bugs, bugs, bugs, and I don't mean just the page renderer). I moved from NS to Opera and I occasionally use Mozilla (less and less, now that Opera 7 is out).
RMN
~~~
It's actually possible for people to mistake their mouth for their asses, but I think that if we assume that's the norm, the standards for the human species have dropped pretty low.
If a telecom company is "in the same business" as one that sells computers, then a farmer is in the same industry as a supermarket and a photographer is in the same business as a lamp manufacturer.
Did you see Windows go after AMD (or the other way around) for using "XP"...? Did you see Stanislaw Lem go after Sun for using "Solaris"...? Or do you think the catholic church will go after Apple for using, well... an apple? That's not just trademark infringment, it's also probably a sin.
I can understand Windows going after some products with "Windows" in their name if they are operating systems created after MS Windows or if they are products such as "Windows MegaBackup" (which they usually ask to be changed to "MegaBackup for Windows", just to make clear that it's not a part of MS Windows). They are not going after companies that make real windows, or window-cleaners, or movies with the word "window" in their title. Because they have some respect for their consumers' ability to distinguish between them and because they have some sense of ridicule.
Once again (after buying Nothing Real, RayZ, Spruce Tech, etc., just to kill the Windows / Linux versions), Apple has out-microsofted Microsoft. In fact, they have the advantage of making you buy their hardware as well as their software.
RMN
~~~
It's been a while since I've seen a BIOS made by anyone besides Phoenix.
RMN
~~~
You said "saying most Linux users don't use any MS software is complete bull". Since I don't think Microsoft makes any Linux software, I don't think that any Linux user can - while using Linux - run Microsoft software (except under emulation - see below). He may, of course, run Windows on a different machine (or on the same one), just as he may run BeOS or OSX or Solaris. Of these, I think OSX is the only one with native Microsoft software.
Linux has alternatives to most home / office software (browsers, office suites, media players) and also to most server softare (servers, databases, scripting). It lacks DCC software (video and image editing, music, etc.) and games. Some of these (both games and DCC) can run under emulation, some cannot. I doubt most Linux users use Windows for anything besides serving as the kernel for specific applications. Once you're inside 3D Studio or After Effects or Cakewalk, it's irrelevant what operating system you're using.
What annoys me about Linux (and many Linux users) is that they're trying to copy Windows, instead of actually coming up with something better. In fact, for the last 7 years or so, Microsoft, Apple and Linux have just been copying each other ad nauseum.
The natural order of things used to be:
Xerox or IBM would come up with a new concept (mouse, GUI, windows, etc.). Apple would copy it almost immediately and make it look prettier. Microsoft would copy it two years later and make it look uglier. Linux would try to do the same thing in text mode.
Xerox and IBM are now pretty much dead (or at least hibernating). Apple just kept making things look prettier and prettier until they arrived at something that looks like a shampoo bottle (I hate the iMac / Aqua look). Microsoft tried to out-Mac Apple and came up with XP, that looks like something out of a committee formed by Macromedia and Chicco. I think it looks even uglier than Aqua. Aqua is for girls, XP is for baby girls. Linux, as usual, is trying to copy both of them (they're not using text mode anymore, which has made it lose that 'retro' appeal).
Personally, I'm sticking to Windows 2000 Pro. It's stable, it's fast, has tons of software, supports tons of hardware and has a sober, functional interface (especially when you complement it with a few command-line tools). Apart from the OS, the only MS software I use is Visual Studio and Word. As more software is released for Linux (and as Windows emulation under Linux improves), I might consider switching. But I really doubt I'll ever switch to a Mac. If I leave Windows it'll be to get rid of a software monopoly, so I'm not going to plunge into a software and hardware one.
On the hardware choice / speed / price side of things, x86 wins too, so that's another point against Macs (from my point of view).
Hopefully, the next version of Windows will introduce something new and useful (a property / database-oriented file system). Something that both Apple and Linux had years to develop and bring to end users but somehow didn't (too busy making anti-aliased icons). Don't get me wrong; I don't like Microsoft. Which is even more depressing when I look at the alternatives.
RMN
~~~
As far as I know, Microsoft does not make or sell any Linux software. Lots of Mac users use Windows boxes too. Your point was...?
RMN
~~~
If they decided to stop making the Mac version, it's probably because they weren't selling enough to justify the expenses. Doesn't OpenOffice run on X...?
RMN
~~~
How about you post with your real name instead of telling other people to shut up as AC...?
RMN
~~~
Of course it was an investment. That way Microsoft can say to the judge, "see, there's competition - Apple - we're not a monopoly", when in fact they control Apple too. Over 98% of Mac users use MSIE as their browser and over 90% use MS Office for word processing / spreadsheets / etc.. So the OS isn't sold by Microsoft. Big deal. The OS by itself doesn't do much. As Apple used to say, "it's not what the computer does, it's what you can do with it". And most people with Macs use Microsoft software too. In fact, MS Office and MSIE are more dominant in the Mac market than in the Windows market.
With 'enemies' like these, MS doesn't need any friends.
I'm not saying the Linux community is entirely consistent, either. They say Microsoft sucks but then they spend all their time trying to copy Microsoft's look & feel. But at least they're just trying to make a copy, they're not using (and paying for) the original.
RMN
~~~
we Mac users have hated Microsoft and Gates since before Linux or xbill even existed!
Is that why you all use MS Office, MSIE, and buy hardware from a company that's partly owned by Microsoft...? Right...
How is this redundant? Had anyone asked the same question before? You do know what 'redundant' means, don't you? Maybe Slashdot's editors should just add a new moderation "-5, I don't like what he said", and then use that one over and over gain.
RMN
~~~
It probably has something to do with the "seams" mentioned in the second sentence, or with the "obsticals" mentioned at the end.
We're always learning new things. For example, I always thought that an editor's job was to check for errors (spelling, grammar, factual, etc.) in articles before publishing them...
RMN
~~~
The 3D effects is only possible because the games render two different points of view, and the glasses sync to the monitor and make sure each eye only sees the point of view it should be seeing.
Some graphics cards come with a 3D-glasses port (which is basically just a sync signal), others sync directly to the VGA connection. Technically it's even possible to sync to the screen, without any connection (but there's no point in doing that here, since the connection is easily available).
Either way, they work fine as long as your monitor can refresh at a decent speed (remember, each eye will only see half the images, so if the monitor is doing 100 Hz, each eye is seeing 50) and your graphics card can render the frames fast enough (same thing - if the card renderes 100 FPS, each eye will only see 50). Also, these glasses only work if vsync is on (ie, frame updates must be synchronised with monitor refresh), so if you're used to about 70 FPS at 100 Hz, you will now see only 50 FPS in double-buffered games, which means each eye will only see 25.
So if you really want to use this for games, make sure your monitor can do at least 120 Hz at the resolution you're planning to use (150 Hz or above would be preferable), and make sure your graphics card can surpass that frame rate at that resolution. Otherwise, you're in for some serious headaches.
Also, your graphics driver must have support for 3D glasses (ie, they must be able to shift the point of view in alternate frames in 3D applications). Fortunately, most drivers do.
Finally, eDimensional claim you can use their glases to see movies in 3D. This is obviously not true. Or rather, you will see some "depth effects", but they will obvioulsy not match the real depth of the original images. And when the depth effect from stereoscopic view clashes with the depth effect from spatial perception, you are very likely to get a major headache, which is your brain's way of saying "I refuse to process this junk".
RMN
~~~
AMD is saying that besides desktop chips, they are also moving into workstation and server chips. How exactly is this "pulling out from competition with Intel"...? Quite the contrary, they will now be competing not only with the Pentium and Celeron, but also with the Xeon and Itanium (and with chips from Sun, HP, etc.). And judging from the support they're getting before even releasing the Hammer, I'd say their future looks quite bright indeed.
I'm sorry for the rant, but for the last couple of years Slashdot has become a swamp. Half the articles are from someone pushing their personal agenda ("Microsoft sucks", "Apple rules", "Person X is a bastard", etc.), and the other half are simply wrong. The readers then comment on the Slashdot "news items" without even bothering to read the original articles (thus propagating the ignorance) and finally the moderators mod things as "interesting" or "insightful" without bothering to see if they're even remotely true.
RMN
~~~
This sort of reminds me of the issues related to on-line cheating in games such as Quake, Counter-Strike, etc. When you find an exploit, should you keep quiet, or should you tell everyone about it?
Well, I found a few exploits in the early versions CS (0.3, I think), and, "responsibly", I sent a message to its authors, detailing the problem and proposing a couple of solutions. I never even got a reply. A new version was released, and the exploit was still there. So I posted some (incomplete) information on the CS user forums. A new version was eventually released, and the exploits were still there. Eventually, websites started to post instructions on how to exploit those holes in the code, and cheating became generalised. Still it wasn't fixed. It wasn't until "cheat packs" (complete with InstallShield) became widely distributed that the CS team actually decided to work on the problem.
CS was free, though.
Microsoft has absolutely ludicrous profit margins, and that money comes from their clients. I think those clients are entitled to expect reasonably secure software and (failing that), at least a quick response to the problems. This problem has been known for some time and MS still hasn't fixed it. Something this serious needs to be dealt with quickly. If Microsoft won't do it, then the users should at least be given a chance to, by switching to a different browser, either temporarily or permanently.
You don't have to use IE. There are alternatives. The alternatives are free and they're available to anyone who uses IE.
But the only way to warn those users it through the media. And the media won't give this problem due coverage unless they understand how serious it is. And they won't understand how serious it is unless there are real exploits. And it should be made pretty clear to the media that this problem affects MSIE, not "computers" or "the internet".
The point is not to "punish Microsoft" (or IE users). The point is to make people realise that they are not safe while also showing them that they can be safe. Or at least a lot safer.
RMN
~~~
They decided to go with Palm OS because there was no way they could fit Windows CE's EULA into something that small.
RMN
~~~
Try reading the posts above; other people have made the same mistake. Most of the screen doesn't change between frames, therefore it doesn't need to be updated. You only need to transmit parts of the screen that have changed, and even then, the display is probably able to handle some high-level commands, so it doesn't need to receive actual pixel data for most of the updates.
RMN
~~~
Just as programs such as PC Anywhere don't need to transmit every single pixel of the screen for every frame, here too you can simply transmit the parts of the screen that need updating (ie, parts that have changed since the previous frame). Windows already does this internally (partial screen redraws), so it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Most of the time, you'll only need to update a small area around the cursor. If you don't have a cursor, and instead use a finger or pen, you don't even need to update that.
Of course, you probably won't get brilliant performance in action games, but I doubt any action game fanatic would use a touchscreen (or even an LCD) anyway.
Oh, and you can transmit a lot more than that using wireless, but using partial updates you will probably never need to.
RMN
~~~
Actually, when I submitted the item, I called it "Mozilla patched" (to indicate that some of those security bugs had been fixed in the new version(s)), but apparently the editor decided to change the title ("the good and the bad"), and did not mention that on the text.
RMN
~~~
What I really want to know is: who is selling these electronic voting machines and how can I get a share of the profit?
RMN
~~~