| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2005 10:11:05 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by colema19:
I noticed that the PS benchmark is the only thing you commented on. Do you have anything to say on anything other then the one PS performance figure? |
Imageing is all I use my Mac for and I would have never bought it if my PC didn't often choke on print jobs over 200Mb.
It's not really a fair comparison. Both computers are running on the same speed ram, but my Mac has 2GHz front side bus as opposed to the PC with only 800MHz. And I never could get the serial HDs to function smoothly on the PC so it's running ATA 133s.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:18:40 PM · #77 |
| And now to throw a twist into this discussion look here... |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:22:08 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by drz01:
And now to throw a twist into this discussion look here... |
Now that sounds cool. Does it work?
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:22:54 PM · #79 |
So that would be a no? :)
But it is sort of telling though, and was one of my points. You only use your Mac for imaging. As I mentioned as a side to the original poster, a Windows machine will have much more practical use outside of imaging. So there are potential some other reasons which are more difficult to quantify then system performance. In short, you can do all of the same things on a PC as you can on a Mac, but the usefulness of those skills outside of your own environment is broader on a PC, it might be something worth considering.
Oh and I forgot:
[quote]
Why do tend Macs have slower processors than PCs?
[/quote]
First and foremost: Don't overly buy into the numbers game og Mhz/Ghz. It does matter, but shouldn't be the sole factor of consideration.
There are a number of reasons for the gap, but the short of it is that IBM/Motorola (IBM really, and Apple doesn't really have much to do with the chip production end of things at all) has had a much more difficult time moving to more advanced production techniques that allow the clock speed to be ramped up, then Intel. And while tick per tick the PowerPC is a more efficient processor then the P4 in a lot of cases, it's not so much so that it can generally overcome the ~1GHz gap between a P4 and G5 PPC(I could be off there, I haven't seen the latest performance metrics on a G5 vs a P4). This next part is IMO, but I believe that is part of the reason Apple started focusing a lot more on multi-CPU boxes, they realized IBM wasn't going to be able to beat or even approach Intel in the Ghz number war anytime soon, so to be able to get most performance numbers more on par, at least on paper, they moved to multiple CPUs sooner. Intel's main competitor on the PC side of things, AMD, has even gotten out of playing the numbers game with them because they can't keep up in raw Mhz even though they have comparable or better performance. Intel based machines appear to be heading this way as well in the not too far future, only they will be doing multiple cores in a single package(more or less the same result, 2 processing units).
Message edited by author 2005-03-09 22:33:33. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:27:00 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by colema19:
you can do all of the same things on a PC as you can on a Mac |
Except printing images over 200Mb without having to worry about crashing.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:47:34 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by colema19:
...In short, you can do all of the same things on a PC as you can on a Mac, but the usefulness of those skills outside of your own environment is broader on a PC, it might be something worth considering... |
I'm trying to consider, but what? The usefulness of skills or of tasks? Is your intention to suggest that there is a plethora of tasks (useful ones) which cannot be performed on a Mac or... that PC users are more skillful, useful...
I you wouldn't mind making this a little clearer...
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:00:34 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by colema19:
And while tick per tick the PowerPC is a more efficient processor then the P4 in a lot of cases, it's not so much so that it can generally overcome the ~1GHz gap between a P4 and G5 PPC |
When you consider that a P4 runs at 400MHz FSB and a single processor 2GHz G5 runs at 1GHz FSB I would say that Mac more then compensated. What good is a 3 or 4MHz prosessor if you can't move the information. Intel basically got ahead of itself for the motherboards and OS that were being used with their processors. And they run hot.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 03:05:40 PM · #83 |
.. so Autobahn...
have you had the answer you were origically looking for yet??
Couple of comments... I don't think you identified what you want to use your new laptop for... if it is for the photography side... a couple of significant issues have come up.
1. the screen definition of a laptop for photgraphic work
2. the processing power of the computer - especially for larger files.
If this purchase is your only computer (ie you don't have a desktop for your Photoshop use) - then really given the contributions - you might consider if a mobile is indeed the best direction even.
No Apple Mac mobile (either iBook or PowerBook) has a G5 processor.
All Apple Mac mobiles can output to a CRT screen - for better screen colour sync.
The new Apple PowerBooks have the option of a very fast graphics card with 128 RAM on the card - hence increasing significantly both the screen refreshes and the processing speed (since graphics processing is done on the card - not the CPU).
Don't overlook the about to be released OSXv4 operating system (June??)... this will enhance the built-in core graphics capabilities - something that may be introduced into the new Windows operating system Longhorn - during 2006 - or whenever. In this regards, if you want to use your computer for graphics - for the next few years, Apple is and will remain ahead of the other options.
Hope that helps..
Graham
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 03:24:02 PM · #84 |
I've been a heavy windows user for 10+ years. I just got my first mac, G4 PowerBook, on Monday. It is fantastic. I have lost nothing - well, I have to run Visual Studio .NET in my Virtual PC - but it is really amazing. The OS is so much better, the interface so much cleaner and intuitive - it is amazing. I'm hooked!
I'm not really sure that iPhoto is what I want, however. I had a library of ~7,000 photos all organized into subfolders and whatnot. When I imported into iPhoto they come in as a giant unsorted lump. I've started making albums and putting picuturs in them - but I like to have my hands more directly on the original files. I know I've seen some forum topics about iPhoto and other Mac picture edit/organization things which I'll have to dig up some day. But for now - the Mac is really great. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 03:29:34 PM · #85 |
that sums it up..
and there is always the mac mini, only $499 starting price, for $699 you get a great desktop computer, and then you need a display, keyboard and mouse.
the only problem with the mini is that it´s so easy to misplace.. just put down the instructionmanual and you lost the computer ;)
it´s smaller then a 5 1/4" CDROM drive for a PC, and it still includes DVD-RW, CPU, Videocard, WiFi, Bluetooth, ethernet, and more stuff :) |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 03:41:06 PM · #86 |
The Mac Mini is still a G4 processor ie not G5... for most things OK - but for PS... go G5 if you can...
joebook... download iPhoto Library Manager (//homepage.mac.com/bwebster/iphotolibrarymanager.html) - this will let you have multiple libraries and switch bewteen them easily. This supplements the albulms and lets you organise large numbers withour compromising speed etc.
Do you have iPhoto 5? If not - get it! (RAW files etc)
Graham |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 03:47:51 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by joebok:
I'm not really sure that iPhoto is what I want, however. I had a library of ~7,000 photos all organized into subfolders and whatnot. When I imported into iPhoto they come in as a giant unsorted lump. I've started making albums and putting picuturs in them - but I like to have my hands more directly on the original files. I know I've seen some forum topics about iPhoto and other Mac picture edit/organization things which I'll have to dig up some day. But for now - the Mac is really great. |
Just import them directly to the harddrive. Then they remain in the same folders and in an order that you are already used to.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 04:08:13 PM · #88 |
This is a fun thread, even though I always think the whole concept of Mac versus PC idea is a bit odd since they're so different from each other. I'm thrilled with my Dell laptop and have been a happy PC user for many years. At the same time, I'm as excited as an 11-year old on Christmas Eve because my brand new Power Mac G5 that I ordered a week ago will be arriving tomorrow (I hope!!) or at least by the beginning of next week. I'm sure I'll hang on to the Dell, though, for surfing on the couch and convenience. If I wasn't so fortunate to be able to have both, I'm sure I'd be tempted to try the Mac Mini.
By the way, I was thinking of ganders and DanSig when I read this article: Tiger vs. Longhorn
Graham, it's so nice to have you here for insider Mac news and tips. Can't you tell us for real when Tiger will be here? :-) |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 04:12:55 PM · #89 |
Also remember the mini only has a 4200rpm drive. Talk about SLOW...
They are very cool though. They are the main reason why I bought Apple stock - I knew Apple was on to something.
-Chad |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 04:25:31 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by cpurser:
Also remember the mini only has a 4200rpm drive. Talk about SLOW...
They are very cool though. They are the main reason why I bought Apple stock - I knew Apple was on to something.
-Chad |
that really doesn´t matter since the internal drive is only a startup disk, and a very small one. with the mac mini I would get a LaCie bigger disk, FW800 with built in RAID 0 so I´d get double the speed of an 7200rpm disk :) |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 04:29:48 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
with the mac mini I would get a LaCie bigger disk, FW800 with built in RAID 0 so I´d get double the speed of an 7200rpm disk :) |
I don't think the Mini has Firewire 800, just the 400 flavor. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 06:40:38 PM · #92 |
... when is Tiger (OSX 4) being released?
No idea. I can tell you that the developer releases are all on time and are looking really good. Some of the developers are producing "widgets" that are stunning. Widgets are automated processes of unlimited kind, that the user will pick and choose from.
I can tell you that the Apple World Wide Developer' Conference (WWDC) is in San Fran 6-10 June and that this is a little earlier than last year.
I have see demonstrated the new search tool Spotlight - which is amazing! letting the users find things - from all kinds of data, in all kinds of places incredibly fast.
Suffice to say... I believe the marketing hype about the features will be exceeded!
Core data and core images (ie embedded in the OS) will significantly enhance the perfomance of exisiting Mac hardware - your graphics work will fly!
... not much help I know... but as with recent Apple announcements there is not much information to share before announcement.
look at the Apple share price (about to be "watered")... Chad I suspect that both your investments will pay you well!... and what about that iPod Photo for data store... oh and music also..
Graham
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 07:56:34 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by autobahn123:
I'm going to buy my first laptop soon. I was wondering if I should buy a PC or a Mac. Which is better. Why do tend Macs have slower processors than PCs? |
I will probably get creamed by folks who don't like this response. But IMHO, this s/b a debate about software availability, rather than hardware. Both the Mac and the (best of the breed) PC are fine machines with similar price/performance. What it comes down to is software and whether the software you need/use is available on the platform.
It is also about innovation. Here's a trivia question for you ... "Why does no one read classical Greek anymore?" Answer: Because no original (innovative) thought is being recorded in Classical Greek anymore. Non sequiter? Absolutely not. Look at the Mac and the PC platform and ask yourself, where is the innovation "in software" occuring. Sadly it is not in the Mac platform. Most consumer grade software is first developed for the PC and may be ported to the Mac. I know there are exceptions but they tend to make the rule. So if you have a need for innovations sooner, they will likely be available on the PC sooner, and on the Mac later and possibly better.
We could have a debate about security I suppose, but it would be tiring. Clearly the Mac is a more secure platform. Why? Because no hacker/cracker/wormer/germer in his right mind would target a platform with single digit market share. And after the PC, Unix and Linux seem like such promising opportunities. But remember, the Mac is running mostly PC software ported to the Mac platform, so let's not become too complacent.
Finally, and this is the most important point really ... it's not about the OS, it's not about the chips, it's not even about the software. It's about the quality of ideas that people express with their platform of choice. Can't we focus on the ideas? On the content, rather than the form?
Or to finally get back to photography, it's more about the art and the photographer's eye, and less about which platform and which software you may have used to prepare it for viewing, or to really digress, which camera you happen to favor.
Sorry to ramble on, but after 2 decades maybe we can let this topic die.
With Love and Affection,
-- Thread Killer |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 08:28:37 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Except printing images over 200Mb without having to worry about crashing. |
Your specific issues don't make that the rule.
I always seem to have problems with Macs when I have to use them, but I certainly don't think they are a bad platform or inherentily flawed or anything.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I'm trying to consider, but what? The usefulness of skills or of tasks? Is your intention to suggest that there is a plethora of tasks (useful ones) which cannot be performed on a Mac or... that PC users are more skillful, useful.. |
No you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm nore sure where you came up with that, what I am trying to say is that skills in PCs is realistically more likely to be useful to you outside your own personal enviroment. What kind of computer will you likely be using if you are not on your own hardware? Like say you go over to your friends house and you have to do something there? Odds are that person will not have a Mac, so having PC experience is statistically more likely to be useful in other places. I'm not trying to say anything other then that.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
When you consider that a P4 runs at 400MHz FSB and a single processor 2GHz G5 runs at 1GHz FSB I would say that Mac more then compensated. What good is a 3 or 4MHz prosessor if you can't move the information. Intel basically got ahead of itself for the motherboards and OS that were being used with their processors. And they run hot. |
And tell me, what good is an 800Mhz bus if the processor can't keep up? The same good as your example. And in the context of Photoshop, how much benefit do you think it gets having an 800mhz bus? Also there are alternatives besides Intel...Athlon 64s are pretty nice.
Don't get me wrong though, I like Macs just fine, I just think that in the same way that many things are blamed on MS that really aren't MS's fault(many are too) I think Macs are made out to be a little bit more perfect then they really are too. I think a Mac would be a fine purchase, but there are some other considerations that should be mentioned. Unless your life revolves around Photoshop in which case the Mac totally the best choice.
And I always find it a little amusing how a lot of the Mac loyal emphasize that the bigger clock speed number isn't everything...and then go on about the memory speed - and for most users a faster CPU will be much more noticible then a faster bus speed.
Oh, and btw, on the original question...generally LCDs aren't the best choice for color accuracy when color matching. Tubes still are better for accurate color reproduction.
Message edited by author 2005-03-10 20:33:22. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 08:37:21 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by drz01:
And now to throw a twist into this discussion look here... |
Now that sounds cool. Does it work? |
Uh oh, I agree with you on something. :)
That does sound pretty cool. I wonder what the performance will be like, if it'll be like the early versions of SoftPC on Macs though. That was a pretty painful experience.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 09:22:41 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by colema19:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
When you consider that a P4 runs at 400MHz FSB and a single processor 2GHz G5 runs at 1GHz FSB I would say that Mac more then compensated. What good is a 3 or 4MHz prosessor if you can't move the information. Intel basically got ahead of itself for the motherboards and OS that were being used with their processors. And they run hot. |
And tell me, what good is an 800Mhz bus if the processor can't keep up? The same good as your example. And in the context of Photoshop, how much benefit do you think it gets having an 800mhz bus? Also there are alternatives besides Intel...Athlon 64s are pretty nice.
Don't get me wrong though, I like Macs just fine, I just think that in the same way that many things are blamed on MS that really aren't MS's fault(many are too) I think Macs are made out to be a little bit more perfect then they really are too. I think a Mac would be a fine purchase, but there are some other considerations that should be mentioned. Unless your life revolves around Photoshop in which case the Mac totally the best choice.
Oh, and btw, on the original question...generally LCDs aren't the best choice for color accuracy when color matching. Tubes still are better for accurate color reproduction. |
My life doesn̢۪t revolve around PS, but it is an important part. As far as performance goes you might be surprised how much bus speed matters. It is not just the speed but the configuration of the FSB that make Macs faster and more efficient. Like I said you can̢۪t push 4GHz through a 400MHz port. My PC has a 800MHz FSB and it is faster then most Pentiums I have worked on but does nothing to keep up with my Mac. These are just personal observations. Your actual mileage may vary.
Originally posted by colema19:
Tubes still are better for accurate color reproduction. |
Generally. This is not a rule. There are some great LCDs being made now with no color or contrast shift.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 09:51:07 PM · #97 |
Mac vs PC Photoshop shoot out...
just for those who want the data... with a 600MB file and 45 PS filters being applied...
//www.apple.com/powermac/
Graham |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 09:52:35 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by grahamp:
Mac vs PC Photoshop shoot out...
just for those who want the data... with a 600MB file and 45 PS filters being applied...
//www.apple.com/powermac/
Graham |
parse for the lazy among us like me.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 09:58:48 PM · #99 |
When compared head-to-head against PCs in a large series of Photoshop tests, the dual 2.5GHz, dual 2GHz, dual 1.8GHz and single 1.8GHz Power Mac G5 systems ran the 45 filters 98%, 82%, 66% and 20% faster, respectively, than the 3.4GHz Pentium 4-based system and 75%, 63%, 48% and 11% faster than the dual 3.2GHz Xeon-based system. (1) |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 10:27:06 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by colema19:
And I always find it a little amusing how a lot of the Mac loyal emphasize that the bigger clock speed number isn't everything...and then go on about the memory speed - and for most users a faster CPU will be much more noticible then a faster bus speed. |
Actually, it's not just Mac users, it's the whole industry excepting the aging Intel who's depending on market ignorance. Systems today are running far more processes than they used to. At higher clock speeds we end up with processors that actually spend a higher percentage of their time idling while they wait for memory fetches.
Dual processor, and eventually dual core ships are the next generation, but the real benefit to dual core chips is the lowered latency. These benefits translate nicely to the faster FSB architecture of the mac.
Truly, not everyone needs this. I've used an Athlon 2000 happily for a long time. But if we're debating academic arguments, I'm afraid the Intel / Windows world is adequate for most uses, but not a superior platform. AMD is killin' Intel, and the UNIX based OS' are much more capable (and secure). Overkill in many cases, but a better design.
|
|
