Yet another test showing the Mac's speed inferiority
<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm</a>;
Notice how the performance ratings appear to be in direct proportion to their clock speeds. Oh... but MHz doesn't matter. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Notice how the performance ratings appear to be in direct proportion to their clock speeds. Oh... but MHz doesn't matter. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Comments
".. at least in that particular software application. There are plenty of other apps that are faster on a Mac (and Windows as well). Big f**king deal!"
Typical Mac-fanatic response. If the Mac blew away the dual-Athlon, I expect that you'd likely be touting how much this proved the Mac was superior. Oh but it doesn't mean anything, being one app and all. AE *IS* a big deal. It's part of that niche market that's so important to Apple. And, if you went beyond your emotionalism for just a moment, you'd stop and ask why the Mac performed the way it did, and just how much differently would other kinds of tests respond to it.
Well, I can help you with that. DV magazine last autumn posted THEIR test results in a workstation roundup (although it used mostly OS 9 for those tests, in all fairness--but regardless, the results were horrible. The Mac was killed. And DV mag is hardly a PC-centric pub). And, I've recently come across two web sites that displayed the test results of Mac/PC benchmarks. Pathetic. (On a fair note, the writers of two of these latter three stories attributed not just the Mac hardware, but also Mac OS X for the problems. So it ain't just Motorola, folks.)
Let's face it. The Mac is slower. It sucks, but if we want to stay with the Mac, we need to realize that the platform's price/performance ratio is not on a par with Windows-based machines. It's not the only consideration when buying a computer, but it is a major one.
I sincerely hope that Apple gets a slimmer, lighter OS X out soon, and that one way or the other, we get more up-to-date hardware. I'm running out of justifications to stay with the Mac.
Hmm... may have taken that analogy a bit far, but you get the picture (hopefully). From this perspective, the only reason a Mac is better than a PC is that the OS is nicer. I would use an AMD processor in a Mac case with OS X if I could.
<strong>I'm running out of justifications to stay with the Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don´t have to justify using Macs. If a Wintel serves your computing needs better than a Mac does you would be stupid not to shift.
Some prefer to cook their chicken on a barbeque, some prefer an oven cooked kind.
Sure, the BBQ kind looks tasty but can end up pretty raw inside and a bit dodgy, use the oven and its done to perfection..a bit slower...but a lot tastier! :cool:
........oh, forget it.
I actually do have a chance to get an AMD workstation soon. It's a dual-processor job, with two 1.4GHz Athlons, a couple of 18-gig SCSI drives, 2GB DDR-RAM, and a crappy graphics card (was used in a rendering farm at Dreamworks) for $900. Even though it's used, that's hardly a bad deal. I'll upgrade the graphics card, reinstall the OS, and have it and my Mac sitting side-by-side in harmony.
If the Mac suddenly picks up speed by the time I get this machine and clean'er up a bit, then I'll just resell it for a more appropriate market price, maybe $1,500 or $2,000. Either way, I win. (But I really want the Mac to pick up speed and be more competitive with these guys.)
Macs simply aren't as fast as Wintels, it's true. They aren't as good of a value. Sure there are reasons to buy a Mac, but performance isn't one of them.
This is too bad because I remember not too long ago when Macs had the performance edge in their niche markets. The status quo of Macs having inferior performance in their niche markets is unstable and cannot last for long. Something must give, and it's going to be Apple's marketshare.
This has been going on for so long that we cannot blame Motorola any longer. Apple is to blame for not doing something about the G4's pathetic performance..and it is Apple who acts as Motorola's "enabler" by marketing the G4 as being superior to the Pentium IV. It isn't.
I have no intentions to stop using OS X anytime soon, but I'm also pissed that Apple isn't keeping up with performance, because without performance parity with Wintels, Apple will never expand their marketshare. NEVER! For most computer illiterate consumers, performance is everything. I had a hell of a time convincing my father to buy a Mac, and all he does is email and surf the web! But he wanted the FASTEST computer money could buy, and he kept asking, are you sure this Mac is fast? Here's someone who doesn't even need any speed, but it's dominating his buying decision, and why? Because he doesn't know anything about computers. If someone is clueless about computers, they will always revert to MHz comparisons because it makes them feel smart.
Apple is in some deep sh!t, and it scares me that Jobs doesn't even seem to notice. Being a master marketer, it may be that he is worried but will never show it in public, I sure hope that's the case for the sake of Apple.
ram and bus is another issue.....apple needs to get it's act together on this
When I bought my first computer, I didn't have a video camera. So by some people's reasoning, I didn't need to worry about performance when i made my purchase. Today, I own a DV camera and the computer I own can handle it. People want the extra power because they do not want to have to upgrade their computer every time they upgrade their hoppies.
It is a bad idea to tell people that they don't need to buy the powerful computer they can comfortable afford simply they don't need that much power today. They may very well need that much power tomorow. Apple will never win by telling people that they really don't need that much power.
That isn't what Apple tells people. They tell people that their 1GHz G4 can beat a 2+GHz P4 at "some" tests. They try to make it sound like the G4's a better deal performance-wise. Spin city.
Hey... the chip's cool-running (relatively speaking), and has some innovative technologies. But in the end, every test I've come across the past 6 months or so points to one thing: clock speed does indeed matter.
No one here uses a Mac because of its speed. Everyone here has realized for a long time what you're suggesting now. Give us some credit.
That said, who cares? This is not news. I knew when I bought my Mac that I could get a fasters Wintel machine for less. It's not like I was tricked. I made an informed decision to go with a machine that was better suited to my tastes aesthetically and what I wanted to do with it, and it is perfectly suited for my work. The knowledge that I could go out and get a PC that could do it faster means nothing to me. The speed difference couldn't make up for the amount of time I'd still have to sit using ? gulp ? Windows.
If you have any other epiphanies, i.e. "water is wet" or "the sun is hot," check around to see if they've been discussed here before.
"No one here uses a Mac because of its speed."
Why are you so confident that you're speaking for everyone? There are those out there who believe that a dual-500MHz G4 is faster than any PC.
"Everyone here has realized for a long time what you're suggesting now. Give us some credit."
Give you some credit? I don't know you. I know no one here, only what I've seen some of them write. So you obviously haven't read some of the posts that I have. As time permits, I'd be happy to find some examples of why I said what I said.
"That said, who cares?"
I do. So do many other Mac users/fans out there.
"This is not news."
To you, maybe not. But to about 50% of Mac fan(atics) out there, it is. Although I have to admit that I'm impressed with the open-minded attitude I've seen in this particular thread. I expected to be nuked. Instead, I just got shot with a poor attempt at sarcasm. Maybe as a user community we are collectively starting to wake up.
"I knew when I bought my Mac that I could get a fasters Wintel machine for less. It's not like I was tricked. I made an informed decision to go with a machine that was better suited to my tastes aesthetically and what I wanted to do with it, and it is perfectly suited for my work. The knowledge that I could go out and get a PC that could do it faster means nothing to me."
Again, this is YOU. Congratulations. But apparently you haven't read the threads where some people brag about how their 400MHz G4 blows the pants off their 2GHz P4. C'mon.
Nevermind that there are those of use who genuinely need the speed, but don't want to lose the user experience.
"The speed difference couldn't make up for the amount of time I'd still have to sit using ? gulp ? Windows."
I work with 2000 every day. It's a no-sweat OS. I still subjectively prefer OS X, but my user experiences with Windows have rarely been unpleasant. It's really not that big a deal.
"If you have any other epiphanies, i.e. "water is wet" or "the sun is hot," check around to see if they've been discussed here before."
Geez... did I hit a nerve? You seem to think that I was trying to speak solely on your behalf. You are not the only other Mac user out there. You are not the only one who may or may not be gullibly digesting Steve's marketing spin. There are Mac users out there for whom this might BE an epiphany of sorts, and it was those I was hoping to inspire to get on Apple's case. The more Apple hears us, the more things might change. I've read entirely too many posts from people who think that Jobs is God incarnate and Cupertino is his holy city.
Janitor wrote, "kethoticus, buy a pc, it's OK. jeesus"
No, it's not. I have too much Mac software. I love the user environment. But I also want to see the platform improve in its price/performance ratios. I do not want to switch platforms, but it's becoming harder for me to justify staying with it. I was just hoping that I'd get a few of you guys in here fired up, not to flame Apple, but to get on their cases a bit. Yes, I'm sure Steve knows. But is it his objective to make improvements in this area? The more noise we make, the more important he'll know it is to us. If most Mac users don't care, then I guess you're right. I should buy a PC, because nothing I want to see changed will get changed.
<strong>Poor Taylor wrote:
"No one here uses a Mac because of its speed."
Why are you so confident that you're speaking for everyone? There are those out there who believe that a dual-500MHz G4 is faster than any PC.
"Everyone here has realized for a long time what you're suggesting now. Give us some credit."
Give you some credit? I don't know you. I know no one here, only what I've seen some of them write. So you obviously haven't read some of the posts that I have. As time permits, I'd be happy to find some examples of why I said what I said.
"That said, who cares?"
I do. So do many other Mac users/fans out there.
"This is not news."
To you, maybe not. But to about 50% of Mac fan(atics) out there, it is. Although I have to admit that I'm impressed with the open-minded attitude I've seen in this particular thread. I expected to be nuked. Instead, I just got shot with a poor attempt at sarcasm. Maybe as a user community we are collectively starting to wake up.
"I knew when I bought my Mac that I could get a fasters Wintel machine for less. It's not like I was tricked. I made an informed decision to go with a machine that was better suited to my tastes aesthetically and what I wanted to do with it, and it is perfectly suited for my work. The knowledge that I could go out and get a PC that could do it faster means nothing to me."
Again, this is YOU. Congratulations. But apparently you haven't read the threads where some people brag about how their 400MHz G4 blows the pants off their 2GHz P4. C'mon.
Nevermind that there are those of use who genuinely need the speed, but don't want to lose the user experience.
"The speed difference couldn't make up for the amount of time I'd still have to sit using ? gulp ? Windows."
I work with 2000 every day. It's a no-sweat OS. I still subjectively prefer OS X, but my user experiences with Windows have rarely been unpleasant. It's really not that big a deal.
"If you have any other epiphanies, i.e. "water is wet" or "the sun is hot," check around to see if they've been discussed here before."
Geez... did I hit a nerve? You seem to think that I was trying to speak solely on your behalf. You are not the only other Mac user out there. You are not the only one who may or may not be gullibly digesting Steve's marketing spin. There are Mac users out there for whom this might BE an epiphany of sorts, and it was those I was hoping to inspire to get on Apple's case. The more Apple hears us, the more things might change. I've read entirely too many posts from people who think that Jobs is God incarnate and Cupertino is his holy city.
Janitor wrote, "kethoticus, buy a pc, it's OK. jeesus"
No, it's not. I have too much Mac software. I love the user environment. But I also want to see the platform improve in its price/performance ratios. I do not want to switch platforms, but it's becoming harder for me to justify staying with it. I was just hoping that I'd get a few of you guys in here fired up, not to flame Apple, but to get on their cases a bit. Yes, I'm sure Steve knows. But is it his objective to make improvements in this area? The more noise we make, the more important he'll know it is to us. If most Mac users don't care, then I guess you're right. I should buy a PC, because nothing I want to see changed will get changed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
why the hell do you even care? Waste your life worrying about something more important than convincing mac users everywhere they have been misled.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
In the meantime, they squeezed an impressive amount of performance out of the dual GHz - enough, when added to the platform's other advantages (multitasking, multithreading and multiprocessing support in OS X is much better than in Windows, for one), to keep people humming along.
[I feel obliged to mention that yes, there are some tasks for which the Mac is still faster in terms of getting a single task completed. Anything that makes effective use of good old AltiVec, for instance.]
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>