Please show me a fair comparison test.
There has been a lot of talk lately about tests that pit PCs against Macs. In all of the recent test I have seen, the PC handily defeats the Mac. Whenever these test are mentioned on the boards, a strong contingent of Mac supporters malign the integrity of both the test and the tester. Benchmarks don't seem to favor the Mac, so these users say that you can't use benchmarks for comparison. You have to use real world tests. Now that real world tests are not showing the Mac in a favorable light, (power wise), the tests are said to be bogus.
Is it your contention that there is no way to compare the power of a Mac to that of a PC? If so, why isn't Apple doing it? (Or are they?) Describe your idea of a fair test. What I would most appreciate are links to comparison reviews that you consider fair where the Mac comes out ahead. None Web articles are OK too. Just be kind enough to provide the necessary information for me to look up the article at my local library.
If there is a thread already with this information, that will serve me just as well. Remember, I am only looking for competitive reviews that compare recent technology showing the Mac to be the clear winner. No PC vs. Mac bashing for this thread please.
Is it your contention that there is no way to compare the power of a Mac to that of a PC? If so, why isn't Apple doing it? (Or are they?) Describe your idea of a fair test. What I would most appreciate are links to comparison reviews that you consider fair where the Mac comes out ahead. None Web articles are OK too. Just be kind enough to provide the necessary information for me to look up the article at my local library.
If there is a thread already with this information, that will serve me just as well. Remember, I am only looking for competitive reviews that compare recent technology showing the Mac to be the clear winner. No PC vs. Mac bashing for this thread please.
Comments
Thats the only fair test out there...
I'm sure you're on to something. But I'm afraid my credit card balance will not let me use your testing method. Besides, I believe that performance is measurable. I might well like a product very much. But liking that product does not make it a better performer than another. What a person likes or dislikes is subjective and should not be debated here. What I want are objective facts about the Mac's (superior) performance compared to that of PCs.
Still, I did ask for opinions about fair testing methods. Thanks for yours.
The best computer is the one you want to use.
[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
Then after a few weeks or months, they just fall apart. Both the OS and or the plastics they are made in get old and ugly.
Windows needs so much maintenence its enough to make me go totally nuts. No wonder help-desk people are so much in request.
So, you may get a seemingly fast pc.. but then wait a bit and see before your eyes as it litterally falls apart. After 6 months a PC is basically worthless. All of the ones I had were... and I know I tried to treat them well.
<strong>Besides, I believe that performance is measurable. I might well like a product very much. But liking that product does not make it a better performer than another. What a person likes or dislikes is subjective and should not be debated here. What I want are objective facts about the Mac's (superior) performance compared to that of PCs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Consider these possible kinds of performance:
* The hardware is reliable, so that you can always count on it to perform;
* The OS doesn't require reinstalling every 6 months to sort itself out, so that it can be counted on to perform;
* The keyboard/mouse/monitor don't tire your eyes or injure your wrists, mooting any CPU speed by breaking you;
* The OS comes with technologies and/or sports thoughtful design that can greatly speed up your work: system-wide color matching, system-wide application scripting so that you can automate tedious or repetitive tasks, etc.;
* The platform (OS + hardware) has robust enough multi-threading/tasking/processing support that you can easily gain speed by having the computer work on more than one thing at a time.
Additional things to consider:
* Theoretical hardware performance can have nothing to do with actual application performance, if the app doesn't exploit the hardware. On the Mac side, many games, and some other apps, fall into this category.
* Similarly, the hardware/OS is optimized to perform well in some categories, but not the ones that you need. The Mac is a great platform for 2D work, but not yet for 3D work. So again, the machine's performance depends on what you're trying to get it to perform. Or, conversely, it is particularly engineered to do something you need done, and general benchmark performance won't tell you that. Java, PShop, DVD rendering and pro audio filters can be, or are, dramatically accelerated on (G4) Macs, but cross-platform CPU benchmarks won't tell you that because AltiVec isn't cross-platform.
Also, there are wierd intangibles. One of my favorite things to link to (of course, I don't have a link now, but I'll go back to this post and edit it in when I do [edit: added link]) is a <a href="http://www.xiph.org/~jack/ibook/thoughts.html" target="_blank">short article</a> posted by a prominent Linux developer about how he'd done all his work on a big, loud, hand-built Athlon tower optimized out the wazoo, and then on a lark he got an iBook (the original 500MHz one). It quickly became his primary machine, and the tower was relegated to occasionally running Unreal Tournament (or somesuch). This obviously didn't happen because the iBook was the superior number cruncher! But it's quiet, and you can use it anywhere (especially given the peerless wireless networking support, and the excellent battery life) and the screen is truly lovely, and there's just something intrinsically satisfying about using one of them. The last part might be wholly irrational and immeasurable, but it's still significant. Humans do have an irrational component, and there will be something missing or wrong if it's not kept happy.
Just some things to think about.
[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
I know that raw power is only one part of the equasion. I already know the opinions and arguments concerning the OS. I have my opinions about those things as well but I'm trying to focus on performance. I have an open mind to a certain extent. I have heard many claims about the performance of the Mac. Show me your data.
I'm tired of hearing "It was an unfair test!" Show me a fair one. I'm listening. You've got my full attention. Just please try to make your case with hard facts and figures. Remember, some of us have to justify our computer purchases to more people than just ourselves. Give me something concrete. I'm not looking for a Mac vs. PC debate. I'm looking for data or test results showing the Mac outperforming the PC at something, anything.
All your qualifications and objections make it clear that you already know the answer to your own question. What's with this "burden of proof" charade? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[QBAll your qualifications and objections make it clear that you already know the answer to your own question. What's with this "burden of proof" charade? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> [/QB]<hr></blockquote>
My only qualification is a test result that shows the Mac outperformed a similarly equipped PC doing... anything.
I thought I knew the answer but I wasn't going to let my preconceived notions get in the way of reviewing evidence to the contrary, if there was any. BS flies on both sides of the fence. I wanted to cut through to the truth. Sounds like a power user would be a fool to switch to Apple right now. How is an IT manager supposed to make a case for a move to Apple? Tell their superiors how pretty the OS is, how inspiring the design is. Why aren't there studies showing that X crashes less than XP? Am I and others expected to switch just because Steve says we should? Well I for one don't trust Steve and I don't trust Apple. But I do trust the preponderance of the evidence. If Apple can't produce it, then they don't have a case.
Sorry about the long rant. I feel much better now. Unless something new comes up, this will be my last post on this thread. May this thread, along with OS9 and Apple's hopes of luring power users rest in peace.
[ 05-12-2002: Message edited by: Mac Voyer ]</p>
Many a 'power user' find themselves more productive with Macs.
And many a 'power user', well, isn't. (But not any of us, of course!)
This "prove me wrong" thing you've got going is a pout disguised as a question. If you can't be pleased, then apparently we're to believe that it's all pointless.
All the BS in this thread is yours. It's your foregone conclusion, your false pose of open-mindedness, your refusal to consider other prespectives, and your bloated sense of self-importance. Now do us a favor and go away.
I'm really sorry I offended you. When I started this thread, I honestly expected there to be favorable comparative reviews of Apple computers, if only in Mac centric magazines. Since I don't read all of the Mac mags or visit all the Mac Sites, I figured there were such articles in existence. I wanted to read what Mac users would consider a fair comparison. The fact that there doesn't seem to be any at all simply blows me away. I still don't believe it.
I don't know what about my posts set you off. Many Mac users are more critical of Apple than I am. I intend to buy a Mac when they can provide me with a compelling enough reason. Hopefully the new iBook will be that reason. Maybe the new PowerMacs. Who knows?
Anyway, since you used such a cute emoticon, you must have some redeeming quality. (Insert smily face.) My arms are open wide. I am hoping for a great big hug instead of a punch in the nose. But considering your last post, I'm prepared for either.
They are tons of tests to see how the mac outperforms Just as there are tons that show PC outperforms. But all of that is relative to what you plan to do with your computer.
PC's are for most average users in that they are common. Macs are for a more specialized group. Yeah Apple is trying to tap that consumer market with ithis and ithat.
OSX has features that may appeal to an IT department being that it is based on UNIX.
Apple's support for wireless networking may appeal to you as an Sys Mgr.
Macs appeal to newspapers and graphics dept. in that they are the industry standard.
Ask almost any professional music producer what his or her choice is. Mac supports ProTools the standard for music editing.
Movie editing is a growing industry for Macs.
Don Cheadle said on Ebert and Roeper "with Macs and final cut pro anyone can make hollywood quality movies now"
For many a biologist or scientist, Mac is the only platform they can get their software.
Hell, my dentist uses an imac in his office!
For hard facts you'll be strapped to find mac mags having the mac lose or pc mags having pcs lose. Look at other new sources. Try reading Walter Mossbergs column in the Wall street journal (thursdays). He seems to favor macs as well.
If you are looking to say MHZ=power, or If you need to stay cheap and standard and you only want to run MS products in an office a PC will do fine. You buy a Mac because you want it to get a job done not because the guy in the store said its better.
Oh yeah, Check out the BT interview in Mac Addict a few months back. He's a record producer/song writer and Mac User for a few bands you may have heard of. NSYNC, Tori Amos, Peter Gabriel?
[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: skaione ]</p>
This was not true in the past, and it (hopefully) will not be true in the near future. Apple got screwed over when the G4 got stuck at 500MHz -- until then they were doing a very good job of staying ahead in power (I loved the commercial of a snail with a pentium2 tied to its back).
Apple will catch back up in power eventually -- I'm just worried that they may take longer than I'm able to wait (I'm going to buy two or three computers in the next few months, and they will used for AE and other heavy processing tasks). And the Apple boosters that keep chanting "speed doesn't matter," are not helping the situation. Apple needs to aggressively address the power disparity: They need dual processors, DDR ram and a 333MHz bus across there whole tower line.
I don't understand why so many people get defensive when someone rightfully complains that Apple needs to get it ass in gear and start making faster computers for the pro line. Don't they remember the good old days? The days when Apple would show steamrollers literally crushing the competition...
<strong>to be really honest, PC seem to initally perform better.
Then after a few weeks or months, they just fall apart. Both the OS and or the plastics they are made in get old and ugly.
Windows needs so much maintenence its enough to make me go totally nuts. No wonder help-desk people are so much in request.
So, you may get a seemingly fast pc.. but then wait a bit and see before your eyes as it litterally falls apart. After 6 months a PC is basically worthless. All of the ones I had were... and I know I tried to treat them well.</strong><hr></blockquote> Have you used XP yet??
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
There will never be a raw benchmark review that will be unbiased because of marketing. Period. Numbers numbers numbers.
SJ shows Macs rip up PCs in altivec optimized PS filters.
Some dink shows AE runs faster on a PC than on a hobbled Mac. woohoo.
[quote]
You know why no one will point out a comparison test where the mac wins -- because right now there are no speed based computing tests that the mac can win.
<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Umm.. I am REAL skeptical here...BUT to illustrate my point....
Try comparing FCP real-time effects. OOPS! You can't cause THERE IS NO PC VERSION. So lets see... that is one kick-ass near-industry-standard app that chalks up Mac performing, and...well...PC's not. This will be the case more and more as the foundation upon which MacOS X is built proves it worth over a slightly (temporarily) faster wintel. Oh, BTW, chalk up OS X as another killer app that PC uses can continue to drool over (at least IMHO).
I am afraid that you have been duped by the marketmen if you insist on pointing at blue-bars and graphs to prove your platform is productive. Read the Wall Street Journal. Lots of good businessmen that shape the economy do. They LOVE Macs. Duh.
[quote]
rbald said:
Have you used XP yet??
<hr></blockquote>
OFMG. Are you kidding?! Welcome to Disneyland?! XP sucks. Sorry. I am the Mac Admin at where I work, and I feel so sorry for our PC admin. She is literally having a breakdown trying to integrate an office of Win98, 98ME, NT, 95, 2000, 2000 Pro, XP and XP pro boxes. (btw, this list ALONE should suggest what is going on here...) Everyone I know who isn't on high bandwidth w/ XP is livid about their incorrect use of the updater (not to mention the fact that MS is putting out updates to allow people to steal music with less bugs, while they still ignore glaring security holes which compromise personal information and allow arbitary execution of hostile code from something as simple as hitting your browsers back button (no shit this is real! read the article on Wired but am too lazy to link...prove me wrong if you wish))
On the other hand, I am surprised with how idiot users are handling OSX. I thought for sure the little UN*X pitfalls would trap more people than they have...
So basically, the only way to convince yourself one way or the other is to do exactly that. Do research. Ask people on both sides. Watch the PC people struggle and say that mantra I so love: 'THANK GOD I HAVE A MAC'.
That is the best and most true benchmark I know. CONVINCE YOURSELF. Please don't let marketmen and the taxman confuse you. They are PAID to sell their stuff faster or not.
<strong>Amorph, that was really desperate. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that not all of the points I made were in favor of the Mac, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The only truly useful definition of performance is per user, period. Benchmarks aren't useless, but their meanings are narrowly enough circumscribed that you shouldn't buy a machine on the basis of one.
You said:
"They are tons of tests to see how the mac outperforms Just as there are tons that show PC outperforms."
I thought so too. Finding test showing the PC as winner is easy. As for Macs comming out on top, perhaps you can point me to these tons of tests you are referring to.
You also said:
"Don Cheadle said on Ebert and Roeper "with Macs and final cut pro anyone can make hollywood quality movies now""
The same could be said of PCs and high end editing tools made for them.
You said
"For hard facts you'll be strapped to find mac mags having the mac lose..."
No problem. Show me the serious Mac mag reviews that show the Mac winning. If it is a fair review, then it is worth considering.
You said:
"Oh yeah, Check out the BT interview in Mac Addict a few months back. He's a record producer/song writer and Mac User for a few bands you may have heard of. NSYNC, Tori Amos, Peter Gabriel?"
What is BT? What month? Is there a Mac PC comparison or is it only about Macs?
I know that Macs have a presence in certain industries. Surely someone has written about the differences and Mac only advantages in these industries. Most of the press and university professors are politically liberal. That doesn't make it the right philosophical position. Since the Mac is strong in the industries, there must be some documentable reasons.
Is it possible that these industries standardized on the Mac when it was superior? Not all industry standards are the best products. Or are you suggesting that windows PCs are the best choice for all of the fields in which they are standard?
Anyway, thank you all for your suggestions and opinions.
Is it possible that these industries standardized on the Mac when it was superior? Not all industry standards are the best products. Or are you suggesting that windows PCs are the best choice for all of the fields in which they are standard?
Anyway, thank you all for your suggestions and opinions.<hr></blockquote>
The music industry is not a fair test bed. They are actually forced to go with macs because every Windows OS since '98 has been far to resource hungry to play and record music in real timewith as little latency as possible. (thats why Protools is not even available for any post '98 OS without hardware support. Actions by both Microsoft and Apple in their latest OS's has virtually guarranteed Apple will continue to dominate in this field for the next ten years easy.
Video is also a hard way to judge. Although Aftereffects runs faster on a P.C., you can't edit any audio or video in aftereffects. What are you going to use for that? Premiere? :snicker: You wanna blow a $15000 wad on Avid software? When for $10 000 you can do real time HD on a Mac.
IT: Apple will not be taking away any market share from companies that use Microsoft for serving. Linux is already a better and cheaper alternative. If a company is not serving with Linux/Sun or a powerfull alternative, it is obviously because their IT staff has scared them into M$ in order to protect their jobs. If Apple machines became the standard in IT, you can look at an EASY 30-40% layoff in the IT sector.
This was more to say there is no true and believeable test results to indicate which is better other than user preference.
[quote]Check out the BT interview in Mac Addict a few months back.
<hr></blockquote>
I could have been more clear on this. BT is a producer/song writer and Mac User. BT is his name. The issue of MacAddict is March 2002.
Nowadays Macs and PC's are pretty close, if not the same, in comparison when it comes to much industrial grade software. Yeah I think Macs made a name for themselves in certain industries and today remain the standard.
[quote] Finding test showing the PC as winner is easy. As for Macs comming out on top, perhaps you can point me to these tons of tests you are referring to.<hr></blockquote>
I can't really point you in the direction of any real benchmark tests. In most cases they are comparing apples to oranges. (no pun intended) I looked pretty hard for info on performance via benchmark test and found few that even seemed credible. Most produced results based on software that was first created on PC then ported to Macs or hardware that they claimed to be similar but numerically weren't even close (ex:2ghz P4 vs 867MHZ G4 with bus speeds not even close to each other).
I think (and I believe much of the tech industry does too) that cross platform benchmark is an innaccurate way to compare. In my previous post I tried to provide a more testimonial view of Mac uses and loyalty over faulty testing that can never eliminate all the varables that make both systems different.
As for the reasos certain industries remain with Macs could be best summed up by Adobe "While the Mac market is less than 50 percent of Adobe's overall business, it's important to remember that many of the higher-end graphics and publishing users are operating in Mac environments. These kinds of users tend to be trendsetters and early adopters, so focusing on and satisfying this segment of the overall market is critical to Adobe's success."-http://www.adobe.com:80/products/adobesupportsOSX.html
Perhaps this is the strongest reason to use a Mac. The creation based industries need innovation often while other more PC friendly industries need to justify expenses.
In a nutshell I still say what are you looking for? Answer that and you'll know what system is best for you.
My testamonial. Yeah I'm an artist and yes a Graphic Designer. I most like my Mac because repairs (system/software) are hands on and very visual. I can know what's in my system whenever I want and I can remove it if I want to. I can open any file PC or Mac at any time with minimal preparation or additional software. I feel as though I have total control of the computer and its contents without having to know the secrets of being a techie. Also If I need a PC I just open virtual PC and I have one. But there is no virtual Mac for a PC user.
most of all, logic and Creativity come from opposite side of the brain and I most often use my creative side. A win/PC requires a more tech savvy person to troubleshoot. I don't have time for that nor the inclination to want to do that.
Simply put, a long time ago Macs were made for artists by artists and as an artist it suits me perfectly.