MS is touting marketshare because they are trying to hold onto anything they can, but as a software company, their long term objective has to be sales, not just counting free OS software they are giving away.
btw, this is probably why MS is now willing to show up at a Mac event and tout their products ... when iOS devices are outselling Windows PC hardware, they are going to have to pivot to have people buy their software.
Windows marketshare? On a software OS system that is being given away free by a software company? How much money do you actually think MS made on Win10? The reason they are getting marketshare is because they are providing free updates from the long in the tooth Win7 and the Win8 that no one likes. People are taking the free upgrade in the hopes that it solves the issues with how bloated the MS operating system has come.
Windows is free for home and business users. OEM's and enterprises still have to pay for it, so they make more money than Apple with OS X. And Windows marketshare over OS X have been with every version of Windows, being paid or free like Windows 10. And while Windows 8 wasn't the best, it did many things better than OS X /iOS. And looks like Apple like them too, since they included snap, side by side applications and stylus support, coping Windows 8.1. So maybe Windows 8.1 wasn't that bad. And I find interesting that you mention that Windows is bloated, while is the performance is better with each version since Windows Vista, and at the same time, OS X performance is suffering with each release.
If you called Windows bloated, while is getting better, what do you call OS X when it's getting slower?
Quote:
When Apple "gives away" their software update, it triggers a lot of hardware updates that bring more cash into the company. Windows is starting to chase that model, but have to do it based upon selling it to their vendors to install on their hardware - vendors that are getting squeezed and are chasing lower and lower Wintel prices downward. MS is touting marketshare because they are trying to hold onto anything they can, but as a software company, their long term objective has to be sales, not just counting free OS software they are giving away.
Like I mentioned before, upgrade for home and business are free. Enterprises and OEM's still have to pay. And based in the reviews, Windows will help Surface Pro sales, which have been getting very good reviews. Yes, OEM's are fighting the margin problems, but MS still makes money from the PC's they sell. And based in their sales, even though Windows numbers are down, enterprise software, MS Office, cloud and even hardware (Surface and XBox) are up. Looks like they are not just counting the free OS.
Dan did you read the article you linked or were you just looking for sensational headline?
OS X has gotten faster with nearly every revision, or has added significant functionality with little change in speed (and the say as much in the text of the article, clickbait titles notwithstanding)
The only score they show in the "expose" article comparing Mavericks (which faster than it's predecessor mountain lion which the admit to) to Yosemite that was even perceivably slower (and not by much) was the "cinebench" open GL scores. If you understood much about graphics and open GL specifically, you would understand that how you use the OpenGL API is of the utmost importance, and they lies the problem. Cinebench only predicts how well a computer runs cinema 4D and 99% (perhaps higher) of users really don't care how fast their computer runs cinema4d (which is a 2nd tier hobbyist/prosumer 3D package BTW) The fact that cinema 4D was poorly optimized for the new OpenGL API in Yosemite is only of consequence to cinema 4D users. Further cinebench OpenGL scores DO NOT give a good predictor (though widely quoted by journalists who don't understand that) of general openGL performance. Many packages (from entry level to to professional) that were properly written and optimized for the new OpenGL API showed significant improvement with Yosemite. (there were significant changes to core image & OpenGL to enhance their ability to efficently leverage modern GPU's)
The truth is Yosemite added significant features with virtually no difference in performance, except in graphics where most graphic intense applications (except mason's cinema 4d apparently) saw significant performance gains in the newly optimized core image & OpenGL API's
Contrast that to windows with gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration.
I'm sorry to say this DanVM either you don't really understand or you are yet another windows fanboy trolling mac news sites.
Dan did you read the article you linked or were you just looking for sensational headline?
OS X has gotten faster with nearly every revision, or has added significant functionality with little change in speed (and the say as much in the text of the article, clickbait titles notwithstanding)
The only score they show in the "expose" article comparing Mavericks (which faster than it's predecessor mountain lion which the admit to) to Yosemite that was even perceivably slower (and not by much) was the "cinebench" open GL scores. If you understood much about graphics and open GL specifically, you would understand that how you use the OpenGL API is of the utmost importance, and they lies the problem. Cinebench only predicts how well a computer runs cinema 4D and 99% (perhaps higher) of users really don't care how fast their computer runs cinema4d (which is a 2nd tier hobbyist/prosumer 3D package BTW) The fact that cinema 4D was poorly optimized for the new OpenGL API in Yosemite is only of consequence to cinema 4D users. Further cinebench OpenGL scores DO NOT give a good predictor (though widely quoted by journalists who don't understand that) of general openGL performance. Many packages (from entry level to to professional) that were properly written and optimized for the new OpenGL API showed significant improvement with Yosemite. (there were significant changes to core image & OpenGL to enhance their ability to efficently leverage modern GPU's)
The truth is Yosemite added significant features with virtually no difference in performance, except in graphics where most graphic intense applications (except mason's cinema 4d apparently) saw significant performance gains in the newly optimized core image & OpenGL API's
Contrast that to windows with gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration.
I'm sorry to say this DanVM either you don't really understand or you are yet another windows fanboy trolling mac news sites.
Why you say that Yosemite is faster, while the article shows it isn't? Here is the summary,
"For processor- and memory-based benchmark tests, Yosemite was typically around 1 or 2 percent slower than Mavericks on our test MacBook.
In browser benchmarks based on JavaScript speed, Yosemite was around 3-5 percent slower than Mavericks.
For graphics-related activities and tests the situation was more complicated. In the two Mac games benchmarks, one game was around 20 percent faster in Yosemite while the other was essentially the same. But do remember that while double-digit increases sound impressive that may only be a few frames per second.
In other graphics tests such as the synthetic GFXBench suite Yosemite returned much less consistent results but tended to return lower figures, sometimes dramatically so.
And for data input/output as measured via the internal drive, results were realistically the same for the two operating systems"
Again, Yosemite is slower than Mavericks.
Quote:
Contrast that to windows with gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration.
No, Windows is not getting slower. Here is one example,
"The short version of this conclusion is that a properly set up Windows machine equipped with semi-modern hardware should be capable of running Windows 7 or above more than adequately. The same hardware that currently runs Windows 7 competently can be upgraded to Windows 10 with no issues whatsoever on the performance front.
It used to be the case a few generations back that a new Windows release would need time to be at least on par with the performance of its predecessor. Possibly the most extreme example I can recall was the move from Windows XP to Windows Vista. Though that was partly due to immature drivers on the all-new platform, Vista was a resource hog, too."
Let me know if you need more examples.
Quote:
I'm sorry to say this DanVM either you don't really understand or you are yet another windows fanboy trolling mac news sites.
Wrong again, I'm not a fanboy. I come here to read about Apple, since I own many of their devices (even more than MS devices). I consider myself an Apple user. BTW, which one are you, fanboi or user? Based in your posts I think already know.
1 or 2 % slower on (dubious) "benchmark" test is significant, but 20% faster in an actual app is not, you are kidding right?
What I said was each iteration either gets faster or adds features or both (and Yosemite IS both faster & more featured, we picked up significant speed in both Smoke and Maya (professional DFX/compositing apps)). Do I care (or 99% of users FTM) that some (primarily windows based) 2nd tier prosumer 3D package slowed down because of poor optimization to the new core image and or OpenGL API's.
(as painfully explained (which you choose to ignore) most of the benchmarks they used (cinebench) were flawed becayse they only show how fast cinema 3D will run, something 99.9% of Yosemite customers could care less about.)
?My only regret with yosemite was that we (finally) lost Shake (a professional effects compositing app) Support and development had ceased many years ago, but shake continued to run (and actually ran faster with each new OS update)
Though we had completely eliminated it from all production pipelines it was at one time the majority of out work, and seeing it moved to the "incompatible software" directory was sad (though inevetable).
DanVM perhaps you should take a hard look in the mirror you are a windows fan (fine go knock yourself out some of my good friends are apple haters (not the bright ones certainly, but I digress...)) however you are spending significant time and effort trolling an apple news site endlessly arguing nonsense and ignoring fact.
1 or 2 % slower on (dubious) "benchmark" test is significant, but 20% faster in an actual app is not, you are kidding right?
What I said was each iteration either gets faster or adds features or both (and Yosemite IS both faster & more featured, we picked up significant speed in both Smoke and Maya (professional DFX/compositing apps)). Do I care (or 99% of users FTM) that some (primarily windows based) 2nd tier prosumer 3D package slowed down because of poor optimization to the new core image and or OpenGL API's.
(as painfully explained (which you choose to ignore) most of the benchmarks they used (cinebench) were flawed becayse they only show how fast cinema 3D will run, something 99.9% of Yosemite customers could care less about.)
?My only regret with yosemite was that we (finally) lost Shake (a professional effects compositing app) Support and development had ceased many years ago, but shake continued to run (and actually ran faster with each new OS update)
Though we had completely eliminated it from all production pipelines it was at one time the majority of out work, and seeing it moved to the "incompatible software" directory was sad (though inevetable).
Since I posted a dubious benchmark, why don't you post a link with a reliable test and benchmarks, and compare it to the test I posted? That would be very nice. And I found interesting that you call the benchmark dubious, since it came from a Mac focused website, which has a lot bias for Apple. Plus how you try to explain and make sense of the results of the test, even though you found them dubious.
Quote:
DanVM perhaps you should take a hard look in the mirror you are a windows fan (fine go knock yourself out some of my good friends are apple haters (not the bright ones certainly, but I digress...))
Again, I use MS and Apple devices and applications every day, so it's easy for me to see their advantages and disadvantages. I think that makes me a bright person, right?
Quote:
however you are spending significant time and effort trolling an apple news site endlessly arguing nonsense and ignoring fact.
You said that "OS X has gotten faster with nearly every revision" and "Windows which gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration". Since your posts are "facts" it would be easy to find benchmarks on how faster OS X got and how slow Windows has become. Would be nice if you share them. Maybe the benchmarks you find prove wrong the tests I posted from the Apple focus website.
BTW, I don't come here to troll. I'm a Mac user, as you. But looks like you don't like my comments, so I'm a troll. What can I do?...
Since I posted a dubious benchmark, why don't you post a link with a reliable test and benchmarks, and compare it to the test I posted? That would be very nice. And I found interesting that you call the benchmark dubious, since it came from a Mac focused website, which has a lot bias for Apple. Plus how you try to explain and make sense of the results of the test, even though you found them dubious.
Again, I use MS and Apple devices and applications every day, so it's easy for me to see their advantages and disadvantages. I think that makes me a bright person, right? You said that "OS X has gotten faster with nearly every revision" and "Windows which gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration". Since your posts are "facts" it would be easy to find benchmarks on how faster OS X got and how slow Windows has become. Would be nice if you share them. Maybe the benchmarks you find prove wrong the tests I posted from the Apple focus website.
BTW, I don't come here to troll. I'm a Mac user, as you. But looks like you don't like my comments, so I'm a troll. What can I do?...
What [@]IndyFX[/@] is trying to get through to you, is that you're basing your entire argument on benchmarks, which do not and have never told the whole story whether an OS and the software that each individual uses on a day-to-day basis will be faster or not.
Depending on the client and the software they use, or even within their team uses, is how I determine whether they should upgrade or not. In the case of Yosemite vs. Mavericks, I have about 80% of my clients updated with equal... and in some cases... speed increases. The 20% or so that are still on Mavericks, have mission critical software (RIPS and layout workflows) where it is just too dangerous to test and change at this time, because the people in front of those machines and software will not benefit with the advances that Yosemite brings.
Benchmarks are like bean-counters: numbers never tell the whole story behind efficiency, and DO NOT take the place of wise (completely!) informed decision making. Numbers are but one piece of a puzzle to finding an individual and proper working solution.
What @IndyFX is trying to get through to you, is that you're basing your entire argument on benchmarks, which do not and have never told the whole story whether an OS and the software that each individual uses on a day-to-day basis will be faster or not.
Depending on the client and the software they use, or even within their team uses, is how I determine whether they should upgrade or not. In the case of Yosemite vs. Mavericks, I have about 80% of my clients updated with equal... and in some cases... speed increases. The 20% or so that are still on Mavericks, have mission critical software (RIPS and layout workflows) where it is just too dangerous to test and change at this time, because the people in front of those machines and software will not benefit with the advances that Yosemite brings.
Benchmarks are like bean-counters: numbers never tell the whole story behind efficiency, and DO NOT take the place of wise (completely!) informed decision making. Numbers are but one piece of a puzzle to finding an individual and proper working solution.
I agree with you, specially in the last two sentences. And my experience with performance in Yosemite isn't that bad. I just posted the benchmark as some kind of metric, since he pulled from the air that OS X gets faster and Windows gets slower in every release, something that is not neccesarly true in both cases.
The A9X chip is simply kiss-ass. What a leap in performance cpu and gpu! Be interested to see Geek Benches. At this rate of going Apple is going to hunt down Intel.
Interesting stat that Phill Schill' mentioned. Way faster than 80% of laptops shipped in the last year. That's an astonishing fact. If we get another leap like that for the A10X then its 'Getting reading to Rumble!' Desktop class indeed!
I'm drooling over the iPad Pro. The Apple 'Pencil' is the stylus we've all been waiting for with super precise scanning, tilt, pressure, pixel point accuracy. A digital artist's wet dream! Procreate and iPad Pro. Heaven.
And I wonder with 'astro' if you can hook it up to your 'iMac' to draw on your Mac apps eg. Manga Studio, Affinity Photo...
Stunning 12.9 screen. Stunning stylus. This is the 'Mac' for the rest of us.
And this is just the Rev A version. That A9X is just POW-UR!
Lemon Bon Bon.
I have both Procreate and Sketch Club and I just prefer Sketch Club.
Apple moves to new UI > Total revamp. Makes sure API's have backwards compatibility.
Google > Shows 3 apps with material design. Screws AMOLED with white. Nothing is backwards compatible.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">iOS > 90% current version by next release.</span>
Android > You probably know.
iOS > Introduces 64-bit > The majority of apps are 64-bit in a year.
Android > Slaps in ART. States 64-bit support. Can't control hardware support. Android L hasn't yet reached 20% share (opensignal.com)
iOS > Introduces Metal > Grabs control over it's API's > Wildly successful. Apps be popping like mushrooms after the rain > Better quality and timing of released games.
Android > Throws in Open GL ES extensions. Shows cherry-picked demo running on K1 to imply that it answered Metal > Doesn't move the needle > Announces Vulkan support in M > Devs will somewhat support in a year or two (being psychic here)
Security? Privacy? Touch ID? Payments? Support? Customer satisfaction? Apple doesn't earn it's 92% of the money for nothing. Even with their software quality waning they are unrivaled.
Wow, when you put it that way, iOS is really looking good right now. I guess I just pretty much got used to being treated greatly by Apple and took it for granted. Permission to use your post to slap friends in the face with who try to tout Android's perceived 'superiority' in future debates please?
Pff...this is like 1% of it all. Holywars are a waste of time that could be spent on doing something great. An average consumer, even a nerd, won't be able to comprehend these things. A fanboy won't consider your arguments. He will cherry pick quirks and downfalls and make his judgement based on that. I heard teens with no money say that Android is better, cause you can install paid games for free.
I could write a book on why Apple is the greatest and most influential company, but it would be a waste of time. Everyone who needs to already understand that. Others will not. A billion premium iOS devices. 92% of the smartphone moneys. People have voted with their money = time = part of their lifes, that Apple is better. 'So most people are retards. What new?', is coming next.
One of the things Jobs said that I can relate to the closest, "We don't think this is part of what makes a great product, we are going to leave it out<span style="line-height:1.4em;">. That's what a lot of customers pay us to do, is to try to make the best products we can. If we succeed — they will buy them. And if we don't — they won't. And will all work itself out.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">"</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Money is what counts. Market share = money, not units.</span>
p.s. Sorry if my punctuation is off. It's different in Russian and English.
No apologies necessary. You did an excellent job and dare I say better than my own or the majority of the comments we normally trudge through here.
Comments
MS is touting marketshare because they are trying to hold onto anything they can, but as a software company, their long term objective has to be sales, not just counting free OS software they are giving away.
btw, this is probably why MS is now willing to show up at a Mac event and tout their products ... when iOS devices are outselling Windows PC hardware, they are going to have to pivot to have people buy their software.
http://************/2015/07/21/ios-sales-outpace-windows-sales/
Windows marketshare? On a software OS system that is being given away free by a software company? How much money do you actually think MS made on Win10? The reason they are getting marketshare is because they are providing free updates from the long in the tooth Win7 and the Win8 that no one likes. People are taking the free upgrade in the hopes that it solves the issues with how bloated the MS operating system has come.
Windows is free for home and business users. OEM's and enterprises still have to pay for it, so they make more money than Apple with OS X. And Windows marketshare over OS X have been with every version of Windows, being paid or free like Windows 10. And while Windows 8 wasn't the best, it did many things better than OS X /iOS. And looks like Apple like them too, since they included snap, side by side applications and stylus support, coping Windows 8.1. So maybe Windows 8.1 wasn't that bad. And I find interesting that you mention that Windows is bloated, while is the performance is better with each version since Windows Vista, and at the same time, OS X performance is suffering with each release.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac-software/os-x-mavericks-vs-os-x-yosemite-speed-testing-3598975/
If you called Windows bloated, while is getting better, what do you call OS X when it's getting slower?
Quote:
Like I mentioned before, upgrade for home and business are free. Enterprises and OEM's still have to pay. And based in the reviews, Windows will help Surface Pro sales, which have been getting very good reviews. Yes, OEM's are fighting the margin problems, but MS still makes money from the PC's they sell. And based in their sales, even though Windows numbers are down, enterprise software, MS Office, cloud and even hardware (Surface and XBox) are up. Looks like they are not just counting the free OS.
Dan did you read the article you linked or were you just looking for sensational headline?
OS X has gotten faster with nearly every revision, or has added significant functionality with little change in speed (and the say as much in the text of the article, clickbait titles notwithstanding)
The only score they show in the "expose" article comparing Mavericks (which faster than it's predecessor mountain lion which the admit to) to Yosemite that was even perceivably slower (and not by much) was the "cinebench" open GL scores. If you understood much about graphics and open GL specifically, you would understand that how you use the OpenGL API is of the utmost importance, and they lies the problem. Cinebench only predicts how well a computer runs cinema 4D and 99% (perhaps higher) of users really don't care how fast their computer runs cinema4d (which is a 2nd tier hobbyist/prosumer 3D package BTW) The fact that cinema 4D was poorly optimized for the new OpenGL API in Yosemite is only of consequence to cinema 4D users. Further cinebench OpenGL scores DO NOT give a good predictor (though widely quoted by journalists who don't understand that) of general openGL performance. Many packages (from entry level to to professional) that were properly written and optimized for the new OpenGL API showed significant improvement with Yosemite. (there were significant changes to core image & OpenGL to enhance their ability to efficently leverage modern GPU's)
The truth is Yosemite added significant features with virtually no difference in performance, except in graphics where most graphic intense applications (except mason's cinema 4d apparently) saw significant performance gains in the newly optimized core image & OpenGL API's
Contrast that to windows with gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration.
I'm sorry to say this DanVM either you don't really understand or you are yet another windows fanboy trolling mac news sites.
Dan did you read the article you linked or were you just looking for sensational headline?
OS X has gotten faster with nearly every revision, or has added significant functionality with little change in speed (and the say as much in the text of the article, clickbait titles notwithstanding)
The only score they show in the "expose" article comparing Mavericks (which faster than it's predecessor mountain lion which the admit to) to Yosemite that was even perceivably slower (and not by much) was the "cinebench" open GL scores. If you understood much about graphics and open GL specifically, you would understand that how you use the OpenGL API is of the utmost importance, and they lies the problem. Cinebench only predicts how well a computer runs cinema 4D and 99% (perhaps higher) of users really don't care how fast their computer runs cinema4d (which is a 2nd tier hobbyist/prosumer 3D package BTW) The fact that cinema 4D was poorly optimized for the new OpenGL API in Yosemite is only of consequence to cinema 4D users. Further cinebench OpenGL scores DO NOT give a good predictor (though widely quoted by journalists who don't understand that) of general openGL performance. Many packages (from entry level to to professional) that were properly written and optimized for the new OpenGL API showed significant improvement with Yosemite. (there were significant changes to core image & OpenGL to enhance their ability to efficently leverage modern GPU's)
The truth is Yosemite added significant features with virtually no difference in performance, except in graphics where most graphic intense applications (except mason's cinema 4d apparently) saw significant performance gains in the newly optimized core image & OpenGL API's
Contrast that to windows with gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration.
I'm sorry to say this DanVM either you don't really understand or you are yet another windows fanboy trolling mac news sites.
Why you say that Yosemite is faster, while the article shows it isn't? Here is the summary,
"For processor- and memory-based benchmark tests, Yosemite was typically around 1 or 2 percent slower than Mavericks on our test MacBook.
In browser benchmarks based on JavaScript speed, Yosemite was around 3-5 percent slower than Mavericks.
For graphics-related activities and tests the situation was more complicated. In the two Mac games benchmarks, one game was around 20 percent faster in Yosemite while the other was essentially the same. But do remember that while double-digit increases sound impressive that may only be a few frames per second.
In other graphics tests such as the synthetic GFXBench suite Yosemite returned much less consistent results but tended to return lower figures, sometimes dramatically so.
And for data input/output as measured via the internal drive, results were realistically the same for the two operating systems"
Again, Yosemite is slower than Mavericks.
No, Windows is not getting slower. Here is one example,
http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7/page7.html
In summary,
"The short version of this conclusion is that a properly set up Windows machine equipped with semi-modern hardware should be capable of running Windows 7 or above more than adequately. The same hardware that currently runs Windows 7 competently can be upgraded to Windows 10 with no issues whatsoever on the performance front.
It used to be the case a few generations back that a new Windows release would need time to be at least on par with the performance of its predecessor. Possibly the most extreme example I can recall was the move from Windows XP to Windows Vista. Though that was partly due to immature drivers on the all-new platform, Vista was a resource hog, too."
Let me know if you need more examples.
Wrong again, I'm not a fanboy. I come here to read about Apple, since I own many of their devices (even more than MS devices). I consider myself an Apple user. BTW, which one are you, fanboi or user? Based in your posts I think already know.
1 or 2 % slower on (dubious) "benchmark" test is significant, but 20% faster in an actual app is not, you are kidding right?
What I said was each iteration either gets faster or adds features or both (and Yosemite IS both faster & more featured, we picked up significant speed in both Smoke and Maya (professional DFX/compositing apps)). Do I care (or 99% of users FTM) that some (primarily windows based) 2nd tier prosumer 3D package slowed down because of poor optimization to the new core image and or OpenGL API's.
(as painfully explained (which you choose to ignore) most of the benchmarks they used (cinebench) were flawed becayse they only show how fast cinema 3D will run, something 99.9% of Yosemite customers could care less about.)
?My only regret with yosemite was that we (finally) lost Shake (a professional effects compositing app) Support and development had ceased many years ago, but shake continued to run (and actually ran faster with each new OS update)
Though we had completely eliminated it from all production pipelines it was at one time the majority of out work, and seeing it moved to the "incompatible software" directory was sad (though inevetable).
DanVM perhaps you should take a hard look in the mirror you are a windows fan (fine go knock yourself out some of my good friends are apple haters (not the bright ones certainly, but I digress...)) however you are spending significant time and effort trolling an apple news site endlessly arguing nonsense and ignoring fact.
1 or 2 % slower on (dubious) "benchmark" test is significant, but 20% faster in an actual app is not, you are kidding right?
What I said was each iteration either gets faster or adds features or both (and Yosemite IS both faster & more featured, we picked up significant speed in both Smoke and Maya (professional DFX/compositing apps)). Do I care (or 99% of users FTM) that some (primarily windows based) 2nd tier prosumer 3D package slowed down because of poor optimization to the new core image and or OpenGL API's.
(as painfully explained (which you choose to ignore) most of the benchmarks they used (cinebench) were flawed becayse they only show how fast cinema 3D will run, something 99.9% of Yosemite customers could care less about.)
?My only regret with yosemite was that we (finally) lost Shake (a professional effects compositing app) Support and development had ceased many years ago, but shake continued to run (and actually ran faster with each new OS update)
Though we had completely eliminated it from all production pipelines it was at one time the majority of out work, and seeing it moved to the "incompatible software" directory was sad (though inevetable).
Since I posted a dubious benchmark, why don't you post a link with a reliable test and benchmarks, and compare it to the test I posted? That would be very nice. And I found interesting that you call the benchmark dubious, since it came from a Mac focused website, which has a lot bias for Apple. Plus how you try to explain and make sense of the results of the test, even though you found them dubious.
Again, I use MS and Apple devices and applications every day, so it's easy for me to see their advantages and disadvantages. I think that makes me a bright person, right?
Quote:
You said that "OS X has gotten faster with nearly every revision" and "Windows which gets significantly slower and more ponderous (and demanding more and more hardware resources (both GPU and CPU) with each iteration". Since your posts are "facts" it would be easy to find benchmarks on how faster OS X got and how slow Windows has become. Would be nice if you share them. Maybe the benchmarks you find prove wrong the tests I posted from the Apple focus website.
BTW, I don't come here to troll. I'm a Mac user, as you. But looks like you don't like my comments, so I'm a troll. What can I do?...
What [@]IndyFX[/@] is trying to get through to you, is that you're basing your entire argument on benchmarks, which do not and have never told the whole story whether an OS and the software that each individual uses on a day-to-day basis will be faster or not.
Depending on the client and the software they use, or even within their team uses, is how I determine whether they should upgrade or not. In the case of Yosemite vs. Mavericks, I have about 80% of my clients updated with equal... and in some cases... speed increases. The 20% or so that are still on Mavericks, have mission critical software (RIPS and layout workflows) where it is just too dangerous to test and change at this time, because the people in front of those machines and software will not benefit with the advances that Yosemite brings.
Benchmarks are like bean-counters: numbers never tell the whole story behind efficiency, and DO NOT take the place of wise (completely!) informed decision making. Numbers are but one piece of a puzzle to finding an individual and proper working solution.
What @IndyFX is trying to get through to you, is that you're basing your entire argument on benchmarks, which do not and have never told the whole story whether an OS and the software that each individual uses on a day-to-day basis will be faster or not.
Depending on the client and the software they use, or even within their team uses, is how I determine whether they should upgrade or not. In the case of Yosemite vs. Mavericks, I have about 80% of my clients updated with equal... and in some cases... speed increases. The 20% or so that are still on Mavericks, have mission critical software (RIPS and layout workflows) where it is just too dangerous to test and change at this time, because the people in front of those machines and software will not benefit with the advances that Yosemite brings.
Benchmarks are like bean-counters: numbers never tell the whole story behind efficiency, and DO NOT take the place of wise (completely!) informed decision making. Numbers are but one piece of a puzzle to finding an individual and proper working solution.
I agree with you, specially in the last two sentences. And my experience with performance in Yosemite isn't that bad. I just posted the benchmark as some kind of metric, since he pulled from the air that OS X gets faster and Windows gets slower in every release, something that is not neccesarly true in both cases.
I have both Procreate and Sketch Club and I just prefer Sketch Club.
Wow, when you put it that way, iOS is really looking good right now. I guess I just pretty much got used to being treated greatly by Apple and took it for granted. Permission to use your post to slap friends in the face with who try to tout Android's perceived 'superiority' in future debates please?
No apologies necessary. You did an excellent job and dare I say better than my own or the majority of the comments we normally trudge through here.