Can Adobe make themselves look any dumber?

in General Discussion edited January 2014

Can someone please explain to me Adumbe's Math. How can 54 Seconds be represented on a Graph at half the speed of 1 Minute 25 Seconds?

Click the image if you want to see this preposterous propaganda.



  • Reply 1 of 24
    majormattmajormatt Posts: 1,077member
    Oh well, I guess this wont be a page apple will link

    So, 3.06 Ghz is the fastest PC now? I guess the review was just before the availability of the 1.42s
  • Reply 2 of 24
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    aiiiiiee!! ... the Wintel Distortion Field

    maybe the dell figures were done by stoner dell guy

    pretty ugly text for adobe to be proud of the graphics
  • Reply 3 of 24
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Can someone please explain to me Adumbe's Math. How can 54 Seconds be represented on a Graph at half the speed of 1 Minute 25 Seconds?

    Haha!! Someone needs to go back to school.

    What do they call the seconds between 0.6 and 1.0? The 'let's add 40 seconds per minute because it's a Mac' time?

    1 minute is NOT 100 seconds!
  • Reply 4 of 24
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    well thats cute now isn't it? whats funny is at the place where I do my dubs they are all about those damned dells and well they crashed one time while I was there, I had my powerbook with me and showed him which reels I wanted transferred real fast with final cut pro because his dell wasn't working. Something about how his matrox driver card was conflicting ahh gotta love it, they work so much faster but so much less done i guess. Anyways he kind of shut up after that mac bashing, and he hadn't seen OS X yet and was very suprised.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    So even though this indredible Dell is more than twice as powerful than the Mac, it's only 31 seconds faster? And this is supposed to be an advert for the PC?!

  • Reply 6 of 24
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I especially like the test that the Dell completed in "2 minuted". That underlines the QC that went into producing this page.

    Of course, the punchline is that AE isn't dual processor savvy, so the results you're seeing are a single G4 against that Pentium. So basically what Adobe is trying desperately to cover for here is the fact that they haven't done jack to get their production apps optimized for the Mac.

    "Switch platforms so that we don't have to go to the trouble of improving our codebase! Please!"
  • Reply 7 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yah, dats bad.

    But, it just goes to show what happens when you start bleeding market-share.

    Quark, lazy bastards, always been, fine.

    Adobe? Used to be the cornerstone of the mac, if adobe worked anywhere, this is where it's supposed to work best, does it? nope.

    Makes you wonder.
  • Reply 8 of 24
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Hey, somebody forward this to the usual high-visibility suspects and let's see if it makes the news...

  • Reply 9 of 24
    overhopeoverhope Posts: 1,123member
    I can just see Jobs getting ready to cry "BS" on this one come the next keynote...
  • Reply 10 of 24
    jante99jante99 Posts: 539member
    This must be a joke because check out the Dell/Adobe video editing computers here:

    The top of the line computer has an 18 gig hard drive and costs $2999!

    Also the top of the pages claims the computers costs as little as 699 even though they are listed as 1169 below.

    Adobe links to this page from their "digital video" gear page
  • Reply 11 of 24
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    I'll be interested to see what happens when Apple's are using nutsy fast memory buses. If anything, I'd say this test confirms that the G4 chip is at least as good as the P4. The P4 uses a 533MHz Memory Bus. The mac, a half assed 333Mhz bus (167 more realistically). Video Data is ideal for the Altivec if you program it with a brain, though it will burn through the cache in no time. So the faster the memory bus, the faster the system in big-data programs. Almost linearly.

    But what if you were to, say, put a chip with a fixed memory clock multiplier of 2:1, and clock it, say, around 2000Mhz? If you can get the memory to keep up, (Which I presume is the case), that's going to burn through video like a Cossack through the Light Brigade.

  • Reply 12 of 24
    I'm surprised to see such a highly respectable company such as adobe making these kind of mistakes on their web site. I mean...come one...1 minute does not equal 100 seconds. Why would they want to make the Wintel machine seem faster anyways? Everyone and their mother knows that Mac's are far superior than Wintel machines when it comes to graphic design and video editing.

    Even my biology teacher knew that...and she doesn't even know how to get online.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    HT has (on fast memory at least) virtually cancelled the Mhz myth. A G4 and a desktop P4(HT) are pretty much doing the sam amount of work per Mhz at this point -- and the G4 gets killed because the P4 just has so many more Hz. Although, it should be noted that the P4 is nowhere near doing the same amount of work per watt! If that second G4 was put to any use, this test would indeed look a lot better. I wonder. Fvck, makes you want to kick Moto in the arse, how hard can it be to make a DDR FSB? The G4 would probably come a lot closer to a P4 (running 2X the Hz) if it only had the FSB to keep altivec fed with big pieces of data. Oh well.

    Apple put the shaft to Premier big time, is after-effects next in line? Could there be a little bit of comeupance going on here? From all accounts this isn't the only adobe app to make poor use of the DP PPC set-up. Makes you scratch your head, doesn't it? If anything, pros use DP set-ups and are most likely to buy PS, AE, Illustrator, et al, what gives?

    Mebbe they can get some slack because we're really only looking at the first OSX versions of these wares, but still...

    When Adobe stops caring about the mac, you have to wonder, and worry.

    One can only hope they've had a huge heads up and that there are killer 32/64 bit versions waiting to grace PPC970 machines, and that basically explains the lack of DP G4 optimization.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    For fairness and comparison, the image should look like this:

    Which is fairly impressive if it's non-MP friendly application, considering the Hz gap between both the cores and frontside buses. Surely all Adobe have to do is multithread it, or is it a problem of bandwidth (if it was, I'd expect the P4 to do much better)?
  • Reply 15 of 24
    Funny how graphs change when you look at another company.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I'd trust the vendor of the app before the builder of the box.

    What's Apple going to say? we're way slower! and cost more too!

    I'm sure PM's are very fast in a carefully selected group of tasks at a particular image size but there's no more denying it, they get spanked on the desktop, and then you look at the price !?!?! and think, well you think twice before spending more money on a mac, as recent PM sales figures show.

    I though about this some time ago, nobody seems to make software run as well on the mac as Apple itself. Apple could make a fair bit of dosh making Mac exclusive PS pluggin packs. Things designed to be fully DP aware and to utilize altivec as fully as possible. Could be a good way to keep digital artists on the mac, especially if they can offer better more intuitive plug-in tools.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member

    When Adobe stops caring about the mac, you have to wonder, and worry.

    Yes I worry for the future of Adobe. Microsoft is 10x the foe that Adobe is. If Apple is willing to compete with the Redmond Beast then if push comes to shove they won't hestitate to do the same to Adobe.


    I'd trust the vendor of the app before the builder of the box

    I trust neither. There's nothing more inherently "trustworthy" in an Applications vendor versus a Hardware vendor. Each has a motive and markets to what they desire is important.

    The scenario that could play out is. Apple's marketshare continues to dwindle. Adobe accelerates promotion of Wintel software or.....

    Apple uses the PowerPC 970 and future incarnations to bolster it's markethare to upwards of 10%. Adobe shuts up and promotes each platform to maximize its sales.

    Photoshop, Illustrator, AE and other Adobe apps are well liked for the most part but the Graphics Design is a fairly small Cross Section of the entire computing strata. Photoshop has no competitiors and enjoys it's King of the Hill status. Adobe would do well not to entice Apple into attempting to create the Final Cut Pro of Photo Editing.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member

    Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict

    Funny how graphs change when you look at another company.

    there is so much propoganda with all of this. i mean, for apple to actually claim their fastest beats intel takes quite a bit of twisting.

    whatever the case, take away that all computers are adequately fast. the key is finding your favorite OS and then getting hardware that will run it. Then I guess that cost thing comes into light, but that is beyond the realm of which i want to speak

  • Reply 19 of 24
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    that's what happens when someone enters



    1.25 into their excel spreadsheet.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    ringoringo Posts: 328member

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Apple could make a fair bit of dosh making Mac exclusive PS pluggin packs.

    That is a truly great idea!
Sign In or Register to comment.