OSX does suck! - PSD and AE tests

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I have been testing final version of Photoshop 7, and After Effects 5.5 PB on a G4-450Mhz running 9.2.2 and 10.1.4, and a G4 Dual 1Ghz running 9.2.2 and 10.1.4.



Note: 9.2.2 was not running in a classic mode.

both machines had 1GB of RAM



first thing, OS 10.1.4 is way slower then 9.2.2. on any machine.



On a G4-450Mhz, both Photoshop 7 and After Effects 5.5 run significantly faster with 9.2.2 then native OSX versions. AE run faster on G4-450Mhz with 9.2.2 then on G4-1Ghz Dual running 9.2.2, screen redraws, moving around the timeline and so forth, only when it came to rendering, Dual 1Ghz smoked the old 450Mhz, but only about 60% (not 5-6 times as everyone would expect, I definitely expected that)

The native OSX AE5.5 run really well on a dual 1Ghz, still, moving windows and menus plus basic operations weren't much quicker then G4-450 with 9.2.2, rendering improved about 200% over G4-450Mhz.



I don't care much about all the neat things in OSX or any OS for that matter, I expect the applications to run faster, not slower or equally to old OS running on a 3 years old machine...



to add to all that.



I setup a custom build PC with WIN2000 Pro (yeah, WIN sucks, but who cares as long as the programs run well and FAST!!)

The PC has AMD Athlon XP 2100+, 1GB of DDR333Mhz RAM (exp to 3GB) and Invidia Quadro 4-750XL Open GL card (for accelerating MAYA only).



well... I have been using MAC's since early 90's, sadly I must say that the Athlon system was much faster then both MAC's in all tests I run with Photoshop 7 and After Effects 5.5.... Dual G4 cought up with rendering AE files cause it takes advantage of 2 processors, but everything else was WAY SLOWER....



I did also run MAYA on both PC and a dual G4-1Ghz, I'm not going to go into any details how much faster AMD was, it really was much faster, big help came from Invidia Quadro 4 card, unfortunately that card is not available for MAC, although Apple is in the process of negotiating with Invidia to bring high end Open GL cards to MAC and OSX.



Just wanted to share my observations..



cheers







[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: synthmonkey ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    nostradamusnostradamus Posts: 397member
    Nothing you say is new to us. Apple is selling hardware three times to cost of comparable x86 systems with a incomplete, slow, and bloated OS.



    Most Mac users who have a brain have given up the arguement that Macs are in any significant way faster than comparable PC's one-third the cost and that OS X is undoubtedly superior to Win XP.



    [ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 40
    kaboomkaboom Posts: 286member
    [quote]well... I have been using MAC's since early 90's,...<hr></blockquote>You've been using Media Access Control since the early 90's? What's your point?
  • Reply 3 of 40
    nostradamusnostradamus Posts: 397member
    kaboom,

    MACs = Macintosh or Apple Computers. This includes the Apple I, Apple II and Apple III series products as well as Macintosh OS based systems. "Macs" simply refers to Macintosh OS system products while "MACs" includes Apple series systems.



    It's a well known (and often used) acronym.



    [ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 40
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:

    <strong>kaboom,

    MACs = Macintosh or Apple Computers. This includes the Apple I, Apple II and Apple III series products as well as Macintosh OS based systems.



    [...]



    It's a well known (and often used) acronym.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's the first I've heard of it.
  • Reply 5 of 40
    wwworkwwwork Posts: 140member
    So use OS 9!
  • Reply 6 of 40
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    That's the first I've heard of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ditto that. Good call kaboom.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    aqua os xaqua os x Posts: 49member
    Synthmonkey, next time get a watch and start up some filters. Do some real benchmarks.



    But yes, OS X is slow. We all know that.
  • Reply 8 of 40
    marsicomarsico Posts: 6member
    The beta code from Adobe was never updated or tweaked for full speed under OSX as it depended on legacy libs for the classic interface. If you try the official release of Photoshop 7 you will find that not only is it faster in OSX than OS9 -- it also runs flawlessly. As for MAYA -- it was only ported to the MAC PPC chipset recently -- one cannot expect it to take full advantage of Apple hardware -- yet. As the product matures I expect that this will change.
  • Reply 9 of 40
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,225member
    All CAPS denote Acronyms MAC is the "Industry Standard" Acronym for Media Access Control...period.



    OSX is slow but Developers also are culpable. They have the opportunity to optimize their software as much as possible. Hang on to your shorts....10.2 will be previewed on Monday. I'm sure you'll find that much has improved(No I don't have any sources)
  • Reply 10 of 40
    pevepeve Posts: 518member
    synthmonkey:



    i don't believe a benchmark-test if i didn't fake it myself.



    it depends how you test and what you do.

    give us details.



    and Nostradamus:



    mac stands for macintosh - and a apple II is not a macintosh.

    MACs = Macintosh or Apple Computers?

    never heard something like this.
  • Reply 11 of 40
    [quote]Originally posted by Nostradamus:

    <strong>"Macs" simply refers to Macintosh OS system products while "MACs" includes Apple series systems.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    And MAYA refers to all versions of Maya while "Maya" only refers to version 1.0. And Adobe is the hut where Photoshop-developers live while ADOBE is the company as a whole. Don't get me started on FLASH and IMACs now...



    They're all well known and often used acronyms.



  • Reply 12 of 40
    milekno77milekno77 Posts: 17member
    Does anyone remember when the original mac shipped? OK..I don't because I was a little tike, but i have read a lot about the early days of the macintosh. The fact is that it was slow, underpowered, and without a lot of useful apps. Sounds like OS X now, doesn't it? OS X is slower now for two reasons: the OS is just now reaching its stride. While 10.2 will have speed boosts, how long did it take Classic to become 'fast?' The other reason OS X is slow is because it is DOING so much more. 9 may be fast, but compared to X, it's a shell of an OS. The best is yet to come with X, in terms of a much more robust OS, and in terms of hardware that can run it.
  • Reply 13 of 40
    milekno77milekno77 Posts: 17member
    Does anyone remember when the original mac shipped? OK..I don't because I was a little tike, but i have read a lot about the early days of the macintosh. The fact is that it was slow, underpowered, and without a lot of useful apps. Sounds like OS X now, doesn't it? OS X is slower now for two reasons: the OS is just now reaching its stride. While 10.2 will have speed boosts, how long did it take Classic to become 'fast?' The other reason OS X is slow is because it is DOING so much more. 9 may be fast, but compared to X, it's a shell of an OS. The best is yet to come with X, in terms of a much more robust OS, and in terms of hardware that can run it.
  • Reply 14 of 40
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Really? But I find PS 7 is running a lot smoother in X than 9.2



    As for AE, Rendering under both 9.2 and X are very close. RAM preview under X, however, is 10x better than in 9.2



    On a Dual machine, AE rarely consumes over 60% of CPU cycle of each processor. I am not too suprised that you only see 60% of boost from a single 450 to Dual Gig



    [ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 40
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by milekno77:

    <strong>Does anyone remember when the original mac shipped? OK..I don't because I was a little tike, but i have read a lot about the early days of the macintosh. The fact is that it was slow, underpowered, and without a lot of useful apps. Sounds like OS X now, doesn't it? OS X is slower now for two reasons: the OS is just now reaching its stride. While 10.2 will have speed boosts, how long did it take Classic to become 'fast?' The other reason OS X is slow is because it is DOING so much more. 9 may be fast, but compared to X, it's a shell of an OS. The best is yet to come with X, in terms of a much more robust OS, and in terms of hardware that can run it.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    problems with that reasoning

    1.) The original mac os broke new ground and did a hell of a lot more than os x does new today relatively.

    2.) system 1 was optimized in every possible way and squeezed the most performance as possible out of every resource.

    3.) system 1 ran on 1 system, one speed. OS X is running on everything from a 233Mhz G3 to dual 1Ghz G4 and still has performance problems on the high end compared to 9. this just shows that the OS is not optimized the way it should be.



    I'm hopinbg Monday brings some exciting news. Actually, I know it will.
  • Reply 16 of 40
    fobiefobie Posts: 216member
    Why do people call Photoshop "PSD"?



    PSD = Photoshop Document



    Right? Or have I missed something?
  • Reply 17 of 40
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Correct, PSD is the extension for a Photoshop document. Years ago, I used to refer to anything Photoshop-related as "8BIM" and I organized folders with that nickname in it... funny that no one else understood why.



    Do you? I'll bet Leonis does.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    nostradamusnostradamus Posts: 397member
    Mac versus PC AfterEffects shootout.



    <a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/c w_aeshowdown.htm" target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/c w_aeshowdown.htm</a>



    [quote]Not one of the objective tests we conducted using After Effects bore out Apple's claim of Mac superiority. In fact, in most of the tests, the Mac was left lagging far behind. And, this was when we were using a PC whose chips are now three steps below the fastest Athlons available (now the fastest Athlon XP is the 2100+ running at 1.73GHz), and far slower than the latest Intel Xeon chips, now shipping at 2.4 GHz...<hr></blockquote>



    [ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Nostradamus ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 40
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    boohooo, sob, sniff



    Macs are over priced and slower then pcs. Ok, you whiny trolls, then go grab a $700 Dell and shut up.
  • Reply 20 of 40
    posterboyposterboy Posts: 147member
    Not to be a negative nelly, but has anyone here honestly considered that "The Next Release of OS X, Codenamed Jaguar" may be OS 10.5, and a pay-for upgrade, instead of the much hoped for 10.2 free update?



    Considering that OS 9.2 was the first .2 version since 6.2 (or was it 5.2?), it is feasable.



    Just a (terrible) thought.



    --PB
Sign In or Register to comment.