[quote]what can you do with AppleScript that you can't on Windows?<hr></blockquote>
Not what -- how.
PS: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE teach my IT department how to get color calibration to work for our plotters, printers and monitors. We have the software. It no work. They no good. It's only incredibly frustrating.
This thread totaly overlooks the fact that any processor under the speed of 2GHz + is not a G5.
What happened to the old AI members that new the facts before they started to rant on about G5's at 1.6GHz. That (1.6GHz) would be an Apollo processor not a G5. Duh....
ANd what credible evidence is there that Apple is announcing anything on the 22nd? Is it the fact that a ton of idiots here were bitching about the fact there was no PowerMac at MWSF, and they all said that "Apple should announce new PowerMac's within a few months if not the end of the month - they can't not release a PowerMac at MWSF.
That is where I saw this stupid rumor start. Here at AI!
I don't suppose you realize that Apple released new powerMac's at NY did you? They don't update every product line at every show. I'd say the soonest a major PowerMac update (breaking GHz barrier) would be Seybold. or WWDC.
Oh yes, and it would be a G4 because the G5 debut's at starting speeds of 2GHz+ according to Motorola.
That's Apple's trad pro user group--and its one that Apple is trying to "expand" out of. The graphics pros are wierd group, because many of them are still running 4-5 year old machines, and put up with the technology because they were caught in the middle of the shift from analog to digital or they are perfectly happy with their existing setup--see Adobe users forums for Illustrator 10 and there are happy people with G3/233 who can't understand why people complain about the lack of speed with Illustrator 10.
Apple's other pro group, the video and 3D folk [3D are a small market for the Mac right now] really need the speed, but the video folk are happy because of Final Cut and QT. Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it really begs the question as to why Maya got ported to the platform. I believe that Alias knows that Apple will finally close the gap [not surpass] and thats why we have Maya, but as is typical no one knows what Apple is doing. The problem is that there is real platform lock-in here, and its not comfortable to have a business that depends on a company that is not forthcoming about anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you, cowerd, for summing up a little more succinctly what I couldn't.
For many "professionals" in design, publishing, content creation, video, film, etc. would not get any significant gains switching from Apple hardware to Intel/AMD hardware.
The one field that would benefit is 3D design and manipulation. And yet 3D is not, and has never been, a major market or a major target for Apple. I think you'd be making a bad decision to choose Macintosh as a 3D platform right now, or have made that decision in the past, or to think about making it in the near future.
If Apple wants to enter this market it can't, and probably won't, do it with the current Power Mac line. Why? Because the features required would push the line out of a reasonable price range for Apple's traditional market. And even then, you'd find Windows solutions which were faster and cheaper.
I'm being a bitch, so I might as well stick with it. The people bleating the loudest about Power Mac performance and screaming for 1.6GHz G5s are the hobbyists on this forum who want to run pirated copies of Maya (Or the new freebie version) and get Quake frame rates they can boast about to their PC owning buddies.*
By the way, xype, from what position are you arguing? A Mac owner who wants to upgrade? A Windows user who wants to switch? Work for a company who'd switch to Apple if its machines outperformed Intel/AMD hardware? Or one that's considering dumping Apple?
Aha, well, yes the overall performance is not just the CPU - I tought you meant the whole system. My bad.
> A very good point, losing customers through
> poor performance would be a major issue.
> However, the comparitive benchmarks for 3D
> rendering, Photoshop processing, video
> processing and compression, etc. don't show up
> a wide gap in performance between the high end
> Macs and Intel/AMD based machines. G4 machines
> (Especially duals with properly written
> software) more than keep up with the fastest
> Pentium or Athlon machines in these tasks. The
> widest gap you'll see in any benchmark
> comparisons is in games performance.
Games are a pretty good benchmark since they tend to really push the whole package. As for the dual G4 machines - if you compare platforms than you'd have to compare the dual G4 machines to the price-equivalent dual Athlon systems. And the Athlon MP is said to be a very impressive dual kit.
> If that "professional" feels he/she needs a
> faster machine than is currently on his/her
> desk, then a faster G4 will be an incentive to
> upgrade.
If the speed difference seems reasonable. But it depends on the tasks the "professional" does.
> If there isn't an incentive for a "professional
> graphic/3D designer" to make that upgrade,
> there is no incentive to switch to the current
> Pentium 4 or Athlon based machines either,
> because the performance gap is negligible.
I don't think so. I experienced the difference of handling large image data and rendering on both platforms and also see the different options as far as 3D, sound and video cards go. And I am a fan of DDR since.
> A G5 may be more of an incentive, but this
> whole situation shows up a failing on the part
> of people posting to this forum, not Apple or
> Motorola. To expect processor speeds in Apple
> machines to leap suddenly from 800MHz to 1.6GHz
> is utterly ridiculous.
I wouldn't mind if the CPU lineup stays the same on DDR and the option to go dual with the 733 CPUs. That'd be a respectable workstation, yet again not if it's offered for $2500+.
> As I've said before, even if Apple had these
> processors, to make that leap overnight would
> be an unsound move financially, especially if
> faster G5s won't appear for many, many months.
I trust Apple that they know what they're doing business-wise and (most likely) waiting patiently for the G5 before I get a new 'puter.
> Do you think that a studio currently working on
> Windows-based machines would make the decision
> to switch to more expensive Apple hardware if a
> 1.6GHz G5 with all the bells and whistles was
> announced tomorrow? I doubt it because the
> performance will not be significantly better
> than the current Pentium/Athlon based machines,
> and those studios will have already made
> massive investments in Windows software
> packages.
Apples are not really that much expensive than pro Wintel computers, it's only you get a bit less bang for the bucks.
> Will Apple-based studios switch to Windows for
> their next purchases if all Apple can manage is
> a dual 1GHz machine? No, for exactly the same
> reasons.
Depends on what the studios are doing. I've seen SGI shops switching to Intel without much tought and they didn't regret it. Their investements in all the Alias and Wavefront packages and even some of their inhouse apps were not the reason not to switch, the performance was the reason to do so (plus Maya 1.0 came out for NT as well).
> Performance is not currently a huge factor in
> increasing market share. In fact, the pro
> market is not currently one of the biggest
> factors.
It's not that important for the market share but in my opinion more for that little profit thingie - Apple can sell pro machines with higher margins, allowing them to sell consumer machines with lower ones thus having even better price/performance ratio and gaining market share in return.
> Is it obvious? I'd be interested in seeing
> benchmarks for that. I don't really follow the
> shootouts as closely as perhaps I ought to.
> When you said an Athlon XP 1700 would kick a
> dual 800MHz G4, did you mean a dual Athlon
> machine or a single?
I ment a dual machine since it comes close to the dual 800 price-wise. A single XP 1700 is less than 1400 $ including a 19" screen.
> So, if you can buy a dual Athlon XP 1700
> machine that wipes the floor with a dual 800MHz
> G4, and both machines have been on the market
> for quite some time, it seems a lot of people
> are still willing to stick with seemingly
> slower Apple machines.
So am I, because Apple make great hardware. But if someone buys new hardware and has 3500 $ to spend he is going to spend it on what seems most viable to him/her. Unless it's a Mac freak. If new customers "see" that a powermac kicks Athlons ass they will more likely consider buying one than when they see a "733 mhz" sticker on it.
And one new customer more means one step closer to those other 95%.
> Hmm, well I just ordered a new iMac and digital
> camera, so I guess I'll be happy.
I was really tempted to get one too, but I need a bigger screen and having to pay 3000$ a semester for my sucky school I can't afford one. Will wait for the G5. Must hold on. Hrmmpf.
> I also co-own a company that creates digital
> content. We just increased capacity in our film
> department, and now have a total of 24 Power
> Macs in that department. The decision was made
> on price, performance, available software, and
> hardware features.
I am just trying to start a company with my friend and we're tight on budget. We are torn between Athlons and Macs - and want to do 3D and realtime 3D for the web stuff as well.
> We went with Apple hardware for several
> reasons - Final Cut Pro offered better features
> over Premiere, and even our old 500MHz G4 runs
> FCP just as well as the fastest Intel/AMD
> machine could run Premiere. Same goes for After
> Effects. DVD Studio Pro was also a big factor
> in choosing Macintosh, as was the SuperDrive,
> and the price and quality of Apple's displays.
> We bought three Avid Media Composer systems,
> and chose to go with the G4-based solutions
> because there's no performance gain in going
> for the Windows-based system.
Seems like your company is doing well, I am glad you brought business to Apple
> We've also saved money in that we've not needed
> to get expensive realtime cards for all the
> machines because the faster G4s get realtime
> processing in FCP3.
Looks like Apple was the right choice for you then. I will still have to run render-test for myself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
> I'd consider our company a very professional
> outfit, and a company with only one Apple
> evangelist (Me), and yet the decisions were
> made by eight people, and not one questioned
> processor and bus speed, only the performance
> of the system and software as a whole.
>
> I wouldn't dare to suggest this is the case
> with every "professional" out there, but it
> does show that the guts of a machine aren't
> always that big a factor in choosing the best
> performing system.
Of course not, and Apple has actually most of the PowerMac done right - it's a remarkable system and if I had the money to burn I'd simply get a mac _and_ a cheap dual athlon box for rendering and that'd be it. But I only have money for 1 system and the fact that that'd be 733 mhz with apple doesn't make my life easier.
Maybe I am also a special case of a customer, wanting to do _everything_ with one machine, that being 3D animation, dcc and the occasional deathmatch, perhaps even all at once - and for that a G5 would be nice.
Just out of curiosity, have a url of your company handy? I'm very much interested!
[quote]The one field that would benefit is 3D design and manipulation. And yet 3D is not, and has never been, a major market or a major target for Apple. I think you'd be making a bad decision to choose Macintosh as a 3D platform right now, or have made that decision in the past, or to think about making it in the near future.<hr></blockquote>
Well its something that our firm--small 5 G4/DP533, 1 G3/450 ASIP server "accidently" got into through architectural contacts. Its of more interest to our staff, but we have a hardware commitment--no to mention pretty much zero tech support costs. I think the other point I was trying to make is that Apple is very capable of being a reasonable player in the 3D market--Lightwave, Cinema 3D and even FormZ perform reasonably well on some slowly clocked CPU's with a highly bandwidth constrained bus and no pro 3D video card support. Imagine if Apple were to actually deliver a motherboard that kept up to Wintel MBs (DDR at least). Even a 50% performance increase, which we will get with 1GHZ DP machines will really increase out productivity, however that leaves out other Apple variables like initial cost and OSX.
I think OSX is the biggest argument for the fastest freaking machines that Apple can deliver. Working in carbon Illustrator I find that even a DP533 is very slow because of UI and redraw issues. Its an annoyance because the OS dictates how I work rather than the other way around. For anyone who wants to dispute this all I can say is that you never work at a consistent speed on a piece of art. Sometimes slow is better, and sometimes fast is better. OSX negates the fast. More MHZ please.
xype: If you are that completely unfamiliar with the Mac's strengths then you will probably never understand why no professional Mac house is in any hurry to migrate to Windows. Many publishing houses quite literally run on AppleScript workflows, which they'd have to abandon to switch platforms. For more, see cowerd's post, quoted below.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
That's Apple's trad pro user group--and its one that Apple is trying to "expand" out of. The graphics pros are wierd group, because many of them are still running 4-5 year old machines, and put up with the technology because they were caught in the middle of the shift from analog to digital or they are perfectly happy with their existing setup--see Adobe users forums for Illustrator 10 and there are happy people with G3/233 who can't understand why people complain about the lack of speed with Illustrator 10.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You agree with me that the Mac's professional base isn't going anywhere. Good.
Belle is getting a new iMac. pscates is happy with an old iMac. I have a book, Photoshop Studio Secrets, that's chock full of G3 upgraded 6100s! These are professionals, some of them very well known and well regarded, and if they're not complaining about machine speed it's because machine speed isn't that relevant. Remember, my original point was that Mac professionals weren't going to defect. Furthermore, for the same reasons that Mac users won't go anywhere, there are still good reasons for other professionals to embrace the Mac. Raw speed just isn't one of them.
[quote]<strong>Apple's other pro group, the video and 3D folk [3D are a small market for the Mac right now] really need the speed, but the video folk are happy because of Final Cut and QT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The video folk are happy because Apple is delivering real increases in speed (via FCP's interface, etc.) and price/performance (real-time effects in software) and functionality (all of the above on a laptop). Video editing and compositing on a laptop, on site, saves tremendous amounts of time and money. Apple isn't delivering them all via hardware, but professionals don't care how a computer makes them work faster. They just care that it does.
[quote]<strong>Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it really begs the question as to why Maya got ported to the platform. I believe that Alias knows that Apple will finally close the gap [not surpass] and thats why we have Maya, but as is typical no one knows what Apple is doing. The problem is that there is real platform lock-in here, and its not comfortable to have a business that depends on a company that is not forthcoming about anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 3D folks are really the only people who aren't happy right now. Sorry Leonis, but they aren't really part of Apple's traditional base.
However: alias|wavefront did port Maya, and Lightwave did get an AltiVec boost, so clearly someone sees something in the platform. It's not the first time, either: A lot of 3D used to be designed on a Mac and rendered on an SGI. Even now, rendering speed really isn't an issue. Even Bryce can farm that out to a bunch of Linux boxes. By running 3D apps on the Mac, they can use them with applications like FCP and Photoshop, all on the same machine at the same time.
<strong>By the way, xype, from what position are you arguing? A Mac owner who wants to upgrade? A Windows user who wants to switch? Work for a company who'd switch to Apple if its machines outperformed Intel/AMD hardware? Or one that's considering dumping Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My position:
I am going to start up a business in the field of graphic design, multimedia _and_ 3D until july (I am quite confident that I have what it takes ). At "home" I have 3 AMD PCs and at "school" I had a G4 450 powermac and just helped install a bunch (13) of new 733 G4 machines of which I'll use one till summer. I don't want to spend all my cash on a "new work machine" that wont have DDR and I've been postponing a buy in the wait of a G5 since november.
A windows user who loves the Mac experience. I want to get a machine that will last 1.5 years. I worked on both platforms in new media and print and they both covered my needs. I'd love to get a mac and wouldn't mind re-buying all the licences - it's just that I do lots of 3D and in that department the powermac looks sad.
Interestingly of all advertising agencies I know in tyrol (austria) none really uses any color matching, which is sad considering they bought Macs because of their ColorSync. Oh well as long as they make money...
> with the Mac's strengths then you will probably
> never understand why no professional Mac house
> is in any hurry to migrate to Windows. Many
> publishing houses quite literally run on
> AppleScript workflows, which they'd have to
> abandon to switch platforms. For more, see
> cowerd's post, quoted below.
I know mac strenghts but I also know that a lot of people are putting a lot of energy in order to make tha same workflow as easy on the Wintel platform. And a lot of medium sized companies in the advertising/new media field down here don't even know that they can match their screens colors to fit their printer (!).
> You agree with me that the Mac's professional
> base isn't going anywhere. Good.
Of course tehy are not. But that doesn't get Apple much more marketshare now, does it? Apple has the door to the whole graphic segment of the market open (and since OSX a chunk of the Unix market as well). It's that those companies wont switch platform unless Apple gives them a good reason to do so (eg, fastest unix workstation)
>> Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it
>> really begs the question as to why Maya got
>> ported to the platform.
I always tought it might have been more a proof of concept than anything else.
> The 3D folks are really the only people who
> aren't happy right now. Sorry Leonis, but they
> aren't really part of Apple's traditional base.
That's the point. Traditional base is 5% and a few new 3D pro users might give Apple another percent or two in the pro market - where money is often less an objective as elsewhere.
<strong>By running 3D apps on the Mac, they can use them with applications like FCP and Photoshop, all on the same machine at the same time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is exactly what Alias|Wavefront said at MWSF - Maya on Mac integrates with other Mac apps and technologies.
The dual Athlons run rings around Mac G4s when it comes to Cinema 4DXL. Rendering, and, just as important, screen redraw time when you're modeling. Dig around at postforum.com (cinema 4dxl forum) for the past year, and you'll see. I'm a loyal mac user (Centris 650, 9500(upgrade to G3/333), G4/450 and Dual 450, Powerbook G4/500). I've been a regular reader of the postforum list, and I've seen at least 5-10 formerly rabid mac loyalists switch to Athlons.
They're reluctant to jump ship from Apple, but they have no choice. I have to start looking at Athlons myself, and I really don't want to.
This is my first post in a long long time. Just needed to speak up...
Oh wow, so much stuff. I won't go through your posts point by point, xype, else we'll be here all evening, but I think I've picked out where the problem really lies.
I'm currently involved in a discussion elsewhere about Apple's financial position, and the fact that its bottom line costs are going to increase in the coming months as it introduces new, more expensive technolgy (e.g. LCDs in the new iMacs). It may also have to increase its (already high) R&D costs.
If Apple introduced all the technologies required to bring its Power Mac line up to speed - faster buses, the fastest processors Motorola can produce (in limited quantities), better graphics cards, DDR RAM, etc. - it would have to increase the retail price to something very prohibitive to cover costs. As you point out, comparable Intel/AMD based hardware is already more affordable.
If the average "professional" is happy with Apple's current hardware, then the only solution would be for Apple to introduce high-end workstations at high-end prices. Whether they'd persuade enough current Power Mac users to upgrade, and persuade enough users of other platforms to switch is very debatable.
I agree with Amorph and JLL that there are many people who want to be able to run Maya, Photoshop, After Effects, etc. on one computer, but at the moment it makes much more sense to buy Intel/AMD hardware for that purpose, because there is no way Apple could produce a machine with comparable performance in the same price range.
Of course George Lucas and his team seemed to be very happy running all that stuff on the current hardware, but on the other hand I'm guessing it was a gift from Apple.
I'm sure there was something else...
Oh, yes, we don't currently have our own website, xype, but we shall be launching one with much spammi... I mean publicity later this year.
We originally intended to write and produce our own movies, then quickly started funding and assisting directors. Not long after, we found that you could easily generate the money for that funding by selling media services, so we've hired a whole bunch of people who create commercials, animations, web and multimedia content, and people who know nuts from bolts when it comes to video and audio. It's all working frighteningly well right now, and I'm sad that my illness has kept me away from work more than I'd like, though I'm still keeping up with my "real" jobs workload.
<strong>Belle is getting a new iMac. pscates is happy with an old iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interestingly, though, both Mr. pscates and I are getting new iMacs not to get improved performance, but because of the features offered at a very respectable price - the LCD and SuperDrive in particular.
I'd still buy the new iMac if it had a 700MHz G3 (If that was capable of running iDVD).
Sorry for the off topic, but....Belle what kind of clients are you getting using FCP? Just curious, I'm the Comptroller for two post facilities and a rental business.
With reguards to AppleScript. ITS FREAKING AWESOME. Let me first say that I have never read so much as a book on the technology and have only relied on a couple of websites and the Guidebook modules from Apple. With just this little bit of knowledge I have been able to stumble my way though creating scripts that will allow my office to go virtually paperless. We deal with a lot of documents and information is our biz. Now when a client gives up documents instead of sending off to kinkos for two copies (at least) so everyone can read them everything is scanned in. Then OCR-ed, input into a FileMaker database and then coverted to PDF. The only human interaction part is to feed the scanner. When the scanning is done AppleScript controls FileMaker, the OCR software, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Word, and an image editor to get its work done. I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to do this with VBS and I can assure it would not be nearly as easy or reliable.
> one with much spammi... I mean publicity later
> this year.
Cool, I am setting mine up at <a href="http://www.froodee.com/index2.html"; target="_blank">www.froodee.com/index2.html</a> (currently work in progress) and will also make lots of publicity when it's ready
> We originally intended to write and produce our
> own movies, then quickly started funding and
> assisting directors. Not long after, we found
> that you could easily generate the money for
> that funding by selling media services, so
> we've hired a whole bunch of people who create
> commercials, animations, web and multimedia
> content, and people who know nuts from bolts
> when it comes to video and audio. It's all
> working frighteningly well right now, and I'm
> sad that my illness has kept me away from work
> more than I'd like, though I'm still keeping up
> with my "real" jobs workload.
Glad to hear it's working out that well, I hope your illness is nothing serious and wish you to get well soon!
<strong>Sorry for the off topic, but....Belle what kind of clients are you getting using FCP? Just curious, I'm the Comptroller for two post facilities and a rental business.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most of the FCP work is on internal projects. At the moment we have two editors working on different commercials, one which we shot ourselves, one from an agency, we've got two of our people and a director whose project we funded editing three short movies, one editor working on short clips for a clients website, we've allowed a group of NYU students access to two of our FCP machines and an Avid, and my business partner is editing his feature.
The main outside work is editing broadcast material for a major TV company based here in NYC. We've got a team of three working on that full time, and it's profitable work. I'd like more if we can get it, because it provides capital to fund the internal stuff.
That's a nice looking site, xype. I'll keep an eye on the content as it appears. And thank you for the good wishes.
Uh? If the hardware is twice as fast how comes that software would run slower? Interesting point of view you have.
My car is twice as fast as yours but it wont go two times the mph.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
1. The Duh factor-the computer spends a lot of time waiting for you to make the inputs to tell it what to do, faster clock speed does not ameliorate this. Even uber-pros spend a lot of time telling the computer what to do, which isn't going to go down significantly for most tasks with a faster proc, at least til we get to the Star Trek level of relating to the computer. Many apps are as fast as they need to be-on the PC side most folks running 600-700Mhz PCs aren't feeling a tremendous need to upgrade.
2. Even if the proc is two times faster you will not see that big of a real world speed increase because there are a lot of factors that limit the flow of information to and from the CPU. If you think an 800 Mhz PowerMac G4 is twice as fast as a 400 Mhz G4 you will be one disappointed shopper. Sure on a (very precisely tailored) benchmark the chip goes twice as fast, but in a real world Application shootout you would probably see a much subtler <50% increase.
Some people have stated that the G5 can not be released any time soon because it starts at over 2ghz. This is total BS. Look at Motorola's own website.
Comments
Not what -- how.
PS: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE teach my IT department how to get color calibration to work for our plotters, printers and monitors. We have the software. It no work. They no good. It's only incredibly frustrating.
What happened to the old AI members that new the facts before they started to rant on about G5's at 1.6GHz. That (1.6GHz) would be an Apollo processor not a G5. Duh....
ANd what credible evidence is there that Apple is announcing anything on the 22nd? Is it the fact that a ton of idiots here were bitching about the fact there was no PowerMac at MWSF, and they all said that "Apple should announce new PowerMac's within a few months if not the end of the month - they can't not release a PowerMac at MWSF.
That is where I saw this stupid rumor start. Here at AI!
I don't suppose you realize that Apple released new powerMac's at NY did you? They don't update every product line at every show. I'd say the soonest a major PowerMac update (breaking GHz barrier) would be Seybold. or WWDC.
Oh yes, and it would be a G4 because the G5 debut's at starting speeds of 2GHz+ according to Motorola.
<strong>
That's Apple's trad pro user group--and its one that Apple is trying to "expand" out of. The graphics pros are wierd group, because many of them are still running 4-5 year old machines, and put up with the technology because they were caught in the middle of the shift from analog to digital or they are perfectly happy with their existing setup--see Adobe users forums for Illustrator 10 and there are happy people with G3/233 who can't understand why people complain about the lack of speed with Illustrator 10.
Apple's other pro group, the video and 3D folk [3D are a small market for the Mac right now] really need the speed, but the video folk are happy because of Final Cut and QT. Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it really begs the question as to why Maya got ported to the platform. I believe that Alias knows that Apple will finally close the gap [not surpass] and thats why we have Maya, but as is typical no one knows what Apple is doing. The problem is that there is real platform lock-in here, and its not comfortable to have a business that depends on a company that is not forthcoming about anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you, cowerd, for summing up a little more succinctly what I couldn't.
For many "professionals" in design, publishing, content creation, video, film, etc. would not get any significant gains switching from Apple hardware to Intel/AMD hardware.
The one field that would benefit is 3D design and manipulation. And yet 3D is not, and has never been, a major market or a major target for Apple. I think you'd be making a bad decision to choose Macintosh as a 3D platform right now, or have made that decision in the past, or to think about making it in the near future.
If Apple wants to enter this market it can't, and probably won't, do it with the current Power Mac line. Why? Because the features required would push the line out of a reasonable price range for Apple's traditional market. And even then, you'd find Windows solutions which were faster and cheaper.
I'm being a bitch, so I might as well stick with it. The people bleating the loudest about Power Mac performance and screaming for 1.6GHz G5s are the hobbyists on this forum who want to run pirated copies of Maya (Or the new freebie version) and get Quake frame rates they can boast about to their PC owning buddies.*
By the way, xype, from what position are you arguing? A Mac owner who wants to upgrade? A Windows user who wants to switch? Work for a company who'd switch to Apple if its machines outperformed Intel/AMD hardware? Or one that's considering dumping Apple?
Hah!
> Reread my post. I didn't say it would run
> slower. I said that if the hardware (In
> particular the processor)
Aha, well, yes the overall performance is not just the CPU - I tought you meant the whole system. My bad.
> A very good point, losing customers through
> poor performance would be a major issue.
> However, the comparitive benchmarks for 3D
> rendering, Photoshop processing, video
> processing and compression, etc. don't show up
> a wide gap in performance between the high end
> Macs and Intel/AMD based machines. G4 machines
> (Especially duals with properly written
> software) more than keep up with the fastest
> Pentium or Athlon machines in these tasks. The
> widest gap you'll see in any benchmark
> comparisons is in games performance.
Games are a pretty good benchmark since they tend to really push the whole package. As for the dual G4 machines - if you compare platforms than you'd have to compare the dual G4 machines to the price-equivalent dual Athlon systems. And the Athlon MP is said to be a very impressive dual kit.
> If that "professional" feels he/she needs a
> faster machine than is currently on his/her
> desk, then a faster G4 will be an incentive to
> upgrade.
If the speed difference seems reasonable. But it depends on the tasks the "professional" does.
> If there isn't an incentive for a "professional
> graphic/3D designer" to make that upgrade,
> there is no incentive to switch to the current
> Pentium 4 or Athlon based machines either,
> because the performance gap is negligible.
I don't think so. I experienced the difference of handling large image data and rendering on both platforms and also see the different options as far as 3D, sound and video cards go. And I am a fan of DDR since.
> A G5 may be more of an incentive, but this
> whole situation shows up a failing on the part
> of people posting to this forum, not Apple or
> Motorola. To expect processor speeds in Apple
> machines to leap suddenly from 800MHz to 1.6GHz
> is utterly ridiculous.
I wouldn't mind if the CPU lineup stays the same on DDR and the option to go dual with the 733 CPUs. That'd be a respectable workstation, yet again not if it's offered for $2500+.
> As I've said before, even if Apple had these
> processors, to make that leap overnight would
> be an unsound move financially, especially if
> faster G5s won't appear for many, many months.
I trust Apple that they know what they're doing business-wise and (most likely) waiting patiently for the G5 before I get a new 'puter.
> Do you think that a studio currently working on
> Windows-based machines would make the decision
> to switch to more expensive Apple hardware if a
> 1.6GHz G5 with all the bells and whistles was
> announced tomorrow? I doubt it because the
> performance will not be significantly better
> than the current Pentium/Athlon based machines,
> and those studios will have already made
> massive investments in Windows software
> packages.
Apples are not really that much expensive than pro Wintel computers, it's only you get a bit less bang for the bucks.
> Will Apple-based studios switch to Windows for
> their next purchases if all Apple can manage is
> a dual 1GHz machine? No, for exactly the same
> reasons.
Depends on what the studios are doing. I've seen SGI shops switching to Intel without much tought and they didn't regret it. Their investements in all the Alias and Wavefront packages and even some of their inhouse apps were not the reason not to switch, the performance was the reason to do so (plus Maya 1.0 came out for NT as well).
> Performance is not currently a huge factor in
> increasing market share. In fact, the pro
> market is not currently one of the biggest
> factors.
It's not that important for the market share but in my opinion more for that little profit thingie - Apple can sell pro machines with higher margins, allowing them to sell consumer machines with lower ones thus having even better price/performance ratio and gaining market share in return.
> Is it obvious? I'd be interested in seeing
> benchmarks for that. I don't really follow the
> shootouts as closely as perhaps I ought to.
> When you said an Athlon XP 1700 would kick a
> dual 800MHz G4, did you mean a dual Athlon
> machine or a single?
I ment a dual machine since it comes close to the dual 800 price-wise. A single XP 1700 is less than 1400 $ including a 19" screen.
> So, if you can buy a dual Athlon XP 1700
> machine that wipes the floor with a dual 800MHz
> G4, and both machines have been on the market
> for quite some time, it seems a lot of people
> are still willing to stick with seemingly
> slower Apple machines.
So am I, because Apple make great hardware. But if someone buys new hardware and has 3500 $ to spend he is going to spend it on what seems most viable to him/her. Unless it's a Mac freak. If new customers "see" that a powermac kicks Athlons ass they will more likely consider buying one than when they see a "733 mhz" sticker on it.
And one new customer more means one step closer to those other 95%.
> Hmm, well I just ordered a new iMac and digital
> camera, so I guess I'll be happy.
I was really tempted to get one too, but I need a bigger screen and having to pay 3000$ a semester for my sucky school I can't afford one. Will wait for the G5. Must hold on. Hrmmpf.
> I also co-own a company that creates digital
> content. We just increased capacity in our film
> department, and now have a total of 24 Power
> Macs in that department. The decision was made
> on price, performance, available software, and
> hardware features.
I am just trying to start a company with my friend and we're tight on budget. We are torn between Athlons and Macs - and want to do 3D and realtime 3D for the web stuff as well.
> We went with Apple hardware for several
> reasons - Final Cut Pro offered better features
> over Premiere, and even our old 500MHz G4 runs
> FCP just as well as the fastest Intel/AMD
> machine could run Premiere. Same goes for After
> Effects. DVD Studio Pro was also a big factor
> in choosing Macintosh, as was the SuperDrive,
> and the price and quality of Apple's displays.
> We bought three Avid Media Composer systems,
> and chose to go with the G4-based solutions
> because there's no performance gain in going
> for the Windows-based system.
Seems like your company is doing well, I am glad you brought business to Apple
> We've also saved money in that we've not needed
> to get expensive realtime cards for all the
> machines because the faster G4s get realtime
> processing in FCP3.
Looks like Apple was the right choice for you then. I will still have to run render-test for myself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
> I'd consider our company a very professional
> outfit, and a company with only one Apple
> evangelist (Me), and yet the decisions were
> made by eight people, and not one questioned
> processor and bus speed, only the performance
> of the system and software as a whole.
>
> I wouldn't dare to suggest this is the case
> with every "professional" out there, but it
> does show that the guts of a machine aren't
> always that big a factor in choosing the best
> performing system.
Of course not, and Apple has actually most of the PowerMac done right - it's a remarkable system and if I had the money to burn I'd simply get a mac _and_ a cheap dual athlon box for rendering and that'd be it. But I only have money for 1 system and the fact that that'd be 733 mhz with apple doesn't make my life easier.
Maybe I am also a special case of a customer, wanting to do _everything_ with one machine, that being 3D animation, dcc and the occasional deathmatch, perhaps even all at once - and for that a G5 would be nice.
Just out of curiosity, have a url of your company handy? I'm very much interested!
Well its something that our firm--small 5 G4/DP533, 1 G3/450 ASIP server "accidently" got into through architectural contacts. Its of more interest to our staff, but we have a hardware commitment--no to mention pretty much zero tech support costs. I think the other point I was trying to make is that Apple is very capable of being a reasonable player in the 3D market--Lightwave, Cinema 3D and even FormZ perform reasonably well on some slowly clocked CPU's with a highly bandwidth constrained bus and no pro 3D video card support. Imagine if Apple were to actually deliver a motherboard that kept up to Wintel MBs (DDR at least). Even a 50% performance increase, which we will get with 1GHZ DP machines will really increase out productivity, however that leaves out other Apple variables like initial cost and OSX.
I think OSX is the biggest argument for the fastest freaking machines that Apple can deliver. Working in carbon Illustrator I find that even a DP533 is very slow because of UI and redraw issues. Its an annoyance because the OS dictates how I work rather than the other way around. For anyone who wants to dispute this all I can say is that you never work at a consistent speed on a piece of art. Sometimes slow is better, and sometimes fast is better. OSX negates the fast. More MHZ please.
<strong>This thread totaly overlooks the fact that any processor under the speed of 2GHz + is not a G5. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I tought the G5 started at 800 mhz? It would only be more scalable later on.
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
That's Apple's trad pro user group--and its one that Apple is trying to "expand" out of. The graphics pros are wierd group, because many of them are still running 4-5 year old machines, and put up with the technology because they were caught in the middle of the shift from analog to digital or they are perfectly happy with their existing setup--see Adobe users forums for Illustrator 10 and there are happy people with G3/233 who can't understand why people complain about the lack of speed with Illustrator 10.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You agree with me that the Mac's professional base isn't going anywhere. Good.
Belle is getting a new iMac. pscates is happy with an old iMac. I have a book, Photoshop Studio Secrets, that's chock full of G3 upgraded 6100s! These are professionals, some of them very well known and well regarded, and if they're not complaining about machine speed it's because machine speed isn't that relevant. Remember, my original point was that Mac professionals weren't going to defect. Furthermore, for the same reasons that Mac users won't go anywhere, there are still good reasons for other professionals to embrace the Mac. Raw speed just isn't one of them.
[quote]<strong>Apple's other pro group, the video and 3D folk [3D are a small market for the Mac right now] really need the speed, but the video folk are happy because of Final Cut and QT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The video folk are happy because Apple is delivering real increases in speed (via FCP's interface, etc.) and price/performance (real-time effects in software) and functionality (all of the above on a laptop). Video editing and compositing on a laptop, on site, saves tremendous amounts of time and money. Apple isn't delivering them all via hardware, but professionals don't care how a computer makes them work faster. They just care that it does.
[quote]<strong>Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it really begs the question as to why Maya got ported to the platform. I believe that Alias knows that Apple will finally close the gap [not surpass] and thats why we have Maya, but as is typical no one knows what Apple is doing. The problem is that there is real platform lock-in here, and its not comfortable to have a business that depends on a company that is not forthcoming about anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 3D folks are really the only people who aren't happy right now. Sorry Leonis, but they aren't really part of Apple's traditional base.
However: alias|wavefront did port Maya, and Lightwave did get an AltiVec boost, so clearly someone sees something in the platform. It's not the first time, either: A lot of 3D used to be designed on a Mac and rendered on an SGI. Even now, rendering speed really isn't an issue. Even Bryce can farm that out to a bunch of Linux boxes. By running 3D apps on the Mac, they can use them with applications like FCP and Photoshop, all on the same machine at the same time.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>By the way, xype, from what position are you arguing? A Mac owner who wants to upgrade? A Windows user who wants to switch? Work for a company who'd switch to Apple if its machines outperformed Intel/AMD hardware? Or one that's considering dumping Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My position:
I am going to start up a business in the field of graphic design, multimedia _and_ 3D until july (I am quite confident that I have what it takes
A windows user who loves the Mac experience. I want to get a machine that will last 1.5 years. I worked on both platforms in new media and print and they both covered my needs. I'd love to get a mac and wouldn't mind re-buying all the licences - it's just that I do lots of 3D and in that department the powermac looks sad.
Interestingly of all advertising agencies I know in tyrol (austria) none really uses any color matching, which is sad considering they bought Macs because of their ColorSync. Oh well as long as they make money...
> xype: If you are that completely unfamiliar
> with the Mac's strengths then you will probably
> never understand why no professional Mac house
> is in any hurry to migrate to Windows. Many
> publishing houses quite literally run on
> AppleScript workflows, which they'd have to
> abandon to switch platforms. For more, see
> cowerd's post, quoted below.
I know mac strenghts but I also know that a lot of people are putting a lot of energy in order to make tha same workflow as easy on the Wintel platform. And a lot of medium sized companies in the advertising/new media field down here don't even know that they can match their screens colors to fit their printer (!).
> You agree with me that the Mac's professional
> base isn't going anywhere. Good.
Of course tehy are not. But that doesn't get Apple much more marketshare now, does it? Apple has the door to the whole graphic segment of the market open (and since OSX a chunk of the Unix market as well). It's that those companies wont switch platform unless Apple gives them a good reason to do so (eg, fastest unix workstation)
>> Its the 3D folk that are suffering, and it
>> really begs the question as to why Maya got
>> ported to the platform.
I always tought it might have been more a proof of concept than anything else.
> The 3D folks are really the only people who
> aren't happy right now. Sorry Leonis, but they
> aren't really part of Apple's traditional base.
That's the point. Traditional base is 5% and a few new 3D pro users might give Apple another percent or two in the pro market - where money is often less an objective as elsewhere.
<strong>By running 3D apps on the Mac, they can use them with applications like FCP and Photoshop, all on the same machine at the same time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is exactly what Alias|Wavefront said at MWSF - Maya on Mac integrates with other Mac apps and technologies.
They're reluctant to jump ship from Apple, but they have no choice. I have to start looking at Athlons myself, and I really don't want to.
This is my first post in a long long time. Just needed to speak up...
I'm currently involved in a discussion elsewhere about Apple's financial position, and the fact that its bottom line costs are going to increase in the coming months as it introduces new, more expensive technolgy (e.g. LCDs in the new iMacs). It may also have to increase its (already high) R&D costs.
If Apple introduced all the technologies required to bring its Power Mac line up to speed - faster buses, the fastest processors Motorola can produce (in limited quantities), better graphics cards, DDR RAM, etc. - it would have to increase the retail price to something very prohibitive to cover costs. As you point out, comparable Intel/AMD based hardware is already more affordable.
If the average "professional" is happy with Apple's current hardware, then the only solution would be for Apple to introduce high-end workstations at high-end prices. Whether they'd persuade enough current Power Mac users to upgrade, and persuade enough users of other platforms to switch is very debatable.
I agree with Amorph and JLL that there are many people who want to be able to run Maya, Photoshop, After Effects, etc. on one computer, but at the moment it makes much more sense to buy Intel/AMD hardware for that purpose, because there is no way Apple could produce a machine with comparable performance in the same price range.
Of course George Lucas and his team seemed to be very happy running all that stuff on the current hardware, but on the other hand I'm guessing it was a gift from Apple.
I'm sure there was something else...
Oh, yes, we don't currently have our own website, xype, but we shall be launching one with much spammi... I mean publicity later this year.
We originally intended to write and produce our own movies, then quickly started funding and assisting directors. Not long after, we found that you could easily generate the money for that funding by selling media services, so we've hired a whole bunch of people who create commercials, animations, web and multimedia content, and people who know nuts from bolts when it comes to video and audio. It's all working frighteningly well right now, and I'm sad that my illness has kept me away from work more than I'd like, though I'm still keeping up with my "real" jobs workload.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong>Belle is getting a new iMac. pscates is happy with an old iMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interestingly, though, both Mr. pscates and I are getting new iMacs not to get improved performance, but because of the features offered at a very respectable price - the LCD and SuperDrive in particular.
I'd still buy the new iMac if it had a 700MHz G3 (If that was capable of running iDVD).
AppleScript rocks my world!
> Oh, yes, we don't currently have our own
> website, xype, but we shall be launching
> one with much spammi... I mean publicity later
> this year.
Cool, I am setting mine up at <a href="http://www.froodee.com/index2.html"; target="_blank">www.froodee.com/index2.html</a> (currently work in progress) and will also make lots of publicity when it's ready
> We originally intended to write and produce our
> own movies, then quickly started funding and
> assisting directors. Not long after, we found
> that you could easily generate the money for
> that funding by selling media services, so
> we've hired a whole bunch of people who create
> commercials, animations, web and multimedia
> content, and people who know nuts from bolts
> when it comes to video and audio. It's all
> working frighteningly well right now, and I'm
> sad that my illness has kept me away from work
> more than I'd like, though I'm still keeping up
> with my "real" jobs workload.
Glad to hear it's working out that well, I hope your illness is nothing serious and wish you to get well soon!
Apple must release G5s that match the athlon speeds, 1.67Ghz etc so that they can put the Power back in PowerMac.
I'm holding out for a G5, and can't wait for a blazing fast machine.
<strong>Sorry for the off topic, but....Belle what kind of clients are you getting using FCP? Just curious, I'm the Comptroller for two post facilities and a rental business.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most of the FCP work is on internal projects. At the moment we have two editors working on different commercials, one which we shot ourselves, one from an agency, we've got two of our people and a director whose project we funded editing three short movies, one editor working on short clips for a clients website, we've allowed a group of NYU students access to two of our FCP machines and an Avid, and my business partner is editing his feature.
The main outside work is editing broadcast material for a major TV company based here in NYC. We've got a team of three working on that full time, and it's profitable work. I'd like more if we can get it, because it provides capital to fund the internal stuff.
That's a nice looking site, xype. I'll keep an eye on the content as it appears. And thank you for the good wishes.
Uh? If the hardware is twice as fast how comes that software would run slower? Interesting point of view you have.
My car is twice as fast as yours but it wont go two times the mph.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
1. The Duh factor-the computer spends a lot of time waiting for you to make the inputs to tell it what to do, faster clock speed does not ameliorate this. Even uber-pros spend a lot of time telling the computer what to do, which isn't going to go down significantly for most tasks with a faster proc, at least til we get to the Star Trek level of relating to the computer. Many apps are as fast as they need to be-on the PC side most folks running 600-700Mhz PCs aren't feeling a tremendous need to upgrade.
2. Even if the proc is two times faster you will not see that big of a real world speed increase because there are a lot of factors that limit the flow of information to and from the CPU. If you think an 800 Mhz PowerMac G4 is twice as fast as a 400 Mhz G4 you will be one disappointed shopper. Sure on a (very precisely tailored) benchmark the chip goes twice as fast, but in a real world Application shootout you would probably see a much subtler <50% increase.
<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230"; target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/ov erview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230</a>
This states that the G5 will start at 800Mhz and scale upward past 2Ghz.
Do these people just make crap like this up??? Who Knows???????
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: M5884 ]</p>