Notice how the performance ratings appear to be in direct proportion to their clock speeds. Oh... but MHz doesn't matter. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
If you're going to another immature, teenage troll, please be a bit more original.
For certain things the mac is much faster. They happen to be the only tasks that I require performance for, so for me the mac is faster. But in truth I don't really care, since I don't have the latest machine anyway.
If you're going to another immature, teenage troll, please be a bit more original.
For certain things the mac is much faster. They happen to be the only tasks that I require performance for, so for me the mac is faster. But in truth I don't really care, since I don't have the latest machine anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
THANK YOU! I'm so glad you made that point. It's just so true. But in truth I don't really care, since I don't have the latest machine anyway.
no one does. or at least after a few months no one does. worry about yourself and if you know what's true than good for you.
Notice how the performance ratings appear to be in direct proportion to their clock speeds. Oh... but MHz doesn't matter. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's HIGHLY peculiar that they REMOVED 512MB from the PC rather than adding another 512MB to the PowerMac G4-1x2. Did they not take into account the working set involved? I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Mac was "starving" some for RAM under 10.1.3 in this task. It's curious the PC was modified again, this time with a replacement hard disk vs. the RAID setup it shipped with.
Further, it's not specifically stated whether they're running the OSX "native" releases or not. The reader is to presume since they mention 10.1.3 and fail to mention Classic they're running them as "native" apps. The actual text does not support any particular conclusion.
These are, really, first generation on OSX. It might have been instructive to see the Mac did under 9.2.2 which was surely pre-installed. Alas they decided to starve the reader of details (totally unnecessarily in the context of the Web) which suggests they really weren't all that interested in showing "objective" testing results.
While I do *not* believe the PowerMac G4-1x2 would've necessarily matched or exceeded the performance of the PC but it might have been nice to have more data (e.g. 9.2.2 tested too) and a more reasonable RAM configuration (1 GB is a virtual certainty for persons doing such work) as well as some definite statement about whether the apps were run via Classic or as Carbonized "native" apps.
It's HIGHLY peculiar that they REMOVED 512MB from the PC rather than adding another 512MB to the PowerMac G4-1x2. Did they not take into account the working set involved? I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Mac was "starving" some for RAM under 10.1.3 in this task. It's curious the PC was modified again, this time with a replacement hard disk vs. the RAID setup it shipped with.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it that every test that shows the Mac as a weaker performer than the PC is considered suspect? Not everyone is out to get you.
The ram was removed from the PC for a very good reason. That is the amount that came with the Mac. Why didn't he add another processor to the Mac? OS X can handle it. He was testing the best Mac as offered by the company. It was not his job to come up with BTO configs that would make the Mac look better. He didn't starve the Mac, Apple did! If you don't like how the Mac in his test was configured, don't blame him, blame Apple. He had to strip down the PC to compete with the Mac. If he had tried to bring the Mac up to PC standards, the Mac would have no doubt performed better, but then so would have the PC.
Also, why should he compare the program using 9.2.2 instead the more recent OS? It is Apple that insists everyone switch to X. Therefore, when someone does a comparison test using the system that Apple wants everyone to use, you cry foul. It is past time to quit apologizing for OSX. It is either ready for prime time or its not. If not, then people who are considering making the switch because of the new OS should know that. Wouldn't you agree?
One last thing. If those of you who complain about the results of these tests are to be believed, everyone is out to make the Mac look bad. Your platform only shines if testers use very specific features of a dual processor aware, altivec enhanced software running on the right version of the right OS (9 or X) on a machine with the right BTO specs on the right day of the week under a full moon on Eastern Orthodox New Year's eve. Absurd!!!
<strong>Why is it that every test that shows the Mac as a weaker performer than the PC is considered suspect? Not everyone is out to get you. !!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a PC users and developer, you obviously *DIDN'T* read my post. I even conceded the Mac would highly likely not catch up to the PC, much less pass it.
This "objective" test however *IS* bogus and suspect. I listed reasons why any reader should question it. The number one being not adding RAM to the Mac while doing all those PC modifications. One needn't suspect a PC "conspiracy" or invoke a martyr syndrome to legitimately question the terms of this test.
MacOS X has a larger working set requirement than XP, of that I'm reasonably sure. It's questionable whether XP would see as much benefit from added RAM as MacOS X. There is a point where the benefit levels off and 512MB may well be past that point for XP. I'm more familiar with Windows 2000. No "pro" would not add more RAM to the Mac system to avoid the pitfalls of starvation and taking unnecessary VM hits.
Why not test 9.2.2? It's currently pre-installed. It's still used. It's not dead for customers, just developers. Maybe he couldn't find the Startup Disk area of System Preferences to switch over? Why do all that work on the PC and not, out of curiousity sake, test 9.2.2 as well when it's already seconds away? No "pro" would use MacOS X just because Apple ships the system that way if 9.2.2 will do the same tasks faster if there are no other mitigating factors in favor of using MacOS X. Sorry, this test's claims of objectivity or supposedly applicability to the real world are worthless. It's not even very instructive.
With a *LITTLE* effort, he could have designed a better test as well as provided more details about the conditions.
I do love a good debate but only when there is a fine point of logic to be considered. I fail to see the logic in your position so I really don't know how to procede.
The reviewer tested two specific machines with one application to see which machine performed better. He wasn't trying to build the fastest posible machines. He took two machines as advertised by the two companies to see which was better at the task. As it happens, he chose the best standard configured PowerMac. He compaired it to a PC that was far from the best in its configuration and on top of that, it was cheaper.
Now here's where you argument gets confusing.
"This "objective" test however *IS* bogus and suspect. I listed reasons why any reader should question it. The number one being not adding RAM to the Mac while doing all those PC modifications."
Let me get this straight. The test is bogus because he didn't modify the Mac to make it better than it was when Apple shipped it? All those PC modifications you mentioned were to strip the PC of some of it power to get closer to the top of the line Mac. Are you suggesting he should have tested the better speced PC as it was?
"MacOS X has a larger working set requirement than XP, of that I'm reasonably sure. It's questionable whether XP would see as much benefit from added RAM as MacOS X. There is a point where the benefit levels off and 512MB may well be past that point for XP."
Are you suggesting that X has more overhead (baggage) than XP? Are you suggesting that he should have given the Mac more ram so the Mac would have an advantage? Are you saying that 512MB is plenty for XP but starvation rations for X when it comes to doing real work? Are you saying that XP handles ram better or that it needs less ram to run well or that X needs gobs and gobs of ram to be competitive? Is that what you're saying?
"Why not test 9.2.2? It's currently pre- installed. It's still used. It's not dead for customers, just developers."
So consumers should make purchasing decisions based on the performance of an OS that is at end of life status and is not being developed for anymore? What if it had been faster in 9? So what? That is not the current OS. It has no future in the Mac world, at least according to SJ. Had he tested the latest greatest OS from MS against the last gen OS from Apple, that would have been reason to suspect his objectivity.
"No "pro" would use MacOS X just because Apple ships the system that way if 9.2.2 will do the same tasks faster if there are no other mitigating factors in favor of using MacOS X."
If no pro would use X, why is Apple suggesting they should? Why should anyone else? Are you saying that X is that crappy? That's news to a lot of people who have switch or are thinking about switching platforms because of X. Thanks for the heads up.
"With a *LITTLE* effort, he could have designed a better test as well as provided more details about the conditions."
How much more effort did you have in mind? Since you can't put a better mobo in the Mac, he would have had to trade the PC mobo with a three year old model. How much ram should he have fed that poor starving Mac? He stripped out the superior hard drive system from the PC and replaced it with the same one found in the Mac. He gave all kinds of details about the conditions of test.
The problem is not that he didn't design a fair test. The problem is that Apple didn't design a competitive machine. You seem to be upset because he didn't go out of his way to make the Mac perform better. That is a job for Apple, not an unbiased reviewer.
Your arguments only make Apple look worse. Perhaps someone else can explain your position better. Or perhaps I'm just too stupid to comprehend your fine points of logic.
Comments
The brain is the only computer made of meat. Shut down the Mac and exercise yours. It's probably faster than even a P4.
Sincerely,
po' taylor
<strong><a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm</a>;
Notice how the performance ratings appear to be in direct proportion to their clock speeds. Oh... but MHz doesn't matter. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
If you're going to another immature, teenage troll, please be a bit more original.
For certain things the mac is much faster. They happen to be the only tasks that I require performance for, so for me the mac is faster. But in truth I don't really care, since I don't have the latest machine anyway.
<strong>
If you're going to another immature, teenage troll, please be a bit more original.
For certain things the mac is much faster. They happen to be the only tasks that I require performance for, so for me the mac is faster. But in truth I don't really care, since I don't have the latest machine anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
THANK YOU! I'm so glad you made that point. It's just so true. But in truth I don't really care, since I don't have the latest machine anyway.
no one does. or at least after a few months no one does. worry about yourself and if you know what's true than good for you.
<strong><a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm</a>;
Notice how the performance ratings appear to be in direct proportion to their clock speeds. Oh... but MHz doesn't matter. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's HIGHLY peculiar that they REMOVED 512MB from the PC rather than adding another 512MB to the PowerMac G4-1x2. Did they not take into account the working set involved? I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Mac was "starving" some for RAM under 10.1.3 in this task. It's curious the PC was modified again, this time with a replacement hard disk vs. the RAID setup it shipped with.
Further, it's not specifically stated whether they're running the OSX "native" releases or not. The reader is to presume since they mention 10.1.3 and fail to mention Classic they're running them as "native" apps. The actual text does not support any particular conclusion.
These are, really, first generation on OSX. It might have been instructive to see the Mac did under 9.2.2 which was surely pre-installed. Alas they decided to starve the reader of details (totally unnecessarily in the context of the Web) which suggests they really weren't all that interested in showing "objective" testing results.
While I do *not* believe the PowerMac G4-1x2 would've necessarily matched or exceeded the performance of the PC but it might have been nice to have more data (e.g. 9.2.2 tested too) and a more reasonable RAM configuration (1 GB is a virtual certainty for persons doing such work) as well as some definite statement about whether the apps were run via Classic or as Carbonized "native" apps.
<strong>
It's HIGHLY peculiar that they REMOVED 512MB from the PC rather than adding another 512MB to the PowerMac G4-1x2. Did they not take into account the working set involved? I wouldn't be surprised to learn the Mac was "starving" some for RAM under 10.1.3 in this task. It's curious the PC was modified again, this time with a replacement hard disk vs. the RAID setup it shipped with.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it that every test that shows the Mac as a weaker performer than the PC is considered suspect? Not everyone is out to get you.
The ram was removed from the PC for a very good reason. That is the amount that came with the Mac. Why didn't he add another processor to the Mac? OS X can handle it. He was testing the best Mac as offered by the company. It was not his job to come up with BTO configs that would make the Mac look better. He didn't starve the Mac, Apple did! If you don't like how the Mac in his test was configured, don't blame him, blame Apple. He had to strip down the PC to compete with the Mac. If he had tried to bring the Mac up to PC standards, the Mac would have no doubt performed better, but then so would have the PC.
Also, why should he compare the program using 9.2.2 instead the more recent OS? It is Apple that insists everyone switch to X. Therefore, when someone does a comparison test using the system that Apple wants everyone to use, you cry foul. It is past time to quit apologizing for OSX. It is either ready for prime time or its not. If not, then people who are considering making the switch because of the new OS should know that. Wouldn't you agree?
One last thing. If those of you who complain about the results of these tests are to be believed, everyone is out to make the Mac look bad. Your platform only shines if testers use very specific features of a dual processor aware, altivec enhanced software running on the right version of the right OS (9 or X) on a machine with the right BTO specs on the right day of the week under a full moon on Eastern Orthodox New Year's eve. Absurd!!!
<strong>Why is it that every test that shows the Mac as a weaker performer than the PC is considered suspect? Not everyone is out to get you. !!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a PC users and developer, you obviously *DIDN'T* read my post. I even conceded the Mac would highly likely not catch up to the PC, much less pass it.
This "objective" test however *IS* bogus and suspect. I listed reasons why any reader should question it. The number one being not adding RAM to the Mac while doing all those PC modifications. One needn't suspect a PC "conspiracy" or invoke a martyr syndrome to legitimately question the terms of this test.
MacOS X has a larger working set requirement than XP, of that I'm reasonably sure. It's questionable whether XP would see as much benefit from added RAM as MacOS X. There is a point where the benefit levels off and 512MB may well be past that point for XP. I'm more familiar with Windows 2000. No "pro" would not add more RAM to the Mac system to avoid the pitfalls of starvation and taking unnecessary VM hits.
Why not test 9.2.2? It's currently pre-installed. It's still used. It's not dead for customers, just developers. Maybe he couldn't find the Startup Disk area of System Preferences to switch over? Why do all that work on the PC and not, out of curiousity sake, test 9.2.2 as well when it's already seconds away? No "pro" would use MacOS X just because Apple ships the system that way if 9.2.2 will do the same tasks faster if there are no other mitigating factors in favor of using MacOS X. Sorry, this test's claims of objectivity or supposedly applicability to the real world are worthless. It's not even very instructive.
With a *LITTLE* effort, he could have designed a better test as well as provided more details about the conditions.
Anyway. It's nice to have a lot of RAM
I do love a good debate but only when there is a fine point of logic to be considered. I fail to see the logic in your position so I really don't know how to procede.
The reviewer tested two specific machines with one application to see which machine performed better. He wasn't trying to build the fastest posible machines. He took two machines as advertised by the two companies to see which was better at the task. As it happens, he chose the best standard configured PowerMac. He compaired it to a PC that was far from the best in its configuration and on top of that, it was cheaper.
Now here's where you argument gets confusing.
"This "objective" test however *IS* bogus and suspect. I listed reasons why any reader should question it. The number one being not adding RAM to the Mac while doing all those PC modifications."
Let me get this straight. The test is bogus because he didn't modify the Mac to make it better than it was when Apple shipped it? All those PC modifications you mentioned were to strip the PC of some of it power to get closer to the top of the line Mac. Are you suggesting he should have tested the better speced PC as it was?
"MacOS X has a larger working set requirement than XP, of that I'm reasonably sure. It's questionable whether XP would see as much benefit from added RAM as MacOS X. There is a point where the benefit levels off and 512MB may well be past that point for XP."
Are you suggesting that X has more overhead (baggage) than XP? Are you suggesting that he should have given the Mac more ram so the Mac would have an advantage? Are you saying that 512MB is plenty for XP but starvation rations for X when it comes to doing real work? Are you saying that XP handles ram better or that it needs less ram to run well or that X needs gobs and gobs of ram to be competitive? Is that what you're saying?
"Why not test 9.2.2? It's currently pre- installed. It's still used. It's not dead for customers, just developers."
So consumers should make purchasing decisions based on the performance of an OS that is at end of life status and is not being developed for anymore? What if it had been faster in 9? So what? That is not the current OS. It has no future in the Mac world, at least according to SJ. Had he tested the latest greatest OS from MS against the last gen OS from Apple, that would have been reason to suspect his objectivity.
"No "pro" would use MacOS X just because Apple ships the system that way if 9.2.2 will do the same tasks faster if there are no other mitigating factors in favor of using MacOS X."
If no pro would use X, why is Apple suggesting they should? Why should anyone else? Are you saying that X is that crappy? That's news to a lot of people who have switch or are thinking about switching platforms because of X. Thanks for the heads up.
"With a *LITTLE* effort, he could have designed a better test as well as provided more details about the conditions."
How much more effort did you have in mind? Since you can't put a better mobo in the Mac, he would have had to trade the PC mobo with a three year old model. How much ram should he have fed that poor starving Mac? He stripped out the superior hard drive system from the PC and replaced it with the same one found in the Mac. He gave all kinds of details about the conditions of test.
The problem is not that he didn't design a fair test. The problem is that Apple didn't design a competitive machine. You seem to be upset because he didn't go out of his way to make the Mac perform better. That is a job for Apple, not an unbiased reviewer.
Your arguments only make Apple look worse. Perhaps someone else can explain your position better. Or perhaps I'm just too stupid to comprehend your fine points of logic.