From what I've been taught in my A+ classes, the advantage of a SCSI chain is NOT so much that it is inherently faster at data transfer than an ATA drive (as they both move data to the HD in un-sustained bursts). The advantage is that multiple devices (e.g. HD1, HD2, SCANNER, CDROM, DVDROM, etc.) on the same SCSI chain can SIMULTANEOUSLY transmit/receive data. Whereas, an ATA bus can only communicate with ONE of its devices at a time (e.g. HD1 or CDROM on the same ATA controller, but NOT both at the same time).
I guess I don't see how SCSI comes into play since my (personal) beef is with apple supplying ATA/66 controllers with their PowerMacs instead of something more advanced.
I think we'd all like to see the latest and greatest components in our systems. However, I don't fully understand your argument here. You just acknowledge that ATA is only going to handle one thing at a time. Now, the ATA66 can handle (theoretically) 66MB/sec. The best ATA 7200rpm hard drives can deliver what 35-40MB/sec. tops? Either way, todays drives really can't saturate an ATA66 bus. I realize there is a difference between actual and theoretical performance, but how much faster do you think a drive will be on an ATA133 bus, let alone an ATA100?
<strong>('Whoops, 'Power'mac has been lapped three times by Intel Pantium 4.') Signal for more 'Power'mac users to abandon ship. Perhaps some professionals look not just whether it was fast compared to my last mac but whether it's value for money to what they can get else where. Windows with XP is getting increasingly bareable.
I don't think Mac users need to be lectured on what they actually use their machines for. I like the Mac Os X. I presume most people who post here do so too and would just like apple to push the boat out more than 'a little'. 'X'? It isn't worth £3000 for 'X' on an out of date machine. Well, not to me it isn't.
I don't see the dual 1 gig G4 beating my Athlon 1.6 gig. The AMD seemed faster to me. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. That said, I'm sure their will be those that switch platforms at the drop of a hat. I doubt any professionals will. It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms. Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough. I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform. It is. The same is true for PC shops. Sure people like to bitch and moan on forums such as this, but these are the vocal minority.
As for the dual G4 vs. your Athlon, etc. I too am a dual platform user. I'm sure your Athlon IS faster at many single threaded tasks. I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time, or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks that I do in conjuction with work. I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation, "digital hub", stuff, etc. I use neither platform because of a MHZ difference, rather I use the best tool for the job. This usually involves other aspects such as the Operating system and the applications (and plugins) available to support the required task. In short, my opinion doesn't sway from day to day based on MHZ jumps on one platform or another.
Good responses! I too use both platforms. Software is an expensive investment..if you go changing your Platform with every change in Megahertz you better have one hell of a Software collection.
(and that's mine on the current 'power'Mac lines.)
"That said, I'm sure their will be those that switch platforms at the drop of a hat."
I doubt anybody switches from the Mac platform 'at the drop of a hat'.
Speaking personally, the 'temporary' move to PC was taken after the Powerpc was 'stuck' at 500mhz for eighteen months...and fell, laughably, further behind than .5 gig. They're over a 'gig' behind!
For 3D at the time, Macs were a joke. They're better now!
The software's there!
BUT the hardware simply isn't good enough for the price you pay. Simple economics.
"I doubt any professionals will."
Yeah. I guess you're right. After all, 'power'Mac sales have dropped from a over half a million a quarter to? Wintel are making inroads into Apple's stronghold markets such as Education and Print!
I wonder why... (though it may not be singularly down to the cpu issue, it's a LARGE contributing factor. When people see the spec list Apple's don't seem to offer 'value' for money on specs.)
"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."
What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?
Or like schools dumping their aged Mac suits to go Wintel/Dell?
Yes. You have a point. But there comes a point where the x86 competition will be so far ahead that they go: next budget? We go Wintel...leave the odd Mac for photoshopping.
"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."
That's right. But the performance and bang for buck difference right now is embarrassing. Apple must have some hope they'll 'catch' the x86 mhz juggernaut.
Take away the gimmicks of the new imac and the 'new' ibook from Apple sales from the last year and Apple are in trouble.
Fact. Look at the fine print of their results.
If Apple did 'beige' boxes? I think they'd be seriously struggling.
"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."
Well, for some reason, it's oft quoted and reported on the net that Mac print market, while still a 'strong hold' has suffered some x86 erosion. Why would that be?
"It is."
Agreed, of course!
"As for the dual G4 vs. your Athlon, etc. I too am a dual platform user. I'm sure your Athlon IS faster at many single threaded tasks."
It is.
"I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time,"
Something Windows 2000 can't do?
I (as a human being) can't run multiple applications at the same time. I can only do one thing at a time.
"or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks"
Heavily optimised or not. Photoshop or Lightwave.
A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple. Sure. It's my opinion. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen benches on the net. So. I don't upgrade to a 'Power' until they got some 'POWER'. Competition. Hello, Apple!
"I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation,"
I used a Powermac clone for four years. The best work I ever produced. And more to the point, the most I ever enjoyed being on an OS or working on a computer.
So. Why did I switch?
I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'.
Basically I do not think that the Power Macs currently even touch the potential of OSX. Apple's software progression seems to be far outpacing the hardware.
"Basically I do not think that the Power Macs currently even touch the potential of OSX. Apple's software progression seems to be far outpacing the hardware."
<strong>"I doubt anybody switches from the Mac platform 'at the drop of a hat'.
Speaking personally, the 'temporary' move to PC was taken after the Powerpc was 'stuck' at 500mhz for eighteen months...and fell, laughably, further behind than .5 gig. They're over a 'gig' behind!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
So... you doubt anyone will switch a the drop of the hat, then you admitted you did just that, now it's temporary because your back? Ummm... Okay, whatever...
[quote]<strong>
For 3D at the time, Macs were a joke. They're better now!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's changed? We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya. Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either.
[quote]<strong>
BUT the hardware simply isn't good enough for the price you pay. Simple economics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Macs have always been at a premium when it comes to price. Of course, there is also an argument that in many ways, they are configured better (firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc.). Then, when you add in the cost of the digital hub apps that let you do quite a bit right out of the box, you find that Macs aren't really priced that terrible. Further, when you compare to similar workstations on the PC side, the price seems even better.
[quote]<strong>
"I doubt any professionals will."
Yeah. I guess you're right. After all, 'power'Mac sales have dropped from a over half a million a quarter to? Wintel are making inroads into Apple's stronghold markets such as Education and Print!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Generally speaking, the Education market has little if any impact on sales of the high end machines. Likewise, you're note about the decline of Powermac sales is moot. You've also failed to mention the increase in sales in iBooks and Powerbooks, etc.
As for the publishing market, I have not seen any data which suggests these significant inroads by the Wintel market. Do you have any source of data for this information to share?
[quote]<strong>
I wonder why... (though it may not be singularly down to the cpu issue, it's a LARGE contributing factor. When people see the spec list Apple's don't seem to offer 'value' for money on specs.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rather than just speculate, have you ever spoke to the owner, or at least someone whose in charge at a Mac based shop that has a large number of machines and lots of money invested in software, training and peripherals? I have. If you did, you would know that each company generally has it's own product refresh cycle. How long that cycle lasts generally depends on a number of factors. The fact that G4s sat at 500mhz for 18 months is certainly a factor as to why the upgrades aren't pouring in now that the high end is only 1GHZ. This point is true. However, as G5s or even G4s are announced in the 1.4 - 1.5 GHZ range, I suspect that would be enough of a performance increase to justify an upgrade for those with 500mhz (and lower) machines. I don't think this has very much (if any) to do with percieved value in terms of what an equivalent PC would cost. Rather, it has everything to do with justifying the cost of an upgrade for a 2x (or less) improvement.
[quote]<strong>
"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."
What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?
Or like schools dumping their aged Mac suits to go Wintel/Dell?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course migrations happen. I don't think anyone claims this doesn't happen. Just read MacCentral, and they'll point out "forward migrations" to the Mac platform as well. I'm concerned with general trends. Most of the trend away from Macs occurred during the "dark days" back in '96 - '98. Since then, I don't see a real significant erosion of the Mac's marketshare. In fact, Apple has even taken back lost markets such as digital video, etc. Yes, it's a niche market, but it's also high profile.
[quote]<strong>
Yes. You have a point. But there comes a point where the x86 competition will be so far ahead that they go: next budget? We go Wintel...leave the odd Mac for photoshopping.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No doubt there will be some that make ignorant decisions based on numbers like MHZ. PowerPC is not likely to bridge a MHZ gap as long as it's competing with a P4 20 stage pipeline, sacrifice anything for MHZ type of architecture. The more intelligent people will judge Macs by how well they perform their job, how much support and aggrevation they require to maintain as compared to PCs, and possibly determine (as you mention) if they are still competitive in performance for what they do.
[quote]<strong>
"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."
That's right. But the performance and bang for buck difference right now is embarrassing. Apple must have some hope they'll 'catch' the x86 mhz juggernaut.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if that's true across the board. I recall seeing a comparison between Apple's new iMac and a similar setup from Gateway (flat panel, dvd burner, etc.). The iMac was considered the better deal, and it's bundled software was considered to be much better the the "digital hub" alternatives on the PC.
Yes, at the high end PC arena, you get considerably better bang for the buck, until you hit the "workstation" class machine. There will always be some, possibly even a majority that purchase soley on "bang for the buck". Others will buy what they want, regardless of perceived value. Remember, percentage wise, the Mac is already a niche market. Likewise, you're assuming this niche market will be as easily swayed as you. I think history shows, even in difficult and uncertain times for the platform, that the majority of Mac users are not as easily swayed as you.
[quote]<strong>
Take away the gimmicks of the new imac and the 'new' ibook from Apple sales from the last year and Apple are in trouble.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gimmicks? I don't know. I don't think gimmicks last as long as the original iMac, do you? The gimmicks get people's attention, but the substance is why people buy. The previous iMac was not just competing against a beige box, it was a horribly designed and seriously underpowered beige box called the Performa. The Performa's also had a very confusing set of different models and model numbers, etc.
[quote]<strong>
Fact. Look at the fine print of their results.
If Apple did 'beige' boxes? I think they'd be seriously struggling.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not really a fair comparison to make. You're comparing all of the bad things Apple has done prior to Jobs' return to all of the good things that have happened since, by the color of the box. This type of comparison is a gross oversimplification of what has changed since that time.
[quote]<strong>
"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."
Well, for some reason, it's oft quoted and reported on the net that Mac print market, while still a 'strong hold' has suffered some x86 erosion. Why would that be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This may or may not be true. I have not seen these quotes that you're referring to. Again, not that I don't believe you, but I would be interested if you could send me a few links which discuss this.
[quote]<strong>
"I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time,"
Something Windows 2000 can't do?
I (as a human being) can't run multiple applications at the same time. I can only do one thing at a time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Windows can multitask, I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. However, I believe we were comparing the performance of your 1.6GHZ Athlon to a dual 1 GHZ G4.
As for doing more than one thing at a time, I often do several things at a time. Playing an MP3, burning a CD, while surfing the net is a fairly common example of this. Dual CPUs balance the load very well. The value of multiple CPUs comes into play when running tasks in the background.
[quote]<strong>
"or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks"
Heavily optimised or not. Photoshop or Lightwave.
A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple. Sure. It's my opinion. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen benches on the net. So. I don't upgrade to a 'Power' until they got some 'POWER'. Competition. Hello, Apple!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thats true with some single threaded non vectorized tasks. This is absolutely not true across the board. Even within the programs you mention, it depends on the action being performed. Also, even in the case where the program you're running is single threaded, the high end Mac (dual cpu) will be able to walk and chew gum (multitask) a bit smoother due to the greater "system" performance.
[quote]<strong>
"I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation,"
I used a Powermac clone for four years. The best work I ever produced. And more to the point, the most I ever enjoyed being on an OS or working on a computer.
So. Why did I switch?
I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great, so you've sacrificed an admittedly superior working environment for a perceived performance improvement. You then group other Mac users (I suppose) into a mass insult by calling them a legin of face suckers. Nice. The thing is, you come off so bitter about Apple, that it's hard to take your position objectively. You appear to have an axe to grind with Apple and seem to use every opportunity to hammer them, whether your argument is rational or not.
Do I wish Apple made faster Macs? Sure? Will I abandon the platform because they're behind in MHZ? No. I use my Mac for many things because I prefer the OS. Generally speaking, I find the workflow for some tasks to be noticably better on the Mac side. That said, I also have a need to use PCs. Some tasks are better suited for PCs. Likewise, I happily own both. It's not a big deal. Being a dual platform users has helped me keep a better perspective on the Mac vs PC thing as compared to many of the extremists on both sides. My last upgrade was for the PC side. This summer, I'll upgrade my Mac. Why? Because whatever is available in July/August, it will be much better than what I'm using now, regardless as to how it compares to my PC for price and performance.
"So... you doubt anyone will switch a the drop of the hat, then you admitted you did just that,"
Check eyesight. (Again, I guess you view making a decision over many years, 'Drop of a hat'.)
"now it's temporary because your back? Ummm... Okay, whatever..."
I didn't say I was 'back' either.
"What's changed?"
Maya. GL.
"We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya."
Correct. A world class 3D program and decent Gl. Big difference. ie Macs weren't taken seriously at 3D.
"Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either."
Look closely. This is about hardware. But seeing as you mention software...(I have Lightwave for the Mac/PC...and have plenty of respect for that...but take that away? Electric Image...and..? Years ago C4D was a hatchling...)
Mac 3D software? Previously? 'Okay'. It's better now. But it's still lacking some big hitters.
The lack of Gl, lack of high end 3D card, fitting an almost £3,000 'workstation' 'power'Mac with a 'Rage' 16/32 meg card for what seemed like years!!!! ....AND...Quickdraw (Okay, I'm reaching really far back for that one... )
For many years. 'power'Macs. Joke. Simple words. My view. Your point on the software. Well...okay, we had Lightwave. (A very wobbly version of until relatively recently...go Rage ATi...)
They are 'less of joke' only in comparison to previous Mac 3D workstations.
I guess I'm talking hardware 'joke'...but the x/gl software has got them on track.
"Macs have always been at a premium "
SO that makes it alright to charge almost £3,000 for a Mac workstation that gets hammered by the equivalent PC workstation? For techology I, ahem, lets get this right now, 'perceive' to be out of date, ridiculously over priced as opposed to premiumly priced...?
(...and the initial point of my argument is my 'low end' PC, a 1.6 gig Xp slaps the 'power'Mac dual silly. My 'xp' aint very special any longer (how many Athlon bumps and price cuts have we had since the dual 1 gig G4?) and that's within the space of half a year! Compare that to Moto's much anticipated 'leap' to 1.2 dual G4s? Still, let's see...eh?)
"when it comes to price. Of course, there is also an argument that in many ways, they are configured better (firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc.). Then, when you add in the cost of the digital hub apps that let you do quite a bit right out of the box,"
Compared to a pc half the price that's comparitively crippled? Look again. If you think a few ports here and there makes up for the whopping extra Apple charges...
"you find that Macs aren't really priced that terrible."
Nope. You're seriously behind the curve here. Compare a a SERIOUS 3D PC workstation and a Mac one and ouch. There isn't any competition. In benches, the Mac is comprehensively hammered. (That's why the recent dual 'power'Mac had its price dropped because they didn't: compete. They still don't.)
"Further, when you compare to similar workstations on the PC side, the price seems even better."
RDF. Seriously?
Post me a few links willya...
"Generally speaking, the Education market has little if any impact on sales of the high end machines."
Well, PC schools can get a cheap, high performing tower that stuffs both the old imac and the 'e' mac.
"Likewise, you're note about the decline of Powermac sales is moot."
Yeah. Keep cherry picking.
"You've also failed to mention the increase in sales in iBooks and Powerbooks, etc."
No. I didn't. You weren't looking hard enough. The redesigns have given Apple a few home runs. Granted. And I'm pleased for Apple and want them to do well with them (not bad for a guy who has an 'axe to grind', eh? Where did you get that idea...? )
However, note the dip in sales with both the ibook and powerbook as Apple took ages to update them and when they did, it wasn't enough. Sales for both have dropped. Sales for them look okay combined. But the ibooks have stopped 'flying' off the shelves so quickly. This is when Apple's 'mean' spec list becomes exposed.
(...and don't tell me you haven't noticed Apple's generous supplements of ram over the years?)
When you get past the 'cool' style intial sales impact...we get back to the crux of Apple's problems. Hardware! The specs...and...the recent ibook wasn't doing enough spec wise and sales had slipped. Gee, guess that's why it got 'bumped.'
The recent bump, for many, is not enough cpu wise. But, according to you, we've got axes to grind when we complain Apple's performance on the spec sheet isn't up to scratch.
"As for the publishing market, I have not seen any data which suggests"
Then how do you know? I've read many news sites, data etc that suggests this 'erosion'. I guess I'll have to make notes from now on and post an avalanche of hyperlinks to keep me mate here happy. (Still, it's more fun to stick to our perceived arguments, right?)
"these significant inroads by the Wintel market. Do you have any source of data for this information to share?"
Sure. I'll go get them right now...
On the other hand, just why are those 'power'Mac sales shrinking? What shall we pinpoint? Lack of OS X.2? The lightweight Aquashop 7? 'power' users putting off their purchases because they're on their 'cycle'? (OR MAYBE it's those huge prices and LOW specs?)
"Rather than just speculate"
That's what 'FH' is for. (You really go and speak to those guys?)
"Of course migrations happen."
That's why Apple's worldwide marketshare is 3-5%?
Where's your hard data to show this erosion aint happining. (Check Apple's sales figures. Look okay? See an overall trend? No. Okay. Apple aint out of business. Sure. It's not here yet. But they need a few more 'gimmicky' home runs. Because there overall sales the last year or so have shrunk. Y'know, that 'majority' that aren't fickle like me...)
So, 'significant'? Define. Erosion.
"No doubt there will be some that make ignorant decisions based on numbers like MHZ."
What, like me? Like those who are contributing to Apple's otherall shrinking sales?
Apple may have steadied the 'ship'.
But can they see real growth. Much of the software and 'gimmicks' are in place.
But hardball line in the sand? The specs?
Er...well, listen to the wail of the Appleinsider and co post board banshees and draw your own RDF conclusions.
"PowerPC is not likely to bridge a MHZ gap as long as it's competing with a P4 20 stage pipeline, sacrifice anything for MHZ type of architecture."
Then they'd better start thinking different.
Because myself and others don't buy the dual 1 gig g4 is competitive with even single P3 at 3 gig argument.
Change the record, Apple!
"The more intelligent people"
So, I'm not 'more' intelligent (like you...of course...) because I bought a machine for a, let's see, a sixth of the price of the dual mac that clobbers it in any of the tests you fail to provide benchmarks for?
"will judge Macs by how well they perform their job, how much support and aggrevation they require to maintain as compared to PCs, and possibly determine (as you mention) if they are still competitive in performance for what they do."
Yadda, yadda.
Is that a 'perceived' competitive performance?
So all the people who decide they can get a dual Athlon XP with twice the mhz and performance for less money are 'ignorant'?
"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."
Minor? Well, if you say so... (shakes head...)
"I don't know if that's true across the board."
Well, if you 'don't know', then don't talk about it.
"I recall seeing a comparison between Apple's new iMac and a similar setup from Gateway (flat panel, dvd burner, etc.)."
Where, exactly, do you 'recall'? A link..?
(...and how about other build to order companies? What about smaller firms? Otherpriced Gateways - a PC company much like Apple... - offering overpriced underperforming kit... Hardly a 'fair comparison' if you've got a PC point of view...)
"The iMac was considered the better deal, and it's bundled software was considered to be much better the the "digital hub" alternatives on the PC."
I recall talking about 'power'Macs in particular. The imacs do a much better job. But, check that spec list again. Cos they are behind. They look heaps better though and have all those freebie 'easy to use' apps you mention...
"Yes, at the high end PC arena, you get considerably better bang for the buck,"
Glad you agree on my post. What took you so long to crack?
"Remember, percentage wise, the Mac is already a niche market."
Oh. I see. And how did it get that way? So mac sales are shrinking? How come, overall, despite Steve Jobs most titanic efforts...they are still shrining all be it more slowly? Big on style and short on substance (not, duh, talking software here...) Why are sales still going primarily to PCs than Macs? Perhaps many of those 'ignorant' people have a reason for going PC?
Tell me, why my school, having £12,000 to spend are going PC? Gee, I wonder, but because I'm not intelligent I don't know.
"Likewise, you're assuming this niche market will be as easily swayed as you."
Patronising, eh? Easily swayed...but you aren't. Good for you.
"I think history shows, even in difficult and uncertain times for the platform, that the majority of Mac users are not as easily swayed as you."
In 'uncertain' times for the Mac market, they almost went bankrupt and Powermac sales werre healthier then(!) Powermac sales are now a poor relation to what they were years ago.
Take away the imacs and the already waning ibook and Apple have some underlying problems to solve with their famous 'value added' approach.
The spec aint. VALUE ADDED!
The shrinking 'majority'. I guess if you want links to testify to that you'll have to get off your *** and look it or Apple's sales figures up yourself!
"Gimmicks? I don't know. I don't think gimmicks last as long as the original iMac, do you? The gimmicks get people's attention, but the substance is why people buy."
Macs are not without 'some' substance. The cpu issue is no longer 'perceived'. Well, not by my 'perception'. The 'imac' in a beige case. Dead on arrival. The 'gimmick' saved the company. The company bet on the imac and 'won'. But note how the 'gimmick' faded during those 'six years' when Apple failed to keep the spec list competitive, when they doggedly stuck with an antiquated cpu and graphic chip and 15 inch monitor. Trends that saw the sales fade. Instead of building on the 'old' imac they 'milked' it and lost any momentum for growth. Unfortunately.
This sums Apple over their patchy history. Do something great, sit on it...get overtaken. See classic os. See first Power PCs...see first...
Well, buy a sodding Apple history book.
Take away current 'new' imac sales and Apple look in trouble to me. That's my perception. You can read their sales figures differently if you like.
"The previous iMac was not just competing against a beige box, it was a horribly designed and seriously underpowered beige box called the Performa. The Performa's also had a very confusing set of different models and model numbers, etc."
Yep. That might be part of why they have 3-5% marketshare now.
"That's not really a fair comparison to make."
Yes, it is. I'm saying, take away the 'style' and Apple's hardware is poor. Out of date and out of shape. Disagree if you like.
You pay BMW prices, you expect a damn good engine. Fast. Not the fastest. But the G4 is a Ford engine in a BMW chassis.
"You're comparing all"
Not all. You're saying 'all'.
"gross oversimplification of what has changed since that time."
No it isn't. I'm talking about hardware. I don't recall dropping on Apple's software in the 'recovery' period?
"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."
Such as? The 'Apple' retails that have gone to the wall in the UK? There's about five 'big' ones left in the UK. Can't speak for Amercia, I guess...
Oh, 'shops'. Well, I can tell you I've spoke to many that said, 'Mac? Stopped using them years ago...' Reasons cited? Value. Specs. Cost.
"This may or may not be true."
Well, unless you collect the data yourself you can't criticise the sources I have read and my own perception of said 'sources'.
"I have not seen these quotes that you're referring to."
...and me yours.
"few links which discuss this."
Do we really have to? I'm having too much fun clobbering your Steve Jobs inspired RDF.
Go on. Set up a £1,200 pc and a £1,200 mac.
There's your proof. Do the costings of a dual Athlon vs a dual Mac.
Better still, put any SINGLE 'power'Mac against a 'low end' Athlon. You can build a dual Athlon for the price of a low end 'power'Mac. Maybe this would be a 'fairer' test for you?
"Windows can multitask, I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. However, I believe we were comparing the performance of your 1.6GHZ Athlon to a dual 1 GHZ G4."
Which is dirt cheap and beats the snot out of the Powermac. Better still. Let's compare my 'low end' pc with the 'low end' Powermac?
"As for doing more than one thing at a time, I often do several things at a time. Playing an MP3, burning a CD, while surfing the net is a fairly common example of this. Dual CPUs balance the load very well. The value of multiple CPUs comes into play when running tasks in the background."
It's not a question of whether 'Powermacs' can handle any given task. I and others on these boards harp on about them being overpriced and out of date. Which, in my view, they are.
And. By the way, I love to harp.
"A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple."
Show me benches that sez it aint true. I'm not talking '1 gig' Pentium. They still sell those?
"Thats true with some single threaded non vectorized tasks."
Just how many task are 'velocity controlled'?
"This is absolutely not true across the board."
...and given little 'altivec' optimisation, how can a G4 compete?
A dual 1 gig 'power'Mac G4 still gets thumped on Lightwave by a single Athlon Xp. A low end dual Athlon wipes the floor with it.
"Even within the programs you mention, it depends on the action being performed."
What, like those cheap Photoshop filters, the ones 'nobody' uses anymore?
"walk and chew gum (multitask) a bit smoother due to the greater "system" performance."
Like it does on the 'after effects' suite of tests that saw it clearly outclassed and outmatched? (Sure, your perception may see a bit smoother...go ahead and pay three to four times much for the privelage.)
"So. Why did I switch?"
Eh? Do I have to repeat everything for you?
The mac I was using was years old, clearly outmatched by cheap pcs. The macs I wanted to buy were out of date, under specced and overpriced.
Funny, when I bought the 'Power'mac many years ago it was priced at a premium but the 'Power'Macs then weren't outclassed or underspecced (as much as they are now.)
They weren't at least in the same ball park.
Now? Laughable. But then you don't perceive this. So why am I wasting my time typing this crap?
('I don't know' sez Stevie.)
Requote:
"I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'."
Oh presumptious one, I wasn't talking about Apple's most loyal and die-hard fans (of which, despite my 'axe-to-grind', I count myself one.)
I was, again, if you were 'listening' talking about those damned aged specs that Apple clung to for so long.
Remember the alien harvest fields? You know...those Ati Rage 'alien' face suckers that clung doggedly to their victims...the poor ibook, the impoverished 'old' imac, the powerful 'power'Mac line...all victims. Still, I guess was being 'out there'.
In English. Macs have out of date specs (did I say that already?) For years, an example of this was the Rage line of graphic cards.
Things, graphic card wise, are better. But the cpus aren't. The ram isn't. The 'monitor' included in the price isn't. (With the 'Power'mac line.) The 'bus' isn't. The G4's fpu is still feeble.
"Great, so you've sacrificed an admittedly superior working environment"
Yes and no. Pure evangelism. Yes. The mac environment is better. Even the aged OS9. However, on a machine that was too slow? The price to replace it? The outdate specs?
I could do the same job much the same, faster on the PC. Still can. I've watched since the G4 debacle began, and though an Apple fan, I await Apple doing something serious with their 'flagship' line. It's been a while since they were 'Power'Macs.
"for a perceived performance improvement."
Well, I can put together a dual Athlon Xp (and nearly did...) for less than the price of Apple's 'slowest' 'power'Mac.
That's 'perceived'? Glad you think so. (As six fpus kick the crap out of 1 G4 fpu.) I've seen the latest macs and pcs in action. Right. If this kind of 'perception' (read: GULF!) doesn't matter then why is the 'deafening' din of mac users across the boards on this, and others chewing Apple's, Moto's, IBM's *** on the CPU issue? Maybe we all have an 'axe-to-grind'?
"You then group other Mac users (I suppose) into a mass insult by calling them a legin of face suckers."
Your interpretation. See above.
"Nice. The thing is, you come off so bitter about Apple,"
Wrong. Cynical of late. Critical. Jaded at their spec-weary premium pricing tactics. Clinging to death on aged cpus, ram and motherboards.
They, in my opinion have capitulated in there spec downfall. DDR, better graphic cards and motherboards have been around for years. Apple takes ages to get to them. Ask them why. Maybe because they are a monopoly who likes being 'corrupt' in their own little way as MS does in their 'big' way. Apple are a company at the end of the day. They still like easy money.
I like their style while screwing us, though!
And gee, their OS X is pretty good...so...
When they were level? I bought the 'premium' argument. (and held my 'investment' for four years.) But now they are behind as of the last few years...do I buy into the 'well behind and premium' argument?
No.
"that it's hard to take your position objectively."
Likewise. If you like being screwed on price and out of date components. Fine. Your money, I guess.
But to get mine? Apple must try harder. Once fleeced? Twice shy.
"You appear to have an axe to grind with Apple"
Outside of their 'spec' lists your accusation is unfounded and without merit. But I guess we don't know each other that well.
"and seem to use every opportunity to hammer them,"
On specs. Out of date 'hardware'? Yes. (PULLING on the pit boots as I speak...)
"whether your argument is rational or not."
Being charged lots of money for out of date hardware on the 'power'mac line? Brings out the 'irrational'? It does. Check the 'chewing' *** that's going on these boards.
Still, I don't think saying they're 'behind' (alot) in terms of specs is irrational. Anymore than you saying otherwise... (RDF on full...you work for Apple?)
Do I wish Apple made faster Macs? Sure? Will I abandon the platform because they're behind in MHZ? No. I use my Mac for many things because I prefer the OS. Generally speaking, I find the workflow for some tasks to be noticably better on the Mac side. That said, I also have a need to use PCs. Some tasks are better suited for PCs. Likewise, I happily own both. It's not a big deal. Being a dual platform users has helped me keep a better perspective on the Mac vs PC thing as compared to many of the extremists on both sides. My last upgrade was for the PC side. This summer, I'll upgrade my Mac. Why? Because whatever is available in July/August, it will be much better than what I'm using now,
"regardless"
Nobody and not Apple get my money regardless. I don't have 'sucker' taped onto my forehead.
"as to how it compares to my PC for price and performance."
Your choice. For me, Apple will have to do better.
Still, no matter how much Apple lag now, I think most posters on these boards, myself included...hope they'll pull it around.
"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."
<strong>What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, the guy did it to "make his mark on the company," and second of all, look at how well Mot has done since then.
Doing something sweeping and arbitrary like that, for essentially selfish reasons, is exactly the kind of managerial incompetence that got Mot in trouble to begin with. The fallout proves Steve's point, not yours.
Lemon Bon Bon,i'm really interested to know the specs of your beautiful Athlon XP... Bus, Ram, Hard Drive, Network, Firewire, USB, etc. the whole enchilada !
<strong> What's changed? We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya. Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either.
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
First Macs aren't a joke when it comes to 3D since they got OSX and GF3. Before that they were a joke - if not because of slow 3D cards to start with then because of OS9. Now the situation is better and Lightwave really runs great on PowerMacs. Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not and running Maya on a Mac is a foolish thing to do.
Macs are great for print and webdesign work (and simple 3D, admitted) because those are things that don't stress the computer all too much. But in order to be able to sell hardware to the "serious" 3D market, you have to be able to offer a Wildcat-class card to go with. And dual CPU machines with strong FP performance are a plus. Serious 3D needs a high troughoutput for moving a lot of 3D data and the G4 isn't there yet.
To adress the point of switching platforms - if you use your Mac for surfing and the occasional Word letter and then decide to play games you might switch the platform just like that. But I know companies who are still working in Quark 3 because it works for them and they are too scared to invest even the 15 minutes to learn Quark 4, not to speak of InDesign. And others who do all their work in Quark 4, even web design. That's the advertising company part - the printing market on the other hand is using more and more Windows machines because companies who make the film-making, RIP, prepress, cutting, digital-printing and classic printing equipment are bundling their hardware with Windows PCs because of speed and price. This is how Wintels got introduced to the industry as something that "actually works as well" and many a company where price/performance is king is buying Wintels when buying new hardware. At least in my part of the world.
"Lemon Bon Bon,i'm really interested to know the specs of your beautiful Athlon XP... Bus, Ram, Hard Drive, Network, Firewire, USB, etc. the whole enchilada !"
Listen, sweetheart, I never said it was 'beautiful'.
There's such a thing as crossing a line in the sand. And that's one line too far.
I may own a PC, but it sure aint beautiful. Fast? Yes. But? Ugly, clumsy, clunky, beige hell spawn of a...
Spec?
1.6 gig Athlon Xp, 1 gig of DDR266, 266 motherboard, ATi 8500, IBM Deskstar 7,200 rpm. A heap of PC junk.
"First Macs aren't a joke when it comes to 3D since they got OSX and GF3."
Correct. Nice to have somebody on the same bus.
"Before that they were a joke - if not because of slow 3D cards to start with then because of OS9."
Yeah. I remember doing the Raydream Studio thing on with 'Quickdraw 3d' ((with Mac Os 7.5.3(?)...)) which didn't support textures or something daft. Open Gl support? What was that back then? Raydream crawled like molasses on my Formac 80 graphics card. No standard GL to accelerate 3D. Torture? It was almost slideshow quality updating... Yep. But it was a great Photoshop machine, though and I loved her (my Powermac...) like no other...
My machine was the latest you could get at the time (when 200mhz was fastest bar the Power clones 220mhz thing)...but it sucked at 3D. Even 'slower' pcs at the time were better at 3D for reasons we know too well know. (Yeah, I know, back when ah wuz a lad...) But hey, it's the present now and it's nice Apple have Open GL and Nvidia graphics cards. Let's whoop for Apple...
"Now the situation is better and Lightwave really runs great on PowerMacs."
Don't let Stevie hear me say this...but I was pleasantly surprised at how well Lightwave ran on my wife's ibook. (Me? I'm still 'power'Mac less...) Rendering was a pleasant surprise. OSX and Open GL have done wonders for Lightwave... Well, at the least, it runs better on the ibook then it did on my old Mac clone...
"Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not and running Maya on a Mac is a foolish thing to do. "
Agreed. I think Maya on the Mac is not quite finished. Bit slow by all accounts...no altivec (!) acceleration or dual cpu optimisation...
Well, at the risk of giving Stevie another point...having seen Maya run on the PC...I think it's over rated. Over hyped more to the point. Agreed. I have seen lots of student projects on it...and I think the renderer was plasticy like Studio Max. I think Lightwave, for the price, stands toe to toe with it. I think the Legendary Lightwave renderer blows it out the water...on visual quality.
"the printing market on the other hand is using more and more Windows machines because companies who make the film-making, RIP, prepress, cutting, digital-printing and classic printing equipment are bundling their hardware with Windows PCs because of speed and price. "
"But in order to be able to sell hardware to the "serious" 3D market, you have to be able to offer a Wildcat-class card to go with. And dual CPU machines with strong FP performance are a plus. Serious 3D needs a high troughoutput for moving a lot of 3D data and the G4 isn't there yet."
Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if you're saying this from experience, but Maya IS the 3D app.
It is by far the most respected 3D application. Almost all 3D games are done on Maya and 3D Max. But Max isn't used much in feature film and FX production, Maya is. In fact it is the one that's most commonly used.
Comments
<strong>
From what I've been taught in my A+ classes, the advantage of a SCSI chain is NOT so much that it is inherently faster at data transfer than an ATA drive (as they both move data to the HD in un-sustained bursts). The advantage is that multiple devices (e.g. HD1, HD2, SCANNER, CDROM, DVDROM, etc.) on the same SCSI chain can SIMULTANEOUSLY transmit/receive data. Whereas, an ATA bus can only communicate with ONE of its devices at a time (e.g. HD1 or CDROM on the same ATA controller, but NOT both at the same time).
I guess I don't see how SCSI comes into play since my (personal) beef is with apple supplying ATA/66 controllers with their PowerMacs instead of something more advanced.
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: theMagius ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we'd all like to see the latest and greatest components in our systems. However, I don't fully understand your argument here. You just acknowledge that ATA is only going to handle one thing at a time. Now, the ATA66 can handle (theoretically) 66MB/sec. The best ATA 7200rpm hard drives can deliver what 35-40MB/sec. tops? Either way, todays drives really can't saturate an ATA66 bus. I realize there is a difference between actual and theoretical performance, but how much faster do you think a drive will be on an ATA133 bus, let alone an ATA100?
Steve
<strong>('Whoops, 'Power'mac has been lapped three times by Intel Pantium 4.') Signal for more 'Power'mac users to abandon ship. Perhaps some professionals look not just whether it was fast compared to my last mac but whether it's value for money to what they can get else where. Windows with XP is getting increasingly bareable.
I don't think Mac users need to be lectured on what they actually use their machines for. I like the Mac Os X. I presume most people who post here do so too and would just like apple to push the boat out more than 'a little'. 'X'? It isn't worth £3000 for 'X' on an out of date machine. Well, not to me it isn't.
I don't see the dual 1 gig G4 beating my Athlon 1.6 gig. The AMD seemed faster to me. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. That said, I'm sure their will be those that switch platforms at the drop of a hat. I doubt any professionals will. It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms. Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough. I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform. It is. The same is true for PC shops. Sure people like to bitch and moan on forums such as this, but these are the vocal minority.
As for the dual G4 vs. your Athlon, etc. I too am a dual platform user. I'm sure your Athlon IS faster at many single threaded tasks. I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time, or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks that I do in conjuction with work. I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation, "digital hub", stuff, etc. I use neither platform because of a MHZ difference, rather I use the best tool for the job. This usually involves other aspects such as the Operating system and the applications (and plugins) available to support the required task. In short, my opinion doesn't sway from day to day based on MHZ jumps on one platform or another.
Steve
Good responses! I too use both platforms. Software is an expensive investment..if you go changing your Platform with every change in Megahertz you better have one hell of a Software collection.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
(and that's mine on the current 'power'Mac lines.)
"That said, I'm sure their will be those that switch platforms at the drop of a hat."
I doubt anybody switches from the Mac platform 'at the drop of a hat'.
Speaking personally, the 'temporary' move to PC was taken after the Powerpc was 'stuck' at 500mhz for eighteen months...and fell, laughably, further behind than .5 gig. They're over a 'gig' behind!
For 3D at the time, Macs were a joke. They're better now!
The software's there!
BUT the hardware simply isn't good enough for the price you pay. Simple economics.
"I doubt any professionals will."
Yeah. I guess you're right. After all, 'power'Mac sales have dropped from a over half a million a quarter to? Wintel are making inroads into Apple's stronghold markets such as Education and Print!
I wonder why... (though it may not be singularly down to the cpu issue, it's a LARGE contributing factor. When people see the spec list Apple's don't seem to offer 'value' for money on specs.)
"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."
What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?
Or like schools dumping their aged Mac suits to go Wintel/Dell?
Yes. You have a point. But there comes a point where the x86 competition will be so far ahead that they go: next budget? We go Wintel...leave the odd Mac for photoshopping.
"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."
That's right. But the performance and bang for buck difference right now is embarrassing. Apple must have some hope they'll 'catch' the x86 mhz juggernaut.
Take away the gimmicks of the new imac and the 'new' ibook from Apple sales from the last year and Apple are in trouble.
Fact. Look at the fine print of their results.
If Apple did 'beige' boxes? I think they'd be seriously struggling.
"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."
Well, for some reason, it's oft quoted and reported on the net that Mac print market, while still a 'strong hold' has suffered some x86 erosion. Why would that be?
"It is."
Agreed, of course!
"As for the dual G4 vs. your Athlon, etc. I too am a dual platform user. I'm sure your Athlon IS faster at many single threaded tasks."
It is.
"I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time,"
Something Windows 2000 can't do?
I (as a human being) can't run multiple applications at the same time. I can only do one thing at a time.
"or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks"
Heavily optimised or not. Photoshop or Lightwave.
A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple. Sure. It's my opinion. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen benches on the net. So. I don't upgrade to a 'Power' until they got some 'POWER'. Competition. Hello, Apple!
"I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation,"
I used a Powermac clone for four years. The best work I ever produced. And more to the point, the most I ever enjoyed being on an OS or working on a computer.
So. Why did I switch?
I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
Yep. By a country mile.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>"I doubt anybody switches from the Mac platform 'at the drop of a hat'.
Speaking personally, the 'temporary' move to PC was taken after the Powerpc was 'stuck' at 500mhz for eighteen months...and fell, laughably, further behind than .5 gig. They're over a 'gig' behind!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
So... you doubt anyone will switch a the drop of the hat, then you admitted you did just that, now it's temporary because your back? Ummm... Okay, whatever...
[quote]<strong>
For 3D at the time, Macs were a joke. They're better now!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's changed? We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya. Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either.
[quote]<strong>
BUT the hardware simply isn't good enough for the price you pay. Simple economics.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Macs have always been at a premium when it comes to price. Of course, there is also an argument that in many ways, they are configured better (firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc.). Then, when you add in the cost of the digital hub apps that let you do quite a bit right out of the box, you find that Macs aren't really priced that terrible. Further, when you compare to similar workstations on the PC side, the price seems even better.
[quote]<strong>
"I doubt any professionals will."
Yeah. I guess you're right. After all, 'power'Mac sales have dropped from a over half a million a quarter to? Wintel are making inroads into Apple's stronghold markets such as Education and Print!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Generally speaking, the Education market has little if any impact on sales of the high end machines. Likewise, you're note about the decline of Powermac sales is moot. You've also failed to mention the increase in sales in iBooks and Powerbooks, etc.
As for the publishing market, I have not seen any data which suggests these significant inroads by the Wintel market. Do you have any source of data for this information to share?
[quote]<strong>
I wonder why... (though it may not be singularly down to the cpu issue, it's a LARGE contributing factor. When people see the spec list Apple's don't seem to offer 'value' for money on specs.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rather than just speculate, have you ever spoke to the owner, or at least someone whose in charge at a Mac based shop that has a large number of machines and lots of money invested in software, training and peripherals? I have. If you did, you would know that each company generally has it's own product refresh cycle. How long that cycle lasts generally depends on a number of factors. The fact that G4s sat at 500mhz for 18 months is certainly a factor as to why the upgrades aren't pouring in now that the high end is only 1GHZ. This point is true. However, as G5s or even G4s are announced in the 1.4 - 1.5 GHZ range, I suspect that would be enough of a performance increase to justify an upgrade for those with 500mhz (and lower) machines. I don't think this has very much (if any) to do with percieved value in terms of what an equivalent PC would cost. Rather, it has everything to do with justifying the cost of an upgrade for a 2x (or less) improvement.
[quote]<strong>
"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."
What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?
Or like schools dumping their aged Mac suits to go Wintel/Dell?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course migrations happen. I don't think anyone claims this doesn't happen. Just read MacCentral, and they'll point out "forward migrations" to the Mac platform as well. I'm concerned with general trends. Most of the trend away from Macs occurred during the "dark days" back in '96 - '98. Since then, I don't see a real significant erosion of the Mac's marketshare. In fact, Apple has even taken back lost markets such as digital video, etc. Yes, it's a niche market, but it's also high profile.
[quote]<strong>
Yes. You have a point. But there comes a point where the x86 competition will be so far ahead that they go: next budget? We go Wintel...leave the odd Mac for photoshopping.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No doubt there will be some that make ignorant decisions based on numbers like MHZ. PowerPC is not likely to bridge a MHZ gap as long as it's competing with a P4 20 stage pipeline, sacrifice anything for MHZ type of architecture. The more intelligent people will judge Macs by how well they perform their job, how much support and aggrevation they require to maintain as compared to PCs, and possibly determine (as you mention) if they are still competitive in performance for what they do.
[quote]<strong>
"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."
That's right. But the performance and bang for buck difference right now is embarrassing. Apple must have some hope they'll 'catch' the x86 mhz juggernaut.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if that's true across the board. I recall seeing a comparison between Apple's new iMac and a similar setup from Gateway (flat panel, dvd burner, etc.). The iMac was considered the better deal, and it's bundled software was considered to be much better the the "digital hub" alternatives on the PC.
Yes, at the high end PC arena, you get considerably better bang for the buck, until you hit the "workstation" class machine. There will always be some, possibly even a majority that purchase soley on "bang for the buck". Others will buy what they want, regardless of perceived value. Remember, percentage wise, the Mac is already a niche market. Likewise, you're assuming this niche market will be as easily swayed as you. I think history shows, even in difficult and uncertain times for the platform, that the majority of Mac users are not as easily swayed as you.
[quote]<strong>
Take away the gimmicks of the new imac and the 'new' ibook from Apple sales from the last year and Apple are in trouble.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gimmicks? I don't know. I don't think gimmicks last as long as the original iMac, do you? The gimmicks get people's attention, but the substance is why people buy. The previous iMac was not just competing against a beige box, it was a horribly designed and seriously underpowered beige box called the Performa. The Performa's also had a very confusing set of different models and model numbers, etc.
[quote]<strong>
Fact. Look at the fine print of their results.
If Apple did 'beige' boxes? I think they'd be seriously struggling.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not really a fair comparison to make. You're comparing all of the bad things Apple has done prior to Jobs' return to all of the good things that have happened since, by the color of the box. This type of comparison is a gross oversimplification of what has changed since that time.
[quote]<strong>
"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."
Well, for some reason, it's oft quoted and reported on the net that Mac print market, while still a 'strong hold' has suffered some x86 erosion. Why would that be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This may or may not be true. I have not seen these quotes that you're referring to. Again, not that I don't believe you, but I would be interested if you could send me a few links which discuss this.
[quote]<strong>
"I don't think the same claim is true when running multiple applications at the same time,"
Something Windows 2000 can't do?
I (as a human being) can't run multiple applications at the same time. I can only do one thing at a time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Windows can multitask, I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. However, I believe we were comparing the performance of your 1.6GHZ Athlon to a dual 1 GHZ G4.
As for doing more than one thing at a time, I often do several things at a time. Playing an MP3, burning a CD, while surfing the net is a fairly common example of this. Dual CPUs balance the load very well. The value of multiple CPUs comes into play when running tasks in the background.
[quote]<strong>
"or when using an application that is heavily optimized for SMP. I own a PC because it is better suited for some tasks"
Heavily optimised or not. Photoshop or Lightwave.
A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple. Sure. It's my opinion. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen benches on the net. So. I don't upgrade to a 'Power' until they got some 'POWER'. Competition. Hello, Apple!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thats true with some single threaded non vectorized tasks. This is absolutely not true across the board. Even within the programs you mention, it depends on the action being performed. Also, even in the case where the program you're running is single threaded, the high end Mac (dual cpu) will be able to walk and chew gum (multitask) a bit smoother due to the greater "system" performance.
[quote]<strong>
"I use my Mac for most things relating to graphic design, content creation,"
I used a Powermac clone for four years. The best work I ever produced. And more to the point, the most I ever enjoyed being on an OS or working on a computer.
So. Why did I switch?
I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great, so you've sacrificed an admittedly superior working environment for a perceived performance improvement. You then group other Mac users (I suppose) into a mass insult by calling them a legin of face suckers. Nice. The thing is, you come off so bitter about Apple, that it's hard to take your position objectively. You appear to have an axe to grind with Apple and seem to use every opportunity to hammer them, whether your argument is rational or not.
Do I wish Apple made faster Macs? Sure? Will I abandon the platform because they're behind in MHZ? No. I use my Mac for many things because I prefer the OS. Generally speaking, I find the workflow for some tasks to be noticably better on the Mac side. That said, I also have a need to use PCs. Some tasks are better suited for PCs. Likewise, I happily own both. It's not a big deal. Being a dual platform users has helped me keep a better perspective on the Mac vs PC thing as compared to many of the extremists on both sides. My last upgrade was for the PC side. This summer, I'll upgrade my Mac. Why? Because whatever is available in July/August, it will be much better than what I'm using now, regardless as to how it compares to my PC for price and performance.
Steve
Check eyesight. (Again, I guess you view making a decision over many years, 'Drop of a hat'.)
"now it's temporary because your back? Ummm... Okay, whatever..."
I didn't say I was 'back' either.
"What's changed?"
Maya. GL.
"We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya."
Correct. A world class 3D program and decent Gl. Big difference. ie Macs weren't taken seriously at 3D.
"Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either."
Look closely. This is about hardware. But seeing as you mention software...(I have Lightwave for the Mac/PC...and have plenty of respect for that...but take that away? Electric Image...and..? Years ago C4D was a hatchling...)
Mac 3D software? Previously? 'Okay'. It's better now. But it's still lacking some big hitters.
The lack of Gl, lack of high end 3D card, fitting an almost £3,000 'workstation' 'power'Mac with a 'Rage' 16/32 meg card for what seemed like years!!!! ....AND...Quickdraw (Okay, I'm reaching really far back for that one...
For many years. 'power'Macs. Joke. Simple words. My view. Your point on the software. Well...okay, we had Lightwave. (A very wobbly version of until relatively recently...go Rage ATi...)
They are 'less of joke' only in comparison to previous Mac 3D workstations.
I guess I'm talking hardware 'joke'...but the x/gl software has got them on track.
"Macs have always been at a premium "
SO that makes it alright to charge almost £3,000 for a Mac workstation that gets hammered by the equivalent PC workstation? For techology I, ahem, lets get this right now, 'perceive' to be out of date, ridiculously over priced as opposed to premiumly priced...?
(...and the initial point of my argument is my 'low end' PC, a 1.6 gig Xp slaps the 'power'Mac dual silly. My 'xp' aint very special any longer (how many Athlon bumps and price cuts have we had since the dual 1 gig G4?) and that's within the space of half a year! Compare that to Moto's much anticipated 'leap' to 1.2 dual G4s? Still, let's see...eh?)
"when it comes to price. Of course, there is also an argument that in many ways, they are configured better (firewire, gigabit ethernet, etc.). Then, when you add in the cost of the digital hub apps that let you do quite a bit right out of the box,"
Compared to a pc half the price that's comparitively crippled? Look again. If you think a few ports here and there makes up for the whopping extra Apple charges...
"you find that Macs aren't really priced that terrible."
Nope. You're seriously behind the curve here. Compare a a SERIOUS 3D PC workstation and a Mac one and ouch. There isn't any competition. In benches, the Mac is comprehensively hammered. (That's why the recent dual 'power'Mac had its price dropped because they didn't: compete. They still don't.)
"Further, when you compare to similar workstations on the PC side, the price seems even better."
RDF. Seriously?
Post me a few links willya...
"Generally speaking, the Education market has little if any impact on sales of the high end machines."
Well, PC schools can get a cheap, high performing tower that stuffs both the old imac and the 'e' mac.
"Likewise, you're note about the decline of Powermac sales is moot."
Yeah. Keep cherry picking.
"You've also failed to mention the increase in sales in iBooks and Powerbooks, etc."
No. I didn't. You weren't looking hard enough. The redesigns have given Apple a few home runs. Granted. And I'm pleased for Apple and want them to do well with them (not bad for a guy who has an 'axe to grind', eh? Where did you get that idea...?
However, note the dip in sales with both the ibook and powerbook as Apple took ages to update them and when they did, it wasn't enough. Sales for both have dropped. Sales for them look okay combined. But the ibooks have stopped 'flying' off the shelves so quickly. This is when Apple's 'mean' spec list becomes exposed.
(...and don't tell me you haven't noticed Apple's generous supplements of ram over the years?)
When you get past the 'cool' style intial sales impact...we get back to the crux of Apple's problems. Hardware! The specs...and...the recent ibook wasn't doing enough spec wise and sales had slipped. Gee, guess that's why it got 'bumped.'
The recent bump, for many, is not enough cpu wise. But, according to you, we've got axes to grind when we complain Apple's performance on the spec sheet isn't up to scratch.
"As for the publishing market, I have not seen any data which suggests"
Then how do you know? I've read many news sites, data etc that suggests this 'erosion'. I guess I'll have to make notes from now on and post an avalanche of hyperlinks to keep me mate here happy. (Still, it's more fun to stick to our perceived arguments, right?)
"these significant inroads by the Wintel market. Do you have any source of data for this information to share?"
Sure. I'll go get them right now...
On the other hand, just why are those 'power'Mac sales shrinking? What shall we pinpoint? Lack of OS X.2? The lightweight Aquashop 7? 'power' users putting off their purchases because they're on their 'cycle'? (OR MAYBE it's those huge prices and LOW specs?)
"Rather than just speculate"
That's what 'FH' is for. (You really go and speak to those guys?)
"Of course migrations happen."
That's why Apple's worldwide marketshare is 3-5%?
Where's your hard data to show this erosion aint happining. (Check Apple's sales figures. Look okay? See an overall trend? No. Okay. Apple aint out of business. Sure. It's not here yet. But they need a few more 'gimmicky' home runs. Because there overall sales the last year or so have shrunk. Y'know, that 'majority' that aren't fickle like me...)
So, 'significant'? Define. Erosion.
"No doubt there will be some that make ignorant decisions based on numbers like MHZ."
What, like me? Like those who are contributing to Apple's otherall shrinking sales?
Apple may have steadied the 'ship'.
But can they see real growth. Much of the software and 'gimmicks' are in place.
But hardball line in the sand? The specs?
Er...well, listen to the wail of the Appleinsider and co post board banshees and draw your own RDF conclusions.
"PowerPC is not likely to bridge a MHZ gap as long as it's competing with a P4 20 stage pipeline, sacrifice anything for MHZ type of architecture."
Then they'd better start thinking different.
Because myself and others don't buy the dual 1 gig g4 is competitive with even single P3 at 3 gig argument.
Change the record, Apple!
"The more intelligent people"
So, I'm not 'more' intelligent (like you...of course...) because I bought a machine for a, let's see, a sixth of the price of the dual mac that clobbers it in any of the tests you fail to provide benchmarks for?
"will judge Macs by how well they perform their job, how much support and aggrevation they require to maintain as compared to PCs, and possibly determine (as you mention) if they are still competitive in performance for what they do."
Yadda, yadda.
Is that a 'perceived' competitive performance?
So all the people who decide they can get a dual Athlon XP with twice the mhz and performance for less money are 'ignorant'?
"Minor performance difference will certainly not be enough."
Minor? Well, if you say so... (shakes head...)
"I don't know if that's true across the board."
Well, if you 'don't know', then don't talk about it.
"I recall seeing a comparison between Apple's new iMac and a similar setup from Gateway (flat panel, dvd burner, etc.)."
Where, exactly, do you 'recall'? A link..?
(...and how about other build to order companies? What about smaller firms? Otherpriced Gateways - a PC company much like Apple... - offering overpriced underperforming kit... Hardly a 'fair comparison' if you've got a PC point of view...)
"The iMac was considered the better deal, and it's bundled software was considered to be much better the the "digital hub" alternatives on the PC."
I recall talking about 'power'Macs in particular. The imacs do a much better job. But, check that spec list again. Cos they are behind. They look heaps better though and have all those freebie 'easy to use' apps you mention...
"Yes, at the high end PC arena, you get considerably better bang for the buck,"
Glad you agree on my post. What took you so long to crack?
"Remember, percentage wise, the Mac is already a niche market."
Oh. I see. And how did it get that way? So mac sales are shrinking? How come, overall, despite Steve Jobs most titanic efforts...they are still shrining all be it more slowly? Big on style and short on substance (not, duh, talking software here...) Why are sales still going primarily to PCs than Macs? Perhaps many of those 'ignorant' people have a reason for going PC?
Tell me, why my school, having £12,000 to spend are going PC? Gee, I wonder, but because I'm not intelligent I don't know.
"Likewise, you're assuming this niche market will be as easily swayed as you."
Patronising, eh? Easily swayed...but you aren't. Good for you.
"I think history shows, even in difficult and uncertain times for the platform, that the majority of Mac users are not as easily swayed as you."
In 'uncertain' times for the Mac market, they almost went bankrupt and Powermac sales werre healthier then(!) Powermac sales are now a poor relation to what they were years ago.
Take away the imacs and the already waning ibook and Apple have some underlying problems to solve with their famous 'value added' approach.
The spec aint. VALUE ADDED!
The shrinking 'majority'. I guess if you want links to testify to that you'll have to get off your *** and look it or Apple's sales figures up yourself!
"Gimmicks? I don't know. I don't think gimmicks last as long as the original iMac, do you? The gimmicks get people's attention, but the substance is why people buy."
Macs are not without 'some' substance. The cpu issue is no longer 'perceived'. Well, not by my 'perception'. The 'imac' in a beige case. Dead on arrival. The 'gimmick' saved the company. The company bet on the imac and 'won'. But note how the 'gimmick' faded during those 'six years' when Apple failed to keep the spec list competitive, when they doggedly stuck with an antiquated cpu and graphic chip and 15 inch monitor. Trends that saw the sales fade. Instead of building on the 'old' imac they 'milked' it and lost any momentum for growth. Unfortunately.
This sums Apple over their patchy history. Do something great, sit on it...get overtaken. See classic os. See first Power PCs...see first...
Well, buy a sodding Apple history book.
Take away current 'new' imac sales and Apple look in trouble to me. That's my perception. You can read their sales figures differently if you like.
"The previous iMac was not just competing against a beige box, it was a horribly designed and seriously underpowered beige box called the Performa. The Performa's also had a very confusing set of different models and model numbers, etc."
Yep. That might be part of why they have 3-5% marketshare now.
"That's not really a fair comparison to make."
Yes, it is. I'm saying, take away the 'style' and Apple's hardware is poor. Out of date and out of shape. Disagree if you like.
You pay BMW prices, you expect a damn good engine. Fast. Not the fastest. But the G4 is a Ford engine in a BMW chassis.
"You're comparing all"
Not all. You're saying 'all'.
"gross oversimplification of what has changed since that time."
No it isn't. I'm talking about hardware. I don't recall dropping on Apple's software in the 'recovery' period?
"I know a few Mac shops that would no way shape or form switch to Wintel so long as the Mac was still a viable platform."
Such as? The 'Apple' retails that have gone to the wall in the UK? There's about five 'big' ones left in the UK. Can't speak for Amercia, I guess...
Oh, 'shops'. Well, I can tell you I've spoke to many that said, 'Mac? Stopped using them years ago...' Reasons cited? Value. Specs. Cost.
"This may or may not be true."
Well, unless you collect the data yourself you can't criticise the sources I have read and my own perception of said 'sources'.
"I have not seen these quotes that you're referring to."
...and me yours.
"few links which discuss this."
Do we really have to?
Go on. Set up a £1,200 pc and a £1,200 mac.
There's your proof. Do the costings of a dual Athlon vs a dual Mac.
Better still, put any SINGLE 'power'Mac against a 'low end' Athlon. You can build a dual Athlon for the price of a low end 'power'Mac. Maybe this would be a 'fairer' test for you?
"Windows can multitask, I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. However, I believe we were comparing the performance of your 1.6GHZ Athlon to a dual 1 GHZ G4."
Which is dirt cheap and beats the snot out of the Powermac. Better still. Let's compare my 'low end' pc with the 'low end' Powermac?
"As for doing more than one thing at a time, I often do several things at a time. Playing an MP3, burning a CD, while surfing the net is a fairly common example of this. Dual CPUs balance the load very well. The value of multiple CPUs comes into play when running tasks in the background."
It's not a question of whether 'Powermacs' can handle any given task. I and others on these boards harp on about them being overpriced and out of date. Which, in my view, they are.
And. By the way, I love to harp.
"A modest (low end) Athlon xp beats a top of the range Apple."
Show me benches that sez it aint true. I'm not talking '1 gig' Pentium. They still sell those?
"Thats true with some single threaded non vectorized tasks."
Just how many task are 'velocity controlled'?
"This is absolutely not true across the board."
...and given little 'altivec' optimisation, how can a G4 compete?
A dual 1 gig 'power'Mac G4 still gets thumped on Lightwave by a single Athlon Xp. A low end dual Athlon wipes the floor with it.
"Even within the programs you mention, it depends on the action being performed."
What, like those cheap Photoshop filters, the ones 'nobody' uses anymore?
"walk and chew gum (multitask) a bit smoother due to the greater "system" performance."
Like it does on the 'after effects' suite of tests that saw it clearly outclassed and outmatched? (Sure, your perception may see a bit smoother...go ahead and pay three to four times much for the privelage.)
"So. Why did I switch?"
Eh? Do I have to repeat everything for you?
The mac I was using was years old, clearly outmatched by cheap pcs. The macs I wanted to buy were out of date, under specced and overpriced.
Funny, when I bought the 'Power'mac many years ago it was priced at a premium but the 'Power'Macs then weren't outclassed or underspecced (as much as they are now.)
They weren't at least in the same ball park.
Now? Laughable. But then you don't perceive this. So why am I wasting my time typing this crap?
('I don't know' sez Stevie.)
Requote:
"I guess I don't like being screwed by Apple's short sightedness and their legion of 'face suckers'."
Oh presumptious one, I wasn't talking about Apple's most loyal and die-hard fans (of which, despite my 'axe-to-grind', I count myself one.)
I was, again, if you were 'listening' talking about those damned aged specs that Apple clung to for so long.
Remember the alien harvest fields? You know...those Ati Rage 'alien' face suckers that clung doggedly to their victims...the poor ibook, the impoverished 'old' imac, the powerful 'power'Mac line...all victims. Still, I guess was being 'out there'.
In English. Macs have out of date specs (did I say that already?) For years, an example of this was the Rage line of graphic cards.
Things, graphic card wise, are better. But the cpus aren't. The ram isn't. The 'monitor' included in the price isn't. (With the 'Power'mac line.) The 'bus' isn't. The G4's fpu is still feeble.
"Great, so you've sacrificed an admittedly superior working environment"
Yes and no. Pure evangelism. Yes. The mac environment is better. Even the aged OS9. However, on a machine that was too slow? The price to replace it? The outdate specs?
I could do the same job much the same, faster on the PC. Still can. I've watched since the G4 debacle began, and though an Apple fan, I await Apple doing something serious with their 'flagship' line. It's been a while since they were 'Power'Macs.
"for a perceived performance improvement."
Well, I can put together a dual Athlon Xp (and nearly did...) for less than the price of Apple's 'slowest' 'power'Mac.
That's 'perceived'? Glad you think so. (As six fpus kick the crap out of 1 G4 fpu.) I've seen the latest macs and pcs in action. Right. If this kind of 'perception' (read: GULF!) doesn't matter then why is the 'deafening' din of mac users across the boards on this, and others chewing Apple's, Moto's, IBM's *** on the CPU issue? Maybe we all have an 'axe-to-grind'?
"You then group other Mac users (I suppose) into a mass insult by calling them a legin of face suckers."
Your interpretation. See above.
"Nice. The thing is, you come off so bitter about Apple,"
Wrong. Cynical of late. Critical. Jaded at their spec-weary premium pricing tactics. Clinging to death on aged cpus, ram and motherboards.
They, in my opinion have capitulated in there spec downfall. DDR, better graphic cards and motherboards have been around for years. Apple takes ages to get to them. Ask them why. Maybe because they are a monopoly who likes being 'corrupt' in their own little way as MS does in their 'big' way. Apple are a company at the end of the day. They still like easy money.
I like their style while screwing us, though!
And gee, their OS X is pretty good...so...
When they were level? I bought the 'premium' argument. (and held my 'investment' for four years.) But now they are behind as of the last few years...do I buy into the 'well behind and premium' argument?
No.
"that it's hard to take your position objectively."
Likewise. If you like being screwed on price and out of date components. Fine. Your money, I guess.
But to get mine? Apple must try harder. Once fleeced? Twice shy.
"You appear to have an axe to grind with Apple"
Outside of their 'spec' lists your accusation is unfounded and without merit. But I guess we don't know each other that well.
"and seem to use every opportunity to hammer them,"
On specs. Out of date 'hardware'? Yes. (PULLING on the pit boots as I speak...)
"whether your argument is rational or not."
Being charged lots of money for out of date hardware on the 'power'mac line? Brings out the 'irrational'? It does. Check the 'chewing' *** that's going on these boards.
Still, I don't think saying they're 'behind' (alot) in terms of specs is irrational. Anymore than you saying otherwise... (RDF on full...you work for Apple?)
Do I wish Apple made faster Macs? Sure? Will I abandon the platform because they're behind in MHZ? No. I use my Mac for many things because I prefer the OS. Generally speaking, I find the workflow for some tasks to be noticably better on the Mac side. That said, I also have a need to use PCs. Some tasks are better suited for PCs. Likewise, I happily own both. It's not a big deal. Being a dual platform users has helped me keep a better perspective on the Mac vs PC thing as compared to many of the extremists on both sides. My last upgrade was for the PC side. This summer, I'll upgrade my Mac. Why? Because whatever is available in July/August, it will be much better than what I'm using now,
"regardless"
Nobody and not Apple get my money regardless. I don't have 'sucker' taped onto my forehead.
"as to how it compares to my PC for price and performance."
Your choice. For me, Apple will have to do better.
Still, no matter how much Apple lag now, I think most posters on these boards, myself included...hope they'll pull it around.
When they do? I'll be there.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
SteveS wrote:
"It's very difficult to get companies to change platforms."
<strong>What? Like Motorola dumping their suite of internal Macs to go Wintel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, the guy did it to "make his mark on the company," and second of all, look at how well Mot has done since then.
Doing something sweeping and arbitrary like that, for essentially selfish reasons, is exactly the kind of managerial incompetence that got Mot in trouble to begin with. The fallout proves Steve's point, not yours.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong> What's changed? We've gone to OS X, and now we have Maya. Mac's have had Electric Image, Lightwave, Cinema 4D, etc... I wouldn't call Macs best in class for 3D, but I wouldn't call it a joke either.
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
First Macs aren't a joke when it comes to 3D since they got OSX and GF3. Before that they were a joke - if not because of slow 3D cards to start with then because of OS9. Now the situation is better and Lightwave really runs great on PowerMacs. Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not and running Maya on a Mac is a foolish thing to do.
Macs are great for print and webdesign work (and simple 3D, admitted) because those are things that don't stress the computer all too much. But in order to be able to sell hardware to the "serious" 3D market, you have to be able to offer a Wildcat-class card to go with. And dual CPU machines with strong FP performance are a plus. Serious 3D needs a high troughoutput for moving a lot of 3D data and the G4 isn't there yet.
To adress the point of switching platforms - if you use your Mac for surfing and the occasional Word letter and then decide to play games you might switch the platform just like that. But I know companies who are still working in Quark 3 because it works for them and they are too scared to invest even the 15 minutes to learn Quark 4, not to speak of InDesign. And others who do all their work in Quark 4, even web design. That's the advertising company part - the printing market on the other hand is using more and more Windows machines because companies who make the film-making, RIP, prepress, cutting, digital-printing and classic printing equipment are bundling their hardware with Windows PCs because of speed and price. This is how Wintels got introduced to the industry as something that "actually works as well" and many a company where price/performance is king is buying Wintels when buying new hardware. At least in my part of the world.
Listen, sweetheart, I never said it was 'beautiful'.
There's such a thing as crossing a line in the sand. And that's one line too far.
I may own a PC, but it sure aint beautiful. Fast? Yes. But? Ugly, clumsy, clunky, beige hell spawn of a...
Spec?
1.6 gig Athlon Xp, 1 gig of DDR266, 266 motherboard, ATi 8500, IBM Deskstar 7,200 rpm. A heap of PC junk.
But it's a competitive piece of junk.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Correct. Nice to have somebody on the same bus.
"Before that they were a joke - if not because of slow 3D cards to start with then because of OS9."
Yeah. I remember doing the Raydream Studio thing on with 'Quickdraw 3d' ((with Mac Os 7.5.3(?)...)) which didn't support textures or something daft. Open Gl support? What was that back then? Raydream crawled like molasses on my Formac 80 graphics card. No standard GL to accelerate 3D. Torture? It was almost slideshow quality updating... Yep. But it was a great Photoshop machine, though and I loved her (my Powermac...) like no other...
My machine was the latest you could get at the time (when 200mhz was fastest bar the Power clones 220mhz thing)...but it sucked at 3D. Even 'slower' pcs at the time were better at 3D for reasons we know too well know. (Yeah, I know, back when ah wuz a lad...) But hey, it's the present now and it's nice Apple have Open GL and Nvidia graphics cards. Let's whoop for Apple...
"Now the situation is better and Lightwave really runs great on PowerMacs."
Don't let Stevie hear me say this...but I was pleasantly surprised at how well Lightwave ran on my wife's ibook. (Me? I'm still 'power'Mac less...) Rendering was a pleasant surprise. OSX and Open GL have done wonders for Lightwave... Well, at the least, it runs better on the ibook then it did on my old Mac clone...
"Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not and running Maya on a Mac is a foolish thing to do. "
Agreed. I think Maya on the Mac is not quite finished. Bit slow by all accounts...no altivec (!) acceleration or dual cpu optimisation...
Well, at the risk of giving Stevie another point...having seen Maya run on the PC...I think it's over rated. Over hyped more to the point. Agreed. I have seen lots of student projects on it...and I think the renderer was plasticy like Studio Max. I think Lightwave, for the price, stands toe to toe with it. I think the Legendary Lightwave renderer blows it out the water...on visual quality.
Lemon Bon Bon :cool:
Yep.
Lemon Bon Bon
An honest and concise(!) assessment of the G4.
Bring on the 7500...
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
Well, they did keep Apple at 500mhz for 18 months and humiliated them before that by making them drop from 500mhz to 450mhz.
(Talk about holding a grudge.)
My sarcastic side says: 'I wouldn't put it past them...'
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>
Maya is generally hyped as _the_ 3D App but it's really not </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if you're saying this from experience, but Maya IS the 3D app.
It is by far the most respected 3D application. Almost all 3D games are done on Maya and 3D Max. But Max isn't used much in feature film and FX production, Maya is. In fact it is the one that's most commonly used.