For everything but Dreamweaver/FCP I'm using a PowerBook 17 1Ghz/1GB/60GB (I need the mobility). I'm a masochist apparently. Also I use GoLive, not Dreamweaver. Currently my largest bottleneck is the HD, and I could use another GB of RAM. The video card makes no difference to my work since I don't use FCP.
As a stopgap I'm upgrading to a 100GB drive, which will also be faster than the stock drive (I also use a firewire external for extra space/swap, which speeds things considerably) and I'll probably stick another RAM stick in there.
More CPU speed would be nice, but really Apple's current laptops don't seem like a big enough increase to justify the cost. Amazingly, I've used Mac since 1986, and I've had a few thoughts of high end PC laptops of late. Not that I'd bite, because I'd have to rebuy software, deal with PC BS, etc., but it should send a message to Apple that someone like me is even having such thoughts.
Brian
Quote:
Originally posted by mikenap
Questions for the group:
What is being used mostly on these operations: (cpu/hd/video card,etc)
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
cmyk-rgb conversion
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
rotation of huge files in PS
applying layer styles
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
Editing text with styles in large PS files
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?
I don't understand why people are saying the performance of the g5 isn't as good as the pc side. I'll compare my g5 with anything. Of course things are faster, but not by that much! I mean come on... we're splitting hairs here.
In a lot of cases people are at the mercy of the software they need or choose to run. Many applications just aren't well designed for the Mac, and they don't deliver comparable performance, even on a dual G5 (or in some cases only on a G5 if the software hasn't been recompiled for the G5), compared to on the x86 machines. For some tasks the G5 isn't the ideal machine -- single threaded, small integer intense, latency dependent code will typically do better on the high end x86 machines.
On the other hand, properly optimized floating point or SIMD code that is bandwidth-oriented and multi-threaded will positively sing on the G5. OSX has some strengths relative to WinXP/2K as well.
Then there are just people hung up on a 3% difference in a benchmark. So many of the benchmarks published have very deceptive graphs (i.e. not zero-based) and people get bent out of shape over what is truly an insignificant difference.
For all of these, if you don't have enough RAM to hold all of the data and the app, and the OS, then your disk speed will become the dominant factor as virtual memory paging will dominate the time.
I'm not familiar with the software in question, so this is based on what is typically involved in these kinds of operations. As a result I may be wrong.
Quote:
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
Quote:
cmyk-rgb conversion
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
Quote:
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor.
Quote:
rotation of huge files in PS
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
Quote:
applying layer styles
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
Quote:
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor. If the code is poorly written or the files aren't close to fitting in memory, then disk speed.
Quote:
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor.
Quote:
Editing text with styles in large PS files
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor.
Quote:
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor. If the code is poorly written or the files aren't close to fitting in memory, then disk speed.
Quote:
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
Probably disk speed.
Quote:
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
Probably disk speed. More complex rendering may be CPU bound.
Quote:
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?
I have saved my pennies and am ready to get a monster PM tower with loads of ram (next update will have to do) but it's disheartening to see my segment, that craves speed and expandability, the old core of the apple universe, seemingly ready to slide into non relevance.
I understand the sentiment but think it's a bit overstated. In the days before the G5, a lot of us in education or in freelance graphic design were still managing to do our work on the higher end 604e units or on the initial spate of G3s. I also remember talking myself into enthusiasm when I finally upgraded to a dual 1GHz PowerMac G4. Like everybody, I wanted a more powerful machine, but I couldn't wait any longer.
Now the picture is brighter. Of course, it could be better, but with all of the chip makers hitting a wall, the gains in performance will need to be made elsewhere (software optimization, in particular). That's why Apple's Mac mini approach to building market share is so important. Software companies inevitably lag behind in optimizing software for a small base like Apple's, and the absence of a trickle up effect is obvious: hi-end users work on poorly optimized software. Ironically, I think that Pro users?in 3D, 1080i and 1080p video, and +1gig file graphic design?need to hope that the Mac mini succeeds.
In a lot of cases people are at the mercy of the software they need or choose to run. Many applications just aren't well designed for the Mac, ...
Yah that was a stupid statement / question I made. I went straight to comparing cinema 4d and other cpu bench apps... instead of remembering that pro apps are usually ported from the x86 side which is usually poorly ported.
So I suppose companies (time / money) and programmers (time / talent) are to blame for these apps not being comparable.
I don't understand why people are saying the performance of the g5 isn't as good as the pc side. I'll compare my g5 with anything. Of course things are faster, but not by that much! I mean come on... we're splitting hairs here.
Not ganging up on you, but I had to snip that quote too.
It's different with 3D rendering. Screen render, and Actual Render.
I'm also missing one quote where I think some thought I may have been questioning the CPU. Which I'm not. I think the G5 CPU comparatively pretty fast vs. x86, but I was just explaining my distress about the need for the radiator (water cooling *whatever*), and it had reminded me of the darkest of days with the G4 when Apple had no choice, but to double CPU's because of intel more than doubling the G4's speed. (MHz vs. GHz). Nothing more.
Quote:
Originally posted by mikenap
Questions for the group:
What is being used mostly on these operations: (cpu/hd/video card,etc)
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
cmyk-rgb conversion
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
rotation of huge files in PS
applying layer styles
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
Editing text with styles in large PS files
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?
This is basically the difference. Most of you are (that I know) are using Illustrator, Quark, Photoshop, mostly 2D apps. Your concerns are usually addressed with more RAM, and fast 10.000rpm HD.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
The original intent of the thread was to ask if, given that the current line isn't selling well, and that Apple have calibrated themselves so that they don't depend on it selling well, it was worth it to turn the line into a few niche machines to more narrowly target pros. For instance, in this thread, we've got one guy who doesn't really need the raw CPU power but does need the fastest hard drives he can get his hands on (his work is constrained by I/O, not CPU) and one guy who needs all the CPU power he can get his hands on for 3D rendering, and the hottest GPU available for the same task. Someone else might not need much of either, but he might want to hang his high-end CRT off the machine for color-critical proofing.
The modular architecture I offered was mostly an old conjecture of mine that I offered to get some discussion going, and (to a lesser extent) to postulate a design that didn't require Apple to provide one configuration per need.
I'm not really concerned about "mainstream" sales, although some of the professional solutions I've offered would also appeal to prosumers. Initial indications are that Apple is not having trouble selling to the mainstream anymore.
Amorph has heard me talking about lackluster 3D performance vs. x86 enough in the past to know what I think Apple needs for the PM to be competitive for my needs. Although I think the CPU now is fine (although I'm still distressed by the water cooler) it's a matter of specialized graphics card availability.
Now the stakes have been raised by PCI-E, and SLI availability on x86 side I think Apple should make a better pro machine with these options available, and a few others like some of the cool things that Alienware is offering in their DCC machine like- Hot swappable Raid 1, and 0 SATA drive chassis.
If you render fills a drive - BAM! Pop in a new one. Raw Full length movies are terabytes in size. That does not include render passes for compositing. (although I usually render scenes, or shots at a time, and put them to disc, or tape for safe keeping)
<-??NOTE??->
I just deleted the rest of what I wrote because the explanation, solution, and benefits that include major increased performance for Apples Pro Apps (FCP, Shake, Motion), and what I expected would be an increased user base for Macs - because it was getting too long for anyone to want to read it. Heck It's too long now. (long winded)
Not ganging up on you, but I had to snip that quote too.
It's different with 3D rendering. Screen render, and Actual Render.
I'm also missing one quote where I think some thought I may have been questioning the CPU. Which I'm not. I think the G5 CPU comparatively pretty fast vs. x86, but I was just explaining my distress about the need for the radiator (water cooling *whatever*), and it had reminded me of the darkest of days with the G4 when Apple had no choice, but to double CPU's because of intel more than doubling the G4's speed. (MHz vs. GHz). Nothing more.
If it makes you feel any better, most PC cpus are about to hit that road. Actually they already are at that road if you want the tower to be just as quiet as the PowerMac. I believe apple moved to water cooling because the fans had to run all the time on the dual 2.5's which led to the machines being loud, and that would have killed one of apple's claims to fame.... being silent running machines.
PC chips that have been made within the last year need the same cooling. But most of the towers have fans running on them 24/7. Remember that the new machines don't even have fans on the heat sinks of the procs (below the dual 2.5). These fans are about 2-3 inches in front.
Point is, if you want a PC to be just as silent... they have to use water cooling too. People are more willing to put up with it on the pc side though.
I wouldn't worry about apple going down the g4 / 500 mhz road again. That was a very bad mess that hurt them deeply.
And btw... I side with you on the Powermacs needing some more professional cards. Even though the cards they have are more than addiquite for most pros.
Making the processors be contained in swappable "processor modules" would allow Apple to extend much further into the server and corporate arena. Having to throw out your computers for CPU upgrades doesn't appeal to many people.
I don't remember the numbers, but have you ever seen the percentage of people that actually upgrade their computers? It's absurdly low, though it's quite possible that Mac users as a group have a higher percentage of upgraders, but probably not by much.
Personally, I've long felt that upgrades often don't match the price/performance of a new machine, especially now that bus speeds are changing again. When you get a new machine now, a large part of it's advantage is the more advanced architecture/buses etc, which you don't get with a CPU upgrade.
I'd be amazed to see a G5 upgrade in a G4, and I'd be further amazed if it performed at more than 50% of a native G5 system. As far as G5 system upgradability, I don't think it'd even be reasonable to expect until the memory controller is on the CPU, since the CPU doesn't seem to support enough bus multiplier options.
In the end upgradability sells machines, not upgrades, as the lacklucter performance of the upgrade vendors over the last 10 years or so shows.
When someone's not on my G4 pwerbook I use a PowerBook G3 Kanga OS 9 (the very first G3) with it's
12.1" screen with an attached monitor( I broke the lcd
years ago.) I still have my Mac Classic too.
Your set-up sounds like my closet-- and my under-desk, and my top shelf:
SE Classic, IIci, AV monitors, PowerBook100, Pismo (with all the VST goodies... & still alive, but needs batteries!), iMac snowflake, iBook rev 2 white via Japan, iMac 15" FP etc....
In the end upgradability sells machines, not upgrades, as the lacklucter performance of the upgrade vendors over the last 10 years or so shows.
I can partially agree with that. Upgradability makes a computer look more attractive to the buyer. The flip side of that coin is going to be Mac MIni which I have no doubts will sell like wild fire.
I may even get one to replace my PowerMac so I'll still have a Mac for internet use.
I have not yet bought my PC, (next month after tax return) but I do NOT intend to hook it up to the internet. It's going to be a 3D work machine only. I know the OS is sh*t, but I do know how to maintain a computer. Even if it runs windows.
<rant>Keeping it off the internet is about the only way. Seriously, do you realize that there have been over 23,000 (yep, twenty-three thousand!) spyware/adware applications being installed unknowingly in the past year-and-a-half on Winblows boxes. The ONLY way to keep them running safely is off the internet. </rant>
You're right, it is about the only way. Unless you truely know what you're doing / where you're going on the net.
I have Sygate Firewall installed and basically block everything. It's sad. I can't go anywhere or download anything basically. I download everything with my mac and send it over to it over the network... been working that way for about 4 months no problems. Windows is complete crap because of this spyware stuff.
I remember a disturbing conversation I had with a pinacle rep at a Macworld expo a few years back when FCP came out and was starting to rock. I asked him why my business partner could purchase cheap video (DV) accelorators that took all the rendering out of video editing on the PC, and none were available on the Mac. the card I was refering to was from a company called "Canapous" (sp?) and was well under a grand, and took the render out of the game completly. the rep responded to me that there cards could do the same thing, but Apple closed them off the the necessary software used in FCP that would allow this type of acceleration. His take was Apple wanted people to keep buying new PowerMacs, and if an upgradable, affordable card was released, no one would continue the upgrade cycle. (at least in the Video world). I dont know if any of it was true, but It bothered me alot to hear. Any thoughts on this?
I remember a disturbing conversation I had with a pinacle rep at a Macworld expo a few years back when FCP came out and was starting to rock. I asked him why my business partner could purchase cheap video (DV) accelorators that took all the rendering out of video editing on the PC, and none were available on the Mac. the card I was refering to was from a company called "Canapous" (sp?) and was well under a grand, and took the render out of the game completly. the rep responded to me that there cards could do the same thing, but Apple closed them off the the necessary software used in FCP that would allow this type of acceleration. His take was Apple wanted people to keep buying new PowerMacs, and if an upgradable, affordable card was released, no one would continue the upgrade cycle. (at least in the Video world). I dont know if any of it was true, but It bothered me alot to hear. Any thoughts on this?
I personally doubt that. First off, that's a small percentage that would just upgrade using that card than buy a new machine. If you're that serious about video editing to purchase a $1000 dollar card than you're definitely in the market for a new machine also.
However, I can picture apple not allowing pinacle to see the software code used in FCP in fear they might see something they shouldn't .
Comments
As a stopgap I'm upgrading to a 100GB drive, which will also be faster than the stock drive (I also use a firewire external for extra space/swap, which speeds things considerably) and I'll probably stick another RAM stick in there.
More CPU speed would be nice, but really Apple's current laptops don't seem like a big enough increase to justify the cost. Amazingly, I've used Mac since 1986, and I've had a few thoughts of high end PC laptops of late. Not that I'd bite, because I'd have to rebuy software, deal with PC BS, etc., but it should send a message to Apple that someone like me is even having such thoughts.
Brian
Originally posted by mikenap
Questions for the group:
What is being used mostly on these operations: (cpu/hd/video card,etc)
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
cmyk-rgb conversion
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
rotation of huge files in PS
applying layer styles
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
Editing text with styles in large PS files
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?
Originally posted by emig647
I don't understand why people are saying the performance of the g5 isn't as good as the pc side. I'll compare my g5 with anything. Of course things are faster, but not by that much! I mean come on... we're splitting hairs here.
In a lot of cases people are at the mercy of the software they need or choose to run. Many applications just aren't well designed for the Mac, and they don't deliver comparable performance, even on a dual G5 (or in some cases only on a G5 if the software hasn't been recompiled for the G5), compared to on the x86 machines. For some tasks the G5 isn't the ideal machine -- single threaded, small integer intense, latency dependent code will typically do better on the high end x86 machines.
On the other hand, properly optimized floating point or SIMD code that is bandwidth-oriented and multi-threaded will positively sing on the G5. OSX has some strengths relative to WinXP/2K as well.
Then there are just people hung up on a 3% difference in a benchmark. So many of the benchmarks published have very deceptive graphs (i.e. not zero-based) and people get bent out of shape over what is truly an insignificant difference.
I'm not familiar with the software in question, so this is based on what is typically involved in these kinds of operations. As a result I may be wrong.
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
cmyk-rgb conversion
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor.
rotation of huge files in PS
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
applying layer styles
Memory bandwidth & cache size.
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor. If the code is poorly written or the files aren't close to fitting in memory, then disk speed.
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor.
Editing text with styles in large PS files
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor.
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
CPU probably, although memory bandwidth & cache may be a factor. If the code is poorly written or the files aren't close to fitting in memory, then disk speed.
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
Probably disk speed.
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
Probably disk speed. More complex rendering may be CPU bound.
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?
Make sure you have tons of RAM.
originally posted by mikenap:
I have saved my pennies and am ready to get a monster PM tower with loads of ram (next update will have to do) but it's disheartening to see my segment, that craves speed and expandability, the old core of the apple universe, seemingly ready to slide into non relevance.
I understand the sentiment but think it's a bit overstated. In the days before the G5, a lot of us in education or in freelance graphic design were still managing to do our work on the higher end 604e units or on the initial spate of G3s. I also remember talking myself into enthusiasm when I finally upgraded to a dual 1GHz PowerMac G4. Like everybody, I wanted a more powerful machine, but I couldn't wait any longer.
Now the picture is brighter. Of course, it could be better, but with all of the chip makers hitting a wall, the gains in performance will need to be made elsewhere (software optimization, in particular). That's why Apple's Mac mini approach to building market share is so important. Software companies inevitably lag behind in optimizing software for a small base like Apple's, and the absence of a trickle up effect is obvious: hi-end users work on poorly optimized software. Ironically, I think that Pro users?in 3D, 1080i and 1080p video, and +1gig file graphic design?need to hope that the Mac mini succeeds.
Originally posted by Programmer
In a lot of cases people are at the mercy of the software they need or choose to run. Many applications just aren't well designed for the Mac, ...
Yah that was a stupid statement / question I made. I went straight to comparing cinema 4d and other cpu bench apps... instead of remembering that pro apps are usually ported from the x86 side which is usually poorly ported.
So I suppose companies (time / money) and programmers (time / talent) are to blame for these apps not being comparable.
Originally posted by emig647
I don't understand why people are saying the performance of the g5 isn't as good as the pc side. I'll compare my g5 with anything. Of course things are faster, but not by that much! I mean come on... we're splitting hairs here.
Not ganging up on you, but I had to snip that quote too.
It's different with 3D rendering. Screen render, and Actual Render.
I'm also missing one quote where I think some thought I may have been questioning the CPU. Which I'm not. I think the G5 CPU comparatively pretty fast vs. x86, but I was just explaining my distress about the need for the radiator (water cooling *whatever*), and it had reminded me of the darkest of days with the G4 when Apple had no choice, but to double CPU's because of intel more than doubling the G4's speed. (MHz vs. GHz). Nothing more.
Originally posted by mikenap
Questions for the group:
What is being used mostly on these operations: (cpu/hd/video card,etc)
Image resizing on large PS files (image size dialog)
cmyk-rgb conversion
rasterizing quark/illy eps files at high rez into PS
rotation of huge files in PS
applying layer styles
creating PDF's from large Quark/Indesign files
Compresing large PDF's in Acrobat
Editing text with styles in large PS files
saving Illy files with placed raster artwork
find/replace in large Dreamweaver websites
using multiple streams of video with transitions in FCP, then rendering
I'm curious what I should look for to increase my workflow and speed in these operations, as they are the bottlenecks in my shop. Is CPU the big one with these?
This is basically the difference. Most of you are (that I know) are using Illustrator, Quark, Photoshop, mostly 2D apps. Your concerns are usually addressed with more RAM, and fast 10.000rpm HD.
Originally posted by Amorph
The original intent of the thread was to ask if, given that the current line isn't selling well, and that Apple have calibrated themselves so that they don't depend on it selling well, it was worth it to turn the line into a few niche machines to more narrowly target pros. For instance, in this thread, we've got one guy who doesn't really need the raw CPU power but does need the fastest hard drives he can get his hands on (his work is constrained by I/O, not CPU) and one guy who needs all the CPU power he can get his hands on for 3D rendering, and the hottest GPU available for the same task. Someone else might not need much of either, but he might want to hang his high-end CRT off the machine for color-critical proofing.
The modular architecture I offered was mostly an old conjecture of mine that I offered to get some discussion going, and (to a lesser extent) to postulate a design that didn't require Apple to provide one configuration per need.
I'm not really concerned about "mainstream" sales, although some of the professional solutions I've offered would also appeal to prosumers. Initial indications are that Apple is not having trouble selling to the mainstream anymore.
Amorph has heard me talking about lackluster 3D performance vs. x86 enough in the past to know what I think Apple needs for the PM to be competitive for my needs. Although I think the CPU now is fine (although I'm still distressed by the water cooler) it's a matter of specialized graphics card availability.
Now the stakes have been raised by PCI-E, and SLI availability on x86 side I think Apple should make a better pro machine with these options available, and a few others like some of the cool things that Alienware is offering in their DCC machine like- Hot swappable Raid 1, and 0 SATA drive chassis.
If you render fills a drive - BAM! Pop in a new one. Raw Full length movies are terabytes in size. That does not include render passes for compositing. (although I usually render scenes, or shots at a time, and put them to disc, or tape for safe keeping)
<-??NOTE??->
I just deleted the rest of what I wrote because the explanation, solution, and benefits that include major increased performance for Apples Pro Apps (FCP, Shake, Motion), and what I expected would be an increased user base for Macs - because it was getting too long for anyone to want to read it. Heck It's too long now.
Originally posted by onlooker
Not ganging up on you, but I had to snip that quote too.
It's different with 3D rendering. Screen render, and Actual Render.
I'm also missing one quote where I think some thought I may have been questioning the CPU. Which I'm not. I think the G5 CPU comparatively pretty fast vs. x86, but I was just explaining my distress about the need for the radiator (water cooling *whatever*), and it had reminded me of the darkest of days with the G4 when Apple had no choice, but to double CPU's because of intel more than doubling the G4's speed. (MHz vs. GHz). Nothing more.
If it makes you feel any better, most PC cpus are about to hit that road. Actually they already are at that road if you want the tower to be just as quiet as the PowerMac. I believe apple moved to water cooling because the fans had to run all the time on the dual 2.5's which led to the machines being loud, and that would have killed one of apple's claims to fame.... being silent running machines.
PC chips that have been made within the last year need the same cooling. But most of the towers have fans running on them 24/7. Remember that the new machines don't even have fans on the heat sinks of the procs (below the dual 2.5). These fans are about 2-3 inches in front.
Point is, if you want a PC to be just as silent... they have to use water cooling too. People are more willing to put up with it on the pc side though.
I wouldn't worry about apple going down the g4 / 500 mhz road again. That was a very bad mess that hurt them deeply.
And btw... I side with you on the Powermacs needing some more professional cards. Even though the cards they have are more than addiquite for most pros.
I don't remember the numbers, but have you ever seen the percentage of people that actually upgrade their computers? It's absurdly low, though it's quite possible that Mac users as a group have a higher percentage of upgraders, but probably not by much.
Personally, I've long felt that upgrades often don't match the price/performance of a new machine, especially now that bus speeds are changing again. When you get a new machine now, a large part of it's advantage is the more advanced architecture/buses etc, which you don't get with a CPU upgrade.
I'd be amazed to see a G5 upgrade in a G4, and I'd be further amazed if it performed at more than 50% of a native G5 system. As far as G5 system upgradability, I don't think it'd even be reasonable to expect until the memory controller is on the CPU, since the CPU doesn't seem to support enough bus multiplier options.
In the end upgradability sells machines, not upgrades, as the lacklucter performance of the upgrade vendors over the last 10 years or so shows.
Originally posted by __MaGnUsSoN__
Yeah...
When someone's not on my G4 pwerbook I use a PowerBook G3 Kanga OS 9 (the very first G3) with it's
12.1" screen with an attached monitor( I broke the lcd
years ago.) I still have my Mac Classic too.
Your set-up sounds like my closet-- and my under-desk, and my top shelf:
SE Classic, IIci, AV monitors, PowerBook100, Pismo (with all the VST goodies... & still alive, but needs batteries!), iMac snowflake, iBook rev 2 white via Japan, iMac 15" FP etc....
Cheers
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
In the end upgradability sells machines, not upgrades, as the lacklucter performance of the upgrade vendors over the last 10 years or so shows.
I can partially agree with that. Upgradability makes a computer look more attractive to the buyer. The flip side of that coin is going to be Mac MIni which I have no doubts will sell like wild fire.
I may even get one to replace my PowerMac so I'll still have a Mac for internet use.
Originally posted by onlooker
I have not yet bought my PC, (next month after tax return) but I do NOT intend to hook it up to the internet. It's going to be a 3D work machine only. I know the OS is sh*t, but I do know how to maintain a computer. Even if it runs windows.
<rant>Keeping it off the internet is about the only way. Seriously, do you realize that there have been over 23,000 (yep, twenty-three thousand!) spyware/adware applications being installed unknowingly in the past year-and-a-half on Winblows boxes. The ONLY way to keep them running safely is off the internet. </rant>
I have Sygate Firewall installed and basically block everything. It's sad. I can't go anywhere or download anything basically. I download everything with my mac and send it over to it over the network... been working that way for about 4 months no problems. Windows is complete crap because of this spyware stuff.
Originally posted by emig647
I have Sygate Firewall installed and basically block everything.
Have you actually had to answer all those "xxxxxxx.DLL is trying to access the internet on port 6293" questions? What a pain in the ass!
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Have you actually had to answer all those "xxxxxxx.DLL is trying to access the internet on port 6293" questions? What a pain in the ass!
The new sygate deals with that for you. The old version, yes I did
Originally posted by __MaGnUsSoN__
Cheers
Originally posted by mikenap
I remember a disturbing conversation I had with a pinacle rep at a Macworld expo a few years back when FCP came out and was starting to rock. I asked him why my business partner could purchase cheap video (DV) accelorators that took all the rendering out of video editing on the PC, and none were available on the Mac. the card I was refering to was from a company called "Canapous" (sp?) and was well under a grand, and took the render out of the game completly. the rep responded to me that there cards could do the same thing, but Apple closed them off the the necessary software used in FCP that would allow this type of acceleration. His take was Apple wanted people to keep buying new PowerMacs, and if an upgradable, affordable card was released, no one would continue the upgrade cycle. (at least in the Video world). I dont know if any of it was true, but It bothered me alot to hear. Any thoughts on this?
I personally doubt that. First off, that's a small percentage that would just upgrade using that card than buy a new machine. If you're that serious about video editing to purchase a $1000 dollar card than you're definitely in the market for a new machine also.
However, I can picture apple not allowing pinacle to see the software code used in FCP in fear they might see something they shouldn't