Adobe says: PCs faster than Macs

End of argument:

http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=38445

Wanna bet it's the end of the argument?

Ok, well computer are getting so powerful these days that its becoming less and less relevant just how much juice you pack. Not that we don't all want the fastest computer but...its less of an issue now. On that note, I would like to quote an article I found.

"The big difference is that Macs don’t have to deal with an open architecture, and are just plain higher-quality machines, and so they work right much more often than PCs do. (They do still crash, fail, or do stupid stuff from time to time. A friend of mine bought a new PowerMac recently and now his expensive flatbed scanner doesn’t scan in color any more.) But graphic artists are usually working under tight (and very often unreasonable) deadlines — and in that situation, you need to be able to rely on your hardware, and Macs have a big advantage on that score. "

I completely agree with this statement. I was Pro PC for as long as I can remember. Then I tried working on a Mac. Well, once you go Mac, you never go back :D. It is really all about reliability. And Macs display a much truer colour. And OSX is damn sexy. And... maybe its not just all about reliability ;).

BTW I have a G4 at the magazine and I do all my freelance on a PC at home. Both do a great job, but I'd ditch the PC in a heartbeat to bring the G4 home.

End of argument... ahahah. Every PC argument I have ever seen only compares the speed of the processor to "end the argument". I personally don't mind waiting thirty more seconds for a filter to finish, if I actually enjoyed the wait and enjoyed using my computer every day. But if all you care about is raw horsepower that you don't use 90% of the time, then please use a PC.

And that graphic should look like this:



Because 54 seconds is not .54 seconds.

I will continue to hold my opinion. If I really wanted to compare a pc to a mac - give me the same budget. I will put 3 grand into a pc and show you how nice it is. But most people still compare a Compaq under $800 to a $3 grand plus mac. How many of you are using firewire or scsi on your pc's? How about dual processing? Forget all the glitz and fanciful colors that macs have and start comparing hardware to hardware a similar computer.

I will have to say that windows OS is not as stable as OSx or jaguar - even though i havent used them - but since they went a positive route and integrated BSD - one of the oldest and stablest OS's available....

I'm all for people to like whatever they like. Liking slower, less stable, more expensive work equipment with dwindling advantages in color accuracy and industry acceptance is fine by me. I don't know where people are getting that macs are more reliable than wintel pcs now. OSX and recent adobe apps have been shattering that myth with more problems than pc users face. Whenever I read the adobe support forums thats all I ever see, anyway. With many users sticking to OS9 and older adobe apps. Though upgrades aren't exactly necessary these days, its certainly nice to keep up. At least to be able to ensure compatibility with your clients.

I don't like the monopolization of the ibm-pc clone OS market by Microsoft, but until Linux or a competing OS comes around that gets as much major software publisher support as Microsoft, its a necessary evil. Perhaps if Apple does what has been rumored before, like switching over to a CISC 64-bit based cpu OS, then Microsoft and Apple could compete on the same operating platform, with OS virtues being the the defining difference.

I dont use a mac - but with OSx it seems there was a major change in the kernel - which will reap havoc on the application developers and backwards compatibility, but in the long run it seems using a secure and stable foundation was a very smart thing to do. I was checking out their X servers and they seem very stable and much cheaper than Windows. I mean micro$oft rapes the businesses by license fees. X serv runs at $999 for unlimited licenses. and the hardware wont be much different in cost. This is great. I dont think this would have been possible with their older kernels. So it was a smart move for them - just a bit of a jab in the ribs to the consumer. But I think they realise that mac users are very stubborn and wouldnt switch to Pc just because their PS is running not so smooth.

Another Mac VS PC WAR....... Yehaaaaaaa!

But if all you care about is raw horsepower that you don't use 90% of the time,

The article say they made the test by comparing results over Adobe appliactions ... (im Sure Photoshop was tested) so its about performence not raw horse power... This mean than its better to work on an PC than a mac!

Every time I see this subject come up I have an overwhelming desire to serve everyone involved with the associated thread a nice, steaming hot cup of shut the f uck up.

LoL! But its such a deadbeat topic.... Nice to beat it again and again and again and again and ....