PDA

View Full Version : Apples is serve a steaming cup of shutup....



archiea
03-28-2004, 04:46 PM
Seems like the BBB got serious with Job's reality distortion field....

I hope the BBB doesn't catch wind of Beam's reality distortion field... ;D

http://news.com.com/2100-1042_3-5180251.html?tag=nefd_top

Beamtracer
03-28-2004, 05:21 PM
That's a few days old, Archiea!

Some functions are faster on a G5. Others are faster on a Dell. It depends on whether the software is optimized for the G5 or not.

At the moment, not much software has been optimized for the G5. Software developers haven't had time. Look at Lightwave as it is now. How much G5 specific optimization has it had? None. Well, at least not yet. I think Newtek is fully aware of the massive speed boost that will result if they switch to using Xcode compiling software for future versions of Lightwave.

Translate a movie file from one codec to another and there is no processor that can do it faster than a G5. But the world is full of non-optimized apps, so maybe Apple should not have made a general claim to be the "fastest personal computer".

Give it about 2 months and we'll see G5 optimized apps popping out everywhere. This will give Intel a run for its money. Also boosting G5 speed will be OS 10.4 near the end of the year.

What the BBB thinks of processor speeds does not influence my computer purchasing.

mrunion
03-28-2004, 06:52 PM
Just a simple-minded opinion here, but I think it will take much more than speed of the processor alone to give Intel a run for it's money. So much more is riding on a processor than just speed.

Again, just my opinion -- and NOT a hateful, targeted-at-a-particular-group one.

toby
03-28-2004, 06:57 PM
Apple's claim is that the G5's hardware is faster at running un-optimzed code than Intel's, and it's true - at this time there is no optimized code for the G5, so saying Intel has faster processors would be no more accurate, and unless you think it's fair to compare optimized code to un-optimized code, there is no other way to do a test comparison.

The only thing they're 'fudging' is by not mentioning that the faster processing is more potential than practical, except with a few programs that are written for it - which makes them guilty of being like any other business. Has anyone ever seen a marketing campaign that goes 'buy our product, it's the best, if you look at it this way'?

Dell's complaint is no more than a reaction to the heat being turned up - just like when the PC fanatics flocked to the Mac forum when the G5 benchmarks were announced.

toby
03-28-2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by mrunion
Just a simple-minded opinion here, but I think it will take much more than speed of the processor alone to give Intel a run for it's money. So much more is riding on a processor than just speed.


Agreed - that's what mac-o-philes have been saying for years now!

What's kept Mac alive is better systems regardless of speed. If it gets a clear speed advantage, it will be twice as good as a PC. But given the entrenched nature of the PC and windows, it will have to be 10 times better to replace them - doesn't bother me, I just want an end to the my-computer-is-better-than-yours bickering.

Beamtracer
03-28-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by mrunion
Just a simple-minded opinion here, but I think it will take much more than speed of the processor alone to give Intel a run for it's money. So much more is riding on a processor than just speed. Yes, there is much more riding on a system than just processor speed. Other factors are:
-How good the operating system is at multitasking
(does it crash when you load too many applications?)
-Is the OS maker capable of making updates to the OS in a regular manner?
-Is the OS secure from malicious attacks and viruses?
-Is it a 64-bit processor?

These are the issues that should be considered before choosing a computer platform.

mrunion
03-29-2004, 05:50 AM
Yup. All great points. That's what I meant. Just 'cause it's faster (alone) doesn't mean something's better.

And no bickering from me!

Beamtracer
03-29-2004, 02:47 PM
The G4 processor never reached its potential.

There were features of the G4 processor that software makers could have taken advantage of, but didn't because they were lazy and couldn't allocate the resources for this work.

The G5 is different. It still needs software to be optimized for it (as do most processors) but now Apple and IBM have supplied software makers with the tools to make it much easier to optimize for the G5.

This is why I'm looking forward to the first Xcode applications coming onto the market in the next few months.


Dell's complaint to the BBB is a bit ironic. Dell didn't like Apple saying the G5 was the fastest. When the G5 was operating in peoples' homes, it may not have been "generally faster" than the rest because of the lack of software optimized for it. A lack of tailored software can make the processor look slow.

Yet the opposite applies to Apple's 64-bit claim. Apple claimed the G5 was the first 64-bit "desktop" machine on the market. Dell says the Opteron was first. But apart from being in the "workstation" class, Opteron had no 64-bit version of Windows to run on it (beta versions don't count). At least Apple's Panther OS, while not being pure 64-bit, has enough 64-bit functionality to use a combined 8 gigs of RAM.

It could have been argued that Dell's 64-bit plans were hobbled due to a lack of 64-bit software (ie, the OS), just like the G5 didn't have optimized software at the time it was released.

js33
03-29-2004, 02:50 PM
Are all of Apple's applications...FCP, DVDSP2, iApps, etc...created with Xcode? Just curious.

Cheers,
JS

Turner
04-01-2004, 04:33 AM
Heck, I just like Apples better.

eblu
04-01-2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by js33
Are all of Apple's applications...FCP, DVDSP2, iApps, etc...created with Xcode? Just curious.

Cheers,
JS

JS,

I can vouch for the Iapps, and FCP. they are at least made with projectBuilder (xcode's prev version name), and most likely made with the Latest dev build of Xcode.

just look inside any app's Package (done by control clicking on the application and selecting "show package contents") this is the guts of the app, and there should be a contents directory. folow this path: Contents:Resources. In here you'll see evidence of Xcode...
Nib files, directories with Localising info (Dutch.lproj etc...), icns files. none of this stuff works with other dev environs, if you find this stuff, you've found an Xcode (or projectbuilder) developed app.

just for kicks check out the package contents of Lightwave

toby
04-01-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by eblu

just for kicks check out the package contents of Lightwave

errr... you mean 'kicks' because you can't look at the package contents?

eblu
04-01-2004, 09:27 AM
yup.
codewarrior apps don't normally have packages. LW's app is one file, not a folder disguised as an app.

mlinde
04-01-2004, 10:16 AM
There is no fixed rule that an application bundle (the official name for the "folder as application") has to be created with XCode or Project Builder. It's actually the structure Apple recommends regardless of what you use to compile your application. The application bundle allows you to have specific language versions of your file (supposedly only installing the languages you installed with the OS), it removes the need for a resource fork by keeping all the graphical and data resources inside the bundle as actual object/files, enables portability and ease of removal (usually deleting a bundle deletes the entire app, no other deletes needed). The easy way to visualize LW as a bundle would be seeing the Lightwave folder like this:

mlinde
04-01-2004, 10:17 AM
It may even be possible to bundle the 4 applications "inside" the bundle itself (I haven't studied it that in-depth) so that it would just be a Lightwave 3D icon in the Applications Folder, but with the inherent seperation of Modeler and Layout, I don't know if that would work.

jasonwestmas
04-02-2004, 11:18 AM
Hey Beam,

You made a comment earlier that programmers for various apps. never utilitzed the G4 processor to its full potential. It also sounded like applications optimized for the 64bit G5 are going to spring up soon. Does this mean that the G4 will be able to run those apps as well and also benefit from the optimization?
I appreciate your info. Thanks

eblu
04-02-2004, 12:30 PM
i'm not beam but i can answer that question.
the answer is : no. It will be able to run em, but not benefit from the optimizations

the g4 was not programmed for, optimised for, or utilized to its full potential. end of that sad story. hopefully the g5 won't fare as poorly as the g4. Software engineers appear to be pretty excited about the g5 generally, and I hope that turns into good code.

some interesting things have surfaced that might actually affect this ongoing and tragic, mac-only story. since both Sony And Microsoft are going to be using processors that are VERY similar to the g5, the learning curve for g5 optimization may get a whole LOT shorter in the gaming market. Its a "we'll see just how much impact that has a FEW YEARS from now" situation. but aside from that, its looking like the g5 is a much better place to be than a g4, going into the future.

Ed M.
04-02-2004, 02:18 PM
And strong, new developers continue to bring their wares to OS X.

Check this (http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20619) out.
:D
--
Ed

Beamtracer
04-02-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by eblu
i'm not beam but i can answer that question.
the answer is : no. It will be able to run em, but not benefit from the optimizations Hehehe. Eblu has coding experience so he gave a better answer than I could anyway.

I agree that the optimizations will mostly be G5 specific. It's always been the case that optimizations are mostly done for the latest and greatest processor.

I'm very positive about what's going on at Apple lately. It's like all the planets are aligning in Apple's favor.

jasonwestmas
04-02-2004, 09:35 PM
Thanks Guys!

Sorry to hear the G4 will never be fully realized, especially since I just bought my Dual 1Ghz G4 a year and a half ago. Kind of feels like a scam but that's ok, it did what I wanted it to do and well. So what processor was Lightwave7 OSX and Adobe OSX apps. written for anyway? A tough G3, a single processor G4?

Darth Mole
04-03-2004, 03:47 AM
A year and a half? That's about ten years in human terms. About 50 for a dog.

RonGC
04-05-2004, 10:38 AM
Something that may be the cause of companies porting their wares to the Mac. 3Dworld reported as fact that 39% 0f United States FX Studios are using the Mac as their Primary production system, an increase of 11% from last year.

This is significant as the pro software producers want in on that market and in order to keep sales up have to move to optimize for OSX or stand to lose a significant portion of the market to their competitors.

The G5 is the driving force behind companies buying Macs and demanding the software for that machine:-)

Exciting times for the Mac platform.

Ron

redlum
04-05-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer


Some functions are faster on a G5. Others are faster on a Dell. It depends on whether the software is optimized for the G5 or not.



Also - I think Dells crash faster than the G5. Oh wait, my G5 hasn't crashed yet so I can't make that comparison. Sorry. :D

Moser95814
04-20-2004, 09:09 PM
Neither has it on my humble P3.....

ACLOBO
04-21-2004, 01:35 AM
I have the uncanny ability to crash a MAC just by thinking negatively about it.

Also, I student taught a lightwave class at the university in my home town for a semester. They had a brand new Mac Lab with G4's and the first builds of OS X. I know that lightwave wasn't the greatest performer on these systems, but they crashed a lot both in lightwave and in general - crashing and randomly corrupting student's work made for some interesting sessions.

There will always be arguments for this platform or that platform. I happen to make my decisions from personal experience. My personal experience makes me very skeptical when I see a Mac - from the old black and white days to the present (well, ok almost present since I last used one).

My personal opinion is that Macs are:

Pro's

1) sexy cool looking

2) nice easy hardware / software setup

Con's

1) Overpriced (I can build my own or buy a nice 3+ ghz p4 machine for under $1000. Apple doesn't let you build your own. Not any more anyway...

2) I can make them crash just by looking at them (really)

3) I usually know what makes my windows machine crash (which is rare). Not sure when Mac crashes.

4) One button mouse standard (just read the Mac LW topics about people cheering their discovery of 3 buttons - lol)

5) More accessibility to software (though this is getting better) I use my machines for work and entertainment - I can find more for my PC's and find it easier and cheaper.

This isn't a total bash on Mac's and I don't want to start a flame war. This is, in fact, just my personal opinion and experiences with both platforms. I must admit that I have more experience with wintel machines than Macs, but my wintel machines do it just fine for me for the moment - though I wish my Amiga was still a viable platform (you want to talk about REAL multitasking?). :D

Thanks, but for now I will go with the "Lightwave 3D" reasoning. My Wintel machines offer "more bang for the buck."

-Adrian

Beamtracer
04-21-2004, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by ACLOBO
My Wintel machines offer "more bang for the buck." Yes, I've heard they often "go bang". Then smoke starts rising from the back of them.

My G5 never crashes. Never. It runs Lightwave flawlessly.

Beamtracer
04-21-2004, 05:38 AM
.

eblu
04-21-2004, 07:48 AM
adrian,
I know you are "not trying to start a flame war". But I have to take issue with a lot of what you said. You seem to blame lightwave's issues on the platform (your student teaching anecdote). you are caught in the Price bias... that macs are more expensive than PCs... thats rubbish. Macs cost the same as similarly equipped PCs, Theres just less choices where macs are concerned.

availability of cheap software, is NOT any reason to be happy. It isn't a reasonable selling point for PCs, and it doesn't justify staying away from macs. You'll find that the majority of the killer apps out there run on the mac, and quite a few of them, run on the mac exclusively. Shareware is fun, but in the end Cheap software is just that... cheap.

making them crash by looking at them? really? what are you doing wrong? In fact, why don't you elaborate? Many of the Mac LW users would be HAPPY to help you learn how to Not crash LW.

and as for bang over buck, in the 3d world macs have something to prove, but not in video, 2d design, or multimedia. in Fact, it could be argued that Macs offer a better bang over buck ratio than PCs because of the higher availability of Professional sound, video, and design apps, the ease of use, stability (which I personally find to be superior to PCs), and the Free apps that come with it. And make no mistake, Apple is gunning for the best 3-d system ever (with quartz extreme, OpenGl getting full priority, and Apple working hard to get Quicktime and OpenGL to play very well together) ... Microsoft is still trying to get Usability, and drivers worked out for the rest of the system, and splitting its attention between OpenGL and direct3d (or whatever they call it now).

I'd rather be on the system where the OS design is not compromised by a Companies' desire to monopolize Every market. For ex: the registry, IE grafted to the OS, direct3d, windows media, etc...

mlinde
04-21-2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by ACLOBO
I can make them crash just by looking at them (really)

I usually know what makes my windows machine crash (which is rare). Not sure when Mac crashes.

One button mouse standard (just read the Mac LW topics about people cheering their discovery of 3 buttons - lol) Hi Adrian. I'm going to address these specific points.
1) 90% of irregular, high volume crashes, are caused by purchasing cheap-***** memory and installing it in your machine. I can say honestly that my Mac has been up and running with no crashes since my HD died a month ago.
2) Contrary to your experience, my Win2K box tends to go down about once or twice a week. Is it possible that because you know what crashes your PC you unconsciously avoid the sequence of events that would bring it down? That may be true for me and my Mac...
3) I was the three-button guy. It wasn't a discovery of a three button mouse (I've been using a multi-button mouse since I got Lightwave in the late 90s). It was getting good drivers. I take offense to "cheering the discovery of 3 buttons." Get over your bad self.

ACLOBO
04-21-2004, 03:54 PM
ok, I knew I would inevitably draw some criticism from my post. On second thought, I think that I should not have mentioned anything. As a response to some of your retorts on my examples of Cons - regarding Macs - I can only say that some people are zealots and think that a certain platform is superior and they simply close their eyes to anything that might show otherwise.

My point it not that one platform is better over the other - a Mac or PC zealot would be quick to argue that one platform HAS to be better in all respects - all or none. So many people don't see the advantages of either - only the disadvantages of of the one they do not like.

Beamtracer is a zealot. I know this because he was flaming about users of DFX+ (an excellent wintel only compositing program available as a bundle with lightwave). He was stating that nobody would use the DFX+ for production work. When I brought up the FACT that he ignored Digital Domain's use of it in Steven Spielberg's "TAKEN," he ignored that as well.

I was talking about my personal experience. To be honest, I wasn't doing anything to the machines that we had at the lab - and they were brand new; I helped pull them out of the boxes and build the lab (I just know someone is going to infer that I was incompetant - whatever). So, these brand new-directly-from-apple machines had problems. Perhaps it was the early OSX build? Maybe it was that these new machines had new ATI cards in them and there were driver issues (Macs have supported 3rd party cards only in the past few years). I find it interesting that nobody brought this up as I have heard plenty about how the latest build is so much better - again an example of how a person's coveted platform cannot have any flaws.

Some people talk about power apps on here. I find that I do well with what I have, and can find what I need for my wintel machine. Also, I wasn't talking about shareware, but real apps like Sony's aquired Sonic Foundry stuff. As far as 3d apps - Apple is overjoyed by the fact that Lightwave runs on Macs and runs well (recently anyway).

Eblu made the comment that "the majority of killer apps out run on macs and some exclusively." To this I say "what is your definition of a killer app?" I don't see anything that that runs exclusively on a Mac that I MUST have. The bottom line is that I have more choices on my wintel machine. Also keep in mind that lots of choices IS a GOOD thing - competition is always good for the consumer. As far as exclusive apps go - you cannot argue that the wintel market doesn't have more exclusive apps out - some or awesome, some are junk. Can you name a "must have app" that I can't get for my machines? If you can - why MUST I have it? I have lightwave and Cinema 4D for my 3d stuff, After Effects and Digital Fusion for compositing and post work and Acid Music and Sound Forge (two EXCELLENT apps in a family of apps not available for Macs - last time I looked anyway) for scoring/sound effects. Also, I happen to enjoy really good games when I am not working - you cannot beat the wintel game market.

This isn't a total bash on Macs. If they work for you, then that is great. Also, there is NO argument that without the Mac arena, some very important apps might not be around - or at least in their current sexy incarnations (thank Newtek and the Amiga for Toaster/Lightwave). Macs have always excelled in the 2d desktop publishing arena as well. I have also stated that I do like their ease of use and sexy designs (the first time I opened up those G4's to take a look inside I was impressed by the layout).

In the end, I stand by my experience with machines. My wintel machines aren't perfect, but my experience with Macs isn't perfect either. When I weigh the options in my hands, I simply see more options (hardware/software), flexibility and accessibility in the wintel arena. At the time when I switched from my coveted Amiga platform, going wintel made more sense to me - and to this day, I have no regrets.

Like I stated before, maybe I should not have said anything. The main reason I even posted was in response to Beamtracers silly elitest Mac comments with regard to his machine not crashing ever...... I should be grown up enough to know when to ignore SPLAM : Silly Publicly Lame Adolescent Misfits (YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST) by now. Shame on me.... :D

-Adrian

policarpo
04-21-2004, 04:07 PM
Macs suck.
PCs suck.

Art rules!!!

Use whatever helps you to refine your craft.
:D

mlinde
04-21-2004, 10:51 PM
Adrian, I don't have a problem with people who express their experiences, as you have done.

I would be concerned with machines that are, as you say "straight out of the box" and crashing. I do tech support on Macs, and this type of problem is usually indicative of bad hardware or issues with the OS. It's also not very common, but you could have received a bad batch of machines if they were a bulk order. As for anyone accusing you of incompetence, it's not supposed to be hard to set up a Mac. If you plug it into an un-protected outlet in a poorly managed power zone then you can be accused of incompetence, but otherwise you have to try pretty hard to screw up setting up a Mac, so I would seriously suggest having at least one (your worst culprit, if you have one) taken to a local Apple repair center (or Apple Store, if one is nearby) to have it examined. They really do run very well, and very stable, when there isn't a problem.

ACLOBO
04-22-2004, 04:10 AM
This was a year and a half ago. I am no longer there. I did think that maybe there was a bad batch of hardware - or some of the other things that I mentioned. Weird....

-Adrian

Chazz
04-22-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by ACLOBO
The main reason I even posted was in response to Beamtracers silly elitest Mac comments with regard to his machine not crashing ever...... I should be grown up enough to know when to ignore SPLAM : Silly Publicly Lame Adolescent Misfits (YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST) by now. Shame on me.... :D

Best to just ignore the fanboys on here...arguing with them is usually pointless. :D

drclare
04-22-2004, 08:59 AM
When I first got my dual 800 G4 it would crash all the time under OS X.1 and OS 9.2 and I found that one of my processors was defective. So I got them both replaced under warranty, and my mac has literally NEVER crashed since due to itself. I do play a computer game that crashes it now and then, but I know it is the game, because it is the only thing that crashes my computer. OS X is a rock. I agree that Win2000pro was very very stable, it is the only windows os I will use, but it did crash unexplainably from time to time.