Printable View
I would like to know what kind of computer you use and why. It is my opinion that Apple is overrated in the graphic design world and definately not worth the cost and limited upgradability. Don't get me wrong, I think they are fairly solid machines, but come on, at least put a 1 gig processor in your machines apple.
JMO
I wonder what is yours.
they do have 1ghz in Apples.. actually they have 2. They make Dual 1 GHZ G4 PowerMac.
I thought their fastest machine was like a dual 833mhz system. Sorry about being behind the times.
Do you use apple machines?
If so why... familiarity, performance, name recognition???
Stop thinking in terms of Megahertz - Apple gigafloped a chip (which is the old supercomputer standard) at 500 megahertz. The Intel chips weren't able to do this until their chips hit 1.2 Gigahertz (1200 Megahertz). The mega and gigahertz refers to clock cycles in the chips and NOT how many processes have been completed.
In other words the Apple chips do more in a clock cycle than the Intel chips.
Incidentally AMD chips also run more processes per clock cycle than Intel chips and if you want to stay on a PC platform you get a faster chip for less money with AMD.
My old VIC 20 can execute an instruction in a single clock cycle while newer CISC designs from Motorola and Intel require multiple clock cycles per instruction. Granted, the instructions don't do nearly as much but a hopped up VIC 20 could easily get better instuction set benchmarks than any CPU on the market today :)
FLOPS is a measure of floating point operations per second so you're still measuring clock cycles except you're talking about how fast the FPU is instead of the CPU.
If you want to talk about meaningful benchmarks today you have to work at a higher level and measure application performance, disk, video, bus throughput. Everything else is just marketing hype to allow XYZ corp to say they have the fastest CPU. The CPU has become a very small part of modern computer system performance.
so what if Apple chips do more per clock cycle then Intel Chips.. Unless Apple comes out with a Mac that is clocked at 2.53 GHZ then it's doesn't matter. Fact is G4 processor are really aged compared to new AMD and Intel processors, and they can't keep up.Quote:
Originally posted by Orkar
Stop thinking in terms of Megahertz - Apple gigafloped a chip (which is the old supercomputer standard) at 500 megahertz. The Intel chips weren't able to do this until their chips hit 1.2 Gigahertz (1200 Megahertz). The mega and gigahertz refers to clock cycles in the chips and NOT how many processes have been completed.
In other words the Apple chips do more in a clock cycle than the Intel chips.
Incidentally AMD chips also run more processes per clock cycle than Intel chips and if you want to stay on a PC platform you get a faster chip for less money with AMD.
As someone wiser than me once said on this forum, it is not the machine that matters. just the person sitting in front of it.
I was once told an overly simplified metaphor, but I thought it was a pretty good explaination of the difference in amount of transistors between Apple and AMD or Intel. Think of Apple cpu's as a porche 911 and the competition as chevelle ss with a 454 big block V8 under the hood. They both do 150mph it's just that AMD and Intel take a little more gas to get there.
as long as that chevelle doesn't stall, starts when you turn the key, and doesn't crash on the way to the finish line.
in answer to your first question serpent, i have a dual gig g4 at work, as well as a g4 powerbook and a another g4 (533) tower at home for my freelance work. also at work is a P4sitting right next to me i use solely for corporate email, even though i have photoshop, flash, and dreamweaver installed. i also edit/produce digital video and there's no way i'd pick adobe premiere over final cut pro, so i'll gladly stick with my macs...
I use mac's because PC's suck. Everytime a PC designer comes out with something 'new' macintosh already did it 10 years ago. I could spend all day spewing forth technical data and benchmarks, pros and cons of RISC vs CISC processors... yada, yada, yada. I have better things to do with my time.
PC's are trash plain and simple, they are overbloated, hodge-podge, memory hogging, horribly in-efficient machines. and they also look like crap compared to a Mac (except in the case of the 'flower power' imac.. )
The only reason I even consider owning one.. is because i have to test my websites on a PC before I launch them. :p
As someome early said the cpu is a small part of the puzzle.
I have a dual p3 xeon machine that smokes the dual g4 at work.
why?
raid0 15000 rpm scsis and lots of ram. also a quardo vid card helps.
I'm may upgrade to p4 xeons, or I may stall till the opteron (64 bit multiprocessor from AMD).
You also have more options with a P.C.
wrap up:
You will not get crap with a mac. however you will not get the very best either. And there is a price premium for the mac.
[Edited by TallGuyLittleCar on 05-20-2002 at 04:12 PM]
Well as so many people before have said...does it really matter what kind of computer you use? It's not the computer that makes you a better designer or programmer. So whether you use a mac or a pc, you'll still have the same skill level.
sure it matters, the faster the PC the faster u can compress files, render complex graphics and a host of other things. When your dealing with BIG files it can make a huge difference in time saved. Sure for low end web design using notepad and typing out html it doesn't matter so much.
I was speaking from an artistic point of view, not a production view. The computer doesn't define how talented of an artist you are. You can have the fastest computer in the world and still be a really bad artist.
the PC is just a tool, just like owning and knowing how to use a saw doesn't make you a carpenter. With web design and multimedia, production can be an issue, and having a proper efficent tool can save time and money. Doesn't take an "artist" to be a web designer or multimedia.
[Edited by Hellsbellboy on 05-21-2002 at 01:37 AM]
Here's an article for everyone - sort of goes along with this thread:
http://www.theregus.com/content/3/24988.html
"So, what is the solution to this dilemma? Quit using the 'increasing clock frequency = increasing performance' marketing ploy. We believe that the ideal clocking frequency will be in the 500-MHz to 1-GHz range and that to improve performance, the microprocessor must do more work on a percycle basis, e.g., see the results for the IBM Power3... " - from the article..
This is from some labs at Los Alamos - It's just a view but I guess it goes along with 1 side of this argument.
Who knows which one is correct. But it makes for an interesting point.
Fastest machine in the universe:
1. It does the whole job in less than 1 clock cycle
2. The GUI is idiot simple to use
3. Costs less than $10
4. Requires no electricity
Answer
a. Etch A Sketch
b. pencil and paper
c. either a or b
I feel that the proper tools can make you a better craftsman. I can do an adequate job with a screwdriver, but give me an electric screwdriver and I spend less time turning a screw and more time completing a project.Quote:
Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
Well as so many people before have said...does it really matter what kind of computer you use? It's not the computer that makes you a better designer or programmer. So whether you use a mac or a pc, you'll still have the same skill level.
Very true. However a slow computer will interupt your workflow. And I don't know about you but I hate that. Imagine doing a fine art piece and having someone interupt you every few minutes to say "hey whats up?".Quote:
Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
I was speaking from an artistic point of view, not a production view. The computer doesn't define how talented of an artist you are. You can have the fastest computer in the world and still be a really bad artist.
well, it's nice to see we agree on something ;)Quote:
Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Very true. However a slow computer will interupt your workflow. And I don't know about you but I hate that. Imagine doing a fine art piece and having someone interupt you every few minutes to say "hey whats up?".Quote:
Originally posted by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-]
I was speaking from an artistic point of view, not a production view. The computer doesn't define how talented of an artist you are. You can have the fastest computer in the world and still be a really bad artist.
>>> slow computer will disrupt your workflow.
I totally agree. I work on both mac and pc. I have a mac at work and a PC at home.
I really love my mac because it looks so cool and it just seems crisp to work on, however it does crash a lot. My PC is much more reliable and it seems to publish .SWFs about 10 times faster.
There is also tons more software outhere for the PC.
I don't use mac's that much but I think they are more reliable then window's based machines.Quote:
Originally posted by monolift
>>> slow computer will disrupt your workflow.
I totally agree. I work on both mac and pc. I have a mac at work and a PC at home.
I really love my mac because it looks so cool and it just seems crisp to work on, however it does crash a lot. My PC is much more reliable and it seems to publish .SWFs about 10 times faster.
There is also tons more software outhere for the PC.
and what do u base that on? If u don't use macs? I use both and if u know how to use them they are both reliable.. but I've also used both in University and when people dont' know what they are doing, they can crash either with great successes. I've heard Mac users that have tried Win2k and say that if they had know about Win2k they would never have bought a mac and vice versa. A lot has to do with personal preferance. But I hear to much nonsense when people say oh the Mac is faster then a PC, and the MHZ thing is just a myth. Sure some of that is true.. U get a 1GHZ Dual Mac against a 1 GHZ Dual P3 and that might be true. But a Dual P3 set up is "old" in the PC world. But a Dual 1GHZ Mac does not equal 2 GHZ, same in the PC world, very very few apps can even handle 2 CPUs and most of those do it very lousy.
You have said this numerous times.. do you have a source.(not being a wise ass, just want more info)Quote:
Originally posted by Hellsbellboy
very very few apps can even handle 2 CPUs and most of those do it very lousy.
Do you only use one app at a time? I use multiple apps at a time. Not only that if you are only using one app, the app gets its own cpu. the os gets the other.
duals rule.
serpent star originally asked which machine people used and why.
I finally came to this conclusion after debating it so long my eyes fell out of my head. I spend soooo much time sitting in front of a machine that it is important that I enjoy my time there. I am a visual mostly right brained person and I think that's a big part of why I enjoy working on macs much more than PC's.
Cannon vs Nikon, Crest vs Colgate, Chevron vs Shell, Toyota vs Nissan, (Ford and Chevy both suck).
serpent star, just decide which you would enjoy working on the most, and get a comfortable chair.
jajajajajajaja
now that is a totally new thread.
of to start it now !!!!
thanks for saying *vice versa* or i'm sure even more people would jump on the thread...Quote:
Originally posted by Hellsbellboy
I've heard Mac users that have tried Win2k and say that if they had know about Win2k they would never have bought a mac and vice versa.
very very few apps can even handle 2 CPUs and most of those do it very lousy.
but in response to your second quote that very few apps handle 2 processors is a little off-base in the apple community: Photoshop and Final Cut Pro both enable dual processors, and that's definitely enough for me.
And as for the earlier comment (I don't know who wrote it) that there is more software available? You're quite right--which is exactly why I like my macs. I'll gladly have my iTunes work perfectly with my mac and my iPod instead of trying to figure out if I want to play my music through win-amp, real player, windows media player etc. etc.
But if you mean that professional software is PC only, I'll call you out on that. The only pro PC only software for the multimedia/web community that I'd bet anyone cares about is Interdev and Cold Fusion MX.
And in respone to the person who said that he/she feels Macs are over-rated in the design community I ask: Where are your sources?
Are you looking at your buddies on their dads' win-tel boxes who only make web sites for their personal *Flashkit Studio* portfolio sites and their local church group?
I think in the real world, any professional ad agency/architectural firm/design shop/video house, macs are prevalent (not the dominant machine perhaps, but prevalent).
Quote:
Originally posted by Hellsbellboy
I don't believe that statement is entirely true. I know a lot of design firms that don't have macs in their office. My office only has one and it sits in a corner just there specifically to test websites on to make sure they are compliant.Quote:
Are you looking at your buddies on their dads' win-tel boxes who only make web sites for their personal *Flashkit Studio* portfolio sites and their local church group?
I think in the real world, any professional ad agency/architectural firm/design shop/video house, macs are prevalent (not the dominant machine perhaps, but prevalent).
Other than that we don't use macs. I don't see the need for them because the computers we have work perfect for our needs.
As I said before, use whatever you want to use, it makes no difference.
[Edited by [-S|NiStEr_MiNd-] on 05-22-2002 at 09:37 AM]
are you referring to logixstudios?
No, logix studios isn't a company, it's my personal website. I'm refering to the design firm that i'm Design Manager for.
iMac G3 400. OS9. (Red :p)Quote:
Originally posted by serpent star
I would like to know what kind of computer you use and why.
Why? I started using Macs around '92 with audio software. Before and during that period I was a Synclavier operator, which used the guts of an F-15 fighter plane-don't recall what the OS was or what it's definition was, but in a word: cryptic. Also, I had access to MS-DOS stuff, on what was probably a 386 Compaq.
At that time, it was two completely different worlds. I never even considered anything other than a Mac for myself. Now, of course, the lines have blurred a lot. I intend to purchase a PC sometime, for testing and to be better versed in WIndows. (I wish I were looking forward to it.)
My iMac crashes maybe once in five weeks, usually with some website that IE5.0 doesn't like.
I turn it on, do my work for one or twelve hours, back it up, turn it off. Then do it again the next day. My computing life is good.
Peas,
BT
overall, Mac and PC's r the same!
there are a lot more viruses available for Windows, too. i can't tell you how many times i've picked up a virus aimed at Windows/Outlook users and happlily deleted it, having done no harm to my MacOS/Eudora combination.Quote:
Originally posted by erova
And as for the earlier comment (I don't know who wrote it) that there is more software available? You're quite right--which is exactly why I like my macs. [/B]
d.
nt/eudora or nt/ns have no problems eitherQuote:
Originally posted by dlowe93
there are a lot more viruses available for Windows, too. i can't tell you how many times i've picked up a virus aimed at Windows/Outlook users and happlily deleted it, having done no harm to my MacOS/Eudora combination.
d.
If the ratio of users where inverted (90% macs/ 10% pc). the mac would have just as many virii targeting them.
windows is pretty vulnerable though. Outlook is like a petre dish or something. Like bread left out on the counter for a few weeks. like a cess pool or something.
OK, first of all. What mac operation system are we talking about? True windows XP absolutley destroys Mac OS9. Thats true. But, we need to look at Macs new operation system. Its called Mac OS X and it runds off a Darwin version of UNIX. If you compair Mac OSX to windows XP, then yeah Mac OS X destroys windows. The only people that shoud be able to reply to this post are people that have much experience with both Mac OSX and Windows XP. Oh yeah, when is the last time someone had a mac with os x totally crash, duh, never!! Come on mac OS X people, you know how much better the Mac OS X is compaired to Wincrapy, back me up. Quit debating over the chips and figure out what operation system is the best. Of course it is Mac OS X. Yep.
I'm not sure if its a question about which one is better. The issue is Microsoft pumps a ton of money into schools ( at least in the U.S. ) and those kids are learning on a PC. When they begin to get creative they have always used a PC so that is all they know. The ratio will continue to be PC sided until Apple invests as much as MS in education.
We have one MAC and 10 PCs. We get our people what they need to do their job. They almost always want a PC....its what they learned on.
On a side note...its much more cost effective for us to buy software targeted around ONE OS/Platform.
are you guys sure I saw that quote right? hmm...here's a few articles regarding Apple, Macs, and education:Quote:
Originally posted by MajorTom
The issue is Microsoft pumps a ton of money into schools ( at least in the U.S. ) and those kids are learning on a PC. When they begin to get creative they have always used a PC so that is all they know. The ratio will continue to be PC sided until Apple invests as much as MS in education.
http://www.apple.com/education/emac/
(that's a machine solely devoted to education)
http://www.apple.com/education/digitalcampus/
(apple digital campus curriculum)
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2002/04/maine/
(here's a summary:
The shipments will total 675 iBooks, enough to equip several classrooms of seventh grade students at each school.)
Granted, these examples aren't the ONLY time Apple has committed themselves to education, but I have to go to the beach now for memorial day weekend, and I can't find everything on this right now, but I'm sure some other guys can back me up...
Have a good weekend everybody...
Has nothing to do with whether they are providing computers for education, its the quantity. AND, it has nothing to do with what they are going to do...its what they have done....hence the ratio between PCs and Macs in the workplace, schools, homes.
Face it...MS does a better job at marketing their product...and you need a PC to take advantage of their products.
yup. that's a good point.Quote:
Originally posted by MajorTom
Face it...MS does a better job at marketing their product...and you need a PC to take advantage of their products.
i sure can't use MSOffice, or Internet Explorer, or Windows Media Player, or Outlook on my Mac.
oh, wait, maybe that's not a good example…
d.
yeah really, its a factor of who can give away more free stuff. Concerning the different platforms penetration into schools.Quote:
Originally posted by dlowe93
yup. that's a good point.Quote:
Originally posted by MajorTom
Face it...MS does a better job at marketing their product...and you need a PC to take advantage of their products.
i sure can't use MSOffice, or Internet Explorer, or Windows Media Player, or Outlook on my Mac.
oh, wait, maybe that's not a good example…
d.