The Apple Mac Cost Misconception

[eodeo]

For some wonderful reason my post didn’t see the light of the day yesterday, so I’m going to try to resummarize the main parts-

OSX was 64bit (since 2002) and Windows was still in 64bit BETA since 2003 (Code name Longhorn). Adobe and Apple are not the same company.

That’s all nice and sweet, but keep in mind that first 64bit CPU available to the wide masses was released in October 2004. Any OS/software support 64bit prior to that is nice, but not a requirement.

Also, I’d like to add that I’ve switched to 64bit just a little over a year ago. Why? Having 64bit CPU and 64 bit OS is not enough to warrant the switch- you have to wait for the rest of the hardware/sofwre to make the leap. Using 64 bit and less than 4gb of ram is pointless as well as using it with 8gb of ram and 32bit applications. 2006 was a first reasonable year to make the transit.

No eodeo, your understanding is wrong. OSX is 64bit and has been for much longer then any version of Windows.

Ok... I’m not convinced, but for the sake of the argument I’ll grant it.
(See apple.com to see what I mean a32bit OS hacked to work with 64bit http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html)

At any rate, can you (or anyone for that matter) answer my original challenge?

What about the Mac software? Name one(1) Mac’s software that can use more than 3gb of ram.

I don't believe Vista will be around much longer.

In my original reply I went in depth to defend Vista as the best future OS today, while, due to software available today, its sucky if you don’t play DX 10 games. In short- any programmer seeing vista under the hood will tell you it’s a marvel. It’s so good that it’s better than anything existing today. Once the software picks up, it will be the best OS available. Only struggle its having now are backward compatibility issues. Not many software, save games, are written for it.

Lets talk about how ”bad” Vista is, this time next year, ok?

3. Microsoft lost me, bigtime, over their lack of defenses against malware. It was when I switched to Macintosh that I realized how painful Windows had become.

Here’s the deal here- Windows are popular and hackers are bored. You don’t have to worry about running Mac OS since no one cares if you do run it. With the increase of popularity of Mac, expect to get yourself familiar with antiviruses and firewalls- something you could/ should have done by now on PC.

I guess you do not remember the same exact thing when Windows XP came out.

Exactly, in my original reply I commented how I held off 2 years before switching from the crappy (in retrospect) win 98se.

I remember comparing Vista to Mac OS- Vista is too new and incompatible. Mac OS is too, if you drop the “new” from the “new and incompatible”.

 

[eodeo]

Here’s what i mean by: the 32bit OS hacked to work with 64bit if it has to: (from apple.com)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html

64-bit addressing of up to 16 exabytes of virtual memory and 4 terabytes of physical memory

Because of its universal nature, with Leopard you don’t need a new set of drivers — or devices.

Read more about it at the source.

 

[T-Bone]

[citation][nom]Nameless1[/nom]T-Bone: This fun little discussion we are having is already well beyond the scope of this article, so I'm afraid I'll have to cut it short. However, if you are interested to find out about how I disagree with you on almost all of the points I'd be more than happy to continue it on the forum. [/citation]
You can disagree all you want...but I'm still right! 😱)

 

[eodeo]

Mac OS X v10.6 (Snow Leopard) was announced on June 9, 2008 at WWDC. Rather than delivering new functionality, Snow Leopard will focus on stability and performance improvements. It will feature … new 64-bit technology capable of supporting greater amounts of RAM

How interesting. Maybe it will finally catch up with 2004 when released. Sweet.

References:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

 

[prolightandstage]

it might also be pointed out that the MAC tends to be much more efficient in its use of RAM and so 2gig on a mac is about like 4 gig on a pc.

Yet to see an argument that proves this article wrong. No one has been able to list a comparitively specced pc for less. (I am talking about a pc that is designed for a production multimedia environment.) Would love to see an article the pits like apps against like apps. Load up photoshop, final cut or its equivelent and lets see how well a $2799 PC performs against the $2799 MAC lets check it across the board load up some killer game apps lets see how things stacks up as far as pure performance vs $$ amount.

Also if you have to build a custom pc in order to compete then you need to factor in build time at a reasonable $ per hour for the entire time it takes to research, assemble, and install software and drivers to reach comparable levels .

I would put money down that the results would shut some people up.

the notion that the average mac user tends to be less savvy is just plain false i would say the average mac user owns a mac because they know what they need. Also its my experience that the MAC has a longer usage life. I know plenty of pro audio studios that are recording hi def audio in protools that havent touched their g5 macs for upgrades or service in the 5 years that they have been installed yet are used daily with 0 complaints for the work they were intended. How do you argue with success.

 

[eodeo]

it might also be pointed out that the MAC tends to be much more efficient in its use of RAM and so 2gig on a mac is about like 4 gig on a pc.

Dude. You’re seriously funny If something, 4gb Mac is more like a 3gb PC. Mac is seriously bloated. i(insertname here- ie iTunes, iCrapp etc) take up ram even when not working. ONLY way to prevent them from loading in ram is to not have them installed. Mac is like ground zero for this bloatware. You lose a gig of ram while doing nothing. Only way for a PC to be that bloated is to a) use Vista or b) have all the same iCrapp programs installed.

Yet to see an argument that proves this article wrong. No one has been able to list a comparitively specced pc for less. (I am talking about a pc that is designed for a production multimedia environment.) Would love to see an article the pits like apps against like apps. Load up photoshop, final cut or its equivelent and lets see how well a $2799 PC performs against the $2799 MAC lets check it across the board load up some killer game apps lets see how things stacks up as far as pure performance vs $$ amount.

That sounds great- Good idea- its been mentioned here before, but who wants to read through 40 pages of comments- I don’t.
So, can you name 3(three) newer games that work on Mac OS? How about 1(one) that can run with graphics maxed-out with 25+fps on 22” monitor?
Lets not forget professionals here- how about naming 3 professional dcc packages? Here only 64bit counts. 32bit and professional don’t go in the same sentence any more- so Adobe software and FinalCut are out.

Also if you have to build a custom pc in order to compete then you need to factor in build time at a reasonable $ per hour for the entire time it takes to research, assemble, and install software and drivers to reach comparable levels .

I would put money down that the results would shut some people up.

Yeah... Freedom of choice or forced choice due to lack of it… hmm who takes more time to make up their mind: a person in a 5 star restaurant or a prisoner at the prison canteen? Yeah... that’s tough call… good observation.

Also it's my experience that the MAC has a longer usage life.

Sure it does. Once you buy it- you’re poor. You can’t get another one as easily.

I know plenty of pro audio studios that are recording hi def audio in protools that havent touched their g5 macs for upgrades or service in the 5 years that they have been installed yet are used daily with 0 complaints for the work they were intended.

5 years without upgrading? That shows 1 of 2 things: lack of audio progress, or lack of knowledge of audio progress- if any. G5 macs- can you spell S.L.O.W.?

How do you argue with success.

You don’t have to be smart, fast, knowledgeable or versatile to be successful. For an example, look no further than current US president. Or your local Mac store.

 

[Guest]

The guy who configured the Mac and got a price tag over 2 grand larger indicated an amount in Euros, meaning that he configured it on one of Apple's European websites, where Apple hardware definitely is ridiculously overpriced...

 

[T-Bone]

[citation][nom]prolightandstage[/nom]No one has been able to list a comparitively specced pc for less. (I am talking about a pc that is designed for a production multimedia environment.)[/citation]
Perhaps you didn't read the article or the posts but no where in the article does it talk "about a pc that is designed for a production multimedia environment" or anything remotely close to that. Consequently, a sh-tload of posts prove the article wrong (most with links to click on & verify for yourself.) The article is implying that a Mac is around the same as a PC when comparing similar specs; only he didn't compare apples to apples. He purposefully picked a very base Mac and an overpriced PC. He was very misleading & biased. Personally, I think it was only to drive hits/readership to the site as did his previous "Mac vs PC" article.
As far as building a Mac vs PC graphics workstation: who says you HAVE to build the PC? You can if you choose to or simply buy it. And if you do, it will completely destroy the Mac in specs; it can cost more as well but it doesn't necessarily have to.

 

[nukemaster]

I know plenty of pro audio studios that are recording hi def audio in protools that havent touched their g5 macs for upgrades or service in the 5 years that they have been installed yet are used daily with 0 complaints for the work they were intended. How do you argue with success.

Its the same reason my brother still has a P4 1.8. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Its the same in both worlds.

Once again owning a mac to USE it is a great thing, owning a mac because its a mac is a bad thing.

 

[prolightandstage]

Dude. You’re seriously funny If something, 4gb Mac is more like a 3gb PC. Mac is seriously bloated. i(insertname here- ie iTunes, iCrapp etc) take up ram even when not working. ONLY way to prevent them from loading in ram is to not have them installed. Mac is like ground zero for this bloatware. You lose a gig of ram while doing nothing. Only way for a PC to be that bloated is to a) use Vista or b) have all the same iCrapp programs installed.

That has just not been my experience. OSX out of the box seems to be much better tuned to the hardware under the hood. My PC on the other hand I check at least once a month for newer better drivers to make my system work better. The very open ended architecture that has helped drive the PC's success is the very thing that makes it more difficult to support.

That sounds great- Good idea- its been mentioned here before, but who wants to read through 40 pages of comments- I don’t.
So, can you name 3(three) newer games that work on Mac OS? How about 1(one) that can run with graphics maxed-out with 25+fps on 22” monitor?"

I don't play games on my MAC i have a PC for that and it works great.
If you are buying a MAC PRO to be a gaming machine then thats a pretty big waste of hardware.

Lets not forget professionals here- how about naming 3 professional dcc packages? Here only 64bit counts. 32bit and professional don’t go in the same sentence any more- so Adobe software and FinalCut are out.

If you are trying to say that photoshop, illustrator, and final cut pro are not used by industry professionals then you are on something a little stronger then dust off.

By Professional I mean people who make their livings running these apps. If you can list a software package that has wider industry acceptance then these listed for multimedia development then please be my guest and tell me what they are.

I specifically use MAC PRO's to run Autodesk Maya 2008, Adobe CS3 Package, Final Cut Pro, Quicktime pro, ABLETON LIVE, MODUL8, and a few other utilities. I use these apps because they do the job that I need and because they have wide enough industry acceptance that typically if I am collaborating chances are my colleague is running the same software on the same platform. I save alot of headache and time by using standardized files and programs.

Yeah... Freedom of choice or forced choice due to lack of it… hmm who takes more time to make up their mind: a person in a 5 star restaurant or a prisoner at the prison canteen? Yeah... that’s tough call… good observation.

Point being that time=money the argument is that MAC's really aren't anymore expensive then their PC counterparts. If you are building your own PC to be fair you need to figure the time as part of the cost of building the system.

Sure it does. Once you buy it- you’re poor. You can’t get another one as easily.

If you are buying a MAC PRO chances are you have a specific app that you are planning on running. My MAC has paid itself off many times over as it has allowed me to take on lucrative paying jobs that prior to owning it I just wasnt able to take on.

5 years without upgrading? That shows 1 of 2 things: lack of audio progress, or lack of knowledge of audio progress- if any. G5 macs- can you spell S.L.O.W.?

No its because the dual G5 Machines they installed are so efficient at running PROTOOLS(another industry standard audio app that lives on mac), and operate so fast and smoothly that they have spent their time making comercials, recording artists, and running their business and they havent had time to worry about whether they could have saved $300, by having bob up the street build a PRO-GRADE pc based audio workhorse. That doesnt mean they havent upgraded different parts of their studio to newer hardware because just like everything else Pro Tools has continued to evolve. The point is that after 5 years they are still being used why because they overpaid and they were too stupid after 5 years to see the light...on the contrary its because after 5 years those tools are still doing their job excellently on the account of their rock solid design.

 

[prolightandstage]

Perhaps you didn't read the article or the posts but no where in the article does it talk "about a pc that is designed for a production multimedia environment" or anything remotely close to that. Consequently, a sh-tload of posts prove the article wrong (most with links to click on & verify for yourself.) The article is implying that a Mac is around the same as a PC when comparing similar specs; only he didn't compare apples to apples. He purposefully picked a very base Mac and an overpriced PC. He was very misleading & biased. Personally, I think it was only to drive hits/readership to the site as did his previous "Mac vs PC" article.
As far as building a Mac vs PC graphics workstation: who says you HAVE to build the PC? You can if you choose to or simply buy it. And if you do, it will completely destroy the Mac in specs; it can cost more as well but it doesn't necessarily have to.

If you are purchasing a MAC PRO then chances are you are not just looking for a basic system even the entry level mac pro will smoke your standard pc when it comes to rendering. The entry level mac pro has enough power to operate final cut in near real time.

you can build a pc with dual processors that will compete nicely however the argument is Is the MAC ALOT more expensive then a PC that is configured the same. That means Dual CPU, RAID harddrive configuration, 4 express pci slot, same ram yadda yadda yadda. Has anyone actually proven that average cost for PC with the similiar is WAY cheaper....no nobody has been able to show that that is the case.

 

[Steveorevo]

4gb Mac is more like a 3gb PC. Mac is seriously bloated. i(insertname here- ie iTunes, iCrapp etc) take up ram even when not working.

HA! Have you ever tried searching through an index of 50,000 songs on Windows Media Center or Windows Media Player 11? In iTunes for both Windows and Mac typing the first few letters of a song title takes only 3 to 5 SECONDS in iTunes, WM11 or Microsoft's Media Center on the other hand takes about 30 to 50 MINUTES! WTH? I've tried this with an AMD 64bit running Media Center, a new out-of-the-box Toshitty (Toshiba with Windows Media Center), two dual cores running XP and all are pure crap.

M$ is the master of inefficient software, their answer is to just throw more hardware at it which in Microsoft's minds is cheaper, fills our landfills and lines their pockets. Why do it right the first time?

Lets talk about how ”bad” Vista is, this time next year, ok?
...
Exactly, in my original reply I commented how I held off 2 years before switching from the crappy (in retrospect) win 98se.

What happend to Windows ME? I wouldn't be suprised if Windows 7 will be out in two years and Vista will be considered the 'ME' of the 64bit OSs.

 

[eodeo]

I don't play games on my MAC i have a PC for that and it works great.
If you are buying a MAC PRO to be a gaming machine then thats a pretty big waste of hardware.

Hey, I’m not sure what you can use your expensive calculator for, but its your thing not mine. The other poster suggested testing the same price systems and see which one compares better.

If you are trying to say that photoshop, illustrator, and final cut pro are not used by industry professionals then you are on something a little stronger then dust off.

Not at all. I know and acknowledge them as professional aps, but their very old and almost archaic logic is what’s keeping them behind. Simply being 32bit applications lowers their “professional” value greatly. What’s the point of having high-end computer with 8gb of ram if your “professional” software cant use more than 2gb. It’s this kind of software and work done in it them that requires most RAM anyway. If we had similar programs limited in this way on PC, I for one wouldn’t brag about them being cool.

I specifically use MAC PRO's to run Autodesk Maya 2008, Adobe CS3 Package, Final Cut Pro, Quicktime pro, ABLETON LIVE, MODUL8

Out of mentioned I assume that Maya 2008 should have 64bit installer for Mac too. Does it? If so, we may have a winner for my long standing challenge:

Name 1(one) Mac application that is capable of using more than 3gb of ram.

HA! Have you ever tried searching through an index of 50,000 songs on Windows Media Center or Windows Media Player 11? In iTunes for both Windows and Mac typing the first few letters of a song title takes only 3 to 5 SECONDS in iTunes, WM11 or Microsoft's Media Center on the other hand takes about 30 to 50 MINUTES! WTH?

Dude, your example has nothing to do with memory amount 😉 it has to do with the way players were encoded. I never said that I use WPM for anything. For music I use winamp, something iTunes would die to be like. Try searching 50k songs in winamp and in iTunes, tell me what you find out 😉

This is just a program response, has nothing to do with the overall speed or memory usage. However, feel free to download and try Winamp and check amount of ram winamp.exe is using and than add all the little crap extensions and smaller files and services that iCrapp programs bring with themselves- in this instance iTunes.

I’ll even bet you… that i will stop talking here and say that I was wrong about Macs IF iTunes does not at LEAST use 2x more ram manipulating the same playlist as Winamp. To be clearer: if iTunes collective memory usage is not at least 2x more than winamps- you win and I shut up.

Just to give you a rough measurement of what to expect- right now I’m using 10k songs playlist, listening full 5.1 dts music and Winamp’s memory footprint is 11,332 Kbytes. Response for “j”umping between tracks is in real time(ie no perceivable delay) on my single core, Celeron 320d 2.4ghz with 2gb of ram and wd2500ks hdd.

What happend to Windows ME? I wouldn't be suprised if Windows 7 will be out in two years and Vista will be considered the 'ME' of the 64bit OSs.

You do know that Vista is both 32bit and 64bit OS- depending on what version you choose to install, right?

Windows ME is rebranded win 98se. Vista is completely new system. Win 7, when made, will take a whole bunch of stuff from Vista. Again, it’s not Vista that it’s so bad, but the backwards software existing today. World still needs to catch up with the leap Vista made. Until than, it will seam that Vista is the one that needs to catch up, to the regular user.

Good luck with the challenges!
May the better computer win

 

[Steveorevo]

I used to use WinAMP backin the early says and wrote several visualizer plugins for it. Unfortunately, back then it had memory leaks left and right. This was unacceptable because the lack of memory/process space in Win95/98/Me -it would just crash (GPF) the entire OS (usuallly in the middle of something very important). My point is that M$ writes mediocre (and sometimes crappy) software, application or OS. Its obvious that it doesn't take much to write a better music player so Windows MCE and WM11 have no excuses for being crap. iTunes takes a large memory footprint for obvious reasons. Last I checked, WinAMP didn't have sharing, video, ripping (I'll bet it does now?), or any of the extensive functionality that is built into iTunes. If you want a light weight player, I certainly agree there are better. -anything better then M$.

And yes, I'm well aware that Vista comes in 64 bit and 32 bit. I've written plenty of Multimedia software for both. I've had clients with problems left and right thanks to the new security schema, broken video codecs, etc. This was to be expected however because the OS was so new. Although the OS has more features I don't think it justifies its bigger, fatter, and less efficient codebase. So many good features were cut from the 'original plan'. The 'new' file system was abandoned, Media Center is fatter then ever. I was even suprised at the many tech shops out there offering downgrades to XP for new systems. I don't ever remember seeing such a response for Windows ME -which did have some changes over Win98 SE2 in terms of 'hype' Active Desktop, multimedia, etc. Nothing to justify its price. Sorry, RSS won the dynamic feed war. Microsoft tries to push their proprietary standards and charges us for them, but in the end it fails. Active Directory will never replace DNS/LDAP, they just have a history of bucking the trend then giving in at the expense of their users. This dates back to Windows for Workgroups and Microsoft Networking vs. TCP/IP, SMTP, etc. the list goes on. What does this create for end users? Headaches. WebDAV broke in XP SP2 forcing web developers back to crappy FTP. Meanwhile, OSX talks all the standard protocols seemlessly with the desktop file system.

Don't get me wrong, the 'effort' is nice, and would be great if it wasn't so grossly inefficient or at least worked.

 

[Nameless1]

"You can disagree all you want...but I'm still right!"

Damn, some of those Mac users are silly... oh, it's you. 😉

 

[Shaggywang]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/yoon/278;_ylt=AvY_2QyL4eDhpyFO0b3JAmQxLpA5

Here go to that site and read. Apples are expensive period, where have you been?

and go to this site as well

http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/channel/should_you_pay_twice_as_much_for_a_mac.html

 

[eodeo]

its obvious that it doesn't take much to write a better music player so Windows MCE and WM11 have no excuses for being crap

To be completely honest here, I’ve only tried WMP 9 or earlier. I tried to get WMP11 but it wanted to validate my windows, so I found that invasion of privacy unacceptable for what has been a mediocre- low end player at best- until than. So my low opinion of WPM11 surely cant be much lower than it already is- even if prejudgmental.

I will say this for WPM 9- it has the lowest memory footprint of all video players i tried. Was it enough for me to use it? No. not really.

iTunes takes a large memory footprint for obvious reasons.

Yeah… Well.. not so much to me. I tried it once (couple of years ago) and found its behavior unacceptable. It spawned traces of itself all over my system. It would run its files always in the background, with no way of shutting them down. If it wasn’t for the uninstall, I could have swore it was an intrusive virus. I was shocked, didn’t get to use it at all, I just quickly uninstalled it and removed all and any traces of it from my system as fast as I could.

Again, to be honest, when i say iCrapp, I really am referring to that one experience with the iTunes. I have tried no other iPrograms for, what I think are obvious reasons- when you get stung by a bee…

Last I checked, WinAMP didn't have sharing, video, ripping (I'll bet it does now?)

It has audio ripping, but I never used it. I use my audio player just for that. I will throw in internet radio listening as a bonus, and even internet TV is ok, but I’m actually quite annoyed at winamp reaching into video viewing, since it does a pretty poor job at it. Not because it’s incompatible, or anything like that- but because I like my audio files playing in background while i play games, and when a video file starts playing, it just brings my single core system to a crawl.

I prefer dedicated programs, clean and simple in their tasks- free of all bloatware.

or any of the extensive functionality that is built into iTunes.

Not that there’s a high chance I’d be using any of the “extensive functionalities” that iTunes have, but I am curious about any cool features it might have. Anything you are willing to share here?

If you want a light weight player, I certainly agree there are better. -anything better then M$.

Agreed. Still, iTunes is on the worse end of this stick. Its worse then M$ by far, even if more “functional”. For what it does to your system, it would have to dance and cook lunch for me to keep it….. and even than—it would have to be a pretty good dance a damn fine meal that it makes.

Although the OS has more features I don't think it justifies its bigger, fatter, and less efficient codebase.

You seam like the knowledgeable programmer… well if we ignore the obvious Mac bias- You know that building a new OS presents a big challenge. Trying to implement the new while still being capable of running the old. It’s no easy task- I guess. I am no programmer. And than you have security issues- #1 complaint about previous MS OSes. What does MS do? It builds air tight security. You don’t like it? Feel free to turn it off. You want it? It’s there.

And about the whole bunch of other useless things it implements- well, you and I might agree that they’re useless, but someone with equipment needing those drivers will disagree. Lets say a printer or a scanner. I find both useless. Both occupy services and come with drivers that are preinstalled weather you like it or not. Many more digital gadgets have been accessible to the wide public and supporting them all “out of the box” is pretty important to MS, and I can understand that. We could argue that it could have been done better, install on demand and similar methods, but what can you do? Well, for starters, if it bothers you that much (like it bothers me) you can go in the services and shut them all down and stop them from coming back without your say so. If you’re tech savvy enough to care about this, you can shut it off. If you’re not, chances are you cant, but than, you really wouldn’t care about it either.

Media Center is fatter then ever.

Honestly, I’m surprised that you even bothered to check it out. I probably wouldn’t.

I was even suprised at the many tech shops out there offering downgrades to XP for new systems.

I prefer to call these upgrades.

Meanwhile, OSX talks all the standard protocols seemlessly with the desktop file system

At least MS is doing something. Apple is just riding the work of others claiming to have perfected it in some way or another, while in fact they have done no such thing- all the while adding a hefty price tag for an otherwise free product- even their OS is one big nothing with a skin job.

Here, you’re complaining about diversity. MS might not introduce a better product, but look at the 3d world today: if MS didn’t stubbornly push that half baked DirectX, it would never have baked it. We would still be forced to use the incredibly cumbersome OpenGL and Qudro/FireGL line of the cards would dominate the workstation markets. People would actually buy 3x more expensive 20x slower card, just to be able to run the ever-so-slow 3D API. Because of the competition, D3D is on top now- for 5 years. (has it really been that long? wow, i sure am getting old) OpenGL group got a kick in the but 2 years ago, and finally sat their buts last year and started working on OGL 3, out 3 days ago now- interestingly enough. How will it compare to D3D? I don’t know yet, as no hardware supports it, but its there- or here. It might be as crappy as ever, but it just might be better than D3D- and if it is, than the competition is on and MS will go into overdrive- resulting in an even faster 3D for the end user. Win-win for us, little guys.

Don't get me wrong, the 'effort' is nice, and would be great if it wasn't so grossly inefficient or at least worked.

Well… at least they tried. You cant will them all… or most in their case. But hey, MS has the largest market share of OSes. That has to count for something.

And as much as I dislike M$ for too many reasons, to me, as a digital content creator, they really came through with D3D. I won’t forget that. Liberated from myths of “professional” graphics cards and OpenGL “superiority” for these applications.

Speaking of which, did you know that prolightandstage as a Maya user on Mac is handicapped for too many reasons at once:

1) I’ll just skip the inefficient OS talk as we can talk hours with no side winning, but here are tangible proofs he can try- well on a PC anyway:
2) His GPU will be seriously slower and outdated hardware wise compared to a PC same price equivalent. Not to mention that he will be limited to 2 generations old GPUs to begin with. No wait.. I did mention it- my bad 😛
3) Drivers will be dated or worse- who cares how fast/stable or how often Mac OS gets new set of drivers? Not the majority of PC gamers that have fresh drivers every month.
4) And all this sweet-talk to get me to my main point- he will be FORCED to use OpenGL. And just for that he will be rewarded with 10x slower speed
5) To add to that- at greatly reduced visual quality too, as no accurate shadows or advanced lightning techniques for viewports will be available in no DX 9.0c viewing mode.
6) When you combine low GPU power, with inherent 10x slower speed at greatly reduced visual quality- you get a premises for my distaste of Macs. And still, I haven’t been given an answer on whether or not Maya can use 64bit pathways and access that much needed RAM above 2gb point. This last one will not alleviate the tragedy befallen a would be Maya user on Mac, but would certainly add to it.

And you pay more for this? Good one hehe. Where’s the candid camera?

 

[eodeo]

I just couldn’t go to sleep with Maya 64 bit on Mac bugging me.

Maya users be aware of Mac, on top of lots of incompatibilities i found in my short google exercise, I have also found that 64 bit version of Maya for Mac is not in existence.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/61/857779
http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Maya+2008+mac+64bit&btnG=Search&aq=f

Could it be due to Mac OS only being 32bit OS hacked to work in 64bit if it has to?... maybe... maybe...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html

So my ongoing challenge still stands:

Can anyone name 1(one) Mac software capable of using more than 3gb of RAM?

1 million* for any information on this!

*(not 1million $ or any other currency for that matter- but still: 1 million! get it while its a million 😉)

 

[Steveorevo]

...they really came through with D3D. I won’t forget that. Liberated from myths of “professional” graphics cards and OpenGL “superiority” for these applications.

I sensed another anti-trust lawsuit, only this one is harder to prove. OpenGL has been around longer and had more features then DirectX, as well as a nice API. Unfortunately using M$ muscle, they pushed out OpenGL by their dominating desktop OS. The same way the edged out PC manufacturors to not ship any other OS but theirs or pay dearly for it. Same as Netscape, GeoWorks, ... the list goes on and on.

Its the 'Microsoft Way'. OpenGL cards today cost more (like Mac hardware) because they have a HUGE requirement to be compliant (which takes money). When you have an issue with Softimage, Caligari, Lightwave, Poser, Bryce, or any 3D package capable of using OpenGL, rest assured that it can be resolved because there has been alot of due diligence. That comes at a cost.

Whats the difference between an NVidia DirectX card and its high priced OpenGL equivilent? The 'gamer' card has its OpenGL crippled in firmware on purpose (on some cards). There are hacks to unlock it but now you can't expect your $2k professional graphics package that has paid its OpenGL lic. fees to work right on that $100 DirectX card. Any sort of mission critical production application (think military) may require this. It's just another example of Microsoft bullying. Hey, DirectX is free to develop for, put the firmware on your cards or don't expect to do business.

I'm a staunch capitalist, but this is definately where Open Source serves a purpose. You are correct that Mac's OSX is 'riding' ontop of other people's work by basing its OS on a tried and true platform. Its also Apple's hardwork in compliance, testing, and quality that makes its BSD based Operating System work flawlessly on its hardware. Can't say the same for the latest Vista. You've said it yourself with all those all those built in apps and services you can try to uninstall or disable in Microsoft OSs. Have fun with the registry (another M$ concept alot of people would love to see go away). Maybe they'll come up with a system Library folder to drag n' drop drivers into? That'd be original .

Again, Microsoft isn't really 'bad'. Its just not great. But what Goes Around Comes Around: "Why this appears to be a good time for suing Microsoft."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080807_005369.html

 

[Nameless1]

[citation][nom]steveorevo[/nom]I sensed another anti-trust lawsuit, only this one is harder to prove. OpenGL has been around longer and had more features then DirectX, as well as a nice API. Unfortunately using M$ muscle, they pushed out OpenGL by their dominating desktop OS. The same way the edged out PC manufacturors to not ship any other OS but theirs or pay dearly for it. Same as Netscape, GeoWorks, ... the list goes on and on.
[/citation]
If there is anti-trust case don't expect it to go anywhere. In 1999 US court found MS guilty of attempt to monopolize and number of other anti-competitive practices. The judge suggested that MS be split into two companies. That ruling was overturned, but for reasons unrelated to the merit of the case. The Court of Appeals never disputed lower court's findings. In 2001 Bush lackeys took over DOJ and let MS go with a slap on the wrist.

Ever since it's been pretty obvious that MS is immune to any anti-trust prosecution. Heck, when EU penalized MS for anti-competitive practices it was none other than DOJ anti-trust division’s attorney coming to MS's aid.

 

[T-Bone]

Thank God for that! God bless MS!

 

[MrPeeCeeParts]

[citation][nom]steveorevo[/nom]Its the 'Microsoft Way'. OpenGL cards today cost more (like Mac hardware) because they have a HUGE requirement to be compliant (which takes money). [/citation]
Excuse me? OpenGL cards? OpenGL is just an API, not a hardware architecture. Why people clearly so UNdocumented post in here is beyond me.
"Professional" videocards (ATI FireGL series or NVIDIA Quadro) are both OpenGL and DirectX compatible, and they cost more because they have more processing power (raw MIPS)

 

[eodeo]

I sensed another anti-trust lawsuit, only this one is harder to prove. OpenGL has been around longer and had more features then DirectX, as well as a nice API. Unfortunately using M$ muscle, they pushed out OpenGL by their dominating desktop OS. The same way the edged out PC manufacturors to not ship any other OS but theirs or pay dearly for it. Same as Netscape, GeoWorks, ... the list goes on and on.

OpenGL cards today cost more (like Mac hardware) because they have a HUGE requirement to be compliant (which takes money).

For a moment there it seamed like you knew what you were taking about and how MS went all muscle and dagger on all the opponents without me realizing it.

2 things:

1) you can use both openGL and D3D in most newer professional applications. You can test yourself which one is faster

2) There are no “OpenGL cards” as such, all post 2000(year) cards support OpenGL fully, what version and at what speed is the only thing that has been changing. OpenGL 3.0 excluded from the following can-o-whoopass:

OpenGL 2.x and all prior are just seriously backward. Nvidia likes to be on top and most games are also backwards so nvidia sticks with backward logic. Explanation for this is far beyond the scope of these little comments, so you’re just going to have to take my word for it- or not. Nvidia cards are really badass when it comes to OpenGL, its not that ATI is far behind, its just that Nvidia is better. When it comes to the new tech and forward thinking, we have ATI (that is strangely enough following nvidia’s footsteps with their geforece 5 fx series) and taking that logical step further. You probably heard that geforce 5 fx series suck, but you probably didn’t hear why. They were too new in tech for their time. If you were to be using them today and test to than-released-ati-hardware, you’d see that nvidia is pwning the **** out of atis 9xxx series. And again, not in everything just the new stuff. Nvidia… no I have to mention this too- its 3Dfx with their voodoo line rocking the world from within their grave. It’s their last unpublished chip that fell into nvidia’s hands when they bought 3dfx. This chip code-named “rampage” is the thing that matured into GeForce 5 FX series. This all started 1998. Now 10 years later and this new logic is still too new, but the software- thanks to MS in big part, is finally catching up. OpenGL backwardness is what was holding us back for so long. And when I say OpenGL, I also mean Macs- I know that they don’t have a big marketshere, but they helped. When I hear “Mac”, I just hear backward, incompatible and expensive.

Anyway back to here and now- OpenGL- old, bad and slow- nvidia likes old so it’s good with it. D3D - new, good and fast and ATI likes new so its faster there. Not in all games, but you can see it shining through here and there- in games, you can see it shinign through in ALL DCC software- to the best of my knowledge.
nvidia will have to make the jump- back actually(to gf5fx logic)- to go forward. As new games come, ATI will be only gaining ground while nvidias current hardware will be slipping even further.

And one last thing- THERE IS NO physical DIFFERENCE between geforce and quadro line of cards; same goes for radeon/ firegl. Difference is only in drivers and than only in the amount of crippling they do to OpenGL apps. You will find D3D much faster on ALL “professional” cards as well- even if their name is “fireGL”.

When you have an issue with Softimage, Caligari, Lightwave, Poser, Bryce, or any 3D package capable of using OpenGL, rest assured that it can be resolved because there has been alot of due diligence. That comes at a cost.

Accidentally or not, you just named couple of dying noobie software- save Softimage and Lightwave- they’re just too good to be branded in that pathetic group- including current OpenGL. D3D pathways are just much faster, any program supporting it proves it, just try it for yourself if you don’t believe me. It’s actually pretty easy to test as speed difference isn’t 50fps to 60fps. It’s more like 200fps to 15fps. You’ll notice it, trust me. Just use the same scene and navigate around it in both OGL and D3D. Tell us here what you find out if you don’t mind.

Whats the difference between an NVidia DirectX card and its high priced OpenGL equivilent? The 'gamer' card has its OpenGL crippled in firmware on purpose (on some cards). There are hacks to unlock it but now you can't expect your $2k professional graphics package that has paid its OpenGL lic.

Ok. Couple of good points here mixed with some fantasy. Crippled in firmware true- paid OpenGL lic- just flat out wrong. All new cards support latest (save 3.0) OpenGL2.1 code fully and pro and gamer cards differ in just how much or if at all are they crippled while running it. Nvidia’s new beta drivers support OGL 3.0 and I cant wait to see some test.

I’ve said it many times, so I’ll say it here- it may seem like i want OpenGL to fail, while nothing is further from the truth. Lack of competition is so bad that you just need to look at OpenGL 2.x to see it. It was best and brightest 10 years ago. Newsflash: its 10 YEARS later. Thanks to the lucky stars, MS did something to put the decaying OpenGL back in the game- API war is only bad if you’re cheering for one or the other- in all other cases- you, as the end user-win- because things are only going to get faster for you. Personaly I don’t give a damn what API am I running while working in 3DS Max, as long as it utilizes my card fully- it might as well be called glide- if it was faster/better than D3D, I’d use it.

Its also Apple's hardwork in compliance, testing, and quality that makes its BSD based Operating System work flawlessly on its hardware.

I was going to say how flawless is more like less less in flawless, but I really don’t care. You know what you’re using your system for and so do I. If we both play same games/ do 3d, we have openGL in common. At the moment its pathetic. I’d like to see it stronger. Much stronger. OpenGL 3.0 is a new ray of hope.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-opengl-glsl,6157.html

It’s interesting how its released for MS platforms only. While also good, I’d imagine that it’s Mac that is in dire need of this “new ray of hope”. Just one of many reasons, Mac platform feels obsolete and….. i hope you get it. I don’t want to get dirty here.


I’d like to include only 2 coments that were there at time of my posting:

**** YEAH OPENGL 3...*realizes something* NO **** PROGRAMMER WILL EVER USE IT'S AWESOMENESS *sulks in a corner*

and whatre the benefits of 3.0 over 2.0?

 

[eodeo]

AMD, Intel and NVIDIA have made major contributions to the design of OpenGL 3.0 and today all three companies announced their intent to provide full implementations within their product families. Additionally, the OpenGL working group includes the active participation of leading developers such as Blizzard Entertainment and TransGaming that have played a vital role in ensuring that the specification meets the genuine needs of the software community.

ATI and Nvidia are both out there to make more money. They don’t care how fast OGL 3 Works, but Blizzard… Blizzard is realeaseing at least 2 MAJOR games soon, Stracraft 2 and Diablo 3 for both PC and Mac. Having slow GPUs on Mac coupled with slow OpenGL, is just bad for them. I believe in this sentence to be of the most value:

Blizzard Entertainment …have played a vital role in ensuring that the specification [of OpenGL 3.0] meets the genuine needs of the software community.

Can hardly wait to see how it plays 😀

 

[Steveorevo]

This is so funny, I'm not even a Mac user let alone a 'fan boy'. I just happen to have one for writing cross platform code and find it overwhelmingly better in so many aspects. My only point is that Microsoft produces substandard code. Look at what they did to Softimage when it turned into Microsoft's Softimage. It actually got better when they sold it again.

[citation][nom]eodeo[/nom]And one last thing- THERE IS NO physical DIFFERENCE between geforce and quadro line of cards; same goes for radeon/ firegl. Difference is only in drivers and than only in the amount of crippling they do to OpenGL apps.[/citation]

Didn't I just say that? Again, my point being that Mac goes out of there way to make sure it works.

Accidentally or not, you just named couple of dying noobie software- save Softimage and Lightwave-

Dying? I think Poser is in their 10th generation and now has a beautiful interface to Maya and 3DS. Bryce is living strong under Daz3D and works beautifully under OpenGL. Caligari is now Microsoft Caligari, work great on OpenGL (if you can afford the cards for it) and just as nice under D3D (optimizations thanks to Intel, not M$). Microsoft bought trueSpace which was one of the first and only (at the time) 3D real time design view environments. It rocked on Amiga and it rocks on PC. It is unfortunatley too idealistic with its cutting edge features that go un noticed. Now that M$ has aquired them, it'll be a sad ending to something formerly great. For Microsoft's focus is about sticking it to Google's Sketchup (which shouldn't be that hard), but given M$ past with Softimage, I won't be suprised that they'll actually stick it to Caligari -unlike Softimage though, Caligari's assets aren't there to recover. So Roman Normandy's flagship product might not survive the Microsoft's deathbite. Just like Microsoft's copying/supposed merger with Sybase (a.k.a. Microsoft SQL Server), once they get there hands on source code (and steal it) they'll back out of the aquisition and kill the rest of the honest, and hardwork the founding company produced.