Selling smoke and mirrors?

[harveye]

Last week Steve Jobs demonstrated an Apple G4 as the faster
machine than a pc. He has got to be the best salesman since
Lee Iococca, I noticed he side stepped the Athlon and instead compared the g4 to a P4 system.

Now everybody knows that Adobe photoshop has been optimized for apple products, since it it is easy to be sure what graphics features are supported within a closed system like Apple hardware, on a pc however with so many graphics cards to choose from can anyone tell me what the test pc system was running as its graphics card?

It seems that Amd and Intel have both made more rapid gains
in the speed of their cpu chips than Apple has in the past year and I am more than a little bid wary of accepting Steve's word on the results of this bake-off. Whats your opinion?

[revil]

Yes photoshop is optimised for the apple. but it has also ben optimised for the p3. probably hasn't been optimised for the new instruction in the p4 though. anyhow, i don't give a rats ass what job's says. he can kiss my hairy ass if he wants me to get an apple, but i still won't get one.

[mcdanelz]

I am not advocating Macs here but I don't agree with much you have said. But Macs do have there place and for floating point ops the motorola chip is pretty damn fast (about 1.5x of either amd or intel). And of course he is going to compare it with a system that isn't going to beat it. As for graphics card I am pretty sure the high end macs come with GF3's. And you can't compare the "speed" of there machine or even the jumps in performance with that of the PC market, its just not apples to apples. He is marketing to a very specific Niche and that is one that will keep on buying the chips for longer, and so they don't need faster chips as soon. Now I don't know about making a blanket statement that this is faster than that, but I don't think comparing it with an AMD is going to make a whole lot of difference than that with a P4. macs have there place. now that place isn't in front of me but I still know they have their merits.

I should note also that I don't know anything about this particular demonstration that was done. didn't see it and just heard about it in this thread.

[Edited by mcdanelz on 07-27-2001 at 07:03 PM]

[Grimm]

I'm thinking that the performance had a lot more to do with the graphics card than the processor. I also wouldn't assume that an Athlon Thunderbird's floating point performance is the same as an Intel's.

[harveye]

I had just heard a brief report on tect-tv and it gave no
details on the pc hardware. Its been my opinion that up to half the Macs performance comes from superior OS than the garbage that Microsoft puts out. I have seen that the Mac OS
performs faster on slow machines similar to Linux. The tests
always show that Mac os opens files faster, loads itself and
applications faster, and programmers have told me the code is much more trim than Microsofts code. We are stuck in the pc world with Microsoft's overpriced crap that is forced down our throat when we buy a new machine. I still don't like Mac, over the years they have had no open standard , limited choices for hardware and poor expandability (less slots and bays) smaller CRTs and high prices. Only the OS and occasional inovation like implementing IEEE 1394 and USB
standards first before users demand such features have given
their closed hardware system any performance over the PC.

It would be nice to see a test that shows the same program
run on an AMD Athlon pc running Linux then we shall see who
wins the day.

[Jeffbx]

Originally posted by harveye
Its been my opinion that up to half the Macs performance comes from superior OS than the garbage that Microsoft puts out.

HA hahahaha! That's rich... until OSX they haven't updated the OS in like 10 years. The UI was amazing when it was first introduced. They might have thought about updating it, oh at least once in the past 15 years. How about at least shipping a mouse with more than one button, for crying out loud.....