resolume version 2.0 for mac??
-
metaprofessor_
since this little thread is active again, i just want to clarify what i said above, which was:
"a three minute video is taking one hour to render on a P4, 2.6 Ghz, you have serious problems with your computer."
i meant compressing a fully rendered, edited, and finished clip (avi or quicktime) into a compressed movie playable on resolume (cinepak, indeo, etc. avi). obviously, complex effects can take hours to render on any computer.
as to the mac vs. pc debate w/resolume, if you want resolume that badly then buy a PC and get over it. mac's are not inherently faster than pc's, or inherently better in any way. they got in the multimedia game earlier than pc's, so people who don't know any better still assume they're "better for video, music, graphics, etc." that is simply false, and a complete and total marketing ploy on the part of apple. apple employs beautiful industrial design for their products, but that's not why i buy a computer.
i edit video, photos, use resolume, and am currently recording an album of my band on windows 2000 or windows XP, on computers that i built myself. the cost of my system is at least half the price for the comparable apple products. there is no reason for me, personally, to ever buy a mac.
the fact that older macs are not compatible with their latest OS is just one more reason to avoid mac unless money is no object.
oh, and ipods are cute, but making the short-lived battery non-replaceable by the user is inexcusable. apple is clearly desperate for your money, forcing you to buy the same product over and over, and has figured out that their customers don't seem to care.
that's my two cents (or should i say $1.99?) on this subject.
"a three minute video is taking one hour to render on a P4, 2.6 Ghz, you have serious problems with your computer."
i meant compressing a fully rendered, edited, and finished clip (avi or quicktime) into a compressed movie playable on resolume (cinepak, indeo, etc. avi). obviously, complex effects can take hours to render on any computer.
as to the mac vs. pc debate w/resolume, if you want resolume that badly then buy a PC and get over it. mac's are not inherently faster than pc's, or inherently better in any way. they got in the multimedia game earlier than pc's, so people who don't know any better still assume they're "better for video, music, graphics, etc." that is simply false, and a complete and total marketing ploy on the part of apple. apple employs beautiful industrial design for their products, but that's not why i buy a computer.
i edit video, photos, use resolume, and am currently recording an album of my band on windows 2000 or windows XP, on computers that i built myself. the cost of my system is at least half the price for the comparable apple products. there is no reason for me, personally, to ever buy a mac.
the fact that older macs are not compatible with their latest OS is just one more reason to avoid mac unless money is no object.
oh, and ipods are cute, but making the short-lived battery non-replaceable by the user is inexcusable. apple is clearly desperate for your money, forcing you to buy the same product over and over, and has figured out that their customers don't seem to care.
that's my two cents (or should i say $1.99?) on this subject.
-
SuperficiaL_
well...
macs ARE faster than pc's and the fact that they are only built by apple makes em more reliable...
if u compare megaFLOPS they are up to 30% faster... if u compare the internal busses they are faster to, 1 GHz pipeline all over (in the fastest model)
not only a fast bus between the processor and the RAM like in a pc...
and because of the other processor structure they dont have as many "hangs". this is because the "windows" processor has a pipeline with 12 steps and an "apple" processor has only 4 steps, so the bits are faster through the pipeline and if there is an error the pipeline is "cleaned" faster.
and since the mac doesnt work with a registry like windows(that tends to clutter) the software is faster to.
little side note: 99% of all virusses are written for pc's
so there is not even a question if the fastest mac is faster than the fastest pc, because they just are...
the only difference is the person who works with the pc or mac because the best mac with someone who doesnt know how to work with it is slower than a slow pc with someone who knows how it works...
so its not only good marketing on the side of apple i would even go this far: its only good marketing of bill gates.
he stole ALL the ideas of mac and massproduced them. think of all the things that apple "invented" like the graphicall user interface, the MOUSE! firewire (which is 4 times as fast as USB) and the list is allmost endless...
so the world is just afraid to buy a mac.
because they think its less compatible, which WAS true but isnt true for years now.
so any other insights on the subject would be appreciated here
greetz SuperficiaL
macs ARE faster than pc's and the fact that they are only built by apple makes em more reliable...
if u compare megaFLOPS they are up to 30% faster... if u compare the internal busses they are faster to, 1 GHz pipeline all over (in the fastest model)
not only a fast bus between the processor and the RAM like in a pc...
and because of the other processor structure they dont have as many "hangs". this is because the "windows" processor has a pipeline with 12 steps and an "apple" processor has only 4 steps, so the bits are faster through the pipeline and if there is an error the pipeline is "cleaned" faster.
and since the mac doesnt work with a registry like windows(that tends to clutter) the software is faster to.
little side note: 99% of all virusses are written for pc's
so there is not even a question if the fastest mac is faster than the fastest pc, because they just are...
the only difference is the person who works with the pc or mac because the best mac with someone who doesnt know how to work with it is slower than a slow pc with someone who knows how it works...
so its not only good marketing on the side of apple i would even go this far: its only good marketing of bill gates.
he stole ALL the ideas of mac and massproduced them. think of all the things that apple "invented" like the graphicall user interface, the MOUSE! firewire (which is 4 times as fast as USB) and the list is allmost endless...
so the world is just afraid to buy a mac.
because they think its less compatible, which WAS true but isnt true for years now.
so any other insights on the subject would be appreciated here
greetz SuperficiaL
-
djdiego71_
OK, guys!
I'm working with both, Mac & PC. I know the best of both world and the worst. Really is very hard compare, both platafroms works different, but my experience says: PC is more costumizable but less estable (how many times i re-installed de OS?). Mac is more rigid but never re-install the OS or they soft. Some soft works well from one or other. If i could, i'm buy both, but by price, the pc is my election.
I'm working with both, Mac & PC. I know the best of both world and the worst. Really is very hard compare, both platafroms works different, but my experience says: PC is more costumizable but less estable (how many times i re-installed de OS?). Mac is more rigid but never re-install the OS or they soft. Some soft works well from one or other. If i could, i'm buy both, but by price, the pc is my election.
-
timEther_
i like apples - the really fresh, crunchy ones with lots of juice - even though they have a core.
I also like bananas even though you have to peel them. You can eat them whole or cut them up into neat little slices and have them on your breakfast cereal - or chuck them in a blender and make an awesome milkshake (or BBQ them with liqeurs if i remember an old post correctly...)
fruit is good ; )
I also like bananas even though you have to peel them. You can eat them whole or cut them up into neat little slices and have them on your breakfast cereal - or chuck them in a blender and make an awesome milkshake (or BBQ them with liqeurs if i remember an old post correctly...)
fruit is good ; )
-
metaprofessor_
ok, i don't think this subject is "old" or uninteresting at all - i love a rational debate, and people here might learn something. there's a lot of misinformation out there, and a lot of people talking about "megaflops" and other arcane specs that have nothing to do with the actual observed behavior and measured speed of the system. remember, the OS itself is a major factor above the hardware architecture.
SuperficiaL:
- USB 2.0 is 480 Mbps and firewire is only 400 Mbps, so you're wrong on that point, AND it doesn't even matter because i use both on my windows laptop and my desktops!
- saying that the windows registry causes "clutter" is a meaningless statement. where is the data indicating how this affects performance?
- "the fact that they are only built by apple makes em more reliable" - look closely at the components on the circuit boards: it's the same giant companies like "NEC" and "hitachi" making this stuff as for PC's. i don't see how having apple exclusively putting it together makes it anything other than "more expensive". like i said, i built my own audio and video workstations and they kick ass. try building your own mac!
- no offense but neither the mac nor the PC was the originator of the graphical user interface or mouse, and so it is completely false to say that Gates "stole ALL the ideas of mac and massproduced them." that's just one more example of a lie people perpetuate about macs, showing that they're more in love with the "myth" than the reality.
i remembered this information from a television show called "triumph of the nerds" on PBS, about the inventors of the personal computer. the first GUI and mouse (and ethernet) was the XEROX PARC, built in 1973.
from the transcript:
"OK here we have it. This is a Xerox/Alto computer built around 1973. Some people would argue that this is the first personal computer. Ah it really isn't because for one thing it wasn't ever for sale and the parts alone cost about $10,000 but it has all the elements of quite a modern personal computer and without it we wouldn't have the Macintosh, we wouldn't have Windows we wouldn't have most of the things we value in computing today and ironically none of those things has a Xerox name on it."
and...
"It had the first GUI using a mouse to point to information on the screen. It was linked to other PCs, by a system called ethernet, the first computer network. And what you saw on the screen was precisely what you got on your laser printer. It was way ahead of its time."
sorry to have to inform you of the truth...
and finally, on the issue of which system is faster: a relatively recent (november 2002) benchmark test using a dell 3.06 GHz P4 and a mac dual 1.25 GHz G4, geared for video editors. i'm sorry to say that the PC "slaughtered" the pricier mac:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002 ... spciii.htm
"Benchmarks demolish Apple speed boasts" :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/27 ... ed_boasts/
of course, if you go to the apple homepage, you will see that their claims are the exact opposite (using the newer G5):
http://www.apple.com/lae/powermac/performance/
the controversy over the "fastest personal computer" claim (which made apple look very bad):
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/ ... 823,00.htm
their benchmark tests used linux on the PC, not windows xp! finally, the G5's performance only shines on 64-bit apps. (rare at this stage).
who knows, maybe the G5 has temporarily surpassed the "wintel" platform. however, there is little doubt that in the past apple was distorting the facts about performance.
SuperficiaL:
- USB 2.0 is 480 Mbps and firewire is only 400 Mbps, so you're wrong on that point, AND it doesn't even matter because i use both on my windows laptop and my desktops!
- saying that the windows registry causes "clutter" is a meaningless statement. where is the data indicating how this affects performance?
- "the fact that they are only built by apple makes em more reliable" - look closely at the components on the circuit boards: it's the same giant companies like "NEC" and "hitachi" making this stuff as for PC's. i don't see how having apple exclusively putting it together makes it anything other than "more expensive". like i said, i built my own audio and video workstations and they kick ass. try building your own mac!
- no offense but neither the mac nor the PC was the originator of the graphical user interface or mouse, and so it is completely false to say that Gates "stole ALL the ideas of mac and massproduced them." that's just one more example of a lie people perpetuate about macs, showing that they're more in love with the "myth" than the reality.
i remembered this information from a television show called "triumph of the nerds" on PBS, about the inventors of the personal computer. the first GUI and mouse (and ethernet) was the XEROX PARC, built in 1973.
from the transcript:
"OK here we have it. This is a Xerox/Alto computer built around 1973. Some people would argue that this is the first personal computer. Ah it really isn't because for one thing it wasn't ever for sale and the parts alone cost about $10,000 but it has all the elements of quite a modern personal computer and without it we wouldn't have the Macintosh, we wouldn't have Windows we wouldn't have most of the things we value in computing today and ironically none of those things has a Xerox name on it."
and...
"It had the first GUI using a mouse to point to information on the screen. It was linked to other PCs, by a system called ethernet, the first computer network. And what you saw on the screen was precisely what you got on your laser printer. It was way ahead of its time."
sorry to have to inform you of the truth...
and finally, on the issue of which system is faster: a relatively recent (november 2002) benchmark test using a dell 3.06 GHz P4 and a mac dual 1.25 GHz G4, geared for video editors. i'm sorry to say that the PC "slaughtered" the pricier mac:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002 ... spciii.htm
"Benchmarks demolish Apple speed boasts" :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/27 ... ed_boasts/
of course, if you go to the apple homepage, you will see that their claims are the exact opposite (using the newer G5):
http://www.apple.com/lae/powermac/performance/
the controversy over the "fastest personal computer" claim (which made apple look very bad):
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chips/ ... 823,00.htm
their benchmark tests used linux on the PC, not windows xp! finally, the G5's performance only shines on 64-bit apps. (rare at this stage).
who knows, maybe the G5 has temporarily surpassed the "wintel" platform. however, there is little doubt that in the past apple was distorting the facts about performance.
-
SuperficiaL_
hi metaprofessor,
you should have read my post more carfully before saying i was wrong....
if you would have read my post more carefull you would have seen that i wrote 'inventions' meaning that mac didnt invent them but they brought it in production earlier...
which make people think that mac's are about a vision on how computing must be, and windows is all about making money. (dont get Windows and PC mixed though)
and your comment about mac making their own hardware was false because i said they make their own computers not ALL of the components.
my point here was that apple can pick which component they use in a computer. (and buy big quantities of them) and optimize the software for these components.
not like windows with a HUGE driver database on the HD...
and i typed USB, not USB 2.0 and besides firewire 800 is almost twice as fast as USB 2.0....
and my comment about registry is about that windows uses a registry which is NOT placed near the EXE files or the dll's on the hardware thus increasing search times on the HD. mac doesnt use a registry it has all the info in 1 folder which is near each other after a defrag thus limiting searchtimes...
and how do you explain to DjDiego that he has to reinstall his os if its not a registry fault?
and apple is G5 now not G4... the benchmark is taking the newest PC and an older mac... so that makes the benchmark unreliable.
and for sure there are pc's u can build that are faster than mac's but with the same specs (hd and processor and ram) the mac is faster due to the architectual structure of the hard- and software.
the benchmark is just a reaction of the pc-fans towards the mac commercials which say that macs are faster...
and besides... my post was about pointing out that the USER makes a computer fast or not. by making the adjustment to the computer in a way that fits the needs of the user best.
hope this clarifies some thing...
greetz,
SuperficiaL...
you should have read my post more carfully before saying i was wrong....
if you would have read my post more carefull you would have seen that i wrote 'inventions' meaning that mac didnt invent them but they brought it in production earlier...
which make people think that mac's are about a vision on how computing must be, and windows is all about making money. (dont get Windows and PC mixed though)
and your comment about mac making their own hardware was false because i said they make their own computers not ALL of the components.
my point here was that apple can pick which component they use in a computer. (and buy big quantities of them) and optimize the software for these components.
not like windows with a HUGE driver database on the HD...
and i typed USB, not USB 2.0 and besides firewire 800 is almost twice as fast as USB 2.0....
and my comment about registry is about that windows uses a registry which is NOT placed near the EXE files or the dll's on the hardware thus increasing search times on the HD. mac doesnt use a registry it has all the info in 1 folder which is near each other after a defrag thus limiting searchtimes...
and how do you explain to DjDiego that he has to reinstall his os if its not a registry fault?
and apple is G5 now not G4... the benchmark is taking the newest PC and an older mac... so that makes the benchmark unreliable.
and for sure there are pc's u can build that are faster than mac's but with the same specs (hd and processor and ram) the mac is faster due to the architectual structure of the hard- and software.
the benchmark is just a reaction of the pc-fans towards the mac commercials which say that macs are faster...
and besides... my post was about pointing out that the USER makes a computer fast or not. by making the adjustment to the computer in a way that fits the needs of the user best.
hope this clarifies some thing...
greetz,
SuperficiaL...
-
metaprofessor_
superficial,
you're getting religious on me (which is why most people are bored with this type of discussion)! you said gates "stole all the ideas of MAC" - and that is undeniably false. you compared an obsolete USB standard with firewire, which is available for windows machines anyway (so doesn't even apply). you're praising the exclusivity of mac's hardware when in reality it's a limitation on your freedom and results in higher prices for you.
the reason i cited the benchmark tests with the G4 against P4 is because everyone thought apple was faster back then, and that was shown to be false (by a large margin). that was NOT a "newer PC and an older MAC" - those computers were both sent to the tester in 2002.
the registry issue: i use machines with at least 1 GB of RAM, and when i'm running apps my machine is most definitely not accessing my whole hard drive searching the registry. i also defrag my drives regularly. in regards to djdiego's windows "reinstalls", that's says more about djdiego than it does about windows. the last time i had windows crash and become unrecoverable was 4 years ago when i was using windows NT 4.0, and i'm including all 12 computers in the office i manage and the 3 i use at home in that statistic.
the mac OS's are a complete mess! every time they release a new OS dozens of apps can't be used on it anymore! if i wanted to i could run windows 3.1 programs on XP. one more example of how mac costs more money for more hassle. the last mac OS i used was 8.6, and i remember the whole system would crash all the time with an "unspecified error" and i would have to restart. although windows NT 4.0 is totally obsolete, even it would only crash an application, and not the entire system like the mac OS did at that time.
the dumbest thing about all of this is that mac people believe the salesman, namely apple, and not independent reports. you never trust the guy who's trying to sell you something. that's why in britain they forced mac to remove claims of "world's fastest personal computer" from their advertising. - because it wasn't true.
i'm afraid you didn't clarify very much for me!
regards,
metaprofessor
you're getting religious on me (which is why most people are bored with this type of discussion)! you said gates "stole all the ideas of MAC" - and that is undeniably false. you compared an obsolete USB standard with firewire, which is available for windows machines anyway (so doesn't even apply). you're praising the exclusivity of mac's hardware when in reality it's a limitation on your freedom and results in higher prices for you.
the reason i cited the benchmark tests with the G4 against P4 is because everyone thought apple was faster back then, and that was shown to be false (by a large margin). that was NOT a "newer PC and an older MAC" - those computers were both sent to the tester in 2002.
the registry issue: i use machines with at least 1 GB of RAM, and when i'm running apps my machine is most definitely not accessing my whole hard drive searching the registry. i also defrag my drives regularly. in regards to djdiego's windows "reinstalls", that's says more about djdiego than it does about windows. the last time i had windows crash and become unrecoverable was 4 years ago when i was using windows NT 4.0, and i'm including all 12 computers in the office i manage and the 3 i use at home in that statistic.
the mac OS's are a complete mess! every time they release a new OS dozens of apps can't be used on it anymore! if i wanted to i could run windows 3.1 programs on XP. one more example of how mac costs more money for more hassle. the last mac OS i used was 8.6, and i remember the whole system would crash all the time with an "unspecified error" and i would have to restart. although windows NT 4.0 is totally obsolete, even it would only crash an application, and not the entire system like the mac OS did at that time.
the dumbest thing about all of this is that mac people believe the salesman, namely apple, and not independent reports. you never trust the guy who's trying to sell you something. that's why in britain they forced mac to remove claims of "world's fastest personal computer" from their advertising. - because it wasn't true.
i'm afraid you didn't clarify very much for me!
regards,
metaprofessor