edenwax
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Posts: 1,266
|
Post by edenwax on Feb 20, 2011 7:45:21 GMT
xD Yeah but that's not how I meant to direct it. Its my bad, I rushed the hell out of that retarded response. I was meaning to only state the pointlessness of mac vs pc debates due to how some people respond without true facts. Since I misread earlier parts of the post, that part of my response was wrong.
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 20, 2011 8:25:45 GMT
Haha I see you and Colin completely missed my point from my comment. Read my quote in Nick's post, then what Nick posted, and then my reply. In any of them, do you see me being one-sided saying whoever uses this is smarter than whoever uses the other? No I didn't think so. It wasn't to state that people who use Windows are the better people, I was saying people who believe Macs can get viruses too are smart people. And Xcessive, towards the end of your post, you state that all designers use Macs, well not everyone can afford the ridiculously high prices of them and Windows 7 runs Photoshop just fine for me. I never said all designers use Macs. I said it was a paradigm - meaning its what people seem to think. I never said it was true. Read before you criticize. Mac computers run PS more efficiently, you can't argue against that, even Adobe admits they optimize for Mac more than for Windows.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Feb 20, 2011 9:18:58 GMT
@ Colin - No prob.
@ Xcessive - Maybe they do, but that doesn't mean Adobe products are noticeably slower on Windows computers.
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 21, 2011 0:29:08 GMT
@ Colin - No prob. @ Xcessive - Maybe they do, but that doesn't mean Adobe products are noticeably slower on Windows computers. I notice it. Have you ever used PS on a Mac? hansv.com/cs3/4 minutes is a pretty noticeable difference.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Feb 21, 2011 0:44:06 GMT
That's CS3. Who is to say they've not improved it, and obviously I have different system specs to that benchmark. I use CS5. And yes I have tried PS on a Mac. At school. Comparing it to my laptop, it is a little faster, but like you said Adobe did design the programs for Mac OS in the first place. It wasn't that much of a difference, only just noticeable. Like a couple of seconds. A couple of seconds isn't going to kill me. Also in that benchmark, Windows XP is running on the Mac via Bootcamp, not actually running from a proper Windows-based computer. And in this image, the second benchmark clearly shows that Windows XP is faster whereas Mac is the much slower one. It works both ways.
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 21, 2011 9:20:10 GMT
That's CS3. Who is to say they've not improved it, and obviously I have different system specs to that benchmark. I use CS5. And yes I have tried PS on a Mac. At school. Comparing it to my laptop, it is a little faster, but like you said Adobe did design the programs for Mac OS in the first place. It wasn't that much of a difference, only just noticeable. Like a couple of seconds. A couple of seconds isn't going to kill me. Also in that benchmark, Windows XP is running on the Mac via Bootcamp, not actually running from a proper Windows-based computer. And in this image, the second benchmark clearly shows that Windows XP is faster whereas Mac is the much slower one. It works both ways. A couple of seconds is enough time to annoy me, because it ends up being a couple MINUTES when doing large images or batch tasks. Boot camp makes Windows run NATIVELY, there is no slowdown in speed, it installs windows from scratch, its not emulated. It IS a proper windows based system. And that second image shows that Mac is faster, again. You clearly don't understand how graphs work.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Feb 21, 2011 18:13:50 GMT
I clearly do thank you.
Yes, Mac is still faster than XP, but what I was trying to point out is that on the second benchmark, XP loads it up a little faster, than its previous test, whereas with Mac it's the complete opposite.
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 22, 2011 11:52:48 GMT
I clearly do thank you. Yes, Mac is still faster than XP, but what I was trying to point out is that on the second benchmark, XP loads it up a little faster, than its previous test, whereas with Mac it's the complete opposite. Its still slower than Mac. Your point is moot. I own a Mac and a Windows machine, my Mac which is a laptop with a basic graphics card runs PS almost as fast (it certainly loads faster) as my Windows machine that has an Overclocked 5970 toxic edition card. PS is designed to run very efficiently on a Mac computer, this goes for all Adobe applications. While a few seconds here, maybe a minute there may not seem like much, it really adds up over the entire suite, especially if you need to deal with actual photographs with super high resolutions. As an aside, I actually use PS on my Windows machine as a staple because it has a far better screen(s), also the 4gb video RAM helps when I am interfacing as my projects usually get near 1000 layers.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Feb 23, 2011 0:55:29 GMT
Something that Windows is better at doing is playing videos. Mac utilizes the processor for the job whilst Windows hauls the load over to the GPU. It's stupid how Apple have taken so long to use features that are at their disposal, whereas Windows has been using them since they were introduced.
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 23, 2011 23:28:53 GMT
Something that Windows is better at doing is playing videos. Mac utilizes the processor for the job whilst Windows hauls the load over to the GPU. It's stupid how Apple have taken so long to use features that are at their disposal, whereas Windows has been using them since they were introduced. LOL wheres your source for this fun fact? Because its my understanding that you are talking complete bullshit. All Windows has done is provide DXVA which a DirectX API for developers to use GPUs for decoding and processing of certain codecs. They used this technology to make "Windows Media Player", but it was only added recently. Another example of a media player that runs on Windows and uses DXVA which is the much better and much faster is VLC media player, which is also available on Mac. Because - you see - its not the OS that uses the GPU, its the media player. The OS doesn't even know what videos are! Why do you think you need to download a program to view them? Also Mac has its own equivalent its called OpenCL. Have a look at the apple page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/) as you can see Quicktime ALSO uses GPU acceleration for media playing. Heres a direct quotation of the aforementioned web page: "QuickTime X is optimized for the latest modern media formats — such as H.264 and AAC — through a new media architecture that delivers stutter-free playback of high-definition content on nearly all Snow Leopard-based Mac systems. QuickTime X maximizes the efficiency of modern media playback by using the graphics processor to scale and display video. QuickTime X further increases efficiency by supporting GPU-accelerated video decoding of H.264 files." The only point where you were right is that DXVA has been around a few years longer than OpenCL, however both OS's have enabled using GPU acceleration for playing videos via OpenGL and DirectX respectively. However whether it is used or not is in control of the people who make the video playing software that runs on the OS, its a VERY poor reason for saying Windows OS is better than Mac OS. I'm not even a Mac fan, but your ignorance is making me look like one.
|
|
edenwax
VIP
v5 Beta Tester[M:5000]
Posts: 1,266
|
Post by edenwax on Feb 23, 2011 23:54:08 GMT
xcessive used Intelligence! Its super effective! Colin is mind boggled. Colin hurt himself in his mind boggledness.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Feb 24, 2011 0:01:32 GMT
Something that Windows is better at doing is playing videos. Mac utilizes the processor for the job whilst Windows hauls the load over to the GPU. It's stupid how Apple have taken so long to use features that are at their disposal, whereas Windows has been using them since they were introduced. LOL wheres your source for this fun fact? Because its my understanding that you are talking complete bullshit. All Windows has done is provide DXVA which a DirectX API for developers to use GPUs for decoding and processing of certain codecs. They used this technology to make "Windows Media Player", but it was only added recently. Another example of a media player that runs on Windows and uses DXVA which is the much better and much faster is VLC media player, which is also available on Mac. Because - you see - its not the OS that uses the GPU, its the media player. The OS doesn't even know what videos are! Why do you think you need to download a program to view them? Also Mac has its own equivalent its called OpenCL. Have a look at the apple page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/) as you can see Quicktime ALSO uses GPU acceleration for media playing. Heres a direct quotation of the aforementioned web page: "QuickTime X is optimized for the latest modern media formats — such as H.264 and AAC — through a new media architecture that delivers stutter-free playback of high-definition content on nearly all Snow Leopard-based Mac systems. QuickTime X maximizes the efficiency of modern media playback by using the graphics processor to scale and display video. QuickTime X further increases efficiency by supporting GPU-accelerated video decoding of H.264 files." The only point where you were right is that DXVA has been around a few years longer than OpenCL, however both OS's have enabled using GPU acceleration for playing videos via OpenGL and DirectX respectively. However whether it is used or not is in control of the people who make the video playing software that runs on the OS, its a VERY poor reason for saying Windows OS is better than Mac OS. I'm not even a Mac fan, but your ignorance is making me look like one. I was never clearly stating Windows is better than Mac, I was pointing out that Mac has taken its ass years to use technology that was available to them. Yes they may use it now, but back in 2007, with the GMA 950 and X3100, they had issues. Read up about it if you think I'm lying.
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 24, 2011 0:20:49 GMT
Dylan, I get the feeling you either didn't read, or skim read what I said.
Heres what I said. "...its a VERY poor reason for saying Windows OS is better than Mac OS"
Heres what you said. "Something that Windows is better at doing is playing videos."
To summarize, you said Windows was better at playing videos, I contradicted you. I never said either OS was better, nor did I accuse you of that in the above post.
Oh and by the way, you seem to be under the impression that Mac doesn't have GPU video support, like I said before: it does, and its been around for almost as long as Window's API has been.
Now onto your latest fallacy. Like I said before, Mac has enabled support for media players in the form of OpenGL. Both Windows and Mac have had an API for this since around 1999 - 2000. I am aware that certain cards have had issues and also certain cards the had better support for these features using certain APIs, but how can you blame that on an OS? Since they didn't manufacture the hardware OR the drivers.
Mac has not been late to the band wagon, its nVidia and ATI (and to a lesser extent intel) who have been halting, and bugging up GPU video playback. But for good reason, until very recently GPUs could only perform very specific functions because if a manufacturer enabled support for more than floating point precession calculations the price of GPUs would skyrocket. GPUs, in short, are not made for video playback, and enabling from a hardware perspective is onerous and costly for the consumer. The reason we haven't seen many pieces of software using Mac's API is because it was pointless up until recently. The reason we have seen it on Windows is because its a marketing gimmick.
VLC has been using GPU acceleration for scaling since 2001 (the only sensible thing given how GPUs used to work). And it added GPU decoding last year I believe. It runs on both OS's and always has.
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Feb 24, 2011 1:28:55 GMT
You know what, I will just let you have the last say. Partially because I'm out of things to say, and also mainly because you can't really say this is better than this. It depends on personal taste, which brings me back to my original conclusion that I will stick with: "It depends on personal taste, and the experiences you've had with whatever is the subject. For example, I've been using PlayStations since 1999. I still remember the good old days of Worms Armageddon, Driver 2 and Need for Speed: High Stakes. Naturally, when it came to the PS2 and Xbox, I would chose the PS2 because of my experiences with the PSOne. This isn't to say I hate the Xbox, don't get me wrong, it was a good console, but in my opinion, the PS2 was superior. Then we come to the PS3 and X360. Naturally again, I would choose the PS3, because of the many years of happiness I had with the PS2 (it still works). Once again, don't get me wrong, the X360 is a great console, and if I had the choice, I'd get the Xbox as well. The only real comparisons you can make for the PS3 and X360 is that the PS3 provides free internet browsing, whilst the Xbox provides better online gaming.
What happens with consoles, happens with operating systems. You use one for so many years, you stick to it. Probably the only comparisons you could make for Windows and Mac is the price differences, what you get for your money, the flexibility of system specs (with Windows, you can build a computer from scratch, with Mac, you are limited to what Apple shoves in their machines) and particularly when it comes to gaming, you would choose Windows with an AMD processor, but Mac has released a program called Bootcamp that is designed to run Windows on your Mac."
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 24, 2011 1:39:30 GMT
I think you misunderstand me. I use both a Mac machine, a Windows machine, and a Linux machine. I have no preference. if anything I like Linux slightly better than Mac and Windows. All I care about is truth, and I can't stand people making choices based on faulty assumptions. Such as "Windows is better at watching videos due to utilization of the GPU".
|
|
|
Post by hbk on Feb 24, 2011 1:46:56 GMT
I know you use both, I have been following your posts. But seriously, my main target for my point is at people who say 'Mac is better because they don't get viruses'. The sorts of people who say that are small-minded and one-sided. You see many of these people on Yahoo! Answers.
|
|
xcessive
Epic Poster
.[M:5000]
Posts: 526
|
Post by xcessive on Feb 24, 2011 8:23:08 GMT
Yes, like I said before, Mac computers DO get viruses anyway.
|
|