Are Macs *THAT* much better for editing over the PC?

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
.......talk?

Probably. But you do know what I mean right?

Sort of. He's right in stating that the G4 is a slow processor, but you're right in stating that megahertz are not the only factor influencing the performance of a CPU. I've worked on a couple of G4s for considerable lengths of time. They don't hold a candle to my Athlon XP 2500+ mobile running at 2500mhz, which I paid only $90 for by the way. I would estimate that my system approximately doubles the performance of a 1.33ghz G4. The G4s I used were the 12" iBook and the 17" PowerBook. They were nice but not nearly as fast as my PC. Not even remotely close.

Basically I'm agreeing with him, although I'm only basing what he "thinks" on what you're telling me (I don't have the patience to read through 300 posts). Even a midrange PC would dust a G4. No comparison is required IMO. It's a 15-month old CPU at best!

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: kwshaw1

But continuing to badmouth a computer you dont use to make it sound horrible is just silly. And misinformation saying you cant edit HDV on FCP, trying so hard to make the Mac seem like its a crappy machine. And saying todays Macs arent faster than todays PC's with no evidence is also silly, and trying to back up their statements with opinions is just dumb.

Okay, it sounds like it's time to wind this down. I've said more than once that I think Apple has some good video editing products, but I think it's also useful to point out areas where PCs have advantages in this area--since that was the basic point of this whole thread. I particularly suggested that PCs are well ahead of Macs in terms of laptop technology, and I also mentioned that the PC platform has more practical and complete solutions for HDV editing. Some people obviously doubt these statements and are welcome to test them for themselves, but I'm confident that any impartial assessment would reach the same conclusions. I'll apologize again for laying it on a little thick in making my comparisons, but sometimes it's tempting to do that to cut through the equally thick Apple hype. Apple has done a good job of building a mystique around their video editing tools, which are apparently quite good, but they aren't the end-all and be-all of video editing. A competent person can make good videos with either Macs or PCs, and it sounds like we pretty much all agree on that. Cheers.

Ok, at least we can settle this. Both the Mac and the PC have their advantages. Now believe me, I'm no Mac fanboy. If someone were to say stuff like PC's suck and other comments like this, or say they are crap compared to Macs, then I will defend the PC side too. I am neutral. I use both platforms. I own 3 PC's and 2 Macs. I love my AMD 2600+ Its got a lot of high end stuff in it, except maybe the processor and the video card, which is an Nvidia 5600 Ultra. I know that machine will whip my Mac in probably any task, as it killed me in every test in Photoshop, and I am sure in video editing that PC will be a beast!!

Glad we were able to settle this! I dont know much about video editing, but if I need help, I should probably ask you.

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
.......talk?

Probably. But you do know what I mean right?

Sort of. He's right in stating that the G4 is a slow processor, but you're right in stating that megahertz are not the only factor influencing the performance of a CPU. I've worked on a couple of G4s for considerable lengths of time. They don't hold a candle to my Athlon XP 2500+ mobile running at 2500mhz, which I paid only $90 for by the way. I would estimate that my system approximately doubles the performance of a 1.33ghz G4. The G4s I used were the 12" iBook and the 17" PowerBook. They were nice but not nearly as fast as my PC. Not even remotely close.

Basically I'm agreeing with him, although I'm only basing what he "thinks" on what you're telling me (I don't have the patience to read through 300 posts). Even a midrange PC would dust a G4. No comparison is required IMO. It's a 15-month old CPU at best!

That I can agree to. My 1GHz Mac couldnt stand a chance against my AMD 2600+ I can assume that the 2500+ you got there would probably outperform those Macs. You did your own benchmarks, and found out too.

But it was hilarious to see the 2600+ walk on my Mac. I was losing in every test in Photoshop by 40 seconds! But I did do well against my friends 2000+.

 

[imported_kwshaw1]

Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy
Ok, first of all, I am not comparing the G4 to a high end PC. I am saying that kshaw thinks that the clock speed is the only important thing of the processor. And when I said "You never put the fastest G4 agianst a higher end PC." I told him this because this is when he was trying to make the Mac look like a bad machine, saying the G4 is a slow processor. He never put them side by side to assume the G4 is a slow processor.

Just to set the record straight, I said before that I understand clock speed isn't the only thing which matters...but it's a fundamental fact that clock speed does have an influence on computer performance. If you understand how computers work you know that clock speed determines how many times per second a processor can attempt to do something, whatever that something might be. If one processor has two million cycles per second to do something and another processor has one million cycles per second to do something, then the second processor would have to do twice as much "something" per cycle as the first one to achieve the same actual performance.

I think you know this, and you've alluded to the notion that the processors Apple uses have a good internal design which allows them to do a lot of work in one cycle under the right conditions. But it's still the case that a 1.5 GHz processor has to do exactly twice as much work per processing cycle to achieve the same performance as a 3.0 GHz processor, and that's just a basic fact. I'd agree that it's theoretically possible for a 1.5 GHz processor to outperform a 3.0 GHz processor under the right conditions, but I've never seen any credible evidence that today's 1.5 GHz G4 Macs can compare to a decent 3.0 GHz PC for video editing tasks or most other computing work. If I had seen such evidence, I would not make the statements I've made about Mac vs. PC laptop performance.

And now it's starting to sound like from your own posts that this is consistent with your own experience comparing G4 Macs to Athlon-based PCs, which is the opposite of what I thought you had said earlier. So now I'm not sure what you believe, other than that you're convinced I base my conclusions on pure speculation rather than actual research and discussion with other computer users. I assure you that I study this topic carefully so I can assess whether Apple has products I might want to consider buying, and so far I've yet to see anything compelling to make me want to re-invest in the Mac platform.

I'd agree that the G5 Macs are impressive computers, but they still don't outperform the best PCs in side-by-side video editing tests, and they can't offer the variety of hardware and software choices which PCs have. What Apple really has going for it in terms of video production is a a few good applications which have clearly made a mark in the video industry, and I wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing to use Macs instead of (or in addition to) PCs for doing video work. But really, there are areas in which PCs have advantages, and that's what I was trying to point out in my various posts. Guess I should have watched how I phrased those better, as the discussion seems to have gotten counter-productive at times. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[jlambvo]

I think the more important point going for Apple is OSX. It's not just because its Unix based, so the comparision to Linux is a nonissue. The interface is really spectacular for multitasking, lightyears ahead of XP in my opinion, and the experience of using OSX for productivity applications (after you really get used to it) makes it hard to go back to a PC. If I am JUST using a video editing app, it's not quite so big a deal. But usually if you are doing any kind of large scale video or photo editing work, you're going to be switching between multiple software suites and sharing documents between them.

I don't care how much faster the video will render if with work process takes twice as long when I'm running several beefy background apps, switching windows, moving files from one to the other, etc. Using OSX I can easily start rendering that video and practically forget about it while working on other apps. Apple might have come late to the multitasking show but they really leapfrogged MS. And having the entire 2D graphics API for the system UI based on PDF makes things like printing and previews really slick.

The biggest bottleneck in productivity performance these days is arguably the manual workflow, not how fast the CPU can render stuff. Bearing this all in mind, *IF* you like OSX (which isn't for everybody) a G5 is a really nice choice over a Windows box.

I'm still building a new PC when I had the option of getting a G5 because I'm going into game design and modding for DX9-generation games, and PCs are obviously hands-down better for this (if nothing else necessity over software availability). Since I'm at an art school, if I need to do any Photoshop, illustration, page layout, or video editing I walk over to school and use the G5 lab for now.

 

[imported_kwshaw1]

Originally posted by: jlambvo
I think the more important point going for Apple is OSX. It's not just because its Unix based, so the comparision to Linux is a nonissue. The interface is really spectacular for multitasking, lightyears ahead of XP in my opinion, and the experience of using OSX for productivity applications (after you really get used to it) makes it hard to go back to a PC. If I am JUST using a video editing app, it's not quite so big a deal. But usually if you are doing any kind of large scale video or photo editing work, you're going to be switching between multiple software suites and sharing documents between them.

In what practical ways specifically would you say that OSX is good at multi-tasking? Are you talking about the interface experience or perceived performance, or both? If it's performance, are you comparing recent dual-processor Macs to similarly configured dual-processor PCs? Based on people I've talked to who have the latter, it sounds like their multi-tasking experience is also quite good, so let's be careful we're not assigning attributes to the operating system which are actually a function of having two processors.

I don't care how much faster the video will render if with work process takes twice as long when I'm running several beefy background apps, switching windows, moving files from one to the other, etc.

While that's certainly an important point, I personally find rendering issues to be one of the biggest factors in effective video production workflow. That's why I've made a point of picking video products which don't require much rendering until the end of a project, and even then can do the final rendering as quickly as possible. As far as I've been able to tell, the Mac platform has lagged behind PCs in terms of offering effective real-time video production solutions, and although the G5s undoubtedly help with that it's still an issue in some areas.

I'll apologize in advance for mentioning HDV again, but this is one area where rendering is really going to be significant. If you have to render anything for any reason in HD/HDV it reportedly takes a very long time, e.g. if you have to transcode material before you start editing or render to a specific delivery format at the end of a project. On PCs transcoding is either not required or done in real time during the capture process, but according to first-hand reports from people working with HDV on Macs this is a time-consuming task for them. (At least the ones I've corresponded with.) In terms of output, G5 Macs should be pretty good at this in terms of software-based solutions, but it's still going to take a very long time to make an HD DVD via software. For PCs there is already one real-time HD output encoder (from Sonic) and another company has hinted at plans to incorporate such an encoder once the HD DVD formats are finalized.

So if I can build a PC-based HDV setup which captures, edits, previews and outputs in real time, and there isn't anything equivalent for Macs at a similar price (or any price), then I'll pick the PC solution. As I tried to explain in previous posts, today's PC HDV solutions are well ahead of Macs in terms of workflow, and in particular offer much more complete out-of-the-box HDV production. Believe it or don't, but if you actually wanted to do HDV production today you'd do well to read up about this. I'd expect Apple will do as much as they can to resolve this issue before it's a concern for a significant number of people, but it's already an issue for people who are buying HDV cameras today. There are workarounds for dealing with HDV on Macs and these will undoubtedly improve over time, but I don't see any signs that there are HDV products in the works for Macs which will match the full range of features already available for HDV on PCs. It looks like Mac users are more likely to get what they need if/when Panasonic ships a low-cost DVCProHD camera, which is apparently about a year or so away. At that point I'd expect most Mac-based video producers to abandon HDV entirely in favor of the Panasonic option, because that will integrate more readily into existing Mac-based video tools.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: kwshaw1
In what practical ways specifically would you say that OSX is good at multi-tasking? Are you talking about the interface experience or perceived performance, or both? If it's performance, are you comparing recent dual-processor Macs to similarly configured dual-processor PCs? Based on people I've talked to who have the latter, it sounds like their multi-tasking experience is also quite good, so let's be careful we're not assigning attributes to the operating system which are actually a function of having two processors.

I have a 1GHz G4 (single) and multitasking is superb on it. I don't think that this is an issue of dual processors multitasking well. It's OS X just does it right.
The point is, that multitasking on OS X allows you to do lots of things at once without a perceived performance drop. You can even burn a cd at full speed while doing 3D rendering (I've done it before), and the cd won't underrun. This is an issue that I've had with PC's in the past (although, it is improving).
Another cool thing I've noticed is that you can be playing a play list in iTunes, burning a CD, and then switch to another user and do something else there. The music will still be playing without popping/skipping, and the CD will still be burning at full speed. And when you switch user, it still does that cool cube animation (without chugging).

Oh, and to those who celebrate it, Merry Christmas

 

[imported_Lucifer]

I multitask on my 1GHz Mac. Its awesome. I dont have any problems. I have toast burning a cd, listening to tunes on iTunes, have safari open, have MSN open and making a cartoon with flash. No problems.

 

[jlambvo]

Originally posted by: kwshaw1

Originally posted by: jlambvo
I think the more important point going for Apple is OSX. It's not just because its Unix based, so the comparision to Linux is a nonissue. The interface is really spectacular for multitasking, lightyears ahead of XP in my opinion, and the experience of using OSX for productivity applications (after you really get used to it) makes it hard to go back to a PC. If I am JUST using a video editing app, it's not quite so big a deal. But usually if you are doing any kind of large scale video or photo editing work, you're going to be switching between multiple software suites and sharing documents between them.

In what practical ways specifically would you say that OSX is good at multi-tasking? Are you talking about the interface experience or perceived performance, or both? If it's performance, are you comparing recent dual-processor Macs to similarly configured dual-processor PCs? Based on people I've talked to who have the latter, it sounds like their multi-tasking experience is also quite good, so let's be careful we're not assigning attributes to the operating system which are actually a function of having two processors.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I was talking about the USER performing multiple tasks (using several apps) and not necessarily the performance of the computer, hence the rest of my above paragraph talking about the OS user interface. OSX makes shifting between multiple applications and documents a breeze. Windows always feels very one-track.

Using a physical analogy, OSX lays everything out onto a single, continuous, convenient workspace. In Windows, its like I have several desks spread throughout my workshop between which I'm constantly running back and forth.

It's an important distinction from computer performance. It doesn't matter if the computer can crunch more numbers if there aren't numbers being thrown at it, and OSX doesn't get in my way nearly as much as Windows does. But it's all personal preference.

 

[imported_kwshaw1]

Interesting comments about the user experience with OSX. I have noticed that some of my PC software basically won't let me do other things under certain circumstances, but it's not clear whether that's due to poor application design or poor OS design. I'm also curious about the comparisons of workspace layout in OSX versus Windows, as I haven't noticed this to be an issue with the latter.

And this is where we get into the more interesting comparison between Macs and PCs, which involves good software design principles. If Macs didn't have good software they would almost certainly be long forgotten by now, as it's ultimately the user experience which keeps the Mac platform alive and kicking. In my Mac user days I definitely liked the way certain things were handled as opposed to on PCs, but those differences seemed to diminish over time as Microsoft finally grasped that they needed to smooth over some of their rough spots. However, even without seeing OSX I'd expect that it's better designed than Windows, as the engineers at Apple have always seemed to have a knack for intelligent design. So if Apple can keep "pushing the envelope" for good OS and video production software, they shouldn't have any trouble continuing to make a name for themselves in the video production industry.

 

[halfadder]

One of my favorite mutli-tasking features of Mac OS X is how the more recent versions have basiclly done away with modal dialog boxes. Most dialog boxes are now physically attached to the relevant document or application... rather than just popping up in the middle of the screen making you wonder what it's referring to.

Overall I think both Mac OS X and Windows XP are fine for video production, as are the latest hardware platforms for each. They have their pros and cons, but at the end of the day, both will do the job. The professionals I have spoken to both love and recommend the G5 hardware they work with. I guess there comes a point when benchmarks become less relevant and the question of "does it do the job I need it to?" comes into play.

But like Ford vs Chevy, Saab vs Volvo, and AMG Mercedes vs BMW, people can and will argue the merits of each.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
"I am thinking about getting a new Mac for video editing. Currently I use Adobe Premiere, After Effects, Encore, Photoshop etc"


I work as an admin for a small college that uses both macs and PCs and I have to tell you that Premier is no longer available for a mac system, however After Effects is. So if you are hell bent on continueing to use these video apps, then dont get a mac. Overall they are not bad machines, different than what you are used to but not horrible.

Some things are a pain, but then again some things are much easier than they are in windows. Please let me know if you have any mac questions, I've familiar with OS9 pretty well and know dang near everything about OS X

How can you know everything about OS X and not OS9? How long HAVE you been using a mac for?

I said I knew it pretty well, but not as well as I do OS X as we stopped using OS9 when X came out. I used to know it just as well, but time seems to take its toll on my memory banks....

How long were you using OS9?

2.5 - 3 years

 

[thirdlegstump]

Mac is only as 2.5GHz while PCs are already at 3.4GHz.

 

[halfadder]

The IBM PowerPC 970 "G5" CPU is only at 2.5 GHz, yes.

I think AMD Athlon 64 CPUs are only up to 2.6 GHz too.

 

[halfadder]

Yay, rumor has it that iMovie 5 (due out in January) will natively support HDV !!

(What am I saying?! I should be mad... I just bought a MiniDV camera only 6 months ago!)

 

[imported_Lucifer]

Originally posted by: halfadder
Yay, rumor has it that iMovie 5 (due out in January) will natively support HDV !!

(What am I saying?! I should be mad... I just bought a MiniDV camera only 6 months ago!)

Cool! Thats interesting to know.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Mac is only as 2.5GHz while PCs are already at 3.4GHz.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. If you aren't...just go away.

 

[twitchee2]

i would take a mac over a pc no questions asked only one probem i want a $10,000 mac

 

[thirdlegstump]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Mac is only as 2.5GHz while PCs are already at 3.4GHz.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. If you aren't...just go away.

Umm.. I'm not kidding. Go to apple.com and look for the fastest G5. It's 2.5GHz.

 

[halfadder]

Those AMD bastards too:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Proce...485_9487^10248,00.html

 

[Dennis Travis]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Mac is only as 2.5GHz while PCs are already at 3.4GHz.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. If you aren't...just go away.

Umm.. I'm not kidding. Go to apple.com and look for the fastest G5. It's 2.5GHz.

What are you saying? Go to NewEgg and look at the fastest AMD 64. About the same Ghz. What is your point?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Thats the thing, I have to open a whole 'nother folder just to run some applications. In windows AND in linux all I got to do is click start (forgot for linux) programs and look for your program.

What's different from clicking the start menu, and then All Programs, from clicking a folder in the dock and having a window pop up with all the apps? Looks like less clicks to me if you don't count the list of recently used programs on the start menu. Just on that, I open lots of programs on OS X similar to on windows: just open the Apple menu, go to Recent Items, and open the app I want.

If you must use Explorer under XP, the classic start menu is a must have. Starting with WinXP, MS has done their best to make an inefficient and messy environment to work in.

While OS X is nice when you first install it, if you look at a system with OS X a year later you will see it's got a messy desktop.

This is only true for stupid/inefficient mac users that don't think about deleting Safari downloads off their desktop. You know that Safari is really the only app that uses the desktop? If you're saying this because of what you've seen at school, I can understand because I've seen the same thing. People download stuff, and then can't be stuffed deleting or moving the download from the desktop and leave it there, making the desktop as messy as hell. But like I said, that's only with stupid/inefficient mac users (or PC users that don't know what the hell they're doing).

People use stuff on the desktop? Isn't that, like, where applications are?

As for efficiency in OS X, you can't go past the keyboard shortcuts that are available. I get things done so much faster because my hands very rarely leave the keyboard. I know all the keyboard shortcuts in windows (being an ex-DOS user, I love using the keyboard), but they aren't as good as those on the mac.

It would be nice for them all to be standard. Like the different ways programs have the redo option...why? Just copy MS Office and be done. Not the most intuitive, but it would work well.

I also like the efficiency of the multitasking on OS X. A PC will start out faster than a mac, but the more programs that are run, causes the mac to seem to catchup in speed (this is coz the mac isn't affected badly by lots of apps running, where I've found in my years of experience with windows that it slows down like hell and starts complaining about virtual memory is too low - on win9x that was fatal "System is low on resources. Close some programs..." and it wouldn't respond, but XP is better than 9x in that regard). Memory use on OS X is extremely efficient too.

Huh. I never had problems with NT4 or Windows 2000. Everything is as fast with >400MB used as with <120 (512MB total). Win9x shouldn't count in any modern comparison--Win98 was crappy when it came out (NT4 was a far superior option).

Thin Lizzy: nice neat desktop. I only have a couple more icons than that (a printer and a network share). There's no app icons on mine either except to Remote Desktop into my Windows server.

Not bad. Still >0, though .

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: kwshaw1
In what practical ways specifically would you say that OSX is good at multi-tasking? Are you talking about the interface experience or perceived performance, or both? If it's performance, are you comparing recent dual-processor Macs to similarly configured dual-processor PCs? Based on people I've talked to who have the latter, it sounds like their multi-tasking experience is also quite good, so let's be careful we're not assigning attributes to the operating system which are actually a function of having two processors.

I have a 1GHz G4 (single) and multitasking is superb on it. I don't think that this is an issue of dual processors multitasking well. It's OS X just does it right.
The point is, that multitasking on OS X allows you to do lots of things at once without a perceived performance drop. You can even burn a cd at full speed while doing 3D rendering (I've done it before), and the cd won't underrun. This is an issue that I've had with PC's in the past (although, it is improving).

Very much in the past. Getting a buffer underrun (in anything modern, the burnproof light ) is practically impossible, unless you're on a real POS. I can imagine a Celeron/i845 (single-channel PC133) having issues, but no other combo--even this Athlon 700 on a VIA chipset. The situation is not "improving," it has been dealt with and is over to anyone willing to pay $600+ for a new PC, preferably from a white box vendor, or buy a corporate used PC for $150-$200, or take their fate into their own hands and blow away the original OEM OS install and start things off the right way.

Another cool thing I've noticed is that you can be playing a play list in iTunes, burning a CD, and then switch to another user and do something else there. The music will still be playing without popping/skipping, and the CD will still be burning at full speed. And when you switch user, it still does that cool cube animation (without chugging).

Oh, and to those who celebrate it, Merry Christmas

 

[Cerb]

As far as performance goes, the Apple stuff is fine, but nothing special--definitely not for the cost!
With all this talk of OS X feeling faster than XYZ PC, what was that PC?

I can walk into Fry's (well, if I happen to be on the way to Atlanta), use a demo OEM rig with killer specs...P4E 3.2, 1GB RAM, 6600GT...and the damn thing feels like a snail compared to my 1800+. If any comparisons about multitasking and responsiveness are to be made, they should be from a standpoint of having a fresh OS w/ AV software. Big OEMs (Dell, HP, former IBM, Gateway, etc, not Falcon NW, Alienware, etc.) don't know how to make a home PC that can start Firefox in a second or less.

In fact, the worst I've yet seen was my doctor's 3200+. 1GB PC3200, so-so- video card, nice big fast HDD. Just getting a context menu on a file on the desktop took half a second.

As for the rest, it is all preference. I don't find my Windows PC to have an ugly look or feel...OTOH, if I'm not developing a theme, I'll have xoblite with LS on top and BBLean's window skinning (xoblite takes over the desktop mouse actions, though). That brushed OS X look ain't got nothin' on a beveled, raised diagonal gradient purple to black titlebar and beveled flat silver bottom grips .
I dislike the look and feel of OSX and whatever Apple wants to call their desktop environment. OTOH, I also dislike Explorer, and to a lesser extent, KDE and Gnome (partly because they are both like Explorer with extensibility), so I'm an equal opportunity lowest common denominator desktop environment hater .

On real performance, benchmarks are not crap, but only need to be within a margin of error. So what if the Windows version of an app runs 20% faster, if your guys use OS X day and day out, not Win2K/XP? That 20% would be eaten by working with something unfamiliar, regardless of which is superior (or not, as we could argue about that for days--then months after open source options are mixed in). When you get into 100% or so differences, or the machine needs to be a workhorse, then you might look at changing tech.

When it comes to stability, the app makes the difference. The last time Windows 2000 crashed on me, I gave it the wrong network driver, and told it to use it anyway. Silly windows, it's not idiot-proof!

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: deathkoba

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Mac is only as 2.5GHz while PCs are already at 3.4GHz.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. If you aren't...just go away.

Umm.. I'm not kidding. Go to apple.com and look for the fastest G5. It's 2.5GHz.

You can't rate computer speed by CPU speed alone. There are multiple optimizations for each CPU that can greatly change performance. If this wasn't the case, tell me how a Athlon 64 at 2.6GHz can out-perform the latest 3.6GHz+ Intel CPU's.