Mac versus Intel

"Kenny Frank" wrote in message

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a

top

end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to the G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant

difference

in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among others.

The G5 is much more versatile than any Intel machine, you can use it as a carrot rasp or cheese grater and you can even run Photoshop and Premiere on it.
If you don’t intend to use your computer in the kitchen, save yourself some money and get a PC as it will do anything a Mac will do (for less $) My kids school got their new Macs three weeks ago, since then the lab is dead because OSX is like Martian and nobody understand a thing about it

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

"Kenny Frank" wrote in message

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a

top

end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to the G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant

difference

in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among others.

The G5 is much more versatile than any Intel machine, you can use it as a carrot rasp or cheese grater and you can even run Photoshop and Premiere on it.
If you don’t intend to use your computer in the kitchen, save yourself some money and get a PC as it will do anything a Mac will do (for less $) My kids school got their new Macs three weeks ago, since then the lab is dead because OSX is like Martian and nobody understand a thing about it
Stephan

And when the Martian come, all the Hawaiians and Haoles alike go running to your kids school to see the visitors teach the imported teachers how to surf. The Martian Macs are quite adept at music, a universal, celestial language. And yes, as you are discovering, they know PS too, as well as the ability to smell the cheese.
Still Cookin’ on the G4

I think Wimpy said it best
"Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice."
There are devotees on both sides of the aisle. I’ve considered switching to Mac, but it’s the cost of converting all my software to Mac that keeps me on Intel. Sigh. . . . As long as I can get to the supermarket and get my groceries home, it doesn’t matter what kind of car I drive.

Maybe when the next MAJOR revision of Adobe stuff comes out, I’ll get a second computer, a Mac, devoted just for graphics work and get only the graphics applications. That should minimize the conversion cost.

"McCook" wrote in message

Stephan wrote:

"Kenny Frank" wrote in message

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of

a

top

end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to

the

G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant

difference

in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among

others.

The G5 is much more versatile than any Intel machine, you can use it as

a

carrot rasp or cheese grater and you can even run Photoshop and

Premiere on

it.
If you don’t intend to use your computer in the kitchen, save yourself

some

money and get a PC as it will do anything a Mac will do (for less $) My kids school got their new Macs three weeks ago, since then the lab is dead because OSX is like Martian and nobody understand a thing about it
Stephan

And when the Martian come, all the Hawaiians and Haoles alike go running

to

your kids school to see the visitors teach the imported teachers how to

surf.

The Martian Macs are quite adept at music, a universal, celestial

language. And

yes, as you are discovering, they know PS too, as well as the ability to

smell

the cheese.
Still Cookin’ on the G4

I’m also curious about the new Mac’s. The Mac’s strong suit used to be ease of use, color management and fool proof networking. I image a software side-grade could be arranged with Adobe and Macromedia . But the graphic design capabilities are up to the user and the software, with hardware having a much lessor role.

"Kenny Frank" wrote in message

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a

top

end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to the G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant

difference

in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among others.
Thanks,

-Kenny

Check this site:
http://content.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980821S0021
Also, copy this text into Google and search "mac vs PC" + "benchmarks" For Final Cut Pro, you must use a Mac. The latest Adobe Premiere Pro is PC ONLY. Macs only run Premiere to version 6.5. The fastest Intel is the 3.4 gigahertz P4 Extreme, but the P 4 Prescott is almost as fast. You need to compare these to the G5. The fastest G4 machines didn’t perform as well as the fastest Intel machines in most benchmarking tests. I don’t know how the P4 Extreme or Prescott stacks up to the G5 yet. If I could afford it, though,I’d have both types, but you get more bang for the buck and cheaper and more numerous peripherals AND software with Intel boxes. Of course, since Aplle controls hardware on the Mac, there’s probably a smaller chance for hardware conflicts.The Mac did have the best OS for graphics until XP came along. Macs are also less targeted by virus writers. There are tradeoffs. . I’d suggest you go to a Kinko’s and try out some G5 Macs, if they have any. PCs and Macs both crash, so don’t expect perfection on any system. .
Peter Cowie
"Kenny Frank" wrote in message

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a

top

end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to the G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant

difference

in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among others.
Thanks,

-Kenny

I spoke to Adobe and they do allow (at least a year ago, they did) sidegrades, but you must do it through Adobe.
Peter Cowie
"Glenn" wrote in message

I’m also curious about the new Mac’s. The Mac’s strong suit used to be

ease

of use, color management and fool proof networking. I image a software side-grade could be arranged with Adobe and Macromedia . But the graphic design capabilities are up to the user and the software, with hardware having a much lessor role.

"Kenny Frank" wrote in message

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a

top

end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to

the

G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant

difference

in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among

others.

Thanks,

-Kenny

Fair and balanced comments. If you’re not careful, you will be thrown off Usenet.

And when the Martian come, all the Hawaiians and Haoles alike go running

to

your kids school to see the visitors teach the imported teachers how to

surf.

The Martian Macs are quite adept at music, a universal, celestial

language. And

yes, as you are discovering, they know PS too, as well as the ability to

smell

the cheese.
Still Cookin’ on the G4

LOL,
Now I ‘ll spend the rest of the day guessing who you are. BTW I got my invitation to the NAPP conference in SF and Apple is not on the list of the sponsors.
Weren’t they on it last year?

Stephan

Thanks. I’ve seen too many flame wars on this topic start by not giving each system its due, and looking at real-world issues. Service bureaus still have a Mac/Illustrator/eps bias, though more and more tolerate PC files, especially since Adobe makes the interfaces almost identical on both systems, and the files -eg .AI- transfer easily between Mac and PC especially since the Opentype type format, which overcomes font issues between PC and Mac.
Peter Cowie
"Ted Kerin" wrote in message

Fair and balanced comments. If you’re not careful, you will be thrown off Usenet.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 02:31:21 GMT, "Kenny Frank" wrote:

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a top end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to the G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant difference in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among others.
Thanks,

-Kenny

Intel: Fast, cheaper than a Mac.

Mac: Faster, looks nicer.

And those are your differences.

Of course, if you want real computing power, and cheaper, you buy an Athlon 64.

Athlon 64: Fast or faster than a G5 (depending on which version of the processor you buy) and cheaper than both of them. In this case the Mac wins on looks but nothing else.,

In the end, it’s your money. See what you like. I’d say Athlon,. but then that’s just me. If I was buying a notebook, OTOH, I’d buy a powerbook because they look nicer and have fantastic TFT screens. 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Kenny Frank wrote:

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a top end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to the G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant difference in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among others.
Thanks,

-Kenny

I think it was last month’s PC Maximum magazine that had a comparison between the top P4 Intel (3.2 GHz HT EE, the AMD 64, and the G5 dual 2 GHz. Their sister magazine, MacAddict, also reported on the same testing, but a bit more abbreviated.

If I remember right, they were all pretty close – overall. The two 64 bit processors, G5 and AMD, did suffer by not having a 64 bit OS or apps. In some tests they suffered quite a bit. In other tests, it didn’t matter much. In a very few cases the high speed bus of the G5 really came through.

PC Maximum’s conclusion was that for now the best was the Intel P4 3.2 GHz EE. They are holding final judgment until the 64 bit OS and apps come along. Actually, it was a very well tested and written article. It was about as fair and unbiased as you will see. It’s worth looking up.

MacAddict didn’t really reach a conclusion. They pretty much high-lighted the areas that the G5 stood out and kind of ignored the areas that it didn’t. What they actually said was as true as PC Maximum, but you had to read between the lines on what they didn’t say. They stuck to their market’s bias.

In short, they are all fast and good. Study the tests to see which one best fits your needs. Quite frankly, the differences aren’t as great as the zealots would like you to believe.

Don’t forget the cost of all new software moving from one system to another. I just moved from a 400 MHz iMac to a 3.0 GHz HT Intel P4 computer that I built. Yeah, the hardware is way, way faster and no comparison. I still like OS X better as an OS, but not enough to really matter over XP Pro. The cost of my home built machine is way less than the G5 I would have liked.

Going to a system that has a lot more choices in app software was the easier way to go. Particularly if you are willing to work with freeware. You don’t have nearly as much flexibility moving into the Mac world.

Since Photoshop is the same on both and it’s my key app, it really neutralized the choice. I’ve always viewed the app as the key thing. The OS is needed to run the app. The hardware is needed to run the OS. If the app runs the same, the rest really doesn’t matter too much.

Also remember that your hardware upgrade options are much less on the Mac. That is a big deal for me. That iMac has no upgrade options other than memory and already have 1GB in it. I have to completely dump it to move to something else. If I bought that G5 it would have been one huge financial layout at one time. My Intel box was built over several months and can be upgraded the same way.

Clyde

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:19:01 GMT, Clyde
wrote:

Since Photoshop is the same on both and it’s my key app, it really neutralized the choice. I’ve always viewed the app as the key thing. The OS is needed to run the app. The hardware is needed to run the OS. If the app runs the same, the rest really doesn’t matter too much.

Hi Clyde,

The point so many people miss, and that you sensibly articulate here, is that they don’t ask themselves "What do I want to do with it?".

Answer that question and your choice becomes much more obvious.

Incidentally, just to show how these things work, a series of tests I saw in a UK magazine, PC Pro, showed that both the G5 and the Athlon 64 killed the Pentium by margins of up to 15% speed wise. It really depends on what sort of tests they do. I believe, from looking it up, that PC Maximum is really aimed at modders and games freaks 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

I believe, from looking it up,
that PC Maximum is really aimed at modders and games freaks 🙂

It is, but it also is perhaps the most ruthless tester of practical hardware I’ve read. Every now and then there are some real nuggets, and great comparison tests…if you can get past the "hey dude" part.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Stephan wrote:

"Kenny Frank" wrote in message

I’d like other’s opinions comparing the graphic design capabilities of a

top

end Intel box versus a Mac G5.

I’ve always been an Intel user but have begun to consider switching to the G5. Problem is I can’t find anyone who can provide a significant

difference

in quality or time savings between the two.

My toolset include Adobe Premier CS and Macromedia MX 2004, among others.

The G5 is much more versatile than any Intel machine, you can use it as a carrot rasp or cheese grater and you can even run Photoshop and Premiere on it.
If you don’t intend to use your computer in the kitchen, save yourself some money and get a PC as it will do anything a Mac will do (for less $) My kids school got their new Macs three weeks ago, since then the lab is dead because OSX is like Martian and nobody understand a thing about it
Stephan

So, your school’s got computers they don’t know how to use and this is the computer’s fault? Lots of people do know how to use OSX, and do it every day, even in my grandkids school. Come to think of it, most of my grandkids can use OSX.

-Raf

—
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:
http://www.ralphandsue.com

In article ,
says…

The point so many people miss, and that you sensibly articulate here, is that they don’t ask themselves "What do I want to do with it?".
Answer that question and your choice becomes much more obvious.
Incidentally, just to show how these things work, a series of tests I saw in a UK magazine, PC Pro, showed that both the G5 and the Athlon 64 killed the Pentium by margins of up to 15% speed wise. It really depends on what sort of tests they do. I believe, from looking it up, that PC Maximum is really aimed at modders and games freaks 🙂
—

Hecate

This is a neverending "sore spot" between me and my buddy/exboss. He a Mac person…I lean towards PC’s.
Trying to be as unbiased as I possibly can…I see it as they are both capable of running Photoshop, and both do that equally well. And both are equally as easy…if you are familiar with that particular OS.
To me…it’s just what your used to, and what you learned on I guess. Though it seems to me that "Mac people" seem to be a bit more pompous, and arrogant about the matter and think that Macs are the "end all" computer in terms of speed, usability, ease of use, etc. But from anything I’ve ever read…that "benchmarking" crap is all relative. And Mac people still claim that their machine’s gigafloops and megaheeps are somehow, in some parallel universe…actually faster than a PC’s.
(if you divide a gigafloop by pie, and multiply it by the distance between Venus to Mars…and spin around while reciting Jingle Bells backwards.)
BUT…in the last argument my buddy and I had…he made some claims about the new Mac’s having some kind of special "color matching feature" (?), that Microsoft just "flat out refused to address", and was now becoming the "standard" in the print industry, and was being installed into all of the new state of the art printers being built nowadays.
But I know nothing of this, and I would LOVE to have some ammo to prove him wrong…
just to maintain my position that…anything that can be done on a Mac…can be done equally as well, as fast, and as easy on a PC. Anyone know anything about this "color matching" stuff…with some proof to back it up…?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:51:51 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

I believe, from looking it up,
that PC Maximum is really aimed at modders and games freaks 🙂

It is, but it also is perhaps the most ruthless tester of practical hardware I’ve read. Every now and then there are some real nuggets, and great comparison tests…if you can get past the "hey dude" part.

LOL! We don’t get that mag in the UK< but I’ve seen ones like it. And yes, they test to breaking point as well. However, the point I’m trying to make is that a machine which makes Half Life look real is probably overkill for 2D work. What’s more important, unless 3D is important, is the ability to deal with complex layering, filters etc, and that’s more a function of the RAM and processor than of the video card. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:45:28 GMT, The Magician
wrote:

This is a neverending "sore spot" between me and my buddy/exboss. He a Mac person…I lean towards PC’s.
Trying to be as unbiased as I possibly can…I see it as they are both capable of running Photoshop, and both do that equally well. And both are equally as easy…if you are familiar with that particular OS.
To me…it’s just what your used to, and what you learned on I guess. Though it seems to me that "Mac people" seem to be a bit more pompous, and arrogant about the matter and think that Macs are the "end all" computer in terms of speed, usability, ease of use, etc. But from anything I’ve ever read…that "benchmarking" crap is all relative. And Mac people still claim that their machine’s gigafloops and megaheeps are somehow, in some parallel universe…actually faster than a PC’s.

Yes, exactly. Not all MAc people are like that but I find that there seems to be a higher percentage of fanatics amongst them. Which, for an OS that’s used by 3% of the worlds population, I find a little comical. 😉

Incidentally, as far as the speed thing goes, in the UK Apple were advertising the G5 as the World’s Fastest Desktop computer. Only they had to withdraw the ads after complaints because comparative measurements with an Athlon 64 showed it was no such thing 😉

BUT…in the last argument my buddy and I had…he made some claims about the new Mac’s having some kind of special "color matching feature" (?), that Microsoft just "flat out refused to address", and was now becoming the "standard" in the print industry, and was being installed into all of the new state of the art printers being built nowadays.
But I know nothing of this, and I would LOVE to have some ammo to prove him wrong…
just to maintain my position that…anything that can be done on a Mac…can be done equally as well, as fast, and as easy on a PC. Anyone know anything about this "color matching" stuff…with some proof to back it up…?

It sounds like the Apple Colour Match system that’s been in Apple computers for as long as they’ve been Macs, IIRC. As for the rest of it, I follow print technology for obvious reasons and I’ve not seen *anything* in either digital, photographic, or computer magazines about anything new. I think he’s extracting the urine personally. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

misifus wrote:

So, your school’s got computers they don’t know how to use and this is the computer’s fault?

No, it’s the fault of the person who bought them. They should have had the sense to buy something the majority of the public understand. What is the use of a computer lab that stays totally in the dark? It may be the best technological solution but it’s for naught if you can’t get past the on/off switch.

The Bible is probably best read in Greek or Hebrew, but since I understand neither I’ll go for an English translation. Not as ‘good’, but infinitely more useful and meaningful (to me).

Different strokes for different folks.

JP

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:51:51 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

I believe, from looking it up,
that PC Maximum is really aimed at modders and games freaks 🙂

It is, but it also is perhaps the most ruthless tester of practical

hardware

I’ve read. Every now and then there are some real nuggets, and great comparison tests…if you can get past the "hey dude" part.

LOL! We don’t get that mag in the UK< but I’ve seen ones like it. And yes, they test to breaking point as well. However, the point I’m trying to make is that a machine which makes Half Life look real is probably overkill for 2D work. What’s more important, unless 3D is important, is the ability to deal with complex layering, filters etc, and that’s more a function of the RAM and processor than of the video card. 🙂

As usual, you’re correct. Two issues ago, however, they put all three chip/OS platforms (Mac, Intel, and AMD) in a side-by-side: the fastest dual G-5, and the fastest Intel/AMD boxes they could build with, as close as they could match, identical off-the-shelf periphs, RAM, V/C, etc.- it was very good reading and quite well done. They even went so far as to come up with some new tests (including a few for PS7) that bypassed the known "test tweaks" that all three play. The results were left up to the reader to interpret and they didn’t play any favorites either. Good stuff.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

In article ,
says…

It sounds like the Apple Colour Match system that’s been in Apple computers for as long as they’ve been Macs, IIRC. As for the rest of it, I follow print technology for obvious reasons and I’ve not seen *anything* in either digital, photographic, or computer magazines about anything new. I think he’s extracting the urine personally. 🙂

And what exactly is this Apple Color Match System?
Is it something that’s mission critical in the graphics world? Is it something that a PC can’t do, or match, or be worked around? According to him…if he had the cash to buy a new system…he said he’d buy a new Mac with, blah–blah-blah-this new feature, and with blah-blah- blah-that piece of hardware…because of this color matching system that Windows machines DON’T have. Because it was "all important". Then he went into his usual rant about the "omnipotent greatness" Macs had over PC’s. My argument was your 3% scenario, and the fact that if you walk into any computer store…like 90% of the store’s
inventory…software, peripherals, hardware, etc. was devoted to PC’s…not Macs.
So is this Apple Color Match System something a Mac actually has over the PC…or is it something that a PC can accomplish in some way?

"The Magician" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

It sounds like the Apple Colour Match system that’s been in Apple computers for as long as they’ve been Macs, IIRC. As for the rest of it, I follow print technology for obvious reasons and I’ve not seen *anything* in either digital, photographic, or computer magazines about anything new. I think he’s extracting the urine personally. 🙂

And what exactly is this Apple Color Match System?
Is it something that’s mission critical in the graphics world? Is it something that a PC can’t do, or match, or be worked around? According to him…if he had the cash to buy a new system…he said he’d buy a new Mac with, blah–blah-blah-this new feature, and with blah-blah- blah-that piece of hardware…because of this color matching system that Windows machines DON’T have. Because it was "all important". Then he went into his usual rant about the "omnipotent greatness" Macs had over PC’s. My argument was your 3% scenario, and the fact that if you walk into any computer store…like 90% of the store’s
inventory…software, peripherals, hardware, etc. was devoted to PC’s…not Macs.
So is this Apple Color Match System something a Mac actually has over the PC…or is it something that a PC can accomplish in some way?

That was true years ago.
Your friend is stuck in the 20th century

Stephan

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:45:28 GMT, The Magician
wrote:

snip> . Which, for
an OS that’s used by 3% of the worlds population, I find a little comical. 😉
snip<

Three percent of the world’s population using computers!

Stephan

It sounds like the Apple Colour Match system that’s been in Apple computers for as long as they’ve been Macs, IIRC. As for the rest of it, I follow print technology for obvious reasons and I’ve not seen *anything* in either digital, photographic, or computer magazines about anything new. I think he’s extracting the urine personally. 🙂
—

Hecate

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/colorsync/

The color matching for Mac’s did work when they controlled everything as opposed to the PC world where everybody for himself.

Glenn

In article ,
says…

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/colorsync/

The color matching for Mac’s did work when they controlled everything as opposed to the PC world where everybody for himself.

Glenn

So what yout saying is…it doesn’t work anymore…?
(not trying to be a smartass here…just want to be more informed) And this is only on OS X?
Is this is something that there is absolutely no way of doing on a PC? (software, Pantone spider, etc…?)

"The Magician" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/colorsync/

The color matching for Mac’s did work when they controlled everything as opposed to the PC world where everybody for himself.

Glenn

So what yout saying is…it doesn’t work anymore…?
(not trying to be a smartass here…just want to be more informed) And this is only on OS X?
Is this is something that there is absolutely no way of doing on a PC? (software, Pantone spider, etc…?)

The Apple system is a little more open than it was before. I may be just making the wrong assumption that a open system could not have the color matching capabilities of a closed system which was design to include color matching.

Glenn

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:29:00 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:51:51 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

I believe, from looking it up,
that PC Maximum is really aimed at modders and games freaks 🙂

It is, but it also is perhaps the most ruthless tester of practical

hardware

I’ve read. Every now and then there are some real nuggets, and great comparison tests…if you can get past the "hey dude" part.

LOL! We don’t get that mag in the UK< but I’ve seen ones like it. And yes, they test to breaking point as well. However, the point I’m trying to make is that a machine which makes Half Life look real is probably overkill for 2D work. What’s more important, unless 3D is important, is the ability to deal with complex layering, filters etc, and that’s more a function of the RAM and processor than of the video card. 🙂

As usual, you’re correct. Two issues ago, however, they put all three chip/OS platforms (Mac, Intel, and AMD) in a side-by-side: the fastest dual G-5, and the fastest Intel/AMD boxes they could build with, as close as they could match, identical off-the-shelf periphs, RAM, V/C, etc.- it was very good reading and quite well done. They even went so far as to come up with some new tests (including a few for PS7) that bypassed the known "test tweaks" that all three play. The results were left up to the reader to interpret and they didn’t play any favorites either. Good stuff.

Really interesting. The mag I subscribe to over here tends to do tests of "real" machines i.e. those you can buy off the shelf and has it’s own suite of programs to test with (including PS). They also show you all the parameters for each test and provide you with a blank score sheet so you can change the weighting to what suits your purposes (very helpful e.g. you can change the price/prerformance weighting if performance is more important; you can change say, the weighting for image manipulation if that’s more important and so forth). The sort of figures I was quoting were based on "real world" rather than "fastest possible with all the tweaks". But I’ll bet it made for a fascinating article. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:42:08 GMT, "Stephan"
wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:45:28 GMT, The Magician
wrote:

snip> . Which, for
an OS that’s used by 3% of the worlds population, I find a little comical. 😉
snip<

Three percent of the world’s population using computers!

You know what a I meant! "3% of the worlds (computer-using) population"

😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 03:51:09 GMT, The Magician
wrote:

In article ,
says…

It sounds like the Apple Colour Match system that’s been in Apple computers for as long as they’ve been Macs, IIRC. As for the rest of it, I follow print technology for obvious reasons and I’ve not seen *anything* in either digital, photographic, or computer magazines about anything new. I think he’s extracting the urine personally. 🙂

And what exactly is this Apple Color Match System?
Is it something that’s mission critical in the graphics world? Is it something that a PC can’t do, or match, or be worked around? According to him…if he had the cash to buy a new system…he said he’d buy a new Mac with, blah–blah-blah-this new feature, and with blah-blah- blah-that piece of hardware…because of this color matching system that Windows machines DON’T have. Because it was "all important". Then he went into his usual rant about the "omnipotent greatness" Macs had over PC’s. My argument was your 3% scenario, and the fact that if you walk into any computer store…like 90% of the store’s
inventory…software, peripherals, hardware, etc. was devoted to PC’s…not Macs.
So is this Apple Color Match System something a Mac actually has over the PC…or is it something that a PC can accomplish in some way?

It’s a proprietary Apple system. along time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, it was the best thing available. In the last 5 to 8 years the PC caught up. There’s nothing that the Apple system can do that can’t be replicated using a PC.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui