Intel powered macs
- Thread starter pickles
- Start date
Sponsored Links
like the amiga it's demise was inevitable apple realise they can't compete in the computer market out on a limb and i believe it's only the success of the ipod that's kept them afloat all have to succumb to the mass market inevitably.
look how many better brands have sunk without trace in the past because the inferior product cornered the market.
look how many better brands have sunk without trace in the past because the inferior product cornered the market.
kendor said:
Despite being an Amiga enthusiast from around 1990 to 1996, I have to agree with you there... The Amiga was a fantastic product, far ahead of it's time. I even had a CDTV, "Commodore Dynamic Total Vision", apparently.
Unfortunately they didn't develop it quickly enough: AGA architecture and newer processors came far too late and the IBM-compatible took a lead in multimedia performance over the original architecture Amigas. Interesting you mention iPods, as the Commodore name is now being put on personal media player devices With regards to AMD/Intel. The benchmarks speak volumes: the 32-bit P4 architecture beats the 32 and 64-bit AMDs of an "AMD performance rating" comparable to that of the P4 clock rate... However, performance per unit cost seems to be higher, looking at Tomshardware.
Due to a need for a PCI-Express motherboard in order to run my chosen RAID controller, I am considering a full upgrade to a San Diego Athlon-64 3700. Now, according to articles I have read the Athlon-64s are inefficient at running 32-bit code. At the moment 64-bit software is a bit thin on the ground, but I have considered this... The reason I am going for Athlon-64 over P4 is that I do a full upgrade every 3-4 years. Just trying to eek out a bit more service life from my rig
2
2scoops0406
All Intel processor's are inefficient at running non-register sized code, for instance Intel 32 bit processors are inefficient at running 16 bit code.
Sponsored Links
AdamW said:Ah, "best". That superlative common in the parlance of those who know nothing of computers when describing THEIR favourite system.
True, some industry-standard packages originated on the Mac. I am fond of Adobe's offerings, for instance. It goes both ways though: the few Mac owners I know use MS Office, not ClarisWorks.
One of the most adamant of the Macatisti I know swore by this until I showed him THIS and THIS.
Errr, Apple wrote it to run on x86. However, people are then hacking it to run on generic x86 pcs because they can. People always rise to a challenge. Especially where computers are concerned!
I'll answer your 'points' down here without quoting, coz I can be arsed.
Any operating system that diverts more processing power to "core audio" IMHO is 'better' than one that does not.
I have been using computers for 18 years, on all platforms. (Unix, Linux, Windoze, Mac)
As a professional designer, why should I make my life any more aggro than it is by using windows?
Are you telling me the whole design and print industry and most of the music business is using macs, coz they look prettier? (which they do, of course) Give me a break. It is easier and more intuitive to use, end of.
Creative people dont want to be lifting the bonnet on a computer all the time, they want to be creating!!
With XP, it has finally become plug and play, something the mac has been doing for a decade.
OSX was not originally written for x86 chips.
It is not about hardware anymore, it is about what OS you feel more productive in, and my industry says X.
And your fiends using Office rather the AppleWorks. probably more of a x-platform issue than anyting else.
So what design studio or recording studio do you work for then?
2
2scoops0406
Ionkontrol said:AdamW said:Ah, "best". That superlative common in the parlance of those who know nothing of computers when describing THEIR favourite system.
True, some industry-standard packages originated on the Mac. I am fond of Adobe's offerings, for instance. It goes both ways though: the few Mac owners I know use MS Office, not ClarisWorks.
One of the most adamant of the Macatisti I know swore by this until I showed him THIS and THIS.
Errr, Apple wrote it to run on x86. However, people are then hacking it to run on generic x86 pcs because they can. People always rise to a challenge. Especially where computers are concerned!
I'll answer your 'points' down here without quoting, coz I can be a***d.
Any operating system that diverts more processing power to "core audio" IMHO is 'better' than one that does not.
I have been using computers for 18 years, on all platforms. (Unix, Linux, Windoze, Mac)
As a professional designer, why should I make my life any more aggro than it is by using windows?
Are you telling me the whole design and print industry and most of the music business is using macs, coz they look prettier? (which they do, of course) Give me a break. It is easier and more intuitive to use, end of.
Creative people dont want to be lifting the bonnet on a computer all the time, they want to be creating!!
With XP, it has finally become plug and play, something the mac has been doing for a decade.
OSX was not originally written for x86 chips.
It is not about hardware anymore, it is about what OS you feel more productive in, and my industry says X.
And your fiends using Office rather the AppleWorks. probably more of a x-platform issue than anyting else.
So what design studio or recording studio do you work for then?
The user interface and look and feel of the applications don't really have much to do with the underlying operating system, with in OSX's case is Unix.
Whether or not they are more intuitive to use or not, is debateable, I find macs awkward to use, but then the vast majority of desktop machines I've ever used are Windows based.
Horses for courses really, I used to find that Macs were a lot more stable than windows machines, but I don't think that is so true these days.
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 269
- Country
Friends running publishing business, started with Windows PCs, got the Macs in and the windows stuff remains gathering dust.
But then, is it just the software? I posed the question, the answer was 'Partly... But the Macs don't fall over or slow down with use.' Then I had the age old spiel and other mumbo jumbo .. I did remind them they had said the same things about the windows kit when they bought that !!
Same old 'never do wrong always right' bu##sh#te .. It makes them happy so goodoh I say !!
I know they believe the machines have really enhanced their business no end .... S'pose they'd think it was great if we reduced every hour by 2.5 mins then gave them the 25 hour day !!
Just doin a Moz ...
But then, is it just the software? I posed the question, the answer was 'Partly... But the Macs don't fall over or slow down with use.' Then I had the age old spiel and other mumbo jumbo .. I did remind them they had said the same things about the windows kit when they bought that !!
Same old 'never do wrong always right' bu##sh#te .. It makes them happy so goodoh I say !!
I know they believe the machines have really enhanced their business no end .... S'pose they'd think it was great if we reduced every hour by 2.5 mins then gave them the 25 hour day !!
Just doin a Moz ...
Ionkontrol said:
Hmm... define "core audio". If you are a music professional, surely you have dedicated hardware for the audio tasks, i.e. high-end soundcards?
Ah, but do they? Why would Adobe go to all the effort of porting all it's applications to Wintel if no-one was using them? Now, are you honestly telling me that the DESIGN and PRINT industries... i.e. those industries concerned with aesthetics... don't look at these pretty boxes and go "Ooooh, this is nicer than a plain rectangular box, let's have this!"
No it isn't. In my experience I have found mid-engined RWD cars easier and more intuitive to drive, but I have it on good authority that most find front-engined FWD cars are easier and more intuitive (hence safer). Why? Personal taste, and what you do with it. You like your Mac. Seeing as a half-decent specced G5 costs about £4000, you bloomin' well should do!
So, a UNIX-based OS doesn't involve bonnet lifting? Aaaaaalrighty then!
"Plug and Play" has always been a misnomer. To me, "plug and play" should mean that no additional drivers are required to use that new piece of hardware. Yet I find drivers for both Wintel and Mac on the internet. The Commodore Amiga is about the last true "plug and play" computer I can think of.
Won't get any argument from me there.
I beg to differ. My industry requires vast quantities of processing power. Computational Fluid Dynamics, logical state models etc. Processing time needs to be minimised. So, what do I run such things on? A Pentium 4-based, Windows 2000-running PC. We write the software ourselves, so we could have chosen PowerPC G5 Macs if we had desired. We used to run on Sun systems. Indeed I have run DEC Alphas too.
So what design studio or recording studio do you work for then?
None, but the drummer from my last band is very much into his music and he uses an Athlon 64 running... Windows XP. He has all kinds of hardware plugged into it for his music-making.
But you won't find a more intensive computing application than Computational Fluid Dynamics.
2
2scoops0406
AdamW said:
Nuclear bomb simulators, and meteorlogical simultators, oh, and my home grown program, called "understanding women" (seems to work ok for while, but crashes every month, debugging has so far proved futile)
And don't say one and two are fluid dynamics, I never been sold on fluid dynamics being applied to gaseous systems.
Eddie M said:I never been sold on fluid dynamics being applied to gaseous systems.
Not an advocate of colonic irrigation then?
Meteorolical and nuclear bomb simulators currently run, and for the last four decades or so have run on the most powerful computers in the world.
Your first two examples, along with CFD are all fractal problems... you can throw as much computing power as you can find at them, but you could always do with more in order to add more data points in your set. Your best answer is never good enough!
Whereas music and publishing are all well-quantified, finite problems. You know that you have 64 tracks with a sample rate of 192kHz with 24-bit resolution, you know that the "make this talentless chump sound good" effect that you are applying to the singer's voice runs at a specific rate and resolution, so you can work out how many computing cycles you need to do the job. Quite a few, but the result you get is "good enough".
Weather and nuclear bombs both affect a lot of people with great implications, so they are seen as incredibly important thus deserve bigger budgets and get more powerful computers.
I would agree with anyone who says "now that the Macs are running on Intel hardware, the OS and software available are the only real issues"... but I've never been sold on Macs... even though we used to have a 68030-based Mac around 1993 or so. With Clarisworks. I always thought it should have had a "Fischer Price" logo on it, and been marketed as a computer for people born with one finger.
What planet do you live on? Or do you work for Intel? In marketing prehaps?
For the past 5 years the AMD CPU's have given more power per pound than Intel, and for anyone who can't afford to spend as much on their CPU as the rest of their system, that is kind of the point. I have 4 PC's that are AMD based and they are decent, reliable CPU's and don't run too hot assuming that you have enough brain cells to fit the right HSF.
I don't know where your personal issues with AMD products come from but don't inflict them on the rest of us, particularly those inexperienced enough that they might mistake your rant for reasoned opinion.
P.S. on the original question, its a long overdue move for Apple. The PC hardware architecture is simply superior to anything that Apple have come up with. It give's people the opportunity to have the best computing power without being forced to use that bloated, bug ridden pile of steaming "£$% of an operating system that is Windows XP.
Sponsored Links