"Yesterday, I had an hour to work with Apple's new Power Mac Quad G5, and for anyone in the broadcast, sciences, music, print and photography industries, I have some advice: Place your orders now!"
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-09-03
Perhaps, however, the benchmarks were simply a way to show how CPU/Memeory I/O bound processes compare on the CPU/OS combinations. The fact that many people may or may not use a particular application related to a benchmark isn't really the issue, rather how the raw CPU, Memory subsystems compare under different OS's. PS. I use MPEG-TS a lot, encoding under VLC....
I want to be clear, I am not anti-mac, I just think they have issues with their operating system that hold back the hardware. Should this be the case, apple switching to Intel is just a band-aid to the OSs real issues (disscused in the AnandTech article).
Member since:I'm a video and media content creator, and have never heard of nor worked with the "mpeg-ts" variant of MPEG
What "video and media content creator" has never heard of MPEG Transport Stream? Anyway, the point it, the wonderful and intuitive iLife can't even turn a DVD compliant MPEG-2 file into a Video-DVD. Neither iDVD nor iMovie not QuickTime can open the file (which, of course, plays fine on VLC on the same Mac). On the PC you simply demux the file with TMPEnc (free) and Ifoedit (free) turns it into a DVD right away.
Member since:2005-07-06
Are either of those easy or intuitive for most people?
There is always ffmpegX.
http://homepage.mac.com/major4/
It supports almost everything (including mpeg/ts) and is very simple to use.
Member since:2005-07-06
I found the benchmarks and software referenced in the article (especially on the PC side) to be very esoteric and generally not useful for the majority of users out there as as a measure of PowerMac performance.
The whole point of the benchmarks was to determine if the PowerMac was suitable for statistical computing.
Member since:2005-07-07
Sure, The author of the benchmark ran software he wrote to demonstrate that MacOS X was slow. Ecspecially with no mention of what parameters were used to perform the benchmarks no instructions on running the benchmarks so independant verification is possible. Also no details about the compilers used. And the end of the article clearly demostrates an anti Mac bias. And it is well known that GCC compiles non optimal code for PPC. Since his other motive was to claim IBM deliberately crippled the PPC970 to protect sales of thier own server his motives are even more questionable, no? Given the fact that IBM sells OpenPower servers running linux based on PPC970 I would say the author is spreading FUD.
Funny since he talks about freedom and transparency at the begning of the article. I am sure I can come up with benchmarks to show any OS/CPU combination is slower than any other.
It would be prudent to always view claims of performance objectively and skeptically.
Edited 2005-11-20 23:03
Member since:
I found the benchmarks and software referenced in the article (especially on the PC side) to be very esoteric and generally not useful for the majority of users out there as as a measure of PowerMac performance. Although I agree that OSX needs some work, it'd be nice if the benchmarks were made using software that people were likely to use, or which don't require knowing little-known software packages and codecs I'm a video and media content creator, and have never heard of nor worked with the "mpeg-ts" variant of MPEG (as a matter-of-fact, googling for it returned pages of people wondering how to get it to decode and how to use it on standard systems.)