Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

Adobe Prefers PCs

video_composite.gifJeez, Adobe's gonna hear about this from somebody. Maybe somebody named Steve. "The Great Render Race" my ass. The problem, of course, being that this "race" has no endpoint, and Adobe should know that over the course of history, Macs have been both faster and slower than PCs many times each. Plus, Adobe's hardly capitalized on Mac OS X's new architecture, instead doing some things "the 9 way" leading to slower performance.

Are PCs faster right at this very moment? Yep. Do I work faster on a PC or a Mac (thus "are they faster for me?")? I use a Mac. So do a lot of Adobe customers. Adobe has more than people named "Steve" to answer to for this one.

P.S. The text says 1.0 GHz, the graphics say 1.25. Way to go Adobe.

P.P.S. Adobe - or at least the person putting this page together - is apparently really stupid. Since when is 54 seconds the same as 0.54 minutes? Just look at the graph. Fucking stupid.

6 Responses to "Adobe Prefers PCs"

  1. Seems to me that all this does is show that Adobe doesn't know much about how to program on Mac OS X.

    Anyway, I am not looking forward to the inevitable Scoblegloating.

    --Kynn

  2. Actually Robert, like many (cough, ahem, me, ack, cough) know that Apple's got things coming out very soon that will flip flop those bar graphs. So I really doubt he'll be gloating. Go read his blog entries from yesterday. He mentions this "Apple's new processor" a few times.

  3. Yeah, I'm Microsoft's ho, but Apple has some cool stuff coming out. I saw this report several months ago. Nothing new to me. So, no Scoblegloating here, sorry. 🙂

  4. Those graphs are quite comical. The PC is "only" ~60% faster, instead of the ~130% shown on the graph.

    Like most of those benchmark sites on the web, this one left out the interesting technical information and opted for hype (such is the Internet), but does anyone know if Adobe parallizes these operations? Code-wise, it seems like it would be trivial to do so, and unless the operation is bandwidth starved, it would make the Mac immensely faster than it is now.

  5. Adobe is only referring to digital video stuff in that context. And it is obvious that 1) They haven't exactly optimized as much as they could, and 2) they're dying in that market compared with iMovie and Final Cut Pro. So it is no wonder that they should emphasize that people switch to do digital video editting on a platform where their software actually has a chance.

  6. What up I'm sorry to hear you are only comfortable in one OS. I'm comfortable with Unix, Linux, Mac 9--, X, Win9x/NT, Dos, you name it. The thing is - if I'm working as fast as I can and you're working as fast as you can - I'll be be done long before you - since I'll be using a 3+ ghz PC. A speed ratio of 2 to 1 is a SERIOUS problem. To be honest with you my G4 is gathering moss right now. Y'know why... life is short. I'm gonna die someday. I don't want to spend hours of time needlessly waiting for my machine to render some trees.

    And dude - Adobe has a right to be fuxking concerned as hell. If Apple turns itself into a 64bit 100 mhz television receiver Adobe will suffer. When people think Photoshop they think Mac. If Mac's get a rep for being crap for work... badness.


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.