Olivier, this has nothing to do with "flame wars" or anything like that. This has things to do with baseless claims based on lack of knowledge and experience. I know a lot of people who have been in the IT industry a long time, who make similar claims based on pure assumption. Their experiences with macs is in the realm of a few hours. The majority of people working in IT departments or even private consulting tend to be knowledgeable on Windows and maybe have started looking at Linux thanks to the hype. Why is Windows so dominant in the corporate market place? Mainly had to do with marketing and early perception. This is also very well documented.

Many of your responses to single points are not statements of fact but pure opinion or assumptions.

I suggested you go and look into research on productivity and cost between macs, and you spout on about market share. Now, I could go and look for the links myself and post them for you, but I believe that if you were really interested in them you would have gone to the effort to look for them.

Your claim that productivity and "desktop productivity" are two completely different things is actually rather silly. "Productivity" refers to getting work done, and refers to using Word, Excel, whatever you want to use to produce something. Productivity is the result of lots of different factors, Hardware performance, Software responsiveness, amount of troubleshooting, amount of downtime, ease of use. This explains why I talk about downtime and amount of support. To further look at your example: You quote Word and Excel, which will both run perfectly well even on much older hardware, higher CPU ratings and such will hardly impact productivity, whereas increased support requirements and downtime do.

The fact that you haven't read anything about macs ease of use, increased productivity compared to Wintel solutions only illustrates that you obviously only read biased and PC-centric publications, otherwise you would be well aware of the studies mentioned.

As to the claim that TCO, support requirements aso have nothing to do with the comparison, I strongly disagree (as you may have expected). Servers have different requirements than workstations and consumer PCs, one of them being reliability/warranty conditions, another being support. These two factors tend to exclude PCs of questionable origins such as no-name manufacturers and the self-assembled variety. No-name PCs tend to be a more risky investment, as price competition tends to mean component combinations alternate a lot so as to use the currently cheapest. This can have very negative effects on reliability, posing too big a risk in a server environment. Warranty and support considerations are also a factor, as most prefer to have the backing of a big, highly visible manufacturer. The same of course applies to self-assembled variants. So while you'll maybe be able to reduce the price in comparison most will not be willing to take the risk.

As to the R&D claim, I should rephrase that to "Apple pays more attention to the quality of the user experience". From hardware quality to user interface. Again, I'll let you go to the trouble of finding the various reports if you're interested.

I would respond to the various other points but this post is already rather long.

Bo wrote:

"Productivity? What do you base that claim on Olivier? Every single study for I don't know how many years, every Lab test, whatever, has shown Productivity to be quite a bit higher on the mac."

What claim? Read my post again, I wrote about "desktop productivity" and performance, i.e. if your run Excel or Word on PCs and Macs you bought at the same time for the same price, these desktop apps will (most) likely run (quite) faster on PCs. BTW, speaking of claims without backup, I've been working in IT for the last decade and read quite a lot of press and analyst research in the process, yet I don't have such a distinct memory about your proclaimed Mac superiority. Besides, the marketplace must be so darn stupid that it didn't listen to all this research that you speak of.

>more R&D invested in the general user experience

Start by backing up that claim yourself. Looking at some of what comes out of the "general user experience" R&D at Apple (e.g. what was probably the worst mouse ever,) makes me think that even if they're the biggest spender (which I strongly doubt,) they don't always spend that money wisely, unless by design you meant "the action of priviledging form over function."

BTW, why even start the usual Mac vs. PC flame war when the discussion was clearly focused on price/hardware performance?

>I know plenty of people who built their own PCs, but they're ones that don't need to worry about deadlines and downtimes, or just plain getting work done.

That's your experience. I know a few people who spent a lot of money on Macs and didn't get much done with them. What has it to do with the conversation at hand?

>The PC itself is the center of attention, not the work done on it. If that's what you like, then fine, the Mac is definitely not suited for you.

Actually, what I'm doing with my PCs is the center of my attention, which doesn't mean I can't have fun with PC gear. If you don't mind paying more for less performance (and I didn't say you couldn't have valid reasions to,) then fine, PCs might not suited for you.

>The real Religion seems to come from people on the wintel side who think the user should research into the whole technical side, and who spout of claims without backing them up, and who don't seem to understand that 90% of users want to use the computer as a productivity tool, not make it the center of their attention. Macs give you peace of mind, that's what you pay for, the research tends to confirm it.

I never said everyone "should research into the whole technical side," I even said that you could buy a Mac if you weren't willing to. I also understand quite well users want productivity tools, since it's what I'm advocating PCs for. And I don't lose sleep over my two home/home office PCs, thank you (they run without reboots for weeks, so I don't have much to worry about.)

My own experience with PCs (not your unbacked claims about "the research",) is that they get the job done, while pricing and performance information that you can get from all over the place (starting with this thread) shows you get more power for your buck with PCs.

*Now if you're willing to pay more for the underlying hardware because you prefer MacOS to alternatives, as I said, more power to you. This is not the point, and you've been riling yourself up.*

>Just look on the net!

I followed your advice and "looked on the Net." I see 97% market share for wintel, and thousands of dedicated sites about PC hardware and software, and LOTS of people happy with their PCs. What was your point?

>And after doing PC support for Wintel users for many years, I can tell you, I have experienced enough of the Windows problems to be very happy every time I turn to my mac

I've been using laptops and desktops running NT4 then XP for the last 6 years, and the amount of problems I've personally run into has lowered from tolerable (NT4 on a laptop was not very fun,) to very rare. Your mileage may vary. Experience of PCs on Win 9x (if that's what you're referring to,) doesn't reflect the reality of today's marketplace.

Now to answer Glen, though this seems to seriously drift off-topic, is XP perfect? No, it has its quirks, though whether they're more irritating than machines that still come with 1-button, wheel-less mouses is a matter of personal opinion. I don't know what you're doing to be assaulted by unwanted icons on your desktop, but if it happens to you, I understand the aggravation.

>and I've seen huge amounts of money lost by companies having problems with their windows based networks.

Since very few companies figure it's even worthwhile to have Apple based networks, it's hard to compare, though why this is so I'll leave it to you to figure out. And BTW the discussion wasn't really about network TCO.

Bill, it doesn't even warrant comparison, as your kit would make both a lousy server AND consumer computer. Hell, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole! No backup media, firewire, ethernet? 20GB HD and 128MB for a server or professional machine? But hey, you could always use it as a heater in winter! But hey, you just have to be REALLY impressed with those BIIIG numbers though. WOW, 2.26GHz, 533Mhz system bus, DDR Ram, it MUST be a REALLY good PC. Maybe you should have a look at the old iMac, the eMac, or a second-hand pro G3 or G4, then you would have a machine you could actually DO something with...oh, I forgot, that's not why you'd get that kind of PC.

This comes from the www.gotapex.com deals page:

DellSB - Dimension 4500 Tower with 2.26Ghz Pentium 4, 64Mb nVidia AGP Card, DVD-Rom for $599 after Rebate with FREE Shipping!

Dell Small Business has a new $50 off a $749+ purchase coupon for their Dimension 4500 Tower computer. They also have a $100 rebate. This means it`s a great time to step up to a very fast 2.26Ghz Pentium 4 processor, which uses the 533mhz Processor Support Bus speed, instead of the 400Mhz one. They have free shipping right now too. Here`s what you do:

Start here at Dell Small Business Dimension 4500 Towers. DELLSB

Choose the following:

2.26 GHz Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with 533MHz system bus

Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition

Basic Audio (Integrated Sound)

Click on Continue

Next, we`re going to try to get the price to $749. You can choose whatever options you want, as long as you finish at $749 or above, but these are the ones we`d suggest to get it to exactly $749:

128MB DDR SDRAM [subtract $50]

1 Year Limited Warranty plus 1 Year On-site Service [subtract $119]

Microsoft® Works Suite 2002 w/Money Standard [subtract $100]

20GB Ultra ATA/100 Hard Drive [subtract $20] - (though for just $20, I think the 40GB drive may be worth it)

16x Max DVD-ROM Drive [add $30]

Free Verbatim DVD+RW Media,1 Disc - (hey, it`s free, why not?)

No Monitor [subtract $110]

New 64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce4™ MX Graphics Card with TV-Out - (you can save $20 going to the 32mb ATI card, but I think the nVidia is worth the money)

No Speaker Option [subtract $60]

Scroll to the bottom and click on Continue

No options should be chosen here (unless you want to add something). Scroll to the bottom and click on Add to cart

Use coupon code: 48404749060E for $50 off a $749+ Dimension 4500 Purchase (expires 8/28/02)

Shipping is free (expires 8/21/02). Send in the $100 mail in rebate (expires 8/21/02).

How does that compare with the Mac at over $3000?

Let's see:

cheapest and best Wintel provider: I'm talking about major market with on-site/phone support. You can definitely shave lots of money off a Wintel or Linux box by buying from local computer stores (preassembled or assemble yourself).

Server and Photoshop: 2D and 3D benchmarks seem to be the only good numbers for figuring out the raw speed of two systems. I'd gladly take Apache and MySQL session/transaction per second, too. But Apple is selling these as desktops *and* servers, and I wanted to compare them against a good server on the Wintel side.

Speed of UI/efficiency: every study I've seen in the last 10 years but cost of ownership (training, use, maintenance, upgrades) as enomously cheaper on the Mac than on the PC. That's probably changed more recently with the XP codebase, which is more stable and reliable. But I haven't seen numbers that show it yet.

I spend a reasonable amount of time using XP Pro and most of my time on OS X 10.1.5. XP is still a hassle, despite my good knowledge of how it works, and OS X is not. Good comparison: last night, in the middle of copying 4 Gb from one mac to another, I switched the networking mode from AirPort to Ethernet LIVE. The machine didn't miss a beat. No reboot, no confusion, no lost server, no crash.

The reason I don't like working under Windows is that it's too particular about every last thing. The Mac's flexibility and rock-solid stability means I just work and don't ahve to wrestle with the system. I'm not constantly turning off Windows Messenger and getting rid of Passport alerts and trying to force icons off the desktop, just for instance.

"it would just be nice to be king of the hill again! "

Amen to that. :)

Productivity? What do you base that claim on Olivier? Every single study for I don't know how many years, every Lab test, whatever, has shown Productivity to be quite a bit higher on the mac. As far as overpriced goes, you get what you paid for. Far fewer compatibility issues, better quality controls, more R&D invested in the general user experience, customer support, longer service life, the research confirms this again and again, it's got nothing to do with religion. I know plenty of people who built their own PCs, but they're ones that don't need to worry about deadlines and downtimes, or just plain getting work done. The PC itself is the center of attention, not the work done on it. If that's what you like, then fine, the mac is definitely not suited for you. The real Religion seems to come from people on the wintel side who think the user should research into the whole technical side, and who spout of claims without backing them up, and who don't seem to understand that 90% of users want to use the computer as a productivity tool, not make it the center of their attention. Macs give you peace of mind, that's what you pay for, the research tends to confirm it. Just look on the net! And after doing PC support for Wintel users for many years, I can tell you, I have experienced enough of the Windows problems to be very happy everytime I turn to my mac, and I've seen huge amounts of money lost by companies having problems with their windows based networks. If that's what you call cheap and productive, then you have a very strange definition of those words.

Comparing Apple and a PC brand like Dell is by itself an Apple-centered vision. It's not Dell vs. Apple, it's the Apple's way (one brand controlling the whole platform,) vs. the PC way (where Dell is just one relatively small player within the whole industry.)

The PC market is led by no-names and user-built boxes (and it's not just hobbyists, companies do it too.) Brands such as Dell are big advertisers, while smaller manufacturers and Taiwanese OEMs are not, so the picture portrayed in the media is widely inaccurate. The reality of the marketplace is a very diverse ecology with a lot of specialty suppliers (people will go as far as individually pick their power supply provider, e.g. Enermax to name one.)

If you're willing to do the research, are able to support yourself technically, and do some comparison shopping, you'll get more powerful PCs for cheaper. Learn from the community how components stack up and if there are compatibility issues to be aware of. Save a couple of spare parts to get up and running quickly if a component burns. As someone posted here, want Firewire, just buy a $40 PCI card (time from adding it in the box to getting to use it under Windows XP: 5 minutes top.) Don't want it, you don't need to waste money on it.

AMD for instance rose thanks to assemblers and DYI'ers, and look how it boosted price/performance in the marketplace. Apple is just standing in the dust as far as bang for the buck is concerned. I'm not saying their PCs are bad, they're just overpriced. And look at perf across the board: disk I/O, desktop productivity, web browsing, gaming, you name it, not just a couple of very specific Adobe effects that reflect the need of 0.2% of users out there (unless you're specifically benchmarking dedicated imaging or video workstations.)

It's not religion, it's the power of a marketplace 20 times as big. Now if you're picking Macs for other reasons (you like the OS or design, think it's cooler, are trained to use it, don't care how much you pay for things, ...) more power to you.

Allan, good point there. For a server he could definitely do without some of those extras. For a graphics workstation he should give the Mac a beefier vid card. However, I gathered he was just using Photoshop as a speed reference. Maybe he could clarify that?

On the CPU side, I would definitely like to see nicer PPCs, as I much prefer the power/heat advantages to the wintel side (although AMD are moving in the right direction). Something tells me that the wait might not be too long, as the new mac architecture is designed for beefier CPUs with DDR FSB, just look at the increased ventilation, DDR ram. I doubt they're necessary at the moment. Maybe in three months or so? Anyhow, I hope someone can get Motorola moving along, as in the near term there is no other option. All said and done though I still see the current pro line as plenty for 90% of the stuff PCs are used for, it would just be nice to be king of the hill again!

Game, set, match.

http://www.barefeats.com/pmddr.html

By the way Bo, I would agree with your point about this being a server comparison...if it actually was one. Why would you ever have a nVidia Quadro 2 on a server? That's just insane overkill and bumps the price significantly. Why have a modem or a DVD drive? The two machines being compared sure don't look like servers to me. They look a lot more like graphic workstations. Glenn also cites Photoshop performance as being one of the factors in his choice of computers. Since when do you run PhotoShop on a server?

We'll just both have to keep our fingers crossed that Apple will hook up with another CPU manufacturer sometime VERY soon. If not, well...the benchmarks speak for themselves.

I think it is pretty cool that people are comparing Apple and Dell. After all, they are the only two computer companies left making any money these days. Remember when everyone said Apple was dead? Ha!

About the performance thing, people are missing the point. Mac OS X is superior to Windows XP... my opinion, but I think it is shared by others. The standards based QuickTime 6 and the influx of UNIX and JAVA developers to the Mac platform gives X some real legs. Microsoft has been a monopoly for a long time, and they still can't come up with something as nice or as tightly integrated as Apple's iApps or OS X. There is no winner or loser, but there is only one "best" all around. Mac.

A few comments:

(1) It strikes me that Glenn should modify his table in light of his most recent comment.

(2) I don't agree that Dell is "one of the cheapest and best Wintel providers"; I would agree if you struck the words "cheapest and". Dell is actually one of the more expensive Wintel providers, though the price differential is not so enormous. My current machine is a PowerSpec tower, which ran several $100s less than a comparable Dell.

(3) If you're the kind of user who buys a fully tricked-out workstation, what do you need with 3 years of on-site technical support? Presumably that kind of user is knowledgeable enough to handle his own software problems, and hardware problems generally manifest shortly after purchase -- i.e., well within a shorter warranty period. I appreciate that there are some users for whom that level of support is useful, but I have trouble matching them with this machine.

(4) I'm not clear on what task the benchmark is supposed to perform. Is this supposed to be a graphics workstation or a server? If it's supposed to be a server, why not buy a server? If it's a graphics workstation, why not buy a graphics workstation?

(5) Some of the categories of comparison tend toward the specious. It may be that the Dell comes with a 2-button mouse with no scroll while the Mac comes with an optical mouse. But if you want an optical mouse with a scroller for a Wintel, buy one at Microcenter for $8. If you want some FireWire ports, buy a PCI FireWire card for $30. And if you have gigabit ethernet, does it really matter to you what sort of modem you have?

Allan, the point is that the original comparison was for a server system, not a special effects workstation. There the comparison to the more expensive Dell is fair, as the Xserve architecture performs way above par at server tasks. As for your situation, I'm sorry to here that your stuck with such apps that bind you to a PC, I'd like to bet that After Effects COULD be faster, but somehow I don't think Adobe is too thrilled at supporting video on the mac at the moment.

Anyway, as far as the FSB/CPU situation is concerned, hell I'd love to have Motorola get off it's behind and finally realize some of the PPCs potential. Apple can't really do anything about that at the moment apart from make threatening comments. Hopefully IBM has some tricks up it's sleeve SOON, 'cause the biggest problem with the current architecture is a perceived one, not a real one for most environments.

Bo, I have in fact read up on my Mac system architecture. That's why we have an XServe running as our file server. Its great, its quick for what it does, and I love the way it looks in a rack ;)

What I'm saying (a point which all of you seem to be missing) is that for what I do, visual effects, the PC is WAY faster. This pisses me off because Apple tries to pitch itself as being the leader in this arena, when it is clearly not. Furthermore, single app benchmarks are not flawed if those are the primary apps that I use. I use After Effects. I use PhotoShop. I use Maya, Illustrator, Electric Image, etc, etc. ALL of these applications perform slower on the Mac. That sure as hell doesn't seem like a flawed way of looking at it does it? Or am I missing something?

As for the DDR situation, it clearly won't improve performance for me and the applications that my colleagues (in the fairly large visual effects industry) and I use. How is Apple going to do well with its “Pro” line if Pros can’t use it for lack of speed? To me, seeing as how the new G4s are supposed to be workstations and not servers, the DDR is a marketing ploy, plain and simple. What does it matter to me if a new G4 does server tasks quickly if I'm trying to use it as a workstation for Maya or After Effects? I’m sorry to say, but it really doesn't matter one lick.

I hate to be so down on Apple, but they really deserve it. They’ve deserved it ever since they were stuck at 500MHz for god knows how long. They deserve it even more for sticking with Motorola despite all of that. And look at when they are now – even farther behind the PC than they were back then. I sincerely hope that Apple will pull it together soon. But for now, I’ll have to let it suffice to say that ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’”

Allan, I was pointing out that depending on the testing done, over a good average the G4 performs pretty damn well. In the apps where SP operation was used the G4 despite half the clock frequency was only slightly slower than the 2Ghz P4 (roughly 20%). Where both processors and AltiVec were used it performed closer to a dual 1.6Ghz Athlon. This is to show that using the Digital Video Editing benchmarks as a reference to G4's performance is pretty inaccurate. Basing speed assumptions on a single-app benchmark is pretty flawed. As to the DDR stuff: no it doesn't show any difference in raw processing power thanks to the lame SDR front side bus, it does help throughput to the various interfaces thanks to the more advanced system controller, which is very beneficial to server usage. There are other Benchmarks that show the macs performance to be better in server related tasks. So when doing a price comparison for a server the G4 is priced pretty agressively. It seems you need to swat up on the macs system architecture before making comments like "Apple's marketing department seems to be getting a bit desperate if you ask me. Seeing these benchmarks, what makes any of you think that the recent G4s will see any gains from the DDR?"

I'll respond to each poster's comments directly.

Jeff - When I'm inside of a program, whether it be Mac or PC, the number of clicks is the exact same. Since I spend 98% of my time working inside of apps, the "number of clicks" really doesn't matter that much on the grand scheme of things. I really do love the Mac's UI and workflow. God knows I would WAY rather work on a Mac than a PC if that was the only consideration. Unfortunately, it is a fairly minor one, and speed is the biggest concern in my profession, especially considering how each individual application's UI is nearly identical platform for platform. As for your assumptions about my Mac's poor performance:

1- True. But a 25% increase in performance (the theoretical max with the new bus speed, see my comments to Bo below) doesn't mean squat when you're over 100% slower to begin with.

2 - I tested After Effects and Maya in both 10.1 and 10.2 6C115. 10.2 is a bit faster, but only by about 5-7%. Keep in mind, UI graphics rendering such as Quartz Extreme has SO little affect on the performance of a heavy duty compositing app. I thought it would help Maya a bit, but since it was already using OpenGL in 10.1, the performance gain was only so-so. Moving windows around is a touch faster, but when I can barely rotate around my model at .5fps, who cares? Again, NOTHING on the mac can come close to touching even the mid-range graphics cards on the PC.

3- Yes it is both multi-proc and altivec savy. I checked the list (I can post it if you want) of multi-proc aware plugins and 90% of the ones I was using were. Oh, and for the record, general work in Photoshop flows better on the PC too. Some of the highly optimized "showboat" plugins in PhotoShop are quicker than they are on the PC because of Altivec. But painting with big brushes, working on large files, doing heavy transforms, cloning operations, etc are faster on the PC by about 2x (I haven't done any formal comparisons, but this is judging by feel). I didn't believe it either until I saw it first hand, becasue PhotoShop is Apple's posterchild. Truth is, for what I do - visual effects for feature films (3D, texture painting, matte paintings, compositng, roto/paint) - the PC is quicker in almost every real world respect. One other exception is Commotion's G4-enhanced moton tracker. It creams the PC version's by at least 2x. Too bad everythign else can't be as vector-intensive. :(

4 - I agree, I love the look and feel of OSX 10.2. I have it on my Mac and use it for e-mail and web surfing, which its fine speed-wise. Any serious work, however, I do on the PC. Its just too frustrating on the Mac, I'm sorry to say. Oh, BTW, I'm using Win2k, not XP. Haven't tried it yet, but will have to sometime soon. I'm not a big fan of its look though...

Billy Bob - We're not talking a matter of taste here (I own a BMW, by the way ;) ), but performance. Like I said, OSX is more elegent and pleasant to use. But when it comes down to the bottom line, a PC gets the work done faster than a Mac does. Period. Your Ford vs BMW comparison is a fallacy in this case anyhow. Maybe Ferrari Enzo vs Bentely Azure would be more appropriate. They're both nice in their own ways. The Bent is cushy, comfy, pretty quick around town, and luxurious as hell. The Ferrari is a more spartan and doesn't offer any luxuries whatsoever. But thake them out to Sears Point Raceway, and the Ferrari would dust the Bent by a good 30 seconds a lap (that's a lot). Moral of the story? They're both great, but if you really want to get the job done quickly, there's really only one choice. Oh, and you'd also have to realize that in order for my comparison to directly relate, imagine that the Ferrari is $30-50k cheaper than the Bent. :)

Edmond - Mac hardware isn't damn good, its damn slow. That's my point. UI speed has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. But if you're talking UI speed, try using a new PC and tell me what you think is superior. Open Internet Explorer and resize the window in a Mac. Notice the chunking? Now try the same thing on the PC. 100fps or so. Doesn't skip a beat. EVERYTHING is faster on the PC, minus a small chunk of optimized plugns that most professionals rarely use (not counting gaussian blur).

BoI'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the barefeats link. The Mac lost every single one of those tests to the dual AMD. In the tests that it even came close in (if you can call -20% close) it took Macs that cost significantly more than the AMD to get there. Also notice the lack of any real-world effect as a result the XServe's DDR memory. Actually, if you average the scores out, the XServe is SLOWER than the Power Mac. Hmmm...DDR in a box with non-DDR aware processors....Apple's marketing department seems to be getting a bit desperate if you ask me. Seeing these benchmarks, what makes any of you think that the recent G4s will see any gains from the DDR? Sure the upped bus speed will help, but that's a 25% THEORETICAL MAXIMUM.

Again, I can't say enough times how I love OSX 10.2's UI design and workflow. The integration of the iApps is great and makes life easy when you want it to be. If I get a laptop, it will be a Mac. If I get a general purpose machine for my house, it will be a Mac. But if I need a machine for getting heavy stuff done quickly, speed, speed, and more speed, buying anything other than a PC would be plain stupid. Try it out, side-by-side, for yourself. I think you'll be surprised to find that Apple has conned you into believeing that their hardware is anywhere near as fast as a PC's is, let alone 90% faster. I know that I was...

I like the way people keep quoting one rather lop-sided benchmark as ultimate proof that macs are slower. The Digital Video Editing tests tested one program, and by the looks of it one that isn't very good at utilising the G4. Check out http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html for a more mixed benchmark, where the Dual g4 has a pretty strong showing across a range of Apps, some Altivec aware, some not, some favouring dual CPUs, some not. It gives you the impression that Adobe hasn't done a very good job with After Effects. Maybe they're still peeved about Final Cut Pro!

Are Mac users NOw getting as dumb as PC users.

[“And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs.”]

[Its a sad, sad thing...but its something you can't deny. The mac is, once again, the slow kid on the block. ]

What is your problem fellas. Mac hardware is damn good we are waiting for OSX to be as fast as 9 in Graphics.

ed

I think it is pretty cool that people are comparing Apple and Dell. After all, they are the only two computer companies left making any money these days. Remember when everyone said Apple was dead? Ha!

About the performance thing, people are missing the point. Mac OS X is superior to Windows XP... my opinion, but I think it is shared by others. The standards based QuickTime 6 and the influx of UNIX and JAVA developers to the Mac platform gives X some real legs. Microsoft has been a monopoly for a long time, and they still can't come up with something as nice or as tightly integrated as Apple's iApps or OS X. There is no winner or loser, but there is only one "best" all around. Mac.

Well a FORD probably beats a BMW in somethings too, but at the end of the day most thinking people would rather owne a BMW, and some find things about a BMW that they do not like so as to justify the fact that they are just another looser who has given up on ever being able to afford a BMW. Or they just have no taste, and they crap on about how good the ford is. Well that's OK because they are the ones that make some off us very rich. No class equalls no brains. Love that DILL dude.

Funny how "Allan" and others put SO much emphasis on speed. Try this: take your choice of 20-30 tasks and count the number of steps to complete each one, first on Windows XP, then on Mac OS X (steps being mouse-clicks). Use a standard configuration (no desktop customization). In general, you'll find Mac OS X takes 30-40% fewer steps. XP does win some by a big margin, but X wins more, on average, by about a 30-40% range.

BTW ... Allan's poor performance experience are for a number of reasons.

1. His G4 uses the older motherboard ... not the redesigned architecture that was released with the new models, which gives much better I/O throughput.

2. Everyone knows that Mac OS X 10.1 is no speed demon, but it is MUCH faster than 10.0 and we don't know what Allan was performing his test on. Mac OS X 10.2 has significant performance improvements in a number of fronts ... new multithreaded file system navigation, UI graphics rendering performance has been improved, and perhaps, most importantly, 3D compositing has been pushed off to the graphics card, leaving the CPU to concentrate on application processing. This is a BIG deal.

3. Is After Effects optimized to take advantage of Altivec (128 bit processing). This is how the new G4 stomps a 2.53 Ghz P4 by 90% in Photoshop 7.

4. If after every new and possible optimization has been added to the new G4 and it is STILL slower than a 2.x Ghz P4, keep in mind... you are using Windows XP. I am using Mac OS X 10.2. And if you haven't spent any time in front of 10.2 ... don't walk, RUN to your nearest Apple Store and ask for a demostration.

More info: www.apple.com/switch

I did misread it! The problem with graphs and charts...shorter is better is always confusing.

I repriced the options listed in my comparison, and if you buy the cheapest possible dual 1.25 GHz PowerPC G4 configuration from Apple (which comes with 512 Mb RAM instead of the 256 Mb in the comparison), it's $3248 for the Apple server versus $2900 for the Dell.

My issue does remain the same, though: which is that Apple can produce an advanced architecture board that is competitive with a prefab major brand Wintel system, and I'm not even counting the software that's bundled with the Apple.

I'm really curious about the Xserve architecture's speed: so many of the differences in processing can be bound by components, and the Xserve boards have opened that up a bit.

Posters who have said that PowerPC chips aren't keeping up with Intel and its clones are correct: this has been Apple's biggest nightmare, and unless they get serious about supporting other chips, which stills seems unlikely to me despite the portability of their current operating system architecture, this may be the big bottleneck in Apple's future.

I run 2.4GHz P4s, dual AMD 2100+, and dual 1GHz G4s. Out of those three, the G4 is by far the slowest. On heavy After Effects comps (2048x1556, 16 bit, and many, many layers and effects), the PCs are OVER 3 TIMES faster than the G4 running OS9. In OSX, the speed increases some, but the PCs still outgun it by at least 2x. Oh, and the PCs were cheaper and have FAR better performance in Maya or any other 3D app. The nVidia Quadro cards beat out anything that is offered on a Mac for serious 3D stuff.

I used to be a 100% mac guy, and was very defensive about Apple's performance claims. Then I ran the tests on a PC, and realized I couldn't keep lying to myself anymore. The PC is faster. The PC is cheaper. Sure, the mac is more pleasant to use and easier to maintain, but how much does that really mean when it comes down to the almighty "double d" - dollars and deadlines?

What it means is bad news for Apple. Until they can deliver more than a 25% clock speed increase every 6 months (WAY behind Moore's law) and something better than "marketing edition DDR," we'll be buying PCs. I hope and pray that Apple will move to IBM soon. I have a feeling that may be the answer to a large chunk of their problems...

Oh, and Glenn, please re-read the article you posted:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

It actually show two PCs CLOBBERING a dual 1GHz G4 in every aspect of every test. Shorter bars are better. A quote from that article:

“And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs.”

Its a sad, sad thing...but its something you can't deny. The mac is, once again, the slow kid on the block.

What it all comes down to is that you don't have to run Windows. I work with both a pc and a mac all day and, even though my pc is 1.5 ghz faster than my mac, I still use the mac for most things. I started out on windows and gladly made the switch. I also work with several os (linux, sun) but osX is the best and smoothest flowing os ever. It is like swiming compared to stumbling around on stilts.

This is great feedback all around. It's important to note that I was trying to pit entry-level server vs. server. So the RDRAM and the Dell machine have a 533 MHz system bus? I had no idea.

I disagree on the benchmarks. I've seen a number of numbers that show 2:1 or higher performance benefits in 2D image work and 3D rendering as well as video compression. Look at this one http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm which is from July 2002. It shows a 2.5 Ghz Pentium being beaten by two 1 GHz PowerPCs. This is before the Xserve architecture update for the Mac with the faster bus and faster RAM, which can have a huge impact.

How does the Dell 320 in the video comparison rank against the 530 in my comparison?

It is like pitting a BMW Z3 against a Dodge Viper, either one is awesome in it's own right. But someone who wants the BMW won't switch to the Dodge Viper simply because it has more horsepower.

Gee, when I spec'd out the Dell system with Dual 1.8, 256MB, 40GB ATA/100, DVD/CDR/CDRW, Inel Pro/1000, Sound Blaster, V.90 Modem,   nVidia, Quadro4 700XGL, 3yr Dell & 3yr MS it came out to: $3,312! Apple Care covers hardware and software!

And the cheapest Dell with a P4 2.0 GHz was $997.00 not $500!

Remember folks, a single 2.5GHz Pentium 4 based PC obliterates a PowerMac G4/1GHz dual in video editing tasks. A twin Xeon machine is another step faster.

The other big reason why this comparison isn't fair is the Quadro2 video card. Put a GeForce4MX in there and watch the price of the Dell drop below that of the Mac.

The PPC is not twice as fast as the Xeon. Also, the Dell has RDRAM and 533mhz bus. If you purchased the Dell you would know that the Dell would be incredibly faster than the Mac.

A better comparison would be the single-pentium processor Dell Dimension. That would also be faster than the Mac and would only set you back about $1300.

I own Macs and Dells ... the Dells are much faster.

Under Operating systems, the Mac should have also listed Unix, not just OSX because the Mac can run just a plain old Unix command shell. Unix developers can easily run and develop their Unix programs on the Mac. These specs also aren't completely meaningful because they tell nothing about a PC's motherboard versus a Mac's motherboard. Both have different types of system buses, and the Mac's is more efficient. It also doesn't speaks about overall better application intregration on the Mac side, or a better range of free programs.

Ignoring the dual processors and just looking at a single P4 model, you can get a 2ghz dell for under $500 that will be as fast as the Mac. Personally I think not having to run windows is worth the extra $1500.

Regarding Nelson Hall's comment, Mac OS X has php included in the OS, and mySQL is simple to install. That's two free apps for developing a relational database driven web application. I think the Mac wins.

Nelson,

Build your relational database in MySQL or any number of open source database development tools vs. MS alternatives and this machine will remain cheaper and more scalable than this Dell solution easily. This isn't counting the possibility of using Webobjects which Dell themselves used until Apple bought it. Don't blindly think wintel is the solution. Even Linuxworld is writing articles praising OSX over Windows.

http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0724.macx.html

If your developer is knowledgable and works in some form of *nix he will be able to do this at the same price or cheaper than the Windows alternative. Add in the new licencing structure MS has moved to and the mac really is cheaper.

As for performance comparisons between Xeons and G4s I haven't seen any so far so I can speak to that. I suspect the 2:1 Mhz ratio the author mentions here is more between G4 and P4 not Xeons.

Price out a "relational database driven web application?" Okay, so why don't you?

What are you going to compare? ASP.NET on Windows to WebObjects on OS X? ASP.NET to J2EE? J2EE on Windows to J2EE on OS X? PHP? ColdFusion?

And how are you going to compare them? OS licensing? Hours of development? Database pricing? Performance?

It's fun to make grand, prejudiced statements without considering pesky annoyances like facts or details.

Ok...now price out developing a relational database driven web application and see what comes up the winner. The Mac won't have a chance.

For comparisons of most major PC vs Macs, go here -

http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/index.html

The dual 867 is actually a lot cheaper minus the three year AppleCare. You can renew AppleCare every year, the first year of ownership is covered under warranty. The Intel box does not run OS X so that is a big minus. I don't know anyone that craves for XP. This Xeon is noisy! It does not however have a 7lb heatsink like the G4.

Did I just notice nearly an $800 price difference?

Looks like Dell wins this one, too. Oh. Are we supposed to think that two 867 MHz G4s are equal to or better than two 1.8 GHz Zeons? Fat chance. I'm a die-hard Mac guy (typing on my iMac/800), but Apple is starting to look lie a horse that can't make around the second turn.

Seth's comparison is very different. Consumer machines (like the iMac) are bought more on other factors than specs like look and feel. My wife (a non techie) is begging for a flat panel iMac to replace her current red gumdrop. I instead would really scan through the specs and performance. I.e. there's a $100 design premium in the iMacs.

Of course, I did a comparison against the iMac, and Dell won that one. Check the link. :)