Ejecta
10-11-2002, 12:04 AM
Which OS do you guys prefer for C4D? Im thinking about getting back in to Macs. But not sure on speed and there is that big price tag on Macs but Im drawn to the stabilty.
View Full Version : Which OS do you prefer for C4D?
|
|
greekdish
10-11-2002, 12:16 AM
I prefer Macs over PC's....more stable is a huge plus, and its really not that much slower on a Mac over a PC. Mac OS just easier to do things, even with OSX compared to OS9. In the end, go with what you feel comfortable with. You cant go wrong really...Mac or PC....Cinema is engineered pretty nicely.
AdamT
10-11-2002, 12:33 AM
, and its really not that much slower on a Mac
I don't want to start a platform war, but ... you've *got* to be kidding. For rendering, the fastest Mac is less than half the speed of the fastest PC. Where I'm from over a 100% difference is significant.
I don't want to start a platform war, but ... you've *got* to be kidding. For rendering, the fastest Mac is less than half the speed of the fastest PC. Where I'm from over a 100% difference is significant.
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 01:42 AM
PC's are faster than Macs, there's no doubt about it, however quite a few people like to work on Macs and then Render on PC's because they prefer the Mac environment. I'm not usre baout PC's being twice the speed of Macs, that might be stretching it a little. It's up to you, OSX is nice and very stable, also it's thus far relatively virus etc free, which is a big plus in my book. It doesn't get in the way at all. Good for designers. PC's are fast and a lot cheaper, you already know windows. Really when working with C4D it's up to you which environment you prefer to work in as C4D on both platforms is more or less identical. Also due to it's nature pretty much all of the plugins are released for PC and Mac together which is something that doesn't happen so often with other 3D soft.
MJV
10-11-2002, 02:09 AM
Speed and cost are the only factors for me when working with Cinema. PC's are much faster and much cheaper, and frankly, if you think you can't use a PC or need Apple to hold you hand, then you're some kind of a retard. Took me two days to find my way around WinXP. The biggest adjustments were getting used to how fast the machine boots and how responsive the OS is.
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 02:20 AM
As MDME Sadie sort mentioned the top Macs are not half the speed of the top PC's in rendering Unfortuntaely Processors don't quite work like that, PC's are definitely faster, and at the moment a fair step ahead, but definitely not twice as fast.
As for Stablility thats pretty much a crock of "place expletive here" nowadays with OX 10.2 (jaguar) and XP (service pack 1 [free I might add]) THey are oth highly stable, have pretty damn good hardware support, probably a bit better on Macs, and they both crash, about the same amount. Part of the reason Macs don't crash as often in some peoples minds is cause they reboot more often. Not as much in OS X, but in OS9 Rebboting was a constant, while in Windows 9X or 2000 they never rebooted, and things fell apart after some time, a nice reboot would get the system back up to par. Nowadays, both systems are highly stable and neither crashes often but they both crash.
MDME SADIE brought up one very true and VERY important part though, Macs have very very few viruses compared to PCS that have a whole bunch of new ones each day and a new serious worm almost bbiweekly it seems now. As long as you don'tmind an antivirsu hogging resources adn nagging you to update or scan more often and check every download, then hey thats not an issue right?
Mac physically look really nice, you'll have to go out and by your own box to look that good, as for the GUI, sure macs look great with that PDF system for really crisp graphics and such while windows still only uses 32bit icons ans such. Well this is false, XP can use 128bit icons as well, its just that most windows developers aim there icons to work on windows 98 still so the XP users have to pput up with software developers incompetence to include a 128 icon. Not sure how skinnable OSX is, but you can fully skin everything in XP including the but up screen and login screen for that matter all with free software.
So lets put thesystems where they stand, get the one you know best, why waste time learnign an OS when you can spend that time learning say R8. Get the ones thats better for your system. doing lots of video as well as 3D? lets be honest Macs rule that domain, howabout 2D well macs are better but its so minor who are we joking. 3D well renders are faster no doubt about it, but editor perfomance differs minimal at best.
Get what you know and think you can afford.
As for Stablility thats pretty much a crock of "place expletive here" nowadays with OX 10.2 (jaguar) and XP (service pack 1 [free I might add]) THey are oth highly stable, have pretty damn good hardware support, probably a bit better on Macs, and they both crash, about the same amount. Part of the reason Macs don't crash as often in some peoples minds is cause they reboot more often. Not as much in OS X, but in OS9 Rebboting was a constant, while in Windows 9X or 2000 they never rebooted, and things fell apart after some time, a nice reboot would get the system back up to par. Nowadays, both systems are highly stable and neither crashes often but they both crash.
MDME SADIE brought up one very true and VERY important part though, Macs have very very few viruses compared to PCS that have a whole bunch of new ones each day and a new serious worm almost bbiweekly it seems now. As long as you don'tmind an antivirsu hogging resources adn nagging you to update or scan more often and check every download, then hey thats not an issue right?
Mac physically look really nice, you'll have to go out and by your own box to look that good, as for the GUI, sure macs look great with that PDF system for really crisp graphics and such while windows still only uses 32bit icons ans such. Well this is false, XP can use 128bit icons as well, its just that most windows developers aim there icons to work on windows 98 still so the XP users have to pput up with software developers incompetence to include a 128 icon. Not sure how skinnable OSX is, but you can fully skin everything in XP including the but up screen and login screen for that matter all with free software.
So lets put thesystems where they stand, get the one you know best, why waste time learnign an OS when you can spend that time learning say R8. Get the ones thats better for your system. doing lots of video as well as 3D? lets be honest Macs rule that domain, howabout 2D well macs are better but its so minor who are we joking. 3D well renders are faster no doubt about it, but editor perfomance differs minimal at best.
Get what you know and think you can afford.
MJV
10-11-2002, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Kaiskai
3D well renders are faster no doubt about it, but editor perfomance differs minimal at best.
Get what you know and think you can afford.
Actually, editor performance is where the PC outpaces the Mac the most. The fastest PC might only be 70% faster at rendering than the fastest Mac, but is way over twice as fast in editor redraw. XL8 might have put them a little closer in performance though. And what is this about learning an OS? Huh? Are you telling me that learning an OS is something people capable of learning a 3D package should worry about? I don't think so. Did Mac users have such a hard time learning OSX? Yes, Macs still have strengths but for 3D alone it's just no contest at all. On the other hand, I kind of like it when I hear people are working on Mac because I know I'm working roughly twice as fast and effectively as are they, which is ok with me.
3D well renders are faster no doubt about it, but editor perfomance differs minimal at best.
Get what you know and think you can afford.
Actually, editor performance is where the PC outpaces the Mac the most. The fastest PC might only be 70% faster at rendering than the fastest Mac, but is way over twice as fast in editor redraw. XL8 might have put them a little closer in performance though. And what is this about learning an OS? Huh? Are you telling me that learning an OS is something people capable of learning a 3D package should worry about? I don't think so. Did Mac users have such a hard time learning OSX? Yes, Macs still have strengths but for 3D alone it's just no contest at all. On the other hand, I kind of like it when I hear people are working on Mac because I know I'm working roughly twice as fast and effectively as are they, which is ok with me.
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 02:53 AM
acutally MV did remind me of one thing, R8 supports dual planes and OSX doesn't so PCS have a big boost in the eidtor for R8 with complex scenes.
kiwi
10-11-2002, 03:04 AM
Yes PCs are faster,but as to how much faster....well lets just say theres no way I am going to trust the comparisons made between a PC and a Mac if they are done by a PC zealot or a Mac zealot,and thats generally exactly who ends up doing the comparisons.
Stu.
Stu.
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 03:22 AM
Ouch... MJV got out of the wrong side of bed today! lol.
Go with Kaiskais advice. Unfortunately for Apple they're not going to be able to change over to IBM chips till next year, when they do there's a good chance that we'll see once again the tables turn and Macs back on top, till then, Macs are going to be slower (though maybe not as much as MJV quoted). As for the overall Mac v PC debate... let me direct those who wish to extend it to the following...
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7238&perpage=15&pagenumber=9
second to last post on that page by yours truly.
Go with Kaiskais advice. Unfortunately for Apple they're not going to be able to change over to IBM chips till next year, when they do there's a good chance that we'll see once again the tables turn and Macs back on top, till then, Macs are going to be slower (though maybe not as much as MJV quoted). As for the overall Mac v PC debate... let me direct those who wish to extend it to the following...
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7238&perpage=15&pagenumber=9
second to last post on that page by yours truly.
kiwi
10-11-2002, 03:35 AM
Ya agreed it all comes back to the artist in the end doesnt it :thumbsup:
I still think the best thing someone can do to improve their 3d skills is learn how to paint or sketch or both if they cant already :)
Stu.
I still think the best thing someone can do to improve their 3d skills is learn how to paint or sketch or both if they cant already :)
Stu.
AdamT
10-11-2002, 03:49 AM
Yes PCs are faster,but as to how much faster....well lets just say theres no way I am going to trust the comparisons made between a PC and a Mac if they are done by a PC zealot or a Mac zealot,and thats generally exactly who ends up doing the comparisons.
No need to do that, check this: http://www.vimagic.de/VM/CineBench/index.html
The fastest score I see there for a Mac is 21 and fastest PC score is 36. That's only about 70%, as MV said, but Apples have not gotten any faster and PCs have. I've seen a score of over 45 for a dual Xeon. So it's not 100% faster, it's actually 114% faster. But that's just quibbling. Whether it's 70% or 114%, it's a hell of a difference.
And PCs have an even bigger lead with R8, BTW. Macs achieve about a 15% gain over R7 while PCs achieve a 30-40% gain. And that's 30-40% of an already much higher number.
Hey, I think this is the forum's first platform war! It's really starting to hit the big time!
No need to do that, check this: http://www.vimagic.de/VM/CineBench/index.html
The fastest score I see there for a Mac is 21 and fastest PC score is 36. That's only about 70%, as MV said, but Apples have not gotten any faster and PCs have. I've seen a score of over 45 for a dual Xeon. So it's not 100% faster, it's actually 114% faster. But that's just quibbling. Whether it's 70% or 114%, it's a hell of a difference.
And PCs have an even bigger lead with R8, BTW. Macs achieve about a 15% gain over R7 while PCs achieve a 30-40% gain. And that's 30-40% of an already much higher number.
Hey, I think this is the forum's first platform war! It's really starting to hit the big time!
ndat
10-11-2002, 03:57 AM
Hmmm... If only more things were engineered for the nix platform :(
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 04:01 AM
you know whats funny, I remeber running the PC version of strata 2.53 on a Virtual PC trhough OS 9, faster than onwindows NT. Man were those the days. That was before I even knew what AMD was.
matty2x4
10-11-2002, 04:12 AM
ok, this is gonna sound very untechy but, the tech guy at work was telling me that the new OSX has way improved graphics capabilaties. He says in simple terms it now has the abilaty to fully share graphics workloads with graphics cards... apparently is didnt used to do this and the mac didn'tlike shareing processing with extra cards and tried to do it all its self. Now from what I gather if you put the same cards in a pc and the new mac OS should they not be alot closer now?
Can anyone confurm this new OSX abilaty and does it work as well as the guy from work recons?? as you can tell im no techy
2x4
Can anyone confurm this new OSX abilaty and does it work as well as the guy from work recons?? as you can tell im no techy
2x4
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 04:28 AM
sorry don't know anything about this to confirm or not, but that woudn't be the only issue at hand for performance even in the eidtors situation, I mean you'll notice that athlons had a smaler increase in rendering that intels had so its just how individual items and such work as well. Then there are things like even it the card is taking the grunt now, OSX the OS iteself does not handle dual planes
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 04:46 AM
using a gf4 ti card in my mac i see little difference between this an a pc running the same card... it pushes the same number of polys, and osx is a pure opengl environment (it uses it for everything) however kaiskai is right that there's currently no dualplane support (that means all you mac guys need to be emailling apple about this as it's something they need to be fixing, and it's only down to software cos the mac's drivers aren't where they should be, it's not even addressing all 128mb of ram on this card right now, but it should, so go write apple, get them to update, i've written). however this sits here comfortably chewing through scenes with a few million polys cos of the graphics card.
don't bother with benchmarks, they're all as disengenious as each other, apples ones about photoshop are as much as case in point as the other cinebench ones. it's down to the operator how much work gets done, after all consider irix systems... please, i beg you, any one of you, tell me your work on a xeon dual 2.5ghz machine is better than... any ilm artists work up until a month ago (when they changed to linux). irix in case you didn't know is slow... slower than pc's or macs... yet a lot of the best cg work out there has been done on these machines. also please do tell me that you're faster than they are, and working better... i'd love to hear it.... oh it would make me chortle. before any of you go on a pc v mac bender... you'd better be producing the results that back you up.
don't bother with benchmarks, they're all as disengenious as each other, apples ones about photoshop are as much as case in point as the other cinebench ones. it's down to the operator how much work gets done, after all consider irix systems... please, i beg you, any one of you, tell me your work on a xeon dual 2.5ghz machine is better than... any ilm artists work up until a month ago (when they changed to linux). irix in case you didn't know is slow... slower than pc's or macs... yet a lot of the best cg work out there has been done on these machines. also please do tell me that you're faster than they are, and working better... i'd love to hear it.... oh it would make me chortle. before any of you go on a pc v mac bender... you'd better be producing the results that back you up.
AdamT
10-11-2002, 05:07 AM
Oh come on! I'm not talking about useability and all that business--you already said that C4D is the same on a Mac or PC in that regards. I'm talking purely about how fast a Mac can *render* and redraw and how fast a PC can *render* and redraw. At least admit the stone-cold facts! If you prefer Macs, more power to you. They certainly have real advantages. But up is not down, yes is not no, 2+2 does not = 5, and Macs are not as fast as PCs at rendering.
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 05:20 AM
he never said they were, he just said the twice as fast is not accurate and I agree. Just like an MP is not twice as fast, and a 2 gHZ is not twice as fast at rendering than a 1ghz.
I mean look throught those tests carefully, Thephan, who I know to be wquite reliable, has a 1GHZ PIII with 224 MB of ram, and his system did better than a few 1600's and even a 1700 with 512 MB ram. So I wouldn't trust those benchmarks.
I mean look throught those tests carefully, Thephan, who I know to be wquite reliable, has a 1GHZ PIII with 224 MB of ram, and his system did better than a few 1600's and even a 1700 with 512 MB ram. So I wouldn't trust those benchmarks.
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 05:29 AM
redraw speed is down to the graphics card now. once apple get their ass into gear and update their drivers the same card will push the same number of polys at the same speed... it's the same hardware, and in fact theoretically unix should be able to address the card faster than windows. I never said that macs rendered faster or were faster than PC's. However I did say that benchmarks aren't worth their salt. Apple is still using the Photoshop benchmark... which sure it may be true that photoshop does a gaussian blur twice as fast on a mac than on a pc on a 50mb document with no layers and no background tasks running... geez when is that going to be happening then?... hmmm never? apples are slower, read back through the posts. No-one is dissagreeing, however I do disagree that there's as signifigant a real world difference in speed between the two systems as would be suggested by the Cinebench tests. I use and have Used pc's for the past 15 years, and Macs for the past 8. Every few years one gets faster than the other, then it changes back and the other one is faster. Right now PC's are faster than Macs. In real world terms I'd say they're currently about a third faster, although not always, sometimes they can be faster, sometimes slower... it depends on the job in hand and the software being used. I've not used C4D 8 on the PC only on the Mac. It's fast enough for my needs. When I need to render out a lot I'll be getting a few Dual Athlon boxes for rendering cos they're cheap and fast, for working I prefer to use the Mac, it's perfectly sufficient for what I need to do in terms of speed, especially with the GF4 Ti card. I don't want to work on the PC because for me the Mac is a stable and easy environment that I'm happy with, also all of my Software is Mac based now, including Editing software. With my current setup I don't any more or less pushed for time than at any time I used a PC for a job, sadly regardless of the power of the computer the software bloats out to fill up all the extra capacity. Theoretically by now we should have been rendering photorealism in realtime (according to SGI)... somehow it's just not come about :/
MJV
10-11-2002, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by mdme_sadie
redraw speed is down to the graphics card now. once apple get their ass into gear and update their drivers....
It seems like any Mac discussion about video since the beginning of time starts with this same qualifier. As soon as Quickdraw 3D comes out, as soon as Mac adds software OpenGL support, as soon a Apple adds OpenGL hardware support, as soon as they add OpenGL2 support, as soon as Rhapsody is finished, as soon as OSX is finished, as soon as the OSX update comes out, as soon as Jaguar comes out, as soon as the next drivers come, as soon as Apple gets off it's ass, as soon as the card makers get off their ass, as soon as Macworld arrives, as soon as the new machines come out, as soon as as soon as as soon as... it's like a never ending loop of Mac user denial.
Unfortunately you can't buy or use things that you hope might exist in the future, otherwise the Mac would be a clear winner.
:arteest:
redraw speed is down to the graphics card now. once apple get their ass into gear and update their drivers....
It seems like any Mac discussion about video since the beginning of time starts with this same qualifier. As soon as Quickdraw 3D comes out, as soon as Mac adds software OpenGL support, as soon a Apple adds OpenGL hardware support, as soon as they add OpenGL2 support, as soon as Rhapsody is finished, as soon as OSX is finished, as soon as the OSX update comes out, as soon as Jaguar comes out, as soon as the next drivers come, as soon as Apple gets off it's ass, as soon as the card makers get off their ass, as soon as Macworld arrives, as soon as the new machines come out, as soon as as soon as as soon as... it's like a never ending loop of Mac user denial.
Unfortunately you can't buy or use things that you hope might exist in the future, otherwise the Mac would be a clear winner.
:arteest:
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 06:37 AM
MV that's the same for PC users too... I use both, they both have good and bad points. But I'm not going to claim that using one or the other has any impact on my ability or skill as an artist. It doesn't. Of course it's fine if you want to give the credit for your work to your machine (or blame it for your own failings), but that's not for me. As I said my setup is adequate for me and what I need right now. It is true that Apple need to get their ass into gear with regards keeping their machines up to date/spec. You would have to be blind to not think that this was the case in the current tech market. It would be nice to have dual plane ogl, it's not going to stop me from producing work to a standard that I'm happy to give to my clients, nor when ogl dualplane finally comes will I be suddenly taking a leap up in quality or skill, my work won't suddenly become twice as "good". The curve is getting shallower and shallower these days. Once on desktops it was Real3D and Imagine. Then came the huge leap that was lightwave... each leap since has been smaller and smaller, till now if you're skilled enough you can produce the same quality work on pretty much any 3D package. I've seen a lot of shit produced in Maya on Dual Xeon 2.5 workstations... and I've seen Rustboy. To me the machine is just a tool, I use it... it sounds to me like you let the machine use you.
MJV
10-11-2002, 07:03 AM
Madam Sadie, I like reading your posts and value your contributions. :) Your last post is just too hilarious though as it would make a great Mac users handbook of things to say when talking to a PC user.
Speed isn't that important.
It's the artist that counts.
Power is relative.
It's good enough for me.
The pendulum swings both ways, it will be Mac users turn next.
All that extra speed and power is actually a handicap.
I'm fortunate in that I can afford the extra expense.
A pencil and paper is all I really need.
Speed isn't that important.
It's the artist that counts.
Power is relative.
It's good enough for me.
The pendulum swings both ways, it will be Mac users turn next.
All that extra speed and power is actually a handicap.
I'm fortunate in that I can afford the extra expense.
A pencil and paper is all I really need.
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 07:52 AM
Now now you two lets keep this place civilised we are startin to get a little personal here :shame:
Originally posted by MJV
It's the artist that counts.
hmm MV don't you agree with this one???
Thats all I'm saying on this topic now, I want to see the first platfrom war end soon. hopefully we'l keep them in postforum where they belong from now on:rolleyes:
Originally posted by MJV
It's the artist that counts.
hmm MV don't you agree with this one???
Thats all I'm saying on this topic now, I want to see the first platfrom war end soon. hopefully we'l keep them in postforum where they belong from now on:rolleyes:
MJV
10-11-2002, 08:12 AM
It's the artist that counts.
Yes, of course, I agree, but think it has nothing to do with anything. It's just the most lame and most used excuse for putting up with crappy, inferior tools, be they software, hardware, 3D package, OS, or platform.
Of course it's the artist that counts. And frankly, like everyone else, there's only three artists I'm very concerned with, and they are me, myself, and I. And this artist want's the fastest and best tools I can get because it does make a difference and those that think otherwise are simply in very serious denial. If it's the artist that counts, and that's all that counts, then please go on using XL7.3 and I have a Mac desktop G3 that will be perfect for you.
In the end we can all be grateful for the competition because without it we'd all be trying to do 3D today on an Apple II or through command line DOS. In the end I agree that Apple has propelled consumer computing to a level it would never have otherwise achieved, and is still a valuable market innovator.
Yes, of course, I agree, but think it has nothing to do with anything. It's just the most lame and most used excuse for putting up with crappy, inferior tools, be they software, hardware, 3D package, OS, or platform.
Of course it's the artist that counts. And frankly, like everyone else, there's only three artists I'm very concerned with, and they are me, myself, and I. And this artist want's the fastest and best tools I can get because it does make a difference and those that think otherwise are simply in very serious denial. If it's the artist that counts, and that's all that counts, then please go on using XL7.3 and I have a Mac desktop G3 that will be perfect for you.
In the end we can all be grateful for the competition because without it we'd all be trying to do 3D today on an Apple II or through command line DOS. In the end I agree that Apple has propelled consumer computing to a level it would never have otherwise achieved, and is still a valuable market innovator.
Martin Kay
10-11-2002, 08:43 AM
I've used macs for over twelve years and pc's for about three years and have found pc's fine to use so this isn't about one being 'better' than the other.
It may be a sweeping statement to say pc's are cheaper than macs- I don't know... What constitutes a pc? It seems to me that pc's are generally 'unknown' quantities. Which pc is cheaper than a mac is a question not easily answered. I purchased the best pc in the uk, quality wise, it cost as much as a mac, but the company went bust a few months ago...:rolleyes: I'm well aware by browsing through PC Pro Mag that you can get systems very cheaply, but what do you get for your money, how reliable is it and what's the after service like? Will the vendor go bust in the near future? At least with a mac you sort of know where you are.
But in my experience mac service agents are far and few between and quite often assume they can charge more because
you are 'professional'. There are many more pc repair agents around for obvious reasons, but not all of these guys are that competent. All this sounds like stating the obvious, but it does demonstrate that its not such an open and shut case over which system is the cheaper to buy & run. I'm tempted to get a Dell as my next system for 3D, purely because they are a big company, but when you go onto their site and price a machine up it doesn't seem to run out that much cheaper than a mac. Or I could take a 'chance' with a smaller PC company- or I could stick with the familiar and trusted Mac.
It may be a sweeping statement to say pc's are cheaper than macs- I don't know... What constitutes a pc? It seems to me that pc's are generally 'unknown' quantities. Which pc is cheaper than a mac is a question not easily answered. I purchased the best pc in the uk, quality wise, it cost as much as a mac, but the company went bust a few months ago...:rolleyes: I'm well aware by browsing through PC Pro Mag that you can get systems very cheaply, but what do you get for your money, how reliable is it and what's the after service like? Will the vendor go bust in the near future? At least with a mac you sort of know where you are.
But in my experience mac service agents are far and few between and quite often assume they can charge more because
you are 'professional'. There are many more pc repair agents around for obvious reasons, but not all of these guys are that competent. All this sounds like stating the obvious, but it does demonstrate that its not such an open and shut case over which system is the cheaper to buy & run. I'm tempted to get a Dell as my next system for 3D, purely because they are a big company, but when you go onto their site and price a machine up it doesn't seem to run out that much cheaper than a mac. Or I could take a 'chance' with a smaller PC company- or I could stick with the familiar and trusted Mac.
MJV
10-11-2002, 09:43 AM
PC's and Macs are both excellent, and whichever you choose will be fine. I really don't care as passionately about it as my previous posts might indicate. Basically I'm arguing the issue just for exercise. Didn't mean to get personal.
:wavey: :wip:
:wavey: :wip:
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 10:00 AM
I've built the systems I have used except for my first computer which I had built for me. Fact is s guy who knows what he is doing and know a fair amountn about computers can match a Dell system here in canada fro $600 less sometimes even more, with the same if not higher quality parts, compatibility issues can occur, but thats what the internet and research are for right? so look at a Dell system compared to a mac, not a heck of a lot cheaper but cheaper all the same, of course you'll likely need to add that ever important DVD burner which will bosst you up, your looking at maybe a couple hundred less, not a lot for sure, but then you build your own system save around $600, you have a mac equivalent system for far less, and I bet the processor is almost if not double the macs in MHZ
As for support and warranties, I build my systems and screw warranties because if I buy myself a Dell or HP I can get those great warranties, but those warraties are void if you open the box, meaning any uprading or tweaking you do, even just adding a fan will void your warranty cause the box is open, well it costs a lot for PC repairs as well, and oyu have to have someone certified to open your computer so as not to void the warranty,so you speant more for this waranty so you can spend more not to ruin the warranty, yeah that makes sense.
As for support and warranties, I build my systems and screw warranties because if I buy myself a Dell or HP I can get those great warranties, but those warraties are void if you open the box, meaning any uprading or tweaking you do, even just adding a fan will void your warranty cause the box is open, well it costs a lot for PC repairs as well, and oyu have to have someone certified to open your computer so as not to void the warranty,so you speant more for this waranty so you can spend more not to ruin the warranty, yeah that makes sense.
kiwi
10-11-2002, 10:06 AM
I think its just human nature MV :) .....When I was a kid groups of us used to sit around and do the same thing about rock bands and cars.Then when I bought a 1200 sporty there were people who would almost come to blows over the pros and cons of drag pipes for their Harleys :D Not to mention a family I know of who are ardent Ford Falcon supporters {car} and if you mention the name Holden they will hiss at you...its hillarious :D .Or even at Bathurst in Australia where the different manufacturers race their cars the two different groups of supporters throw bottles at each other most of the time.....so I guess its just human nature.
Stu.
Stu.
Martin Kay
10-11-2002, 10:45 AM
I don't think most 3d artists would consider building their own systems- its just too much trouble and personally I just want to get on with the work. Re Dell, and the 'high cost' of them, my experience with other folk that have purchased 'cheap' pc's is that they have been riddled with problems coupled with poor after sales service. Compare that to Mac and I can't remember any of the numerous Mac in our digital departments ever breaking down, (apart from monitors conking out).
LucentDreams
10-11-2002, 11:51 AM
Ahh but see inknowing how to build my computer I know pretty well how to fix it. I have never had to take my compter in for servicing, when there is a problem, and there have been a few like my recent graphic card troubles, I figured it out and tok me about 15 minutes to confirm what was wrong and fix it, did I mention that cost me nothing either. There is a difference between buying a cheap pc and building a good computer for lessmoney, I still make sure I buy quality parts, I don't go for the cheapest 64Meg graphics card.
And don't get me on (I thought I was staying out of this) macs never needing support or breaking down, I don't remember any PC laptops melting keyboards, the only laptop I ever purchased (and only mac I purchased was the first Ibook, boy what a del for that tangerine book, and sure enough it was gonein no time, money back decided I would never buy a mac again, now ofcourse I would, I'd like to add a mac to my arsenal especially for audio and video, but damnit that melted keyboard wasthe most pathetic thing I have ever seen.
And don't get me on (I thought I was staying out of this) macs never needing support or breaking down, I don't remember any PC laptops melting keyboards, the only laptop I ever purchased (and only mac I purchased was the first Ibook, boy what a del for that tangerine book, and sure enough it was gonein no time, money back decided I would never buy a mac again, now ofcourse I would, I'd like to add a mac to my arsenal especially for audio and video, but damnit that melted keyboard wasthe most pathetic thing I have ever seen.
AdamT
10-11-2002, 12:24 PM
I certainly didn't mean to get personal either, and like I said, I don't care which platform anyone (but me) chooses. It's just very frustrating to me that most Mac users won't even acknowledge the simple fact that PCs are much faster at rendering. And as MV pointed out, Sadie's response is absolutely typical. I'm talking purely about hardware performance and rendering speed and the response is to ignore that and discuss productivity, the quality of the artist, etc. I'm down with all that, but at the end of the day when you click [Render] the PC is 70%-100% faster. That's *all* I'm saying. Obviously the fact that it renders faster doesn't make the render better.
greekdish
10-11-2002, 05:23 PM
I went to that benchmark link, and if people actually clicked on each processor, you would see the specs for themachine....nice to see that the 2 Mac G4's at the top only had a GeForce 4MX, and not the top of the line graphics card like the others. You have to remember screen redraw and OpenGL requires the use of the graphics card, and not the processor as much. Also, did they take into account OSX 10.2 and QE?? What about the new Mac G4's with 1.25 Ghz and DDR Ram??? What would happen on top of that with a GeForce Ti 4600 in there??? They sure seem to have the latest dual Athlons there.....funny. I also didnt see any P4 benchmarks of Xeon benchmarks, why? :shrug:
All this talk about people saying they work twice as fast as other people because they have twice as fast machines is pure and udder horsedoodoo. Who are they to say they work twice as fast as me, or twice as fast as anyone else in here?? Sounds like typical pro-PC jargon. I merely said in the end of my post, use what you feel is best, and the same holds true. Why do these pro-PC people come in here bashing and getting all upset when someone prefers a Mac??? Go get a life. I prefer a Mac...period. I own a dual 1Ghz P3 PC with 1.5 gigs of ram and a GeForce 4 Ti4400 with 128megs of ram running XP Pro, and I think its crap compared to my TiBook 500 laptop with 512 RAM and 8mb ATI running OSX10.2.....period!!!! To me, I get more work done on the Mac....unbelievable how these wars actually start....it all starts from a anti-Mac post. God, I never said anything bad about the PC in my post...I merely said I prefer Macs, and to choose what you feel is best....I come back 2 days later and find a huge thread and lots of anti-Mac hatred here. What gives??? :annoyed: :shrug:
All this talk about people saying they work twice as fast as other people because they have twice as fast machines is pure and udder horsedoodoo. Who are they to say they work twice as fast as me, or twice as fast as anyone else in here?? Sounds like typical pro-PC jargon. I merely said in the end of my post, use what you feel is best, and the same holds true. Why do these pro-PC people come in here bashing and getting all upset when someone prefers a Mac??? Go get a life. I prefer a Mac...period. I own a dual 1Ghz P3 PC with 1.5 gigs of ram and a GeForce 4 Ti4400 with 128megs of ram running XP Pro, and I think its crap compared to my TiBook 500 laptop with 512 RAM and 8mb ATI running OSX10.2.....period!!!! To me, I get more work done on the Mac....unbelievable how these wars actually start....it all starts from a anti-Mac post. God, I never said anything bad about the PC in my post...I merely said I prefer Macs, and to choose what you feel is best....I come back 2 days later and find a huge thread and lots of anti-Mac hatred here. What gives??? :annoyed: :shrug:
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 06:31 PM
Adam, My response was to try and cease the pointless arguing over this in the first place. At no point did I ever state that having a more powerful computer system was a hinderance (mv) merely that it's no guarantee of good work.
The guy wanted to know which system to go for. So in typical style Adam and MV you both go in there gung ho bashing the Mac with ridiculous claims that are basically unfounded on anything in reality. If this is the typical PC owners response then sorry... I don't want to be that. For me on a Mac the OS doesn't get in the way. If i work on a PC most of the time the OS doesn't get in the way either. But I do like to be able to open files created on Macs that my clients sometimes send me on mac formatted discs. And i want to work with them direct rather than having to send them out accross a network.
I have said several times that PC's are faster than Macs Adam... sadly you don't want to acknowledge or even read what I've written, that's fine, but please don't comment on what you have no experience in.
I've seen a lot of benchmarks out there, none of them are accurate to a real world setting. I've sat with Mac's cursing them coming up to a deadline at the witching hour trying to work on a 1.5gb Photoshop file. And I've spent my fair dues of time swearing at PC's who's graphics cards couldnt decide if they could handle mirroring MPEGs on shows.
I gave an even handed response. The macs are in my oppinion nicer machines. But you pay for that. PC's are faster, they're considerably cheaper, the guy already knows PC's so he should probably stick with them, he could buy nearly three dual athlons for the price of one top of the line Mac, each of them would be faster than that Mac.
However you know what? Pretty much everyone already knows this, If he's serious about choosing which machine then he's likely alreayd checked out the prices, and maybe played with each machine a little. So whaddaya know? Maybe the guy isn't looking for this tirrade that some PC people have against Macs, it's worse here than on the ****ing Max forum... gee is it because of a little insecurity there?...
I don't give a damn what machine someone uses. If i work with another freelancers it doesnt matter to me, because for me using a mac i can read and write discs for both machines no probs... this is important for me, I get clients giving me source material from Macs and PC's... it's a serious consideration.
What I do care about, and what my clients care about is quality of work. This is about profesionalism, C4D's user base is by and large non professional it would seem, so if it's for hobby work then go with the PC simply because it's cheaper, faster and you're not going to have to worry about compatability, if at a later date you do have to worry about compatability then get a cheap lower end mac to deal with that. For me I don't want to have to be switching around between machines all the time. If i really need to run up a pc i'll run up one of the renderfarm when I finally get around to putting a few PCs there, for the meanwhile I'll just use virtual PC... shit i can even run Max in VPC should I ever want to, and at good enough speed to work on too. So here's the deal, if i need to spell it out once again for anyone stupid enough to even start to think that bashing the next platform will endear you to your employers out there reading these forums too... the client doesnt care what machine you use provided you get the work done. The public don't care, the client, no-one gives a ****. However if you don't get the work done then they care cos your ass is grass. You wanna slam another persons setup? Prove that your work is better than theirs. Prove that because of the machine you're using you are producing better work than them. You know by being so defensive about your little PC boxes I'm surprised you ever do any work, obviously the PC does it all for you.
The guy doesn't want to hear about PC's being faster than Macs all the time, what he wants to hear is... Is the C4D experience drastically different on a Mac? The answer quite honestly is no. C4D is the same on both machines. You can get the same plugins, same support, the interface is identical, the experience is more or less identical, PC's render out faster, their actual interface is faster if you have Dualplane support, but that makes C4D unstable at the moment so let's throw that one out the window because of the lost time in saving your project every five seconds. Interface speed is going to be very similar between both machines in a real world situation. By the time Maxon iron out the bugs to do with dualplane it's most likely that OSX will have been updated to incorporate support for that.
I would suggest keeping with the PC's primarily because of their cheapness and the fact that if you're currently working on them then you've already got software for them. If however you want to change because you find working with PC's a pain in some way, and you have deep enough pockets for a good mac then go with the mac, it'll fullfil your needs quite adequately. Should you find you're needing more rendering power (as basically interface wise you're not going to notice any real difference) i suggest using a PC renderfarm, as I will be using.
The thing to remember is that currently you can't slave the CPU's of either PC's or Macs (despite the UNIX origin of OSX) accross a network for one machines interface, you will however have to work with just one machine to edit your models, go with the one that you find he most pleasant to use overall.
The guy wanted to know which system to go for. So in typical style Adam and MV you both go in there gung ho bashing the Mac with ridiculous claims that are basically unfounded on anything in reality. If this is the typical PC owners response then sorry... I don't want to be that. For me on a Mac the OS doesn't get in the way. If i work on a PC most of the time the OS doesn't get in the way either. But I do like to be able to open files created on Macs that my clients sometimes send me on mac formatted discs. And i want to work with them direct rather than having to send them out accross a network.
I have said several times that PC's are faster than Macs Adam... sadly you don't want to acknowledge or even read what I've written, that's fine, but please don't comment on what you have no experience in.
I've seen a lot of benchmarks out there, none of them are accurate to a real world setting. I've sat with Mac's cursing them coming up to a deadline at the witching hour trying to work on a 1.5gb Photoshop file. And I've spent my fair dues of time swearing at PC's who's graphics cards couldnt decide if they could handle mirroring MPEGs on shows.
I gave an even handed response. The macs are in my oppinion nicer machines. But you pay for that. PC's are faster, they're considerably cheaper, the guy already knows PC's so he should probably stick with them, he could buy nearly three dual athlons for the price of one top of the line Mac, each of them would be faster than that Mac.
However you know what? Pretty much everyone already knows this, If he's serious about choosing which machine then he's likely alreayd checked out the prices, and maybe played with each machine a little. So whaddaya know? Maybe the guy isn't looking for this tirrade that some PC people have against Macs, it's worse here than on the ****ing Max forum... gee is it because of a little insecurity there?...
I don't give a damn what machine someone uses. If i work with another freelancers it doesnt matter to me, because for me using a mac i can read and write discs for both machines no probs... this is important for me, I get clients giving me source material from Macs and PC's... it's a serious consideration.
What I do care about, and what my clients care about is quality of work. This is about profesionalism, C4D's user base is by and large non professional it would seem, so if it's for hobby work then go with the PC simply because it's cheaper, faster and you're not going to have to worry about compatability, if at a later date you do have to worry about compatability then get a cheap lower end mac to deal with that. For me I don't want to have to be switching around between machines all the time. If i really need to run up a pc i'll run up one of the renderfarm when I finally get around to putting a few PCs there, for the meanwhile I'll just use virtual PC... shit i can even run Max in VPC should I ever want to, and at good enough speed to work on too. So here's the deal, if i need to spell it out once again for anyone stupid enough to even start to think that bashing the next platform will endear you to your employers out there reading these forums too... the client doesnt care what machine you use provided you get the work done. The public don't care, the client, no-one gives a ****. However if you don't get the work done then they care cos your ass is grass. You wanna slam another persons setup? Prove that your work is better than theirs. Prove that because of the machine you're using you are producing better work than them. You know by being so defensive about your little PC boxes I'm surprised you ever do any work, obviously the PC does it all for you.
The guy doesn't want to hear about PC's being faster than Macs all the time, what he wants to hear is... Is the C4D experience drastically different on a Mac? The answer quite honestly is no. C4D is the same on both machines. You can get the same plugins, same support, the interface is identical, the experience is more or less identical, PC's render out faster, their actual interface is faster if you have Dualplane support, but that makes C4D unstable at the moment so let's throw that one out the window because of the lost time in saving your project every five seconds. Interface speed is going to be very similar between both machines in a real world situation. By the time Maxon iron out the bugs to do with dualplane it's most likely that OSX will have been updated to incorporate support for that.
I would suggest keeping with the PC's primarily because of their cheapness and the fact that if you're currently working on them then you've already got software for them. If however you want to change because you find working with PC's a pain in some way, and you have deep enough pockets for a good mac then go with the mac, it'll fullfil your needs quite adequately. Should you find you're needing more rendering power (as basically interface wise you're not going to notice any real difference) i suggest using a PC renderfarm, as I will be using.
The thing to remember is that currently you can't slave the CPU's of either PC's or Macs (despite the UNIX origin of OSX) accross a network for one machines interface, you will however have to work with just one machine to edit your models, go with the one that you find he most pleasant to use overall.
flingster
10-11-2002, 06:50 PM
Man you guys crack me up....someone fed you a line and you bit.
Personally I prefer....LINUX...bwahaahhaahhaahahah but then this isn't available YET!
Unless you get a Mac.....bwahaahahahahahah. Or you could use wine and run c4d through nt on a linux box.....why i don't know....cos you can.
:rolleyes:
chill me thinks....take a pill and then pick a colour scheme....mucky grey or blueberry....PC or Mac.....who give a sh** cos it don't make you any better at using the software.:scream:
Personally I prefer....LINUX...bwahaahhaahhaahahah but then this isn't available YET!
Unless you get a Mac.....bwahaahahahahahah. Or you could use wine and run c4d through nt on a linux box.....why i don't know....cos you can.
:rolleyes:
chill me thinks....take a pill and then pick a colour scheme....mucky grey or blueberry....PC or Mac.....who give a sh** cos it don't make you any better at using the software.:scream:
AdamT
10-11-2002, 06:51 PM
All this talk about people saying they work twice as fast as other people because they have twice as fast machines is pure and udder horsedoodoo.
Ohmygod, it's totally hopeless. No one is saying they work twice as fast on a PC--only that the *machine* renders twice as fast. Get it? You, using the fastest Mac, click render. It takes 10 minutes to complete. I, using the fastest PC, click render. It takes 5-6 minutes to complete. Period. Why is this so hard for you to accept? I'm not saying that's *everything*, or even *anything*! Just stating the FACTS.
The reason some configurations are reported and not others is that this was a user survey--not an independent benchmark/review. The fact that the top-of-the-line graphics cards were or were not used is pretty pointless, considering that R7 makes little or no use of hardware acceleration on either the Mac or PC. This has changed considerably in R8.
MDME_Sadie: show me anywhere where I've bashed Macs? My one and only point throughout is that PCs RENDER MUCH FASTER!! Of course that's not the only thing that counts, but I've consistently limited myself to this one point. This isn't bashing Macs or Mac users at all. You acknowledge that PCs render faster, although you deny the published data showing how much faster without offering a good reason. The reasons I've seen given (and I can't remember who said what) are that reviewers are biased (and are therefore lying about their benchmark numbers) and the users reporting their scores in the cited poll are lying. I find this unlikely, and particularly so in the case of the poll information, considering the number of separate users reporting similar scores on similar machines. But whatever. Or is the claim that the Cinebench itself is biased to render faster on PCs? Wait, up is or is not down?
Anyway, I'm sure you will interpret this as a desperate attack on the Mac community by another insanely biased PC user. It is not.
Ohmygod, it's totally hopeless. No one is saying they work twice as fast on a PC--only that the *machine* renders twice as fast. Get it? You, using the fastest Mac, click render. It takes 10 minutes to complete. I, using the fastest PC, click render. It takes 5-6 minutes to complete. Period. Why is this so hard for you to accept? I'm not saying that's *everything*, or even *anything*! Just stating the FACTS.
The reason some configurations are reported and not others is that this was a user survey--not an independent benchmark/review. The fact that the top-of-the-line graphics cards were or were not used is pretty pointless, considering that R7 makes little or no use of hardware acceleration on either the Mac or PC. This has changed considerably in R8.
MDME_Sadie: show me anywhere where I've bashed Macs? My one and only point throughout is that PCs RENDER MUCH FASTER!! Of course that's not the only thing that counts, but I've consistently limited myself to this one point. This isn't bashing Macs or Mac users at all. You acknowledge that PCs render faster, although you deny the published data showing how much faster without offering a good reason. The reasons I've seen given (and I can't remember who said what) are that reviewers are biased (and are therefore lying about their benchmark numbers) and the users reporting their scores in the cited poll are lying. I find this unlikely, and particularly so in the case of the poll information, considering the number of separate users reporting similar scores on similar machines. But whatever. Or is the claim that the Cinebench itself is biased to render faster on PCs? Wait, up is or is not down?
Anyway, I'm sure you will interpret this as a desperate attack on the Mac community by another insanely biased PC user. It is not.
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 06:57 PM
Sorry my response is absolutely typical? please elaborate
flingster
10-11-2002, 07:00 PM
I think all you guyz/gurlz should a make kiss and make up....this is the much love forum....not the much verbal...forum.
We all respect other opinions here....keep it clear, simple, friendly and informative....not that they haven't been just that these sort of threads have a tendancy to get out of hand....i think its a personallity override thing.
SO KISS KISS.....i demand it. :bounce:
We all respect other opinions here....keep it clear, simple, friendly and informative....not that they haven't been just that these sort of threads have a tendancy to get out of hand....i think its a personallity override thing.
SO KISS KISS.....i demand it. :bounce:
AdamT
10-11-2002, 07:16 PM
Typical as follows:
"don't bother with benchmarks, they're all as disengenious as each other, apples ones about photoshop are as much as case in point as the other cinebench ones. it's down to the operator how much work gets done, after all consider irix systems... please, i beg you, any one of you, tell me your work on a xeon dual 2.5ghz machine is better than... any ilm artists work up until a month ago"
When confronted with the *fact* that PCs are faster--no matter the context--the typical Mac-fan responses are (a) the benchmarks are lies, (b) its overall productivity that counts, (c) using a faster computer won't make you a better artist.
With the exception of (a), these are all truisms that have nothing to do with the *fact* that PCs render faster than Macs.
I haven't made any value judgments, and if you think I have you're reading something into my posts that isn't there. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I don't think I should have to apologize for stating facts.
Just to make it as clear as I possibly can:
The fundamental proposition that underlies all logic is the statement, P = P. I'm saying P = P. You are saying P sort of equals P, but even if P did = P, that's not important. You may not consider it an important point, but it's the only point I've raised.
"don't bother with benchmarks, they're all as disengenious as each other, apples ones about photoshop are as much as case in point as the other cinebench ones. it's down to the operator how much work gets done, after all consider irix systems... please, i beg you, any one of you, tell me your work on a xeon dual 2.5ghz machine is better than... any ilm artists work up until a month ago"
When confronted with the *fact* that PCs are faster--no matter the context--the typical Mac-fan responses are (a) the benchmarks are lies, (b) its overall productivity that counts, (c) using a faster computer won't make you a better artist.
With the exception of (a), these are all truisms that have nothing to do with the *fact* that PCs render faster than Macs.
I haven't made any value judgments, and if you think I have you're reading something into my posts that isn't there. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I don't think I should have to apologize for stating facts.
Just to make it as clear as I possibly can:
The fundamental proposition that underlies all logic is the statement, P = P. I'm saying P = P. You are saying P sort of equals P, but even if P did = P, that's not important. You may not consider it an important point, but it's the only point I've raised.
Per-Anders
10-11-2002, 08:02 PM
I've beem using PC's and Macs for a few years now. Regardless of their speed I get the same ammount of work done on each. I never claimed that Macs were faster than PC's, always the other way around. I still stand by my statements on the Benchmarks. And it's true tht comparing systems with completely different graphics cards isn't going to give exactly true results on the interface. Interface speeds will be roughly the same between the systems because they both depend on their graphics cards to deal with that side of things, it's not like with an Amiga here. Dualplane is giving PC's a signifigant speed boost on the interface right now, but thats not a forever, and the extra time spent saving and restarting because of it's less that stable nature does rather crimp it's advantage. Rendering is signifigantly faster on a PC. If you're going to have a renderfarm then make it out of PC's, it makes no difference what machine you use to actually work on apart from to you the user. I prefer Macs because everytime I've added a peice of hardware to a PC it's taken me three hours to configure the damn thing (apart from the mouse, keyboard and monitor). Once it's going the PC is fine and stable, but for me I've never had a nice easy plug'n play ride with any PC hardware, having worked as a show operator I frequently had to open up PC and Mac towers and laptops in order to get some peice of hardware that got damaged in transit working/replaced. That shouldn't happen when you're using a tower in an office/home environment, but inevitably it does. It's a factor in choosing which setup you use, ease of use generally.
The points (b) and (c) are related to (a) in that PC Zealots current typical response is that speed is the only important factor here. I never stated the benchmarks were lies, but if you think that results of statistics are god given *truths* then god help you is all I can say.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:6XWmnC1bHKMC:www.execpc.com/~helberg/pitfalls/+statistical+lies&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion.
The points (b) and (c) are related to (a) in that PC Zealots current typical response is that speed is the only important factor here. I never stated the benchmarks were lies, but if you think that results of statistics are god given *truths* then god help you is all I can say.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:6XWmnC1bHKMC:www.execpc.com/~helberg/pitfalls/+statistical+lies&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion.
flingster
10-11-2002, 08:04 PM
Ok see my earlier posts.....I got a great link for you all.
http://www.bassdozer.com/
great info on lures.....doesn't seem to have any info on PCvsMAC lures....but you never know if you look hard enough and try hard enough you might all be able to solve this persons post.
Give it your best guys/gurlz.....cos its just a question of maths really.....all those PC users most more....fight the good fight....Oooh and not forgetting you MAC users....post back replies to these posts....we should all be able to bring down those linux servers....hosting this chit chat.
:cool:
ps. has anybody tried the OS modelling challenge....MAC vs PC the most realistic looking box/packaging image post...wins (no pun intended). Its a render off.....i'm counting....please post your images to this thread.....it needs more glamour!:buttrock:
http://www.bassdozer.com/
great info on lures.....doesn't seem to have any info on PCvsMAC lures....but you never know if you look hard enough and try hard enough you might all be able to solve this persons post.
Give it your best guys/gurlz.....cos its just a question of maths really.....all those PC users most more....fight the good fight....Oooh and not forgetting you MAC users....post back replies to these posts....we should all be able to bring down those linux servers....hosting this chit chat.
:cool:
ps. has anybody tried the OS modelling challenge....MAC vs PC the most realistic looking box/packaging image post...wins (no pun intended). Its a render off.....i'm counting....please post your images to this thread.....it needs more glamour!:buttrock:
yankee-norr
10-11-2002, 08:04 PM
AdamT:
Have you ever been render the " real world" file on both PC and Mac?
Yes, I expect that the pc will blown away my G4 400 in the very first. Cause I knew the " benchmark" value. But the result is confused me. In most scene the render speed on my K7/900 is about 30% faster than G4/400. and of course my new P4/2.26 is twice faster than the old mac. Those results were no need to mentioned here. The best and most strange thing is when i render a scene with partical plus metaball the P4 took 2hr for a frame. The rest machine took only 5min to finish the same frame!!! What's happened? I'm not sure. But the P4 got the largest amount ram of all my computer. I only want to point out two thing:
1. Benchmark score doesn't equal the realworld use experiment. That's mean when you read the benchmark results show the PC is 70%-100% faster than Mac, you better doubt it before you really compare the two.
2. For PC, even the two kind of cpu don't match the benchmark results in most test. Why bother to believe the benchmark will guide you to judge good or bad between the more different cpu? I dl the cinbench and the score were normal as you know. But the truth is way beyond you can image...
:p
Now most of my render works are done with PC. cause i don't have a G4/1.25MP or G5 balahlahlah.. But one thing for sure is that I never believe the benchmark's score anymore..
and there is one more thing FYI: I had rendered a scene on P4 and a borrowed G4/733. The two tooks almost the same times to finished it. But the P4/2.26 really FASTER a little!!!! (maybe 1hr30min vs 1hr2Xmin. I'm not sure cause i didn't write the ren-time down...)
;)
Have you ever been render the " real world" file on both PC and Mac?
Yes, I expect that the pc will blown away my G4 400 in the very first. Cause I knew the " benchmark" value. But the result is confused me. In most scene the render speed on my K7/900 is about 30% faster than G4/400. and of course my new P4/2.26 is twice faster than the old mac. Those results were no need to mentioned here. The best and most strange thing is when i render a scene with partical plus metaball the P4 took 2hr for a frame. The rest machine took only 5min to finish the same frame!!! What's happened? I'm not sure. But the P4 got the largest amount ram of all my computer. I only want to point out two thing:
1. Benchmark score doesn't equal the realworld use experiment. That's mean when you read the benchmark results show the PC is 70%-100% faster than Mac, you better doubt it before you really compare the two.
2. For PC, even the two kind of cpu don't match the benchmark results in most test. Why bother to believe the benchmark will guide you to judge good or bad between the more different cpu? I dl the cinbench and the score were normal as you know. But the truth is way beyond you can image...
:p
Now most of my render works are done with PC. cause i don't have a G4/1.25MP or G5 balahlahlah.. But one thing for sure is that I never believe the benchmark's score anymore..
and there is one more thing FYI: I had rendered a scene on P4 and a borrowed G4/733. The two tooks almost the same times to finished it. But the P4/2.26 really FASTER a little!!!! (maybe 1hr30min vs 1hr2Xmin. I'm not sure cause i didn't write the ren-time down...)
;)
AdamT
10-11-2002, 08:09 PM
Good. I think we're in total agreement. ;)
I agree with you that it's easier to configure a Mac, and adding hardware to a PC can be a pain. The Mac file system also has some advantages over Windows', etc. I really never meant to say that one system is *better* than the other.
I agree with you that it's easier to configure a Mac, and adding hardware to a PC can be a pain. The Mac file system also has some advantages over Windows', etc. I really never meant to say that one system is *better* than the other.
Erik Heyninck
10-11-2002, 08:16 PM
To answer the basic question: when your toolbox is filled with mac-based apps, then you may want to consider OSX, evt. Jaguar when all the soft comes out for it. When you have Win-based tools, then Win2KPro or WinXP Pro are best. Although I have an aversion against its registration method, XPpro may well be best as Intel intends to include hyperthreading into their P4 of 3GHz which will be released later this year. Hyperthreading means that the non-active "parts" of the CPU are used for other purposes. Practically speaking, this means that a single processor is being considered as two, and WinXP pro can handle this. The newest bios for the Gigagyte mainboard GA-8IHXP can already handle it too. So one processor can approximately replace a dual setup, and a 3GbHz one with hyperthreading will have a calculating power of some 6 GHz. Add to this the 4200 Rambus memory that hasn't got to be coupled anymore, and you're in some other galaxy in the wink of an eye.
Apart from that: I've always loved Robert Pirsig's Zen and the art of motor maintainance. Those two categories,...remember? The romantic wants things to work without having to dig into boring technical details. Its the result that counts. The classical one wants to tweak and understand and get involved in technical details. Its the bare, scientific fact that counts. Must say that I see a lot of mac vs. PC in that...
Apart from that: I've always loved Robert Pirsig's Zen and the art of motor maintainance. Those two categories,...remember? The romantic wants things to work without having to dig into boring technical details. Its the result that counts. The classical one wants to tweak and understand and get involved in technical details. Its the bare, scientific fact that counts. Must say that I see a lot of mac vs. PC in that...
AdamT
10-11-2002, 08:16 PM
Sure, there's always variation in reality, and one system will be better at certain things than another. Still, on average I believe that benchmarks that measure render times are a pretty good measure of render times, and I do believe that--on average--the fastest PC will render twice as fast as the fastest Mac. Luckily everyone is free to beleive whatever they want! :cool:
flingster
10-11-2002, 08:17 PM
NICE.....AdamT:applause:
We all agree....difference is nice....spice of life and all that.
We all agree....difference is nice....spice of life and all that.
greekdish
10-11-2002, 11:04 PM
AdamT....I didnt say YOU said those words...someone else did....they did say they can work twice as fast with a twice as fast machine. Im not making it up, someone else said it.
As for the benchmarks..again, you are wrong. Those benchmarks are from Cinebench 2000 which arent even optimized for the Altivec engine in the G4. Like many have said...stop following benchmarks and follow realworld use....that is whats hopeless. Even without Altivec optimizatons, the Mac more than holds its own.....a comparison at Barefeats.com shows a DDR dual 1.2 Ghz Mac rendering a logo in Cinema in 37 seconds, and only a dual 1.6 Ghz Athlon can beat it with a time of 28 seconds. Now....render out an animation of that same scene and what do you get??? I would bet money that the larger cache of the G4's (2MB's) would speed up an animation rendermore than the 512k of the Athlons. Im just tired of hearing PC users who are quick to point out the latest and greatest benchmarks, but have no merit when it comes to real world use.
Real point here is again....for you thick headed people...use what you feel more comfortable with. Stop claiming your PC is faster and this PC is faster....no Mac user gives two shites. To say that we Mac users are ignoring facts is ludicrous. No one here is denying that the fastest PC isnt faster than the fastest Mac. Thats not what is at issue here because that fastest PC is gonna cost about the same than that fastest PC if you count in quality and stability (Dell, HP....not white box crap).
As for the benchmarks..again, you are wrong. Those benchmarks are from Cinebench 2000 which arent even optimized for the Altivec engine in the G4. Like many have said...stop following benchmarks and follow realworld use....that is whats hopeless. Even without Altivec optimizatons, the Mac more than holds its own.....a comparison at Barefeats.com shows a DDR dual 1.2 Ghz Mac rendering a logo in Cinema in 37 seconds, and only a dual 1.6 Ghz Athlon can beat it with a time of 28 seconds. Now....render out an animation of that same scene and what do you get??? I would bet money that the larger cache of the G4's (2MB's) would speed up an animation rendermore than the 512k of the Athlons. Im just tired of hearing PC users who are quick to point out the latest and greatest benchmarks, but have no merit when it comes to real world use.
Real point here is again....for you thick headed people...use what you feel more comfortable with. Stop claiming your PC is faster and this PC is faster....no Mac user gives two shites. To say that we Mac users are ignoring facts is ludicrous. No one here is denying that the fastest PC isnt faster than the fastest Mac. Thats not what is at issue here because that fastest PC is gonna cost about the same than that fastest PC if you count in quality and stability (Dell, HP....not white box crap).
MJV
10-12-2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by AdamT
Ohmygod, it's totally hopeless. No one is saying they work twice as fast on a PC--only that the *machine* renders twice as fast. Get it? You, using the fastest Mac, click render. It takes 10 minutes to complete. I, using the fastest PC, click render. It takes 5-6 minutes to complete. Period. Why is this so hard for you to accept? I'm not saying that's *everything*, or even *anything*! Just stating the FACTS.
Adam, I feel your pain. It's just unbelievable isn't it? The original post asked which OS was better for Cinema. Ok, that's very subjective and one can make a case either way I suppose. But then he mentions two specific concerns. Speed and price. This is an important point. *He* mentioned speed and price as among his main concerns. So both must be important to him, and yet if you directly address those two issues in reply, Mac users have a cow.
There seems to be a difference between what PC users say, and what Mac users hear. I think it works something like this: When a PC user notes that PC's a generally faster and cheaper, Mac users hear completely different words than those spoken or written.
Here I have compiled the top ten things I think Mac users hear when a PC user states that PC's are faster than Macs:
1) Mac users are stupid.
2) Art can only be created on PC's, not on Macs.
3) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and artistic talent.
4) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and personal performance.
5) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and personal moral character.
6) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and the size of a person's penis, as well the character and appearance of the woman he will mary, and the children they may bare.
7) Determination and hard work is no substitute for raw CPU performance.
8) Computer speed is the only determining factor of success.
9) The fastest computer brand today will be the fastest computer in the future, nothing will ever change.
10) My dad can beat your dad in a fight.
And apparently, there isn't anything you can do to stop these translations from occurring. :shrug: ;)
Ohmygod, it's totally hopeless. No one is saying they work twice as fast on a PC--only that the *machine* renders twice as fast. Get it? You, using the fastest Mac, click render. It takes 10 minutes to complete. I, using the fastest PC, click render. It takes 5-6 minutes to complete. Period. Why is this so hard for you to accept? I'm not saying that's *everything*, or even *anything*! Just stating the FACTS.
Adam, I feel your pain. It's just unbelievable isn't it? The original post asked which OS was better for Cinema. Ok, that's very subjective and one can make a case either way I suppose. But then he mentions two specific concerns. Speed and price. This is an important point. *He* mentioned speed and price as among his main concerns. So both must be important to him, and yet if you directly address those two issues in reply, Mac users have a cow.
There seems to be a difference between what PC users say, and what Mac users hear. I think it works something like this: When a PC user notes that PC's a generally faster and cheaper, Mac users hear completely different words than those spoken or written.
Here I have compiled the top ten things I think Mac users hear when a PC user states that PC's are faster than Macs:
1) Mac users are stupid.
2) Art can only be created on PC's, not on Macs.
3) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and artistic talent.
4) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and personal performance.
5) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and personal moral character.
6) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and the size of a person's penis, as well the character and appearance of the woman he will mary, and the children they may bare.
7) Determination and hard work is no substitute for raw CPU performance.
8) Computer speed is the only determining factor of success.
9) The fastest computer brand today will be the fastest computer in the future, nothing will ever change.
10) My dad can beat your dad in a fight.
And apparently, there isn't anything you can do to stop these translations from occurring. :shrug: ;)
AdamT
10-12-2002, 04:06 AM
:) :) :) That's the first time in some time I've laughed out loud at something I read on my computer screen.
ndat
10-12-2002, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by MJV
6) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and the size of a person's penis, as well the character and appearance of the woman he will marry, and the children they may bare.
Yay :) I have a fast CPU ;) but does that mean it shrinks every time a faster one comes out???
6) There is a direct correlation between CPU speed and the size of a person's penis, as well the character and appearance of the woman he will marry, and the children they may bare.
Yay :) I have a fast CPU ;) but does that mean it shrinks every time a faster one comes out???
anobrin
10-12-2002, 01:35 PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH........:rolleyes:
my advice if you use windows make sure its at least
Win2k Pro or XP Pro
if you use a MAC FOR C4D or ANY 3D work use the ultra stable multitasking
OSX Because OS9 is DEAD!!!! and WORTHLESS for any serious 3D /Video editing work.
now Go render something :annoyed:
http://66.70.166.29/promo/clthdrop.mpg
my advice if you use windows make sure its at least
Win2k Pro or XP Pro
if you use a MAC FOR C4D or ANY 3D work use the ultra stable multitasking
OSX Because OS9 is DEAD!!!! and WORTHLESS for any serious 3D /Video editing work.
now Go render something :annoyed:
http://66.70.166.29/promo/clthdrop.mpg
RickBarrett
10-14-2002, 03:45 PM
Okay, I think this thread's gone far enough - there's been plenty of input as to the pros and cons of each platform. Mac users love their macs - pc users adore their PC's. No "switch" commercial is going to change that. Most of us are switch hitters though, and some sit on the fence.
In the final analysis - C4D is incredibly fast and stable on either platform. I hope those of us on this board can agree that C4D offers a price / performance of either platform that can't be matched - especially with R8.
And with that said, I'm closing this thread. Nice chat, but let's move on to more important stuff.
- Rick -
In the final analysis - C4D is incredibly fast and stable on either platform. I hope those of us on this board can agree that C4D offers a price / performance of either platform that can't be matched - especially with R8.
And with that said, I'm closing this thread. Nice chat, but let's move on to more important stuff.
- Rick -
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.