Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > PC Mag checks out Apple G5

Reply
Thread Tools

PC Mag checks out Apple G5

 
 
IRO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-19-2003
In tests done by PC Magazine the G5 rates well alongside one hot PC.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp

Bummer they didn't attempt any comparisons with FinalCut Pro, on the
pretext that the application isn't available for Windows. Does that mean
you can't do video editing on a PC?

--
....IRO

Reply to <iro.spring<at>paradise<dot>net<dot>nz>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Philip Roy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
IRO <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In tests done by PC Magazine the G5 rates well alongside one hot PC.
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp
>
> Bummer they didn't attempt any comparisons with FinalCut Pro, on the
> pretext that the application isn't available for Windows. Does that mean
> you can't do video editing on a PC?


How could you do a comparison of 1 program running on a Mac and another
program on a different platform? The results would be meaningless.

As they say..."We tested using a suite of digital-content-creation
programs to compare the Power Mac G5 against both a Mac and, where
cross-platform applications existed, a Windows PC."

Phil
--
MacGuide @ NZMac.com :: http://www.macguide.co.nz
All Mac - All Kiwi
Supporting the New Zealand Mac Community
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Philip Roy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
> Or does it??
>
> Critique of Apples Standover mananagement of the 'independent' tests...
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles...rticleID=39381
> Further Apple did not let them run the tests they chose, but specified which
> tests and options should run, not very independent if you ask me.
>
> Here are some realistic independent comparisons...
> http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
>
> Joe.
>


One of your links is quite outdated and there are numerous sites doing
"for" and "against" battles on the processing reults. To be honest, it
gets a bit tedious....we could be here for days

My point was that the reason they didn't use Final Cut Pro in the
comparisons was exactly because it's not available on both platforms.

Phil
--
MacGuide @ NZMac.com :: http://www.macguide.co.nz
All Mac - All Kiwi
Supporting the New Zealand Mac Community
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Citizen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
> One of your links is quite outdated and there are numerous sites doing
> "for" and "against" battles on the processing reults. To be honest, it
> gets a bit tedious....we could be here for days
>
> My point was that the reason they didn't use Final Cut Pro in the
> comparisons was exactly because it's not available on both platforms.
>
> Phil



Shame about that, you obviously use this proggie.

Sorry, I just can't help criticising Apple for their cloak and dagger
approach to the 'independent testing' (which they supervised, specified, and
classsified) they had done; and you did include a link to the disputed bench
results.

PC's do have video editing.

Joe.

> --
> MacGuide @ NZMac.com :: http://www.macguide.co.nz
> All Mac - All Kiwi
> Supporting the New Zealand Mac Community



 
Reply With Quote
 
IRO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Philip Roy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp
> >
> > Bummer they didn't attempt any comparisons with FinalCut Pro, on the
> > pretext that the application isn't available for Windows. Does that mean
> > you can't do video editing on a PC?

>
> How could you do a comparison of 1 program running on a Mac and another
> program on a different platform? The results would be meaningless.
>
> As they say..."We tested using a suite of digital-content-creation
> programs to compare the Power Mac G5 against both a Mac and, where
> cross-platform applications existed, a Windows PC."


Typical users on different platforms have the same video to be rendered
and converted to MPEG-2. How long will these tasks take? The
applications are irrelevant.

Joe Citizen: I'm not raising the contentious Apple findings, it's the
fact that the G5 is on the presumably prestegious PC Magazine's radar
that's of interest.
--
....IRO

Reply to <iro.spring<at>paradise<dot>net<dot>nz>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Roy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
In article <LgWab.153519$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Joe Citizen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Shame about that, you obviously use this proggie.


Do you mean program? No I don't.


> Sorry, I just can't help criticising Apple for their cloak and dagger
> approach to the 'independent testing' (which they supervised, specified, and
> classsified) they had done; and you did include a link to the disputed bench
> results.


Actually I think that cloak and dagger comments on that link are
*******s. Given the number of G5 ratings/tests/comparisons that are
appearing (both in favour and against) you can't seriously believe that
Apple can control all these, or that independent testers would allow
themselves to be forced into specific tests.

There's plenty of discussion going about G5s...even on my site someone
is saying other tests show they are slower than a G4...
http://www.nzmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=310

The point I was making (and continue to do) is that many of these tests
are fundamentally flawed..the tests versus G4s for example hardly used
any programs optimised for the new 64 bit machine.

Phil
--
MacGuide @ NZMac.com :: http://www.macguide.co.nz
All Mac - All Kiwi
Supporting the New Zealand Mac Community
 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-20-2003
"IRO" wrote
> Typical users on different platforms have the same video to be rendered
> and converted to MPEG-2. How long will these tasks take? The
> applications are irrelevant.


So as long as the job is done, it doesnt matter what app is used, that
doesnt quite sound right... so many different programs, so many different
options inside each of the program, how can you be certain that you have
exactly the same settings on each?

> Joe Citizen: I'm not raising the contentious Apple findings, it's the
> fact that the G5 is on the presumably prestegious PC Magazine's radar
> that's of interest.


"PC Magazine" is "prestegious", I've never heard of it, doesnt mean it's
not, just that I've never heard of it... can anyone else verify that it is?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Citizen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2003

"Philip Roy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <LgWab.153519$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Joe Citizen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Shame about that, you obviously use this proggie.

>
> Do you mean program? No I don't.
>
>
> > Sorry, I just can't help criticising Apple for their cloak and dagger
> > approach to the 'independent testing' (which they supervised, specified,

and
> > classsified) they had done; and you did include a link to the disputed

bench
> > results.

>
> Actually I think that cloak and dagger comments on that link are
> *******s. Given the number of G5 ratings/tests/comparisons that are
> appearing (both in favour and against) you can't seriously believe that
> Apple can control all these, or that independent testers would allow
> themselves to be forced into specific tests.


Well thats exactly what has happened. The mag article is at work, I'll check
it on monday for your reference.
Apple have a history of misleading the public and overstating the truth.
Even at the local comp expo, in a Word speed test the demonstrator booted
both machines, loaded Word on the Mac, then exited. Then loaded and timed
Word on both machines, stating the difference was architecture / software
superiority of the Mac. Nothing mentioned about caching. At this point half
the observers just sighed and walked off.


>
> There's plenty of discussion going about G5s...even on my site someone
> is saying other tests show they are slower than a G4...
> http://www.nzmac.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=310


Hmm.

> The point I was making (and continue to do) is that many of these tests
> are fundamentally flawed..the tests versus G4s for example hardly used
> any programs optimised for the new 64 bit machine.


As are the cross platform tests.

Joe.

>
> Phil
> --
> MacGuide @ NZMac.com :: http://www.macguide.co.nz
> All Mac - All Kiwi
> Supporting the New Zealand Mac Community



 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Roy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2003
In article <Bp8bb.154224$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Joe Citizen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Even at the local comp expo, in a Word speed test the demonstrator booted
> both machines, loaded Word on the Mac, then exited. Then loaded and timed
> Word on both machines, stating the difference was architecture / software
> superiority of the Mac. Nothing mentioned about caching. At this point half
> the observers just sighed and walked off.


I would have walked off at the start. Selling a Mac (or a PC) on the
basis of how fast Word loads? yee gods!

Phil
--
MacGuide @ NZMac.com :: http://www.macguide.co.nz
All Mac - All Kiwi
Supporting the New Zealand Mac Community
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Citizen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2003
Hiya,

Its in the Sept issue of PC Authority.

The article doesn't appear to be online at the website which is
www.pcauthority.com.au , but I didn't look that hard, it may be there.

They raised some serious issues about the tests themselves, the publication
of only selected results, and a breach of 'normalty' in refusing to allow
Verisign permission to post the full results online.

Furthermore Apple said they used Xeon not Opteron because the Xeon is more
similar in the intended market, and that the Opteron is aimed at ther high
end non Xeon market. this is just not true, and furthermore the Opteron is
the closer match with the G5.

There are these and many more peculiarities pointed out.

Joe.

"Philip Roy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <Bp8bb.154224$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Joe Citizen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Even at the local comp expo, in a Word speed test the demonstrator

booted
> > both machines, loaded Word on the Mac, then exited. Then loaded and

timed
> > Word on both machines, stating the difference was architecture /

software
> > superiority of the Mac. Nothing mentioned about caching. At this point

half
> > the observers just sighed and walked off.

>
> I would have walked off at the start. Selling a Mac (or a PC) on the
> basis of how fast Word loads? yee gods!
>
> Phil
> --
> MacGuide @ NZMac.com :: http://www.macguide.co.nz
> All Mac - All Kiwi
> Supporting the New Zealand Mac Community



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Check out this high mag macro lens for micro 4/3rds RichA Digital Photography 3 04-18-2012 08:41 PM
Re: Any sign of the SP3 coming out on a NZ Computer World Mag disc yet? Dave Doe NZ Computing 7 06-19-2008 06:24 PM
Help with error 500, but compiles and runs on my server and syntex checks out froil Perl Misc 4 03-08-2006 02:47 AM
A pro checks out the Olympus E1 at the track badgerfish Digital Photography 5 10-10-2003 03:09 PM



Advertisments