PC Mag checks out Apple G5

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by IRO, Sep 20, 2003.

  1. IRO

    IRO Guest

    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>
     
    IRO, Sep 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. IRO

    Philip Roy Guest

    In article
    <>,
    IRO <> 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
     
    Philip Roy, Sep 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. IRO

    Philip Roy Guest

    > Or does it??
    >
    > Critique of Apples Standover mananagement of the 'independent' tests...
    > http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=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    One of your links is quite outdated and there are numerous sites doing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
     
    Philip Roy, Sep 20, 2003
    #3
  4. IRO

    Joe Citizen Guest

    > 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
     
    Joe Citizen, Sep 20, 2003
    #4
  5. IRO

    IRO Guest

    In article <>,
    Philip Roy <> 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>
     
    IRO, Sep 20, 2003
    #5
  6. IRO

    Philip Roy Guest

    In article <LgWab.153519$>,
    "Joe Citizen" <> 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
    bollocks. 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
     
    Philip Roy, Sep 20, 2003
    #6
  7. IRO

    T.N.O. Guest

    "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?
     
    T.N.O., Sep 20, 2003
    #7
  8. IRO

    Joe Citizen Guest

    "Philip Roy" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > In article <LgWab.153519$>,
    > "Joe Citizen" <> 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
    > bollocks. 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
     
    Joe Citizen, Sep 21, 2003
    #8
  9. IRO

    Philip Roy Guest

    In article <Bp8bb.154224$>,
    "Joe Citizen" <> 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
     
    Philip Roy, Sep 21, 2003
    #9
  10. IRO

    Joe Citizen Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > In article <Bp8bb.154224$>,
    > "Joe Citizen" <> 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
     
    Joe Citizen, Sep 22, 2003
    #10
  11. IRO

    AD. Guest

    On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:26:32 +1200, Joe Citizen wrote:

    > 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.


    Not yet they're not. Apple has no 64bit OS or apps yet, so the Xeon vs
    Opteron distinction is irrelevant even if Opterons were as plentiful as
    Xeons are now. In six months or more (I'm guessing) when Apple has more
    64bit software (and Opterons are more plentiful) you will be correct that
    the Opteron becomes a better comparison.

    I suspect it was intended as more of a Apple vs Dell (being the x86
    big boy) test than G5 vs Xeon test anyway - after all it was PC Mag (eg
    not someone like EE Times) that did the tests.

    As an aside, I think it would be fantastic if Dell started shipping
    Opterons though (fat chance I suppose). Or if IBM's eServer 325 was
    available in NZ (hopefully more likely).

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Sep 22, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. fety
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    668
    Moz Champion
    Apr 10, 2005
  2. badgerfish

    A pro checks out the Olympus E1 at the track

    badgerfish, Oct 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    362
    badgerfish
    Oct 10, 2003
  3. Printing photos on checks?

    , Jul 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    732
  4. Dave Doe
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    441
    Malcolm
    Jun 19, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    400
    Bruce
    Apr 18, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page