I would imagine it would depend on the processor, etc.. plus a mac, would be real slow here, since graphix advantage dont work on it...
 

Allow me to clarify my question if possible. In my limited understanding of the finer points of computer terminology I believe that the way processor speeds are listed in Macs & PC's are different. And due to that, comparing 1000 MHZ on a PC, to 1000 MHZ (or a gigahertz sp.?)on a Mac is already apples & Oranges. I once heard a ratio quoted that could determine what would be approximately equal processor speeds. I didn't memorize it, & it may have been wrong. Sure, my GHZ PC will blow doors off a Mac SE30. That's not the point.

I am interested in the differences (if any)in how complex graphic files are handled by these 2 platforms. Not that it is about a race either, but I think we can assume that a comparison, if one were to get made, would be most valuable in reference to computers with approximately equal processor speeds, RAM, and who knows what other bus speed crap thats over my head.

I have heard of the preferences of Macs for Graphics many many times, & thought IF their was any science to it, someone here might know.

Maybe all there is to this question is a mac guy vs. PC guy free-for-all. I hope not.

(If so, my snowboard will out-shread any of you two-planker wankers out there! HeHeHe)
 

I think the dual 800mhz processors for the G4 macs outperform a 1000mhz pentium 4 in photoshop rendering work, and a few other benchmarks, like the ability to perform a "gigaflop" of calculation in x amount of times.

Not that that means much to me - I don't get caught up too much in hype - I'm ten years on a Mac, and frankly couldnt imagine switching even if the PC was head and shoulders over a Mac.

They are both tools. But people get caught up in the "which is faster" thing which PC and Mac users like to debate.

Dan
 

They have fallen WAY behind in processor speeds.

Their subsystems (the motherboard, audio and video systems, etc.) are no where near the level of the current x86 (PC) systems.

They have a VERY limited upgrade path, and are VERY VERY overpriced.

Much less availablity of real world software and hardware.

VERY limited tech support in the real world (read that locally available)

The only people still using them are graphic arts students and print shops. This is a vicious circle brought on by the Mac being first utilized, and very well I might add at the time, by the printing industry. In the last 5 years I've seen the print industry go from zero PC support, to around half, to now everyone is capable if not completely switched over to PC's.

In other words, they are the Amphicar of computers. It looked like a good idea once upon a time, but greed and poor management have left them obsolete. Had they not figured out people would buy crap if you wrapped it in a cute package, they would already be out of business.

I know this sounds like a 'mac bashing' post, but they are all valid points. As I've said before, I fell for the same lie that a mac was better at graphics, started with one, and after learning and working with other platforms realized it was the weakest link in my arsenal of tools.
 

The reasons being:

Hardware: Macs are traditionally more pricey off the shelf than the average PC. Macs come with better hardware.. better drives, better memory, better mainboards. PC's are built to be cheap toss-away consumable machines, but if you were to have a custom system built with high quality hardware in it as opposed to a consumer chain store model, yer looking at the same quality and reliability that you will find in the hardware in an Apple computer.

My desktop PC has some slick ultra fast hardware in it and it's been running about 8 years now and shows no signs of quitting.

Learning Curve: If yer used to another system, a newer or different system is going to take some getting used to. That's going to slow you down.
I recently got a laptop and this keyboard is killing me after using an ergonomic keyboard the past 8 years.

Sure, you can get a Dual G4 Mac, you could also get a quad P4-1.5GHz system.. or even an SGI Octane or Onyx which will blow the doors off any PC or mac in existance and even those to be released within the next few years.

It's totally up to you but if you've been on PC up to this point, going mac is gonna be a tough transition. Macs will read your PC files but PC's wont read your mac files unless there's a utility on the mac to convert the file format to something a PC can read. This isnt any big deal really, unless of course you have to convert thousands of artwork files back and forth in order to use the same artwork on both machines.

Better or worse? It's a pointless battle. You cant compare the speed of the hardware because they use completely different architectures. You cant compare the software because the same programs are written differently for each system. If you want to talk about software availability, if all you do is graphics, music, internet, word processing and bookkeeping well surprise surprise, there's a mac and PC version of the most popular programs for these applications so no losses there.

There's no real advantage or disadvantage to using either system Doug, it all comes down to what you are used to.

I keep hearing talk about MAC OS going downhill in terms of stability.. I dont know if this is true or not but anyone think it might be due to Bill Gate's partial ownership of Apple? Seems everyone forgot that he bought up a huge chunk of apple a number of years ago to dig them out of the hole Jobs had dug for himself.
 

This Mac works just fine for me. I dont really care how fast it is, I'm not about to buy computers to get the fastest there is because there will be something faster a month or so after anyways. If I ever have to get another machine, it will be a mac again, so's I can use the software I have.
 

Doug, I am running Soft Windows 95 on my Mac. My Mac is old and slow by todays standards (Power PC 7200) and I have some minor system problems with SoftWindows, but its my fault. I haven't upgraded at all. The makers of SoftWindows sold the company to a British firm and they are not doing much with it. The other virtual PC software maker is still current. I use it only to run my bowling league secretary program. Even on my Mac, it runs plenty fast enough. I wouldn't want to run a graphics program this way though. I've heard on a newer Mac and the latest virtual version, it runs pretty good.
 

I am pretty sold on going for the Mac G4 dual processor for photoshop & illustrator work, & adding flexi just to have more back-up plotting options while I keep my 1000 mhz PC for edge work, & run CasMate on the same old 233 mhz clunker without having to overload it with Adobe software as well.
 

Here's an article that does a pretty good comparison with some Photoshop functions. You'd be surprised at the results.

http://www.techtv.com/products/hardware/story/0,23008,3339307,00.html
 

First, the closest to the "science" I know of, to explain the differences of how the Mac & the PC handle graphics, is that the Mac's OS addresses images as algorithmic paths (outlines), while the PC (under DOS) treated images & characters merely as an array of pixels (bitmaps). Outlines can be scaled infinitely with no loss of resolution, but they sure take up a lot of space! PC's under Windows (pseudo-copy of MacOS) is an added layer of software between the Operating System and the Application, so it processes images slower by that degree. Not sure how Windows OS treats graphics, since its versions of Adobe software, responds similarly to Mac Versions.
By the way, I use an iMac DVSE @ 400MHz/256MB RAM, driving a 24" Graphtec Plotter using FlexiSign 6.5 Hey, can't you turn your copy of Casmate in, for a copy of Flexi? I thought Amiable Tech. bought out Casmate's company. That could be one way of upgrading cheaply to Flexi!
(Ho - some smart, ah? Laterz, brah! I gotta go home cook rice!)
Mahalo,
Warren F.
 

Here's the thing - Mac's were once upon a time, quite a bit faster than Windows based machines. This would be true up until late 1997 I would say. Once Apple dropped their scsi drives and the Pentium II's starting pulling away in a big way mhz wise, the contest was over.

For years, the reason mac's were considered faster or better was simply their subsystems were so much better. But, to compete on price they had to lose the expensive scsi stuff, and go ide, while PC hardware dropped in the upper end stuff such as ultra2 scsi stuff, all the while their (PC) subsystems and hardware was making great strides in improvement.

These days, with nVidia making the most powerful desktop graphic processors in history coupled to a 4x AGP slot, the video system is dramatically superior to anything Apple offers.

Video editting is the toughest job a computer can do in the private sector. As for factory built, over the counter computers, a G4 DVI might be a top contender.. but.... For the same money you can build a PC to outclass it the same way a Corvette would a Z28.

I know a lot of people think what I'm saying is 'my brand is better than your brand' but it is not. It is a combination of specs and details that anyone can research if they care to.

First of all - lets compare Apple's to "apples". If you're going to compare Apple's top of the line Mac, lets compare an equally prepared PC.

Today's top gun PC would contain twin Athlon MP cpus, a couple of gig's of PC2100 DDR ram, A 160mb/s 15k/rpm scsi hard drive RAID setup, A GeForce3 video card, etc. Sure, this setup is Dirty Harry going squirrel hunting kinda overkill, but I'm trying to make the point that the usual benchmarks you read where Apple's seem to be the superior choice, are slanted to favor the Apple usually because the reviewer is either reviewing for an Apple site/magazine, or just doesnt know anything about PC's.

Even a single cpu PC properly configured would outperform the top of the line G4, for a lot less money.

Am I slamming Apple just to spite Apple? No. Why then are they as I am saying, so far behind the curve? One word.. 'competition' or lack thereof. In the PC world you've got AMD hot on the heels of Intel - the very same Intel who lagged sadly behind the curve Apple set only a few years ago. Other PC markets such as the video card market are extremely competitive, their curve has accelerated exponentially over what it has in the Apple arena.

So to answer the original question - no - the Macintosh is no longer better for graphics or any other category. The only game they win is the psychological one. That being every graphic arts school uses and teaches on the Macintosh. The reasons they use them are 1 - Apple gives them for free or substantially lower prices, 2 - Mac's were first adopted and utilized by the graphics (read that printing) industry and they are slow to change out of complacency and "if it aint broke dont fix it" thinking. Plus, its a vicious circle since the schools are turning out people who are trained on them... you can see why Apple gives them away for free there.

One more thing while we are talking computer graphics - a mac's desktop resolution is 72dpi, where Windows is 96dpi.
 

Warren, Yeah Amiable bought Scanvec, but their deal on switching to Flexi is not a trade in. It's a little costly, but I can keep Casmate & it's key, so I will probably do that anyway. I will get the Mac version so I can run both platforms here.

Thanks Rob, I think that you have hit on a lot of why & where the comments I've heard originated,
 

Download a demo from NCS website