p.1 #2 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Well, while it's all well and good to have 8 cores, it will be pretty rare to run into a program that will properly utilize 8 cores. Also, add in the cost of re-purchasing any applications you currently have with Windows, keeping in mind that the Mac isn't going to have 2 RAID0 10k RPM drives...
Not that it isn't a tremendous amount of processing power in the Mac, but many applications are only barely starting to make use of dual/quad core processors, and most won't actually utilize all 8 cores. If you look at this review:
You'll see that Aperture and Photoshop barely register any increased performance with 8 cores vs. 4 cores. I'd think that saving $700 + cost of new Photoshop license + cost of new Lightroom license, and adding to that what will be a pretty fast RAID0 config, plus no learning curve...
If you want to switch to OS X, switch to OS X, but in this case, processing power shouldn't be the deciding factor.
p.1 #3 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
At this point, Raptor's time had come and gone. Pick up a pair of the WD640's and get nearly the speed, 4+ times the capacity, less noise, and lower power use for about $50 less per drive.
The other thing about using a Mac is well, it's a Mac. Some folks place a lot of value on that.
Finally, many, not all, but many SW vendors will allow you to switch platforms for a very nominal fee - if anything.
-Tom
Apr 02, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Go with what suits your needs best. It's like the Nikon vs Canon debate; two great systems that do essencially the same thing but with different features and interface. Both have advantages and disadvantages over the other.
p.1 #5 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Your photoshop and LR licenses should transfer with a request to Adobe.
$2000 sounds a little high for a home built.
I've seen basic Gateway mini towers with 2.6 quadcore, 3gb ram and a 320 or 500gb drive for $599. And that includes a real (lower end nVidia) PCE video card.
Going from the standard speed processor to the "extreme" is a $1000 that could be much better off applied to something else.
The quad 2.6 chips easily overclock to 3.0 with the standard cooler.
p.1 #6 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Also, did the $2,700 MAC quote include the 8 GB of ram? Not on the Apple website. Even substituting 3rd party aftermarket sticks won't get an 8 GB 8 core MAC for less than $3K.
p.1 #7 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Dadsdesk wrote:
I'm a Windows kind of guy.
Running Lightroom & CS3
I was a PC guy until 6 months ago. In my opinion, LR and CS3 integrate into Mac''s OS better than Windows. However, Apple doesn't offer the application choices a PC does--except when running Windows on a Mac. I really wish Pro Show Gold made a Mac version. I think Windows IE 7 on my Dell desktop is quicker than Safari on my Mac Book Pro. On the positive side, there is a lot less uncalled for interaction with the Mac. The OS seems to have few maintenance issues.
The new learning curve is not a big problem, but does take some time to learn. Now that I'm retired, I generally confine my computer work to photography, the internet, and Quicken. The Mac is fine for my needs. At some point I will upgrade my Dell XPS to a Mac with as much power as I can justify (afford).
p.1 #8 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Having made the decision to try Mac a month ago starting with a Mac Pro- The Mac Pro 8 core is more expensive than a comparable PC but it is very fast nonetheless. Adobe PS CS3 and Lightroom run at blazing speeds - Adobe will give you a one time switch from PC to Mac. I still continue to use my Dell 24" wide screen and my spyder calibration software works great on the mac.
Adobe Lightroom does appear to fully utilize 8 cores simultaneously. This may be the same on windows as well, I just don't have an eight core Windows setup to test/verify this.
Going down the Mac road will cost you but you can and do get the best of both since you can run both either using virtualization technology such as VMware or Parallels or natively by using Apple BootCamp. This is something, at least for now, a PC can not do (legally - run OS X natively).
Perhaps I am a bit biased, I have both PC and Mac systems but Vista has not been everything I had hoped for.
This post is based on my experience and is not intended to incite a flame war.
Edited by Brent Ferree on Apr 03, 2008 at 10:59 AM GMT
p.1 #9 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
If you are going to use more then 4 gigs, then get a Mac, b/c Adobe didn't build Photoshop to work in 64bit...it will actually work slower since you'll have to tell it to run as a 32bit program (since it is a 32bit program).
2K is wayyy too much. Mine is a dual 2.67 running at a solid 3.4. 4 gigs ram running at 3.5 (all 32bit XP will allow), 8800GT GPU, 750gig + 500gig + 320 gig and mine barely costs half of yours...and memory is cheap, so don't blame it on that.
p.1 #10 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Brent Ferree wrote:
The mac just does not crash or miss a beat. Again, I believe you get what you pay for and that goes double for the mac pro. Plain, simple, reliable, solid. It is such a joy to use and using is believing.
This is a load of BS. I'm not a Mac hater by ANY means having used them for hours every day for 3 yrs straight. These things would put up that spinning thinking thing so often that sometimes I would hook into our work network with my laptop and work from that. That was on the G5 right b4 we got the Intel proc. Then we got a new dual dual core and that didn't make life any better. Photoshop was blazing fast, but OSX was still a pain in the butt as it would still crash when put very heavy loads on it...reliability..please, it crashes as few and often as every other well built PC does.
p.1 #13 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
binary visions wrote:
Well, while it's all well and good to have 8 cores, it will be pretty rare to run into a program that will properly utilize 8 cores. Also, add in the cost of re-purchasing any applications you currently have with Windows, keeping in mind that the Mac isn't going to have 2 RAID0 10k RPM drives...
Not that it isn't a tremendous amount of processing power in the Mac, but many applications are only barely starting to make use of dual/quad core processors, and most won't actually utilize all 8 cores. If you look at this review:
You'll see that Aperture and Photoshop barely register any increased performance with 8 cores vs. 4 cores. I'd think that saving $700 + cost of new Photoshop license + cost of new Lightroom license, and adding to that what will be a pretty fast RAID0 config, plus no learning curve...
If you want to switch to OS X, switch to OS X, but in this case, processing power shouldn't be the deciding factor....Show more →
This sums it up quite nicely. 8 cores is not only overkill, it's fairly pointless at this point. Don't switch for the processing power.
*I have both a MacPro and PC... in came someone accuses me of being biased.
p.1 #14 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
This is a load of BS.
You're right - Either one is not perfect but I have had great luck so far! YMMV!
Flame off, sorry! I sometimes forget how heated these things can get paying close attention to avoid the Fuji vs Pentax debate - the names were changed to protect the innocent
I do still fall into having both a MacPro and PC... in case someone accuses me of being biased.
p.1 #15 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Where 8-cores comes in handy is with software that's programmed to take advantage of multi-threading CPUs. At the moment that's pretty much just After Effects and a couple of programs like it.
However in time sotware designers will accomodate for it - and that could spare you your next computer upgrade.
I switched to Mac purely for Apples Final Cut Pro video-editing software (there was nothing equivalent on the PC at the time - though much to my chagrin, Avid have just made massive price cuts to their Media Composer suite).
I've been quite pleased with the Mac, it gives me the software I need, and anytime I want to do things on a PC, all that's required is a simple reboot - and that's pretty handy!
However if you're used to PC and have no real reason to switch to Mac - then just stick with it, you can still buy an equivalent PC for substantially less than a Mac.
p.1 #16 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Zachs wrote:
On a side note, my pops did the test...his new Mac DID run XP faster then his very well built 6 month old pc...always a fun test to watch
Hey Zach, you must the same ZachS from CB... good to see a familiar name.
Specs are specs. The Macs all use Intel hardware now. If the Mac is higher spec'd than the PC was, it'll run XP faster - for some reason, this was a big deal when the news media grabbed ahold of it about a year ago, but it's kinda silly.
It's the exact same hardware. If it's faster, it's faster - there's no difference between installing XP on the Mac and XP on the PC, except for driver support.
p.1 #17 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
binary visions wrote:
Hey Zach, you must the same ZachS from CB... good to see a familiar name.
Specs are specs. The Macs all use Intel hardware now. If the Mac is higher spec'd than the PC was, it'll run XP faster - for some reason, this was a big deal when the news media grabbed ahold of it about a year ago, but it's kinda silly.
It's the exact same hardware. If it's faster, it's faster - there's no difference between installing XP on the Mac and XP on the PC, except for driver support.
bV, hows it goin man? Yeah, its always nice to see people from other boards *at* other boards.
And the difference is that its running that XP ***inside*** OSX/Leapord/whatever that makes it amazing that its as fast or faster then his standard PC.
p.1 #18 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Just a couple more quick notes. I am not your average user. Being able to drop in the Terminal and rename a thousand files, move things around, run basic file operations is a dream for me - a dream that does not exist on Windows. Don't bring up Cygwin or Putty ... please. The fact that I have an instance of XP running in Fusion when I need it is just icing on the cake. With my present Mac I've had three, yes three crashes in the last 18 months - and one of those was on my motorcycle. Also, when an app goes south (cough, NX, cough), it's nice to be on an OS that recovers so well. My XP box, yeah, not so good in that regard. But for games, well, that's why it's under the desk.
p.1 #19 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
intero wrote:
With my present Mac I've had three, yes three crashes in the last 18 months - and one of those was on my motorcycle. Also, when an app goes south (cough, NX, cough), it's nice to be on an OS that recovers so well. My XP box, yeah, not so good in that regard.
I've had none on either my XP boxes or my Vista boxes. And an application like NX going south results in NX crashing, and my system remaining fully functional and totally stable.
As I said, if you like OS X, switch to OS X. It's a great operating system. You get the added bonus that fewer viruses and malware programs target it - though any decent virus protection program should take care of that, and I've not had a virus in 7 or 8 years. But user interface, in my opinion, is the primary reason to switch. The hardware is the same. Both systems crash. Both systems make good use of system resources and the speed is about a wash either way.
Pick the UI you like the best and go.
Edited by binary visions on Apr 03, 2008 at 10:45 AM GMT
p.1 #20 · Quad Extreme with Vista 64 or Mac with dual Quads???
Like I said prior, the only things that crash for me is my work computer and thats b/c its a low powered POS and I treat it like my custom built at home, so I have 13425325 programs open at once...i expect it to freak out every now and then. Let me rephrase...It slows down, sometimes to a dead hault, but it doesn't actually crash. It eventually comes back! OSX would cause me to lose EVERYTHING I was working on if it didn't like the program...the was no "its ok, I'll have everything saved if I crash" like you are making it sound. It works just like Windows, so don't boost it up to some God status like people love to do. Btw, Vista doesn't count. hahaha
