#: 90051 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  09:41:09
Sb: #90048-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Phil Williams 71121,2054
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

Robert

Well, I really don't feel abused, myself . . . maybe a little confused <g>.
So . . . let the discussion begin.  It may be old-hat to many here, but it
is a relatively new one for me. I got immersed in micro-computers in the
early 80's as a programmer. I chose the PC rather than Apple because it was
near impossible to write application software for the Apple back then, but
IBM was providing a programming language with their DOS (Basic) and
providing assembler compilers for under $100 along with all sorts of
technical documentation. It was a shotgun approach to providing software for
their machines. In reality, I'm not sure they really understood what they
were doing. I think they thought they were selling a hobbyist's plaything,
and as we've seen they got a tiger by the tail. They're still hanging on to
that tail, with a long way to go before they get control of the tiger.

Apple, as I see it, made the initial decision to control their platform's
software - to control the whole kit'n kaboodle.  This created an advantage
of a less confusing landscape of software for the new users that were
beginning to flock toward or were being forced toward computers - not sure
which group was larger <g>. I believe Apple also had faster machines
earlier, which provided a boost to their graphics programs or was it
program.  Add to that the focus that was applied to a much smaller software
selection and an easier graphical user interface and it's graphics took off.
You didn't need to be much of a technical person to operate in that
environment . . . not so with the other world.

But, it is becoming less of a need - to have to deal with the nuts and bolts
of the PC environment . . . and with programs like CorelDRAW! 4 (lastest
version) and now Photoshop, a host of DTP programs and some incredible Word
Processors that can deal effectively with graphics . . . it looks to me like
a neck and neck race, if you want to view it as a race.  That is certainly
not the only way to view the PC/Mac thing, or is it Mac/PC thing <g>.

     ...Phil...




#: 90067 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  12:44:41
Sb: #90051-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Phil Williams 71121,2054 (X)

Phil---

I'm glad you wrote at length, and I hope everybody will jump in -- this could
be a thread that achieves immortality in lib.16!

About ten years earlier than yourself, I went through similar, altho there was
no pc/mac choice. When there was, when you were making the choice, my reasons
were similar. Your "shotgun approach" phrase puts it rather well, and I agree
that I don't think They knew what They were getting set to unleash.

As for Apple. I think it was Charles Petzold who pointed out that given how
the GUI is hardwired into the machines, they will *always* integrate more
easily with programs and peripherals. The problem, of course, is closed
architecture vs. open architecture, and how one thinks about it. Or if one
thinks about it (one needn't -- in fact, a lot of people are better for not
thinking about it). I've heard apocryphal stories about the Interface Police
along those lines. Ironic, from the people who did that *wonderful( 1984-style
commercial. What continues to interest me is that if someone wants to program
a pc than can walk into Walden and have a couple of shelves of choices. If
that someone wants to program a mac, she/he will have a couple of books of
choices. That difference says an enormous amount, altho I'm still not sure on
the details. But I do think that, aided by marketing and the differences
(then) between character mode and graphics mode, that different perceptions
arose and different constituencies too. Now, of course, it's changing.

Two observations:

1. Fairly regularly in MacWorld and MacUser will be sidebars, editorials, etc.
making a very strong case for mac superiority over Windows. That may well be
true, but I wonder why they make it? After all, readers of those magazines
don't need convincing (or shouldn't?).

2. This probably says a lot about *me*. I had to transfer some mac-originating
AI files onto pc disks. I got it done, longer than it would have taken a mac
person. When I ran into difficulties, my first reaction was to say "hey, let's
get out of this GUI and onto the command line." Of course, we know I couldn't,
but the fact that I thought it...even tho I run windows about 95% of the time,
I will *not* let my autoexec.bat file automatically start windows. Geez---what
a headshrinker could do with that one!

%%robert

#: 90115 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  19:31:12
Sb: #90067-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

OK, let's talk about speed.

I've got PS on a Macintosh, and an 8 MB RGB file -- typical for me.

If I rotate it one degree, it takes 2:57.

You've got PS/Windows. How does it compare?

I'll tell you my hardware configuration when I hear some numbers.

I tried this on the DTP forum. I got lots of argument, but no one willing to
quote numbers.

--Paul


#: 90125 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  21:49:22
Sb: #90115-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

Paul---

I've never had cause to do any rotation of PShop stuff -- text in other
programs, all the time.

Jared S. who is a regular on DTPForum, and who hangs out here somewhat
(haven't seen him much of late) has PShop and actually had a thread here
awhiles back on rotation (things he was trying to do but couldn't). He might
be interested in timings. Perhaps some of our others will, too.

Me -- limited vision perhaps, but I don't spend much time with benchmarks or
comparing -- if it's fast enough for me, I'm happy (which is why I upgraded to
a 486 last December). Not saying your concerns are irrelevant...comparative
timings past a certain point just aren't my thing.

%%robert

There is 1 Reply.

#: 90132 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  22:21:20
Sb: #90125-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

I had a discussion with Jared about rotation, and he's not revealing any
numbers.

Speed is a real issue for those of us who manipulate hi-res images and bill by
the hour. Pick your task: size, rotate, resample, unsharp mask, and gaussian
blur. Doing any of these things on 30 MB files will chew up an awful lot of
time.

But that's not a secret to people who make a living with Photoshop. What's at
issue is how Windows compares as a Photoshop platform. For all the people who
claim that Intel hardware is zippier, I haven't yet seen any evidence that
it's better at prepress.

--Paul


#: 90170 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  09:23:24
Sb: #90132-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

Paul---

Odd that Jared has no numbers -- he's usually quyite forthcoming.

Your concerns are legitimate, especially from the business point of view where
time and money are symbiotic!

FWIW, my impression is that on general speed issues neither platform is
necessarily a champ, altho it may be on a specific issue. Usually when people
come here asking for advice on which platform we (both platforms) have tended
to say that the choice is going to rely on a number of other considerations.

Back when both versions of PShop shipped, Sherry London did some comparative
timings, since she's good on both platforms and has mac as her primary one.
I'm hoping she'll jump in on this, and she may be the person who can help you
with the comparative timings on rotations.

I'm very glad you're raising this issue, and I'm thinking seriously of
archiving this thread to lib 16.

%%robert

#: 90178 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  09:36:32
Sb: #90132-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Phil Williams 71121,2054
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

Paul,

I tried your 8 meg bitmap, 1 degree rotation on my PC world machine.  First
time thru it clocked at 1:15. Second time, presumably because there was some
mem cache help, it clocked in at 1:05. I'm using a Dell 466/M (486 66MHz)
machine with 28 megs of ram and I had a 2 meg mem cache set up at the time.

       ...Phil...

#: 90239 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  16:24:30
Sb: #90178-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Phil Williams 71121,2054 (X)

Thanks to you and everyone else for putting real numbers where wishful
speculation reigned.

So far, I see three 486/66s ranging from :45 to 1:25, and a Quadra 950 with
DSP at :38, and :51 without.

With all the people I've seen say that a fast 486 will "run rings" around a
Quadra, it's real useful to see how they work in practice. Right now, I'm in
the market for a closeout deal on a Centris 650.

--Paul


There is 1 Reply.

#: 90271 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  19:19:20
Sb: #90239-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

-->So far, I see three 486/66s ranging from :45 to 1:25, and a Quadra 950 with
DSP at :38, and :51 without.

The speed of the hard disks will make a huge difference in performance.
Assuming you don't have all the ram the file needs, any disk caching will
dramatically slow down operations and the HD can be a life savor. Disk Array's
are really fast. I have a MicroNet gig array and it's worlds of difference
over my single MicroNet disk (303mb) on my other machine. That's another nice
piece of hardware (array's) that Mac's have that I don't think PC's do (at
least they are very uncommon). Nice to be able to open or save a 30mb file in
less then 30 seconds!

BTW, the new Quadra's are very reasonable in price and pretty fast if you can
live with limited slots. Check out the Q605 or 650.

Andrew

#: 90361 S16/Photoshop
    10-Nov-93  10:59:29
Sb: #90271-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Mac Townsend 71732,2271
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

<heck out the Q605 or 650.>

I'm being lazy here, usijg the forum to ask a question i could probably dig
out myself in 30 min of looking thru magazines <g>

The Q605 (aka Performa 475) std config is 4/80. Is the memory easily popped up
to 8 (do it have 8 memory slots?) or does one have to remove 4 1-megers and
get some 2 megers? New 605's are avail around here for $929 (less video etc),
Performa 465 w/video/kbd for ~1450.

I'm half tempted to sell the Plus and PB100 for enuf to get a Q605, then use
the MacSynch and kbd from my IIcx...might coax me away from my 486 for some
things. :)

#: 90644 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  13:49:23
Sb: #90361-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Mac Townsend 71732,2271 (X)

If you're going to do anything serious look at the Quadra 610- it doesn't cost
that much more and has quite a few expansion options that the 605 lacks. I
like the 605 a lot, but for imaging and design applications it only makes
sense if you have other more robust machines around.

alan

#: 90735 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  21:01:03
Sb: #90644-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

What about the Q650, Alan? How does it fit in?

%%robert (who is trying to keep this 600 thingies straight)

There is 1 Reply.

#: 90779 S16/Photoshop
    13-Nov-93  09:32:23
Sb: #90735-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

The Q650 is really a great machine too- but I think I was talking about low
cost machines. the 650 is a good serious machine with room for a real 24 bit
video card and a DSP card- and the add on DSPs so far are better than what's
built in to the 840av. A good system can be built up for around $6K

alan

#: 90881 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  10:58:36
Sb: #90779-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

Thanks for the clarifications, Alan! Do I gather that 24 bit video and dsp
aren't options, then for the 610?

%%robert

There is 1 Reply.

#: 90905 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  13:06:20
Sb: #90881-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

robert,

I occasionally play around on a Centris 650. It *feels* like a 486SX/25 to me.
This is running Freehand in 16 megs of memory, and generally surfing through
the standard applications and the (CAN'T)FINDER.

I don't know what the difference between this machine and a Quadra 650 is...

Gary K.



#: 90930 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  18:09:04
Sb: #90905-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472 (X)

Thanks, Gary -- one of the mac mags said it was a centris in a quadra case.
fwiw....

%%robert

There is 1 Reply.

#: 90951 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  18:59:56
Sb: #90930-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

Quadra 610 is the old Centris 610, same with Quadra 650/Centris 650...

they are just trying to keep us all confused!

My bit of Mac advice is for people to beware of the Macs without coprocessors!
Centris 605, Quadra/Centris 610...

Most 3D programs plus a lot of 2D programs use the coprocessor quite often,
and Centris owners scream real loud when they find that the coprocessor
upgrade costs $400 because you have to replace the motherboard!


#: 91014 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  08:07:20
Sb: #90951-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542

All but the base version of the Quadra 610 come with a full 25mhz 68040. For
040 machines without a math coprocessor you pop the 040 CPU chip out of its
socket and replace it with one that has the coprocessor- you don't need to
replace the motherboard.

alan

#: 91072 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  15:29:49
Sb: #91014-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

Cool! Thanks for the info... I will have to check that out :)

But the question remains, how much are those chips?

-Julie

#: 91229 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  09:49:45
Sb: #91072-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542

>>how much are those chips?<<

I think they're $300-400, which means that in it's more economical to buy the
machine that already has the FPU (and Ethernet)

alan

#: 91282 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  13:46:09
Sb: #91229-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

Thanks, Alan!

That is pretty much what I had thought...  :)

#: 91139 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  19:39:08
Sb: #90951-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Deke McClelland 70640,670
To: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542

--> Quadra 610 is the old Centris 610, same with Quadra 650/Centris 650...

Unfortunately, it's not quite that straightforward. The Quadra 605 and 610
have slightly faster CPUs than the Centris 610; the Quadra 650 has a faster
CPU than the Centris 650. The Quadra 660AV, however, is identical to the
Centris 660AV. It's more than confusing. It's f---ed. As Alan mentioned, Q650
and Q800 are very nearly the same machine.

Just for the general pop, here's the 040 group, ranked according to speed and
RAM:

Computer                       Speed                 Max RAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Centris 610*                  20 MHz               68MB
Quadra 605                    25 MHz               36MB
LC 475                           same damn machine as Q 605
Performa 475                 ditto
Performa 476                 different hard drive or something equally
pointless
Quadra 610                    25 MHz               68MB
Quadra 660AV               25 MHz               68MB
Quadra 700                    25 MHz               68MB
Centris 650*                  25 MHz              136MB
Quadra 900*                  25 MHz              256MB
Quadra 650                    33 MHz              136MB
Quadra 800                    33 MHz              136MB
Quadra 950                    33 MHz              256MB
Quadra 840AV               40 MHz              128MB

* means discontinued (or soon will be)(

This doesn't take into account FPU and NuBus/PDS differences. I could check on
that if your interested.

--Deke

#: 91281 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  13:41:34
Sb: #91139-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

Thanks for the clarifications, Deke!

My head is reeling...

The FPU does make quite a difference though (especially from my standpoint
since our software uses it a lot)...

Makes me wonder who called the shots at Apple that we have so many machines?

-Julie



#: 91316 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  19:21:20
Sb: #91281-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Deke McClelland 70640,670
To: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542

--> Makes me wonder who called the shots at Apple that we have so many
machines?

I think they consulted the folks who invented 8-track tapes. What better way
to ensure obsolescence?

--Deke

#: 91499 S16/Photoshop
    18-Nov-93  07:07:37
Sb: #91316-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

 >> What better way to ensure obsolescence?

 Obsolescence? Obsolescence? We didn't order no steenking obsolescence. We
 ordered Opalescence.

#: 91013 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  08:07:17
Sb: #90905-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472

Centris 650 is a 25mhz O40, Quadra 650 is a 33mhz 040- functionally identical
to the Quadra 800 which is being discontinued.

alan

#: 91024 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  08:57:09
Sb: #90905-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472

<<(CAN'T)FINDER.>>

ROFL!

JC  |-(:-) 

#: 90961 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  20:59:24
Sb: #90881-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

24 bit video is an option for the 610 but I don't think there's room for
either 2 cards or the combo video and DSP card (SuperMac Thunder II I think is
a long card- the 610 takes short nubus cards) There are a few short 24 bit
video cards that fit.

are you thinking of getting a mac?

alan

#: 90976 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  22:27:16
Sb: #90961-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

Thanks for the extra, Alan!

Let's just say that if the price is right for a box which will run PShop for
my purposes...there are a lot of things I want to use which will either come
late to the Other Platform, or not at all.

%%robert (to whom it sounds like the Quadra 650 is the thing)

#: 91038 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  10:16:04
Sb: #90976-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

>>Let's just say that if the price is right for a box which will run PShop for
my purposes...<<

what's your budget?

alan



#: 91041 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  11:07:58
Sb: #91038-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

Wouldn't, for these purposes (since the Other Platform is my primary platform)
care to go over three thou, Alan. Lower is better. Of course, I get the
reverse sorts of questions all the time -- someone wants to run PShop on an
Intel box with an 80386 and 4 megs of ram!

%%robert

#: 91069 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  15:05:47
Sb: #91041-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

Three thousand on any platform will restrict you severely- do you do Photoshop
work professionally or as serious amusement? If you are doing paying work, it
wouldn't be hard to justify paying a bit more-

here's a starting point that has room to grow-

Quadra 650 8/230 CD around $2500
keyboard                   $ 100
Radius 24xp Pro 24 bit card$ 500  this only supports up to a 16" 832x624- if
you want higher
                                  resolutions cards start at around $900
16" Trinitron monitor      $1000  there are several suppliers- my favorite is
the
                                  new Sony 17se- it's almost flat and
multiscan- it
                                  might cost closer to $1200.

this is enough to get started, but obviously you'll need more RAM- I've helped
a few people get going and they are happy with 40mb- good enough to work with
big files occasionally to get some high quality output, but you wouldn't want
to do that every day. Other things I'd add- a Charger card $600, a fast 1GB
drive $900-1200, some sort of removable media, and a Wacom ArtZ tablet at
$300.

A pro level system would be built around a Q950 or Q840av with 128mb RAM, 2GB
HD (arrays are nice), Charger card, 24bit color card, removeable media, 12x12
Wacom tablet.

OTOH for the pro level, you might want an SGI workstation with a mid range mac
sitting next to it- this is the set-up that I'm gravitating toward- since the
price difference is far less than the performance difference.

alan



#: 91079 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  16:06:23
Sb: #91069-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

Not too different from the Intel world, Alan! Different chips, different
names, but the same general points. I'm *very* grateful that you took the
trouble to break it all down.

PShop wins is my primary platform and will in all probability remain so. But
there are various files/programs that I want to use before they get to the
Other Place -- if they ever do. So I don't need the same kind of souped up
system on a different platform at this point. Just one which will, say, allow
me to help someone with AI5 in its mac incarnation, or twiddle with
Dimensions, or get at the goodies on the hsc cd-rom when it's released.  For
this I don't even need 24 bit color, since I've got it on the Intel box, but I
*also* like to keep options open. Sounds like the Quadra 650 CD is *it*.

%%robert

#: 91150 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  20:50:42
Sb: #91079-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

I think this FITS technology out of France will have a major effect on
platform decisions as it proliferates. Currently, there are no plans to port
it to Windows. Also, Adobe is apparently talking to them about licensing.
Whatever the outcome, this is going to be interesting!

Gary K. /exit

#: 91232 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  09:53:25
Sb: #91079-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

Wait'll I publish the results of my EUNUCHS aka-aliased 48857765 with the PDQ
board operating in UnReal time. Guassian Blurs .0004 sec. Freudian Slips .3
nanoseconds. Rotate 33rpm. Impressive, no!

Do I win? What's the prize?...Rob

BTW the fact that nobody mentioned the volts and amps they were using did not
go unnoticed. Very unscientific.

#: 91245 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  10:55:39
Sb: #91232-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624

At this rate, you'll definitely win, Rob -- dinner for 50 with John Warnock.

%%robert

#: 91317 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  19:21:27
Sb: #91232-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Deke McClelland 70640,670
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624

Rob,

Did you wear a blindfold? It's no good unless you wear a blindfold. And a
spinal tap. Seeing your results, I suspect you were subconciously reminded of
your mother during the third test, hence your ridiculously inflated Freudian
Slips value. Furthermore, you left out the companion Freudian Ships, Snips,
and Skips values. It is quite sad to see a hard-core speed freak like yourself
slipping in these regards.

 --Deke

#: 91495 S16/Photoshop
    18-Nov-93  07:07:32
Sb: #91317-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

Freudiean Snips!?!

Why'd you have to bring Mrs. Bobbitt into this conversation?...Rob

#: 91322 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  19:30:56
Sb: #91232-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Nat Merriam 72202,142
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624



But can you download and format a floppy at the same time?


Nat



#: 91500 S16/Photoshop
    18-Nov-93  07:07:39
Sb: #91322-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142

 >> can you download and format a floppy at the same time?

Sure. Of course the floppy is no longer usable

#: 91238 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  10:13:00
Sb: #91079-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Mac Townsend 71732,2271
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

I'm in a similar sityation, #1 box has intal inside but need a 'tosh to be
able to do those things only a tosh can do well...like read 800k discs <g>...
but being *cheaper* than you i'm probably gonna toss a speedup card in the cx
and get away for $700 or so.

#: 91246 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  10:55:41
Sb: #91238-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Mac Townsend 71732,2271

Aaah, Mac -- but you've *got* one of The Other Platform! In your shoes, I'd do
what you're doing.

%%robert

#: 91395 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  12:23:17
Sb: #91246-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Mac Townsend 71732,2271
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

<ve *got* one of The Other Platform! In your shoes, I'd do what you're doing.>
One? how bout 4?<g> for serious work nothing beats supercalc2, DB2, and WS3.0
 all run from the dos2.1 prompt <BG> Seriously, when the tosh came out i went
 into one of "their" dealers and one of "their" sales people started showing
 the blamed thing to me; i reached for the mouse, he zipped it away and
started
 showing me McDraw something; i got up, left, and stayed with cpm (driving
 CompuGraphic typesetters as well as general stuff) until the NEC chip came
out
 that had 8080 microcode as well as 8088; bought a bundle at the SF PC Faire
in
 (86? 87? Just after Xenophan arrived home<g>) that was able to run all my cpm
 stuff as well as dos and then got goofy from there. About 2 yrs ago i was
 dragged kicking and screaming back to considering a tosh because i had bought
 a lino--with a rip running on a 386--and discovered i needed to read tosh
 discs. additional goofiness lead to acquiring three of the little rascals. :)

#: 91411 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  14:52:21
Sb: #91395-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Mac Townsend 71732,2271

That's a lot of rascals, Mac! Interesting saga, too!

%%robert

#: 91140 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  19:39:15
Sb: #91069-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Deke McClelland 70640,670
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

Alan,

Just thought I'd voice my support for the 650. Definitely the machine to get
in my opinion. I haven't fully weighed it against the 840AV, but my initial
feeling is the performance sacrifice is worth the less expensive price. I
think I'll be investing within the month. (My IIci's going into its death
throes, I think. 2nd bank RAM has bit the dust.)

--Deke

#: 91171 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  23:30:56
Sb: #91140-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Sam Merrell 76702,1252
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

Deke,

Wot's causing the RAM banks to go down?

Sam

#: 91318 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  19:21:31
Sb: #91171-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Deke McClelland 70640,670
To: Sam Merrell 76702,1252

--> Wot's causing the RAM banks to go down?

I think my computer was upset by my long absence. Actually, I don't know.
After a system error, it simply stopped working. I haven't changed by RAM
config in a couple of years. But it's definitely a logic board problem. Not
the SIMMs' fault.

--Deke

#: 91476 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  23:33:21
Sb: #91318-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Sam Merrell 76702,1252
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

Odd how these pups work one day and break the next. My cx was humming along
for  couple of years until all of a sudden the power supply died, the floppy
died, the monitor cazapitors died. All within about two weeks.

-S

#: 90781 S16/Photoshop
    13-Nov-93  09:46:43
Sb: #90644-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Mac Townsend 71732,2271
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

<ng to do anything serious look at the Quadra 610- it doesn't cost that much
more and has q>

yeah, but the 650 uses (blah, blah) and , gee the .... <g>

I didn't sell the plus, so all i have is enuf to go the daystar route anyway.
What's your read on this?

My Mac is merely an adjunct to the windows boxes i normally work with. All i
really do with it is read/write mac discs and play star trek screen saver. <g>

But, if you were used to a Q950 and had to to an AT for some things, you'd not
spend a lot of time there either. :)

There is 1 Reply.

#: 90868 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  08:44:25
Sb: #90781-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Mac Townsend 71732,2271

The daystar stuff I've seen and used is very good, the only disadvantage is
that you're stuck with the older SCSI of a ci or a cx- which probably doesn't
make much of a difference to you.

alan

#: 91223 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  08:37:48
Sb: #90868-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Mac Townsend 71732,2271
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

<The daystar stuff I've seen and used is very good, the only disadvantage is
that you're stuck with the older SCSI of a ci or a cx- which probably doesn't
make much of a difference to you.>

I kind doubt that scsi speed is a significant issue "yet"; pure cpu speed
seems to be the real snooze factor here <g>

Do you have any knowledge of the DiimoCache 030 50mhz cards being sold in
competition with the Daystar? TIA



#: 91278 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  13:36:01
Sb: #91223-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Mac Townsend 71732,2271

>>Do you have any knowledge of the DiimoCache 030 50mhz cards being sold in
competition with the Daystar?<<

nope- though theoretically it should give you close to the performance of a
25mhz 040-

The nice thing about the Daystar is that you'll probably be able to trade up
to a PowerPC board. All in all, it may be more economical to get a Q610 or
650- especially since you get a new one year warranty with it.

SCSI speed becomes a more critical limiting factor than CPU speed as soon as
you start working on images that are bigger than available RAM.

alan

#: 91396 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  12:23:23
Sb: #91278-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Mac Townsend 71732,2271
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

<ll in all, it may be more economical to get a Q610 or 650- especially since
you get a new one year warranty with it.

SCSI speed becomes a more critical limiting factor than CPU speed as soon as
you start working on images that are bigger than available RAM.>

I'd much rather get a 650 (the one with the intel co-processor, yet<g>) but
<s> there's only $700 available.

Thanks for your input....i'm half leaning to daystar if only because they've
been around for awhile and seem likely to continue. And with the release of
the 605 (advertised for $899 locally!, 4/80 config) it looks like 030
accelerator cards are dropping on price. :)

#: 91415 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  15:57:42
Sb: #91396-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Mac Townsend 71732,2271

-->i'm half leaning to daystar if only because they've been around for awhile
and seem likely to continue.

Don't forget their GREAT upgrade policy. IF you get that 030, you can always's
upgrade to an 040 (or PowerPC) by swapping the original board and paying a
modest upgrade fee. I've swapped up a accelerated board 3 times now.

Andrew

#: 90467 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  01:58:33
Sb: #90271-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

<Disk Array's are really fast.... That's another nice piece of hardware that
Mac's have that I don't think PC's do (at least they are very uncommon). Nice
to be able to open or save a 30mb file in less then 30 seconds!>

Stop, you're making me jealous.

Disk arrays are another whole range of high-performance options available to
Mac users. A 32-bit SCSI controller may give a PC pretty good disk I/O, but
they're still not common. I mean, what kind of transfer rate can you get on an
IDE drive?

<BTW, the new Quadra's are very reasonable in price and pretty fast if you can
live with limited slots. Check out the Q605 or 650.>

I can live with three slots (650), but not with one (605/610). Am I supposed
to do away with the video card just to get a DSP? (Or Power PC, for that
matter?)



#: 90515 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  12:40:17
Sb: #90467-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

--> Am I supposed to do away with the video card just to get a DSP? (Or Power
PC, for that matter?)

I don't have spec's in front of me but most of the newer Mac's don't need a
video card for 24 bit display's up to 16 inches. That's another real advantage
of the Macs. With out a video card, redraw is pretty fast and of course you
don't lose a slot. I've run Quadra's (900/950's) with both 13 and 16 inch
monitors with 24 bit color off the motherboard and they run pretty fast. When
you find you need a larger display then 16" then you need an accelerated video
board. But if you have that kind of budget (for a large monitor and video
card; that's at least 3 or 4 grand), you wouldn't be looking into one of the
less expensive Mac's anyway. All you need to do is add a meg or two of VRAM
(Video Ram) and off you go up to 16 inches. Cost of the VRAM is not bad, about
a few hundred dollars if that.

Andrew

#: 90681 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  17:50:34
Sb: #90467-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Bruce Fraser 72511,131
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

Paul,

<<Am I supposed to do away with the video card just to get a DSP?>>

SuperMac has a series of video boards that include a pair of DSPs on a
daughterboard. RasterOps has one in the pipeline too, I think.

Bruce

#: 90643 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  13:49:20
Sb: #90271-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

>>Nice to be able to open or save a 30mb file in less then 30 seconds!<<

You know that I value fast hard drive, and that I have questioned the value of
arrays (while acknowledging that a good array is faster than most single
drives) so I decided to do my own little test- for me a 41mb file opens in 25
seconds- this on a Quadra with 64mb RAM with 2 separate Maxtor 1240 drives.

#: 90795 S16/Photoshop
    13-Nov-93  13:26:17
Sb: #90643-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Steve Pollock 70244,1436
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

-->  so I decided to do my own little test- for me a 41mb file opens in 25
seconds- this on a Quadra with 64mb RAM with 2 separate Maxtor 1240 drives.

This would be thru std Apple SCSI, or whatever they call it?<g>  That's
impressive.  We both have the same drive, and I've not seen performance
anywhere *near* 2MB/sec.

Once I get the THIRD (in 8 months) replacement of this drive reinstalled, I'll
let you know what it does, if you're interested.<s>

Steve




There is 1 Reply.

#: 90869 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  08:44:29
Sb: #90795-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Steve Pollock 70244,1436 (X)

Standard Quadra scsi- sounds pretty good to me. Latest SGI news re SCSI is
that Indigo2 will support fast and wide, and that SGI has some software coming
that will allow a scratch disk system that doesn't go through the Unix file
system (which is a bottleneck for large image files and digital video)

Maybe you need a better SCSI adaptor- I was under the impression that faster
adaptors existed in the Intel world.

alan

#: 90694 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  18:11:08
Sb: #90178-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Phil Williams 71121,2054

<<I tried your 8 meg bitmap, 1 degree rotation on my PC world machine. >>

Just to clarify, this was an 8 meg RGB file?  The word "bitmap" denotes a
1-bit, BW image in Photoshop.

JC  |-(:-) 

#: 90780 S16/Photoshop
    13-Nov-93  09:35:27
Sb: #90694-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Phil Williams 71121,2054
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730 (X)

JC,

Sorry, my putertalk was off.  I was also using an RGB file for the test that
I made.  BTW, my results were rather mediocre compared to some of the other
results that I've seen in other messages - assuming they were using RGB as
well.

       ...Phil...



#: 90194 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  12:43:28
Sb: #90132-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

-->Pick your task: size, rotate, resample, unsharp mask, and gaussian blur.
Doing any of these things on 30 MB files will chew up an awful lot of time.

None are anywhere as bad if you have a DSP board and enough ram. Of course we
Mac users have been doing this stuff with DSP's for about a year now (couldn't
resist that jab <g>).

Andrew

#: 90219 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  14:40:56
Sb: #90194-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Steve Pollock 70244,1436
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

-->  None are anywhere as bad if you have a DSP board and enough ram.

Tom Kirby (950/Charger) shaved 8 sec off the time it took me to do it. Letcha
know next month what the Storm DSP is all about...the demo was pretty
compelling.  Was your's $399?

Steve




#: 90240 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  16:24:32
Sb: #90194-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

<None are anywhere as bad if you have a DSP board and enough ram. Of course we
Mac users have been doing this stuff with DSP's for about a year now>

You're right, of course. (I was saving that for a comeback, just in case.)

--Paul


#: 90591 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  22:05:34
Sb: #90132-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

Paul,

I have a Gateway 486/66/VL with 32 megs of RAM. I don't know about an 8 meg
RGB, but I worked on a 9.5 meg CMYK this afternoon and did a couple of
rotation adjustments. I would *guess* they took something like 30-45 seconds.
I would guarantee they did not take 3 minutes or even close. OTOH, I don't
think this necessarily a fair comparison. A MAC with a DSP card or whatever
might be more fair.

In a way, the longer rotation times would have been better--gives me more time
to lick the stamps on my invoice envelopes <g>.

Best,

Gary K.

#: 90724 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  19:56:11
Sb: #90591-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472

<In a way, the longer rotation times would have been better--gives me more
time to lick the stamps on my invoice envelopes <g>.>

Business must be good, Gary. There aren't enough independents around here --
people who are always thinking "how can I use this to put money in my pocket"!

Please, please, try the 8 MB RGB rotation. The fastest anybody's claimed for a
486 is :45.  On a Quadra 950/40 MB, it's :51 -- with DSP, :38.

I'm still waiting for someone to try it on a Pentium or a Quadra 840.

Best regards, Paul




#: 90819 S16/Photoshop
    13-Nov-93  16:53:37
Sb: #90724-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Bruce Fraser 72511,131
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

FWIW,

A 1 degree rotation on an 8MB RGB takes 37 seconds on my machine -- a IIfx
with a 3rd-party 33MHz 040 accelerator, and a Thunder II video/DSP board.
Photoshop has 64MB RAM.

Bruce

#: 91046 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  11:52:07
Sb: #90819-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Bruce Fraser 72511,131

Thanks, Bruce -- :37 for the Thunder II DSP is right in line with the :38
reported for Daystar Charger. You're a rare journalist that has credibility on
these issues.

With regard to the single slot video/DSP solution, it goes against my grain.
(I might not even consider it if How magazine hadn't just recommended the
Centris 610 as a cost-effective layout platform for designers.)

Having personally run up against the slot limitations of an 8088, 80286, and a
IIsi, I think it's a false economy under the best of circumstances. It's my
impression that the savings on a single-slot machine would be outweighed by
the cost of a Thunder II (tell me if I'm wrong). Give the flexibility to
select the lowest-cost options every time.

--Paul


#: 91093 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  17:05:23
Sb: #91046-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Bruce Fraser 72511,131
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

<<You're a rare journalist that has credibility on these issues.>>

Aw, shucks. <g>

<<With regard to the single slot video/DSP solution, it goes against my
grain.>>

I tend to agree. I was just mentioning the possibility, is all. Actually,
until I got the Thunder II, my IIfx had all six slots filled. I'm not actually
100% sure that the Thunder II will even fit in a 610. Doesn't the 610 demand
short cards? The Thunder II is long. I wouldn't buy a machine with less than
five slots myself....

You're probably also right on the cost issue. The Thunder II GX 1360 is the
top-of-the-line Thunder II, with a list price of $4449. Street prices should
be substantially less. They have cheaper ones that don't go up to the
1360x1024 resolution, and cheaper ones still that don't have the CMYK-->RGB
acceleration (that's the GX part), but I don't have a detailed product/price
list to hand.

Not that I think there's anything bad about putting the DSP on the video card,
per se.

Bruce

#: 90904 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  13:01:18
Sb: #90724-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Gary Kellogg 70771,2472
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

I tried the 8 meg/RGB rotation and got :44. (Had I been using my client
meeting timer, I suspect the rotation would have taken over 3 minutes)<g>.

I have had the money and, until about 6 months ago, the inclination to get a
serious MAC (I have a Classic II that I keep for diddling and file
translations). However, I just can't see the point any more. Perhaps when the
Power PCs come out I will take another look.

Remember, though, that we are entering into a time for both platforms when
both hardware and software will be getting massaged for max performance. Thus
any decision will be quite difficult until, I would guess, next fall or maybe
even 1995.

Gary K. /exit

#: 91023 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  08:57:05

#: 90133 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  22:23:27
Sb: #90115-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Nat Merriam 72202,142
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563



It took me 1:58 to rotate an 8 meg RGB file 1 degree under windows. I'm
running a 486dx/33 with only 8 megs of memory. Not exactly the ideal PS
machine (g). PS sees something like 4.25 megs of memory it can use when it
loads (I've got a 1M disk cache).

What setup do you have? Perhaps we could expand this and get several poeple to
run a variety of tests on different machines. It wouoldn't be a benchmark or
at all scientific, but it would be interesting to see how real life would
deviate from the benchmarks. Perhaps this could start a thread worth capturing
for new PS users, or hardware buyers to look at. We'll see what Robert
thinks...

Nat



#: 90171 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  09:23:27
Sb: #90133-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142

You've seen, Nat! Robert thinks it's a good idea. Do you and Paul pursue your
timings and let us know. Get others involved. This is definitely a thread for
posterity!

%%robert

#: 90177 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  09:33:26
Sb: #90133-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142

Thanks for the feedback. I've got a IIsi (68030, 20 MHz) with 17 MB RAM, but
Photoshop runs in a 6 MB partition. (I also added a 32 KB RAM cache, which
isn't standard.)

This isn't an ideal PS machine, either. But I got the idea of testing it when
I saw a Richard Reilly column about six months ago. He rotated 8 MB files on
486/66 and a Pentium machine with Picture Publisher, and got times of more
than 8 minutes and 4 minutes, respectively. Now, that's really slow.

(By the way, there's evidence that a big disk cache just gets in the way of
I/O for big files. Some Mac PS users do away with it entirely. My tests show a
real slowdown with more than about a 500 KB cache. I get the fastest results
with a 100 KB cache.)

--Paul


There are 2 Replies.

#: 90186 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  11:09:40
Sb: #90177-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Steve Pollock 70244,1436
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

Paul,

-->  I saw a Richard Reilly column about six months ago. He rotated 8 MB files
on 486/66 and a Pentium machine with Picture Publisher, and got times of more
than 8 minutes and 4 minutes, respectively. Now, that's really slow.

I'll have to agree w/ you about that.  Wonder how much RAM he had available on
the two machines. You finally got me interested...took 45sec on my 486/66.
23sec w/ nearest neighbor.

-->  a real slowdown with more than about a 500 KB cache. I get the fastest
results with a 100 KB cache.)

I've heard this said about Mac's...have NO idea what's going on there.  On a
PC, there's some real advantage to a *h/w* disk cache.  For large serial
transfers, it's not much help, but in between, decidedly so.  For smaller
saves (<8MB, in my case), the file is written to RAM on the disk controller,
then to disk at leisure...that can be pretty quick.

Steve




#: 90238 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  16:24:28
Sb: #90186-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Steve Pollock 70244,1436 (X)

<Wonder how much RAM he had available on the two machines.>

OK, I looked it up. Richard O'Reilly, August 2, 1993. He's reviewing a Compaq
Deskpro 5/60M. I think he's talking about the 24 MB configuration, but it
could be 8 MB.

  A scanned color photograph, which requires about 8 megabytes of disk
  storage, takes about eight minutes to rotate 90 degrees using Micrografx
  Picture Publisher on a 486/66 machine; the Compaq Pentium does it in 4
  minutes 10 seconds. (The same task inexplicably took 17 minutes on
  another 486/66 model.)

Of course, in Photoshop, a 90 degree rotation is *much* faster.

<On a PC, there's some real advantage to a *h/w* disk cache. For large serial
transfers, it's not much help, but in between, decidedly so. For smaller saves
(<8MB, in my case), the file is written to RAM on the disk controller, then to
disk at leisure...that can be pretty quick.>

So how big is your hardware cache? I have the option of putting 16 MB on my
PC's SCSI controller, but I thought software caches were faster for standalone
work -- don't have to use the I/O bus.

--Paul



There are 3 Replies.

#: 90264 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  18:47:53
Sb: #90238-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Steve Pollock 70244,1436
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

Paul,

-->  storage, takes about eight minutes to rotate 90 degrees using Micrografx
Picture Publisher on a 486/66 machine; the Compaq Pentium does it in 4 minutes
10 seconds. (The same task inexplicably took 17 minutes on another 486/66
model.)

I hope you don't mind when I say that this O'Reilly fella must be on drugs.
Til now, we've been talking about a 1 degree rotation which is *considerably*
more work than 90 because of the interpolation involved.  An 8MB image rotates
90 degrees on my system in 3-4 sec.  That's essentially the same as it is in
Picture Publisher.  Maybe he meant an 800MB file?<g>

The cache on my controller is 8MB.  I don't have any figures to substantiate
this, but I'd say the performance is considerably better than a similar size
s/w cache.  If it were going to keep me from devoting more RAM to PS, I don't
think I'd get too excited about it.

Steve





#: 90468 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  01:58:34
Sb: #90264-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Steve Pollock 70244,1436 (X)




#: 90469 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  01:58:37
Sb: #90264-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Steve Pollock 70244,1436 (X)

<I hope you don't mind when I say that this O'Reilly fella must be on drugs.
Til now, we've been talking about a 1 degree rotation which is *considerably*
more work than 90 because of the interpolation involved. An 8MB image rotates
90 degrees on my system in 3-4 sec.>

On my little IIsi the 8 MB image rotates 90 degrees in 18 seconds.  But
someone suggested that Photoshop must just "change the coordinates," so I
decided to make it a *real* test.

There might have been something screwed up with the O'Reilly tests. That's why
I'd sooner listen to people who actually use image-editing systems and know
how to configure them.

--Paul


#: 90495 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  09:45:14
Sb: #90469-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Steve Pollock 70244,1436
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

-->  There might have been something screwed up with the O'Reilly tests.

To me, this seems to be a *real* common problem in PC mags in general.  If I
see another comparo of high-end, screamer, video cards that benchmarks 'em at
800x600x256, I'm gonna scream.  Or an *Ultimate Mac-PC Showdown* that runs all
the testing w/ 8MB RAM.  When are these folks going to get in touch w/
reality?

-->  I'd sooner listen to people who actually use image-editing systems and
know how to configure them.

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons why Bruce Fraser's Mac reviews are so
illuminating.

Steve




#: 90273 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  19:19:29
Sb: #90238-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

-->A scanned color photograph, which requires about 8 megabytes of disk
  storage, takes about eight minutes to rotate 90 degrees using Micrografx
  Picture Publisher on a 486/66 machine; the Compaq Pentium does it in 4
  minutes 10 seconds. (The same task inexplicably took 17 minutes on
  another 486/66 model.)

All those times (including the Pentium) sound REALLY slow. Next time I have
PhotoShop booted, I'll see how long it takes to rotate an 8mb file using a
DSP. Off hand, I would guess it would take a minute or less.

Andrew

#: 90275 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  20:42:00
Sb: #90238-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

Boy was I off on the rotate times! I created a file that's 8mb. Time for a 90
degree rotation was 5 seconds! And I thought it would be under a minute. To do
the same rotation at 45 degrees was 54 seconds and to do the rotate at 46
degrees was 46 seconds!

Andrew

#: 90195 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  12:43:34
Sb: #90177-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

--> I've got a IIsi (68030, 20 MHz) with 17 MB RAM, but Photoshop runs in a 6
MB partition.

IF you assign say 12 or 13mb of ram to PhotoShop it will go faster. Why only
assign 6mb when you have so much more? Just leave enough ram for your system
and give the rest to PS.

Andrew

#: 90236 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  16:24:20
Sb: #90195-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

<IF you assign say 12 or 13mb of ram to PhotoShop it will go faster. Why only
assign 6mb when you have so much more?>

Actually, the results with a 14 MB partition were virtually identical.

The way I use PS typically is to load it first, then Quark (another 6 MB),
leaving enough room for Illustrator as well as a spare meg for utilities.

Sometimes I do 25 MB files. Then I'll dedicate all the memory to PS.

--Paul




There is 1 Reply.

#: 90270 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  19:19:09
Sb: #90236-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

-->Actually, the results with a 14 MB partition were virtually identical.

That would be the case with files that are over 3 or 4mb. Since the rule of
thumb is to give PS 3 to 5 times the files size in ram, every little bit can
help if you're border line as far as the file size. I'm in a similar position.
With 40mb of ram, working with 18mb to 40mb files, I'm not getting anything
close to max speed. But with 6 to 8mb files, I'm close enough to get to the
magical ram number where there's no disk caching. I'm told that even if you
don't have the 3-5 times the file size, the closer you get the better.

-->The way I use PS typically is to load it first, then Quark (another 6 MB),
leaving enough room for Illustrator as well as a spare meg for utilities.

For doing copy and paste I guess you have no choice. Since I only work in PS,
it's getting all the memory I can send it with nothing else running.

Andrew

#: 90278 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  20:51:23
Sb: #90177-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Nat Merriam 72202,142
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563



I agree about the disk cache -- it hurts me in PS, but most of my other work
is helped by it, so I leave it running. It's too much of a pain to change it
and reboot.

What do you think, would you be interested in doing a bettery of timings,
probably at some point getting more exacting about the system setup? I think
it might be useful for people buying new PS systems, or at least as a point of
reference in the PC/Mac debate, looking at less that idealized systems (and
hopefully some idealized ones, too).

 Anyone else out there interested? I think variety is the key in something
like this, especially if it's run in conjunction with the PC/Mac debate that's
going on right now. We could also probably use some input from various sources
on what type of timings would be useful for testing whole systems (math
coprocessor, memory, VM, caches, video, etc). Ideas: rotating 90 deg (no
interpolation necessary), enlarging, reducing, color manipulations, maybe some
greyscale and CYMK operations? I'll try to think of some exact operations, and
post my system and timing information. It would be great if some others jumped
in on this and posted as their time allowed...

Nat



#: 90281 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  21:34:14
Sb: #90278-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Steve Pollock 70244,1436
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142 (X)

Nat,

Maybe this'll stimulate yer thought process.  A PHOTOF member, Jim Kasson
performed this test in mid-summer.  One of the only folks I know w/ a
well-configured Mac & PC.
----------------------------------------------

This document contains the results of an informal set of benchmarks
comparing the performance of the most popular image editing package
for the Macintosh and the three most popular image editing packages
for the IBM PC and compatibles.  I attempted to set up the systems
with similar or identical peripherals.  The Mac software tested was
Adobe Photoshop version 2.5.1b5; the PC software was Adobe
Photoshop version 2.5, Aldus PhotoStyler version 1.1a and
Micrographx Picture Publisher 4.0.

The systems used for the testing:

Apple Quadra 950 (33 MHz Motorola 68040 processor), 128 MB
RAM, 1 GB Seagate (Imprimis) Wren SCSI Disk, Radius Accelerated
24 bit Display Adapter, Toshiba 3301B CD drive, System 7.0

Hewlett-Packard Vectra 486/66U (33/66 MHz Intel 486 DX2
processor, EISA bus), 64 MB RAM,  1 GB Seagate (Imprimis) Wren
SCSI Disk, Radius Accelerated 24 bit Display Adapter, Toshiba 3301B
CD drive, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.1

Disks were freshly unfragmented, and no other programs but
Microsoft Word were running during the tests.  I selected operations
which would not cause swapping on either machine, so that the greater
RAM on the Mac wouldn't give it an advantage.

Load 18 MB (PCD) Image from Hard Disk
PhotoStyler           0:32
Picture Publisher     0:19
Photoshop/Mac         0:25
Photoshop/PC          0:27

Load Full-resolution (Horizontal) Photo CD Image from PCD
PhotoStyler          10:30
Picture Publisher     2:32
Photoshop/Mac         2:44
Photoshop/PC         10:40

Save 18 MB Image (PCD) Image to Hard Disk
PhotoStyler           0:37
Picture Publisher     0:28
Photoshop/Mac         0:49
Photoshop/PC          0:37

Histogram of 18 MB PCD Image
PhotoStyler           0:14
Picture Publisher     0:38
Photoshop/Mac         0:13
Photoshop/PC          0:19

Gamma Change for 18 MB PCD Image
PhotoStyler           0:17
Picture Publisher     0:44
Photoshop/Mac         0:09
Photoshop/PC          0:06

Unsharp mask of 18 MB PCD image, 40%, radius 3, threshold 1
PhotoStyler            N/A
Picture Publisher     4:45
Photoshop/Mac         3:02
Photoshop/PC          1:55

Gaussian Blur of 18 MB PCD image, radius 4
PhotoStyler            N/A
Picture Publisher      N/A
Photoshop/Mac         2:59
Photoshop/PC          1:44

Rotate 18 MB Horizontal PCD Image 90 degrees
PhotoStyler           0:40
Picture Publisher     0:24
Photoshop/Mac         0:14
Photoshop/PC          0:07

Convert 18 MB RGB Image to CMYK
PhotoStyler           0:47
Picture Publisher     0:11
Photoshop/Mac         2:31
Photoshop/PC          2:59

Summary: Except for anomalies here and there, the performance
difference among these programs and platforms is not great.  The PC
platform provides slightly better performance than the Quadra in most,
but not all, cases.  Note that no DSP accelerators were used.  They are
readily available for the Mac, but the PC accelerator market is
immature. The differences in the RGB to CMYK conversion between
the two versions of Photoshop and the other programs are likely
related to the complexity and quality of the algorithm, rather than the
efficiency of the implementation.

Additional comments: Photoshop is by the most versatile of the
programs, but Picture Publisher offers some appealing, unique
features.  The new version of Picture Publisher has some performance-
improving features that require different ways of dealing with the
image and are not used here.  Many people expect a new release of
PhotoStyler soon, which could bring its feature set closer to Photoshop.

Thanks to new drivers, and better information on tuning, the Windows
environment is much more stable than it was a year ago, and most
operations are about as reliable under Windows as under System 7.
The Windows programs provide much crisper response than the Mac
program, updating windows more rapidly and giving control back to
the user sooner.  After working in Windows for a while, I have a
tendency to think the Mac didn't respond to my mouse click and do it
again, when it was just slow.


Steve


There is 1 Reply.

#: 90289 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  21:52:52
Sb: #90281-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Nat Merriam 72202,142
To: Steve Pollock 70244,1436 (X)



Thnaks for posting that -- good food for thought. FWIW, I've had that same
feeling about the crispness of response from Windows...


Nat

#: 90470 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  01:58:40
Sb: #90278-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142

<... what type of timings would be useful for testing whole systems (math
coprocessor, memory, VM, caches, video, etc). Ideas: rotating 90 deg (no
interpolation necessary), enlarging, reducing, color manipulations, maybe some
greyscale and CYMK operations?>

Well, I'll be glad to help, and try to recruit some others, as well. My guess
is that the most important variables are available RAM and (for large files)
disk type. As for operations, rotation at an odd angle is essential; that's
bread and butter. The other common time wasters are resampling, sharpen and
blur.

I think I want to see two sets -- one for a file that will fit in most
anybody's physical RAM (say 1 MB), and the other for something likely to swap
to disk (20 MB or more). That should separate processor performance from disk
operations pretty neatly.

Seeing how things run on our less-than-ideal systems would be at least as
instructive as what happens on a no-expense-spared setup.


#: 90516 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  12:40:22
Sb: #90470-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

-->As for operations, rotation at an odd angle is essential; that's bread and
butter. The other common time wasters are resampling, sharpen and blur.

Again, these are all operations that a good DSP will greatly accelerate. Color
space conversion and PCD acquire are on the way too (along with other neat
speed up's).

Andrew

#: 90569 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  20:15:26
Sb: #90470-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Nat Merriam 72202,142
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563



Okay. Lets say to post test results on a 1M file and a 15M file. How about
gaussian blur, unsharp mask and resize to start. Blur at .5, Sharpen with .5
for all but threshold, wich is 0. Resample the image to half the number of
pixels, then resample it to twice the number (back to the original number).
I'll try to post my results here after I send this and start a new thread for
it, too...


Nat



#: 90583 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  21:42:24
Sb: #90569-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142

Nat---

Good idea. Just so everyone tracks it, how about a thread name which points
back to this one? Like:

Mac vs. PC Part 2 Daughter of Mac vs. PC Mac vs. PC Rides Again

%%robert

#: 90697 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  18:11:30
Sb: #90583-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

Points of clarification:

Files are RGB, correct?

What are we timing?  (e.g. Gaussian blur: click OK 'til progress dialog
disappears, or until redraw is complete?  Seems redraw would be affected by
the video card speed, and make processing times seem longer on slower cards.
Or am I off the mark here?

JC  |-(:-) 

#: 90736 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  21:01:06
Sb: #90697-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730 (X)

I dunno, JC -- I'm sort of sitting back and letting all the other young people
thrash this out.

%%robert

#: 90954 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  19:24:07
Sb: #90583-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Julie Sigwart 71333,3542
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

Ok, Robert, you asked us to jump in...

Take a look at this thread. To this point we have seen that the best machines
rotated a 10 meg file in 20-some seconds. I think the PC may have been a
little faster than the souped up Quadra 950. Pretty impressive, I must admit!

But this whole discussion is like comparing King Kong to Godzilla, two very
powerful but different animals. My questions don't lie in which is more
powerful, but rather in what it is that makes them powerful. What we really
need is innovative programmers that can keep up with the hardware
advancements!

The same Macintosh II that was on the market five years ago is much more
powerful and *faster* today. The reason is the software.

I have seen a stock Quadra 950 with 32 megs of RAM open up a 500 meg file in
two seconds. Rotate the file in 2 seconds. Open 5 more images 100-500 megs, 2
seconds each.

Is this possible?

If you say that the entire files are not being used, that is correct. But that
is the whole point! Better software!

Imagine being able to work real-time with images, in 48-bit color with
ulimited controllable undos, unlimited size real-time brushes in an object
oriented environment... being able to resize or reposition images in an
eyeblink...

I have seen it, it is unreal, it is the future of image editing...

#: 90696 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  18:11:23
Sb: #90278-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142 (X)

<<It would be great if some others jumped in on this and posted as their time
allowed...>>

I'm in...  post the tests and I'm ready to run 'em.

JC  |-(:-) 



#: 90190 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  11:57:59
Sb: #90115-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Tom Kirby 76645,112
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

Paul,

I just tried the rotation thing on an 8 meg file(1496x1870 Pixels).  I've got
a Quadra 950, 40megs of ram(37 to photoshop), and a Maxtor 1.2 gig drive, and
a Daystar Charger.  With the Charger enabled, 38 sec. with out the Charger, 51
sec.

Tom


There are 2 Replies.

#: 90191 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  12:24:07
Sb: #90190-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Tom Kirby 76645,112
To: Tom Kirby 76645,112

Paul,

I just tried Nearest Neighbor, the Charger dosn't seem to kick in. It is 25
sec.

Tom



#: 90196 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  12:43:40
Sb: #90190-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Tom Kirby 76645,112

-->With the Charger enabled, 38 sec. with out the Charger, 51 sec.

Good deal. However the larger the file, the more significant the speed gains
with the DSP. I saw a USM operation on an 18mb file go from 6 minutes to 2
minutes with the DSP. And I "only" have 40mb of ram on my Quadra 900. That
means there was some slowdown for VM with the Charger.

Andrew

#: 90213 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  14:05:34
Sb: #90196-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Tom Kirby 76645,112
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

Andrew,


-->With the Charger enabled, 38 sec. with out the Charger, 51 sec.

That's about 25%, nuthing to sneeze at.

Tom



There is 1 Reply.

#: 90230 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  15:17:23
Sb: #90213-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Tom Kirby 76645,112 (X)

-->That's about 25%, nuthing to sneeze at.

True but with big files it should be much more % than that. The Charger Pro
will shave off 40% compared to the original Charger.

Andrew

#: 90198 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  12:50:01
Sb: #90115-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Pawel  Bodytko 70733,644
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

Paul,

I just did what you asked for. I am curius myself and would like to know the
truth.

On my machine it took 1 minute and 25 seconds and I did heard the hard drive
running - something was spooling in the background, because there were 2 other
programs minimized (Packrat and WinCis)

It is not the latest in PC setup. It is ISA machine (slow 16 bit bus), not the
local bus with the high speed controler), the video is without any
accelaration.

The CPU is fast (486 66mhz DX2) and the machine has enough memory for an 8 meg
file (32 megs RAM). My typical file size on this machine is about 12-14 meg.
After that things get "too virtual". From what I hear it is the "virtual
world" where Mac has an edge, when you run out of RAM... Any thoughts on that?

Pawel

#: 90237 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  16:24:24
Sb: #90198-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Pawel  Bodytko 70733,644 (X)

<the machine has enough memory for an 8 meg file (32 megs RAM). My typical
file size on this machine is about 12-14 meg. After that things get "too
virtual". From what I hear it is the "virtual world" where Mac has an edge,
when you run out of RAM... Any thoughts on that?>

Yeah, I do. I used to try to do image editing on PCs (8 to 16 MB RAM), and
anything larger than a few MB would choke the system.

It wasn't until I got a Macintosh a couple of years ago that I learned it
didn't have to be so.

For six months after I got the IIsi, I only had 5 MB RAM (PS had only 2 MB). I
worked on a lot of 8, 10, 12 MB files; it thrashed a lot, but it never quit.
Even with 17 MB RAM I don't hesitate to work on files twice (or more) the size
of the available memory.

My wife's 486 with 4 MB RAM won't even complete the 8 MB rotation test.

My theory is that DOS/Windows memory management is just too awkward to deal
with large files.  (And I've also heard that ISA machines have difficulty
addressing more than 16 MB RAM.)

But that gets into stability issues. And they're even more important to me
than speed.

--Paul


#: 90283 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  21:42:35
Sb: #90237-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Nat Merriam 72202,142
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563



I just did the rotate test with a 16M file (on my 8M machine). It didn't
choke, but I certainly wouldn't want to do it a lot. I don't think there's
necessarily something wrong with ISA or the DOS memory management, as it
worked fine. I've had it stop before when I've run out of disk space for the
swap file, but nothing to indicate the system couldn't handle it.

I do agree that Macs have the edge over PCs in virtual memory, though...


Nat



#: 90073 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  12:56:05
Sb: #90051-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Phil Williams 71121,2054 (X)

<<it looks to me likea neck and neck race, if you want to view it as a race.>>

As a deeply-ingrained Mac user, I haven't entertained the notion until now,
but with Windows and Photoshop PC, etc, and my need for a second computer, I
was looking at having one of each.

Most of my work is Photoshop, and I understand it's identical on the PC.  So I
sez to myself: why not?  I can use PC Photoshop right away without a learning
curve problem, and have the advantages of both platforms.

Then I start talking to PC people and the acronyms pour forth (ISA, EISA,
Windows NT, DOS commands, Extended/Expanded RAM, etc, etc.).  My eyes start to
glaze...

I need a fast processor, 128mb RAM minimum, 24-bit hi-res accelerated color on
at least a 16" display, 1gb+ HD with 3mb+ sustained data transfer rate,
removable media (Syquest), and DAT.

This is some heavy hardware for a novice to buy without help.  Also, what's
Windows NT?  Is it out yet?  And I've heard about multiple Pentiums on one
motherboard.  Is this reality yet?

It should be obvious that I'm in it pretty deep.  The easiest thing would be
to retreat back to familiar Mac territory.

Any assistance will be much appreciated.

JC  |-(:-) 

There are 2 Replies.

#: 90092 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  15:54:19
Sb: #90073-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Bob Murphy(UK) 100112,3124
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

>> This [PC] is some heavy hardware for a novice to buy without help

I think JC has hit the right note here. The one thing that strikes me about PC
users is that if they stray at all off the straight & narrow, then they must
*expect* to enter the world of big problems. I'm speaking as a committed PC
user with no real experience of MACs. I went thro the process a year ago of
deciding whether to set up in DTP on PC or MAC and the main reason I stayed
with PC was that I new that if, or rather when I hit problems then I knew
sufficient about PC's to be fairly sure that I had a *problem* and wasn't just
suffering from finger trouble.

What I didn't realise is that the majority of MAC users just do not seem to
have the problems we PC users suffer from. Secondly, I feel that we are so
used to being given the run arround by the likes of Microsoft that we put up
with all sorts of delays in resolving problems. The frequency with which
updates to MAC versions of products appear (eg Photoshop & Quark) owes more to
PC user patience than to the larger market size of the MAC product. Mind you,
I suspect that a lot of PC users enjoy that environment - I admit that I do a
bit myself. However, when a contract is in jeopardy, enjoyment goes out the
window.

Going back to my decision to stay with PC rather than go to MAC, if I'm honest
I think I made a mistake. My comment about "straight & narrow" is so true that
using such *odd* devices as hi res graphics boards, Syquest removable drives,
scanners, film recorders & additional external drives is a step into the
unknown. We PC users consider it successful if we update some hardware &
*only* have to chase arround for a corrected driver for 2 or 3
versions/weeks/months/bulletin boards. All of these devices are common place
on MAC. I now have my systems working, but I run in crippled mode because of a
fault between Adaptec SCSI & Photoshop; the original Agfa PC driver for the
scanner never worked well & things have only now improved with their new TWAIN
driver only needing reinstalling every other day; the #9GXiTC graphics board
is now so reliable that I think it causes a GPF only every couple of weeks;
Adobe will not respond to MAIL messages re a reported bug in P'shop; Corel
Draw 3 is a pig when it comes to handling Postscript & version 4 is a joke;
.......    We could all go on at much more length I believe than our
equivalent MAC colleagues.

Having said all that, in an odd way I am glad that I stuck with PC, but please
don't ask me why ...... maybe I'm just plain stupid!!!!!!!!

No doubt many will say that PCs are cheaper, & I would agree, but the real
question is about cost effectiveness & value for money in a DTP or image
processing business environment. When these are taken into consideration, then
I'm not so sure.

Regards (& awaiting the wrath of the PC fraternity<g>) ......Bob

<SL note: "drift" on Corel edited out here>


#: 90095 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  16:46:29
Sb: #90073-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Phil Williams 71121,2054
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

JC,

Unfortunately, although I once made my living as a programmer, I was never
very hardware oriented.  I used high level languages (Pascal and C) and
generally wrote programs for worst case scenarios (early 286's) in the text
based world.  Now that I'm in the exciting world of graphical interfaces and
graphics programs, I'm having a lot more fun!

That said, I'm not sure the Pentium is really very helpful just yet, but it
is probably a good idea to get a computer that can be upgraded to a Pentium.
Supposedly that will be possible with 486 DX2-66 systems.  I'm using the
DELL 466\M and looking forward to the possibility.  From my experience and
all I've read and heard, the single most important area of concern for the
PC and graphics is RAM - gobs of RAM.  If you are working with small hi-rez
images, you can probably get away with 16 megs, but if you start playing
around with full page images 24-bit in hi-rez, you better get at least 64
megs.  In fact at todays prices, the meggage could cost you more than the
computer. Along with the RAM, lots'a storage is a necessity. Removable media
is very desirable and necessary when dealing with large files. My next area
of concern is going to be my video. Don't know much about it as yet. I will
be as interested to hear what people have to say as you are.

<<< It should be obvious that I'm in it pretty deep.  The easiest thing
    would be to retreat back to familiar Mac territory. >>>

Naww!  Keep at the migration . . . it's a good path to be on.

       ...Phil...



#: 90104 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  18:00:00
Sb: #90073-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

JC---

You've gotten good feedback. So much so, in fact, that I'll be brief.

1. It's a jungle out there when you're familiar with one platform and trying
to dope out the other (I try to keep up with what my mac brethren are up to).

2. There's no doubt that on *either* platform, doing serious PShop stuff
requires Serious Iron on your desktop.

3. It's a myth that PCs are buggy and crash-prone, and Macs the opposite. The
truth lies somewhere in the middle; each platform has its crazies (I'm not
referring to people, altho that's true too <g>).

4. On NT. It gives *me* a whanging headache trying to figure out M$ and the
three varieties of Win32. Does even worse to developers. Best take: nobody
knows whotthehell is going on, nor will they, until Chicago (aka Windows 4.0)
has been in beta long enough for leaks to get out (they always do). People are
hedging their bets right now. The kind of iron you'd need to run PShop well
out of regular windows will do it for whatever operating systems turns out to
be the true Latest and Greatest.

I repeat: it's a jungle out there!

%%robert



#: 90481 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  05:15:34
Sb: #90073-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Robert Gilchrist 100031,3050
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

Dear JC

I haven't kept track of this thread, so what I am about to say may be
redundant - in which case, you can skip it!

I am a WIN/PC user.  I have never used a Mac but have friends who do, so most
of my Mac experience has merely been looking over someone else's shoulder.
However, I have been using PC's ever since there were PC's.

It seems to me that the PC is becoming more MAC like all the time, with its
Windows GUI; SCSI interface; availability of 24 bit colour cards and Mulimedia
devices etc..

Windows approaches the Mac GUI, though clearly not as well. The excellent OS/2
(w/ Presentation Manager) is posibbly a better comparison (to system 7?).
Windows itself will not be object oriented until Windows 4.0 arrives.

The SCSI interface is now a defacto standard for a high-performance PC.
Unfortunately, many peripherals (scanners, tape drives, CD Roms) come with
their own SCSI interface, whether you want one or not.  The serious user buys
a high-end bus mastering SCSI interface e.g. Adaptec.  Such a user daisy
chains his peripherals togethjer (a la Mac) then finds he has redundant
expensive interfaces.  The other users either run out of disk slots, or more
commonly, run out of software interrupts (IRQ's). This is because installing
an adapter card in a (ISA) PC requires more than plugging it in. You need to
record the I/O ports, Address space and Interrupts that it requires and
manually ensure that you have no conflicts.  And that is, I'm afraid, only
part of the PC hassle:

You want a top performing system.

[More]

There is 1 Reply.

#: 90482 S16/Photoshop
    11-Nov-93  05:15:37
Sb: #90481-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Robert Gilchrist 100031,3050
To: Robert Gilchrist 100031,3050

[Continued]

You must be prepared for some research _after_ buying, to get the stuff to
work!  The following is taken from my direct experience (and remember, I'm a
PC enthusiast!<g>)

You want a good 24bit accelerated colour card.  You will find (among others)
that the Matrox MGA is well regarded.  Nevertheless, if you buy one, you will
have to connect to the manufacturer's BBS to obtain an up to date driver.

You'll possibly want a Wacom digitiser.  Like me, you might find their 12"x12"
model an attractive proposition.  You'll be dissapointed to find though, that
if you want pressure support in Windows, you 'll have to sacrifice the Windows
Write program (the equivalent of the Mac TeachText). You'll also find that the
supplied drivers don't work.  You might, like me, be just a little fed up
after downloading 500k replacements three times without improvement.

You will definitely want a good SCSI interface.  Adaptec products must be a
safe bet, after all, all the major OS's (including OS/2 and WIN NT) have
support for Adaptec controllers in their kernel code.  But I just bought a
brand new controller, only to find that Photo CD's didn't work with it. Back
to the manufacturer's BBS to find that the software has been updated. I have
plenty more examples - the point I want to make is that this is the reality of
putting together a high-performance PC - and doing the same thing on a Mac my
be just as bad, for all I know, but I somehow doubt it - perhaps you could
tell me?

You asked about WIN NT.  As I am sure others will have told you, disregard it.
I'd be happy to explain at length if you want, but believe me, I'm right!

Bob


#: 90066 S16/Photoshop
    08-Nov-93  12:35:32
Sb: #89976-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Sean Marshall 75230,1054

<<If you want to be on the platform with all the accessories on it pick the
Mac. If you don't care, it probably doesn't matter.>>

I already use the Mac.  I'm ready to get a second platform and am wondering if
it might be time to cross the line.  I don't know squat about PC's tho'.

JC  |-(:-) 

#: 90140 S16/Photoshop
    09-Nov-93  00:37:09
Sb: #90066-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Sean Marshall 75230,1054
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

I already use the Mac.  I'm ready to get a second platform and am wondering if
it might be time to cross the line.  I don't know squat about PC's tho'.
---------------

Gee, now that's a hard call! Would you believe, it depends <G>. I guess you
need to look at the benefits vs. liabilities. With a second platform you have
access to almost everything and with CI$ you will be able to get around most
of what might ail ya. One quest I'd ask myself is, "Do I need something in the
next two months" by then you can start shopping for one of the new systems.

Sean Marshall




#: 90695 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  18:11:17
Sb: #90545-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

A neat trick I use on my ci is to run a 13" hi-res color monitor off an
inexpensive board in one slot. This is where I put the photo.

Then the on-board video runs an inexpensive BW monitor for the palettes.  Most
of my photo work is done zoomed in anyway so a big monitor is not that useful
for me.

JC  |-(:-) 

#: 90723 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  19:56:09
Sb: #90545-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

<There's really no need to accelerate the video on a 16" monitor; especially
for PS.>

That's nice to hear (since my largest monitor is 16 inch). But not because
"accelerated" cards aren't cheap and plentiful these days; it's just that it's
hard to get a handle on how they compare, or what they're worth in real
practice.

That's another difference between Macs and PCs. Getting video drivers for
Windows is a nightmare. When you're talking about large-screen 24-bit color
for EISA machines, there aren't a whole lot of choices -- and not a whole lot
of confidence that they'll work right.

--Paul


#: 90755 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  22:18:55
Sb: #90723-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

-->That's nice to hear (since my largest monitor is 16 inch).

For PS, acceleration for 16" is not going to do much (if anything). For Quark
or other type's of graphic programs, there *may* be a difference. And 2.5.1 is
so much faster at redraw with the tiling. I alway's felt that accelerating
video was the last place I would spend my money. Put it into ram or a DSP. Of
course with really large monitors, acceleration is nice. I did a seminar a
while back and had some vendors send me some big monitors and accelerated
cards. Since I had the hardware for a few day's I popped one of the video
cards into my machine but saw NO difference with or with out this expensive
board on a smaller monitor. Big difference with a 21 inch monitor!

Andrew

#: 91048 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  11:52:11
Sb: #90755-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

<For PS, acceleration for 16" is not going to do much (if anything). For Quark
or other type's of graphic programs, there *may* be a difference.>

I sure wish someone would tell us about Quark. 16-bit preview is great, but
the redraw is painful.

--Paul


#: 91133 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  18:46:52
Sb: #91048-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

>>I sure wish someone would tell us about Quark. 16-bit preview is great, but
the redraw is painful.<<

painful- that's an understatement- it looks beautiful, but it can take weeks
to redraw- and an accellerated video card doesn't seem to make much difference
(though I suspect giving Quark some more RAM might help.) For all the hype of
the 3.2 upgrade, screen redraw is still a big problem- it would be easier to
live with if it were interruptable, and redraws weren't forced by *some*
windows obscuring the page but not others.

alan

#: 91358 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  23:04:36
Sb: #91133-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

(though I suspect giving Quark some more RAM might help.)

How much more? I give it 6 MB already.


#: 91390 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  11:03:43
Sb: #91358-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

>>How much more? I give it 6 MB already.<<

I've been giving it 6-10mb- and it actually doesn't make that much of a
difference.

alan

#: 91141 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  19:39:23
Sb: #90755-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Deke McClelland 70640,670
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

Actually, I and the Macworld Lab folks just got done running a series of
"real-world" tests with the newest crop of 24-bit accelerated video cards, and
we found roughly equal speed gains with PhS as with QXPress, especially in
scrolling department (which is only area in which we found speed gains in just
about any program). Still not convinced acceleration is worth it. I can't give
you numbers--wouldn't be prudent, eh?--but thought you might like to know that
our tests yielded definite results.

Also, difference between 16- and 19-inch monitors was linear.

--Deke

#: 91155 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  21:15:40
Sb: #91141-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

So what you're saying is you agree that video acceleration is not such a big
deal. I guess if you are lucky enough to have a 21 inch monitor then the idea
of acceleration may be appealing. I don't use Quark but I've seen some page
layout and other kinds of programs that are real slow redrawing images that
one would consider small for PhotoShop.

Andrew

#: 91315 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  19:21:16
Sb: #91155-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Deke McClelland 70640,670
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

For the user on the budget, this is my early take: If 24-bit video is all
you're after, get a $500 card from Lapis, Radius, or E-Machines. When you want
speed, hook the monitor to the built-in video--which tends to be faster than
even accelerated video since it relies on direct memory access instead of
NuBus--and suffer through 8-bit or 16-bit or whatever the best setting is.
When working with Word, Excel, or other non-graphic apps, lower screen depth
to 4-bit or even 1-bit for even better speed. When you absolutely need 24-bit
video, shut down, hook the monitor to the 24-bit video card, and restart.
It'll be slower and a little bit less smooth, but it's probably be better than
forking out $2000 for accelerated video.

If you have the money, accelerated video is perceptably better in all apps,
including Photoshop. But don't expect it to make you more efficient like more
RAM, bigger hard drive, or DSP. It's in many ways an aesthetic issue, like
24-bit vs. 16-bit.

As I said, this is an early opinion. I may revise slightly after mulling it
over some more.

--Deke

#: 91346 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  21:04:55
Sb: #91315-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

On board video is the hot ticket. I just purchased an Apple 16" monitor for
one of my systems. I had two monitors both 13" and one was hooked up to on
board video, the other to an Apple 8/24 card. I've discovered something weird
and wonder if you've ever seen this. The monitor running off on board video
seems to "shake" a little; the image is not completely still. However the
monitor off the card is fine. I've switched them but that doesn't do anything.
It's not a problem as the shake is very, very minor but if you look closely
you can see this. Just wondering if you or other's with on board video have
ever seen anything like this.

Andrew

#: 91392 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  11:03:57
Sb: #91315-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Deke McClelland 70640,670

The Radius 24xp Pro card at under $500 gives you accellerated 24 bit video on
a 16" monitor- I believe it is the same as its big brother ($2K) except for
VRAM and a more limited set of resolutions. With an accellerated card, 24 bit
is actually faster than 8 bit for most things (MSWord scrolls are definitely
slower though.)

alan



#: 90760 S16/Photoshop
    12-Nov-93  23:31:29
Sb: Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Skip Gerwin 71753,1110
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

Paul

I guess I'll add my 2 cents worth.

Dash 30 w 115mb of ram assigned to PShop. 8mb greyscale rotated 1 degree
clockwise. 33 seconds w/DSP. 65 seconds w/o DSP.

Skip

#: 91047 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  11:52:09
Sb: #90760-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Skip Gerwin 71753,1110

<Dash 30 w 115mb of ram assigned to PShop. 8mb greyscale rotated 1 degree
clockwise. 33 seconds w/DSP.>

That's the fastest yet!  I wonder if if would be slower on an RGB file.  Why
don't you try it (1672 pixels square, RGB)

--Paul



#: 90844 S16/Photoshop
    13-Nov-93  22:28:14
Sb: Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142

 >> in the PC/Mac debate,

Hiya Nat! Back again. Hey what's the crux of the PC vs. Mac debate? Don't tell
me it's a variation of the Ford vs. Chevy debate of the 70's, which was a
variation of the old "mine's bigger than your" debate of Junior High. I
certainly hope it's got more substance. How 'bout bringing me up to speed
Seeing as I have both platforms, I've got something to bug both sides. Any
frothing mouths yet?...Rob

#: 90899 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  12:25:24
Sb: #90844-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624

<<How 'bout bringing me up to speed Seeing as I have both platforms, I've got
something to bug both sides. Any frothing mouths yet?...Rob>>

No frothing, here.  We're all cooperating in a quasi-scientific timing study
of PS on different platforms.

See msgs.#90570, 90725, 90569 for more, assuming they're still around.

Basically, here's the story:

2 Files; 591x591 pixels and 2290x2290.

Run timings on each of the following for both files:

Gaussian Blur at .5
USM at 5%, .5 Radius, 0 tolerance
Rotate 1 degree
Resample to 1/2 dpi (1/4 size file)
Resample back up to original size

Time from mouse click to beep.

Post results to "Mac vs. PC Shootout Times", along with your config info,
including cache size, enhancements, RAM allocation to PS, and any other
pertinent info.

Meanwhile, contribute any comments and experience with either platform here in
this thread.

BTW, I started all this with a query about the feasability of crossing over
from Mac to PC on my next purchase.  As a person with experience on both, I'd
be very interested in your comments.

JC  |-(:-) 

#: 90966 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  21:34:16
Sb: #90899-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

Hmm. Seems like a drag race and not much more. The best test is to find how
much money per hour/per buck of investment the average designer and
illustrator can produce on either platform...after all, we are speaking of
tools and not aesthetics. Using both platforms, my vote would have to go to
the PC. It's the biggest bang for the buck. Windows is also just a wee bit
more transparent than System 7. The Mac philosophy (if you can call it that)
is based on a user interface with the lowest common denominator of user. They
don't expect them to try to get under the hood. The hoodlatch on Windows is a
bit easier to pry open. The major difference I see is PC is aproximately 2/3
the price of Mac for comparable function and power in the real world.

However, I don't sit around with a stopwatch timing my artwork. Sounds like
something that would be done by some of the folks Gulliver encountered. ..."Yo
Rembrandt, how long did it take you to bang out that Night Watch pitcher?"
Sheesh...talk about the Ugly American! Sounds like we've got a technological
wart-growing farm right hyar in this hyar forum...Rob



#: 90978 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  22:27:20
Sb: #90966-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624 (X)

Feliciter loqueris, mi Rodbertule! Credo ut nos concordes simus hac de re;
nunc tibi alteras epistulas mitto.

%%robert

#: 91032 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  09:46:56
Sb: #90978-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

Gratias tibi ago. Parva leves capiunt animas.

#: 91042 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  11:08:00
Sb: #91032-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624

Recte loqueris, Rodbertule. Fortasse hae animae leves magnam iram de nostris
epistulis capient!

%%robert

#: 91231 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  09:53:23
Sb: #91042-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

We've gotta stop meeting like this. Amos et andy <G>...Rob

#: 91237 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  10:12:57
Sb: #91042-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Mac Townsend 71732,2271
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

<Recte loqueris, Rodbertule. Fortasse hae animae leves magnam iram de nostris
epistulis capient!>

nokiddingus!

#: 90985 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  00:16:36
Sb: #90966-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Pawel  Bodytko 70733,644
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624 (X)

Rob,

I agree with a lot of what you say about the economics of our work... But,
what are you doing writing notes to people you don't know on Sunday afternoon?
My guess is (looking at myself) that you enjoy doing that. Keeping the time
scores is a part of this game, also a good indicator that maybe there is a
better way to do what what we do. Rembrant worked "in real time" -- our
"reasonably priced computers" don't yet, and we want them badly to.

By the way, I do sit with a stopwatch timing my artwork, what's the
difference? The artwork doesn't care... (It also won't make any difference on
the quality or the caliber). And the price for it still will be what I can get
away with... The stopwatch doesn't bother me a bit anymore...

Pawel


#: 91033 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  09:46:58
Sb: #90985-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Pawel  Bodytko 70733,644

 >> I do sit with a stopwatch timing my artwork, what's the difference?

Pawel, that reminds me of a rejoinder a musician made when asked "what is
jazz," to which he replied..."if you've got to ask, you'll never know."
Somehow, a stopwatch seems better suited to micro-management and athletics,
rather than artistic creation and aesthetics. I could be wrong on this, but I
doubt it...Rob

#: 91352 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  22:14:24
Sb: #91033-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Pawel  Bodytko 70733,644
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624

Rob,

>>>Somehow, a stopwatch seems better suited to micro-management and athletics,
rather than artistic creation and aesthetics. I could be wrong on this, but I
doubt it...

If the athlets and managers can do that why can't we, the artists? (Of course
for diferent purposes).

Please do notice that I don't go around asking "What is art?" (ver. of "what
is jazz") - If I didn't know it myself I definitely wouldn't rely on others
prople views. Got my own brain so I try to use it - both its sides.

Yes, using watch, washing dishes and doing other things that require
discipline don't come naturally but in the end they make everything so much
easier... I don't know what would I do without this "stopwatch" In my case it
is very transparent, I use PackRat a PIM program. Click "on" when I start
working on something and "off" when I stop, it is a part of a rutine, a habit
like turning the computer on and off. You can larn it, too... Sometimes I am
late billing people for my work, and getting the total time spend on a project
is very helpful when my memory is failing. In the end it is up to me if I want
to use the amount given by the computer or not, and I do exercise this
freedom...

Pawel



#: 91501 S16/Photoshop
    18-Nov-93  07:07:40
Sb: #91352-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Pawel  Bodytko 70733,644

Oh, I see how you're using the stopwatch. I agree that it would be helpful for
production shops that bill by the hour. Whereas the bigger studios bill on a
project basis, it wouldn't be of much use. I imagine we could really alienate
the creative types if we instituted something that resembled punching a time
clock...Rob

#: 91021 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  08:53:41
Sb: #90966-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624 (X)

<<The major difference I see is PC is aproximately 2/3 the price of Mac for
comparable function and power in the real world.>>

Most of the time I'd agree. But before you make any generalizations, go see
your local PC configuring expert and say you want a SCSI bus that will pump
4-7mb/sec SUSTAINED, and suddenly the answers start to look a lot different.
Forget those $700 motherboards.

<<"Yo Rembrandt, how long did it take you to bang out that Night Watch
pitcher?" Sounds like we've got a technological wart-growing farm right hyar
in this hyar forum...>>

This is definitely not the usual MAC/PC piddling contest that goes on around
here.  Both sides are attempting to gather actual data.

BTW, Rembrandt wasn't trying to push out Night Watch 10 times a week. Just the
one.

JC  |-(:-)

#: 91164 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  22:31:49
Sb: #91021-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

 >> say you want a SCSI bus that will pump 4-7mb/sec SUSTAINED,

Why would I want that? Aside from keeping up with the Jones', how much benefit
will I derive from it. I'm asking honestly and not in a contentious tone.

 >> Both sides are attempting to gather actual data.

Possibly so, but the tenor of the discussion leads one to the conclusion that
very few MAc afficianados will dump their gear and buy PC's or vice versa.
Thus, one would have to conclude it's all self-congratulatory and not in the
spirit of scientific inquiry (whatever that may be).

Truthfully, if you found that the other platform was 10% faster, how would
that affect your future? How about 20%? 50%? Hey, there are platforms on the
market that'll blow the doors off of both Mac and PC, why not get one of them?
Yeah, yeah, I know...you've got too much money invested in what you already
have. And that's my point; if you know you're going to stay with what you've
got, all you're doing is running a drag race and the Chevy guys will go home
to their Chevy garages and likewise the Ford guys. Nothing changes...Rob

There are 2 Replies.

#: 91202 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  02:06:41
Sb: #91164-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Nat Merriam 72202,142
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624


I think this whole thing started when somebody came by asking if there was a
mac vs. pc thread in the libs, so they could look at it while researching the
choice for their company (I may be mixing this up). There is presently no
thread or debate on the topic filed away, so we dicided to have one. I doubt
that anyone in the debate will actually change their minds, but it is a
convenient way to get out the benefits and shortcomings of both systems so
that people who are just now having to chose have some "expert" opinions on
the subject (it couldn't be any worse than looking in a mag).

Nat



#: 91419 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  16:31:27
Sb: #91202-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Nat Merriam 72202,142 (X)

 >> it couldn't be any worse than looking in a mag)

It's got to be a darn sight better than reading a magazine review. After all,
none of the forum participants (factory reps excluded) have to answer to
potential advertisers.

#: 91279 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  13:36:07
Sb: #91164-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624

>> >> say you want a SCSI bus that will pump 4-7mb/sec SUSTAINED,

Why would I want that? Aside from keeping up with the Jones', how much benefit
will I derive from it.<<

You would want it if you were working on large images (>30mb) because you'd
see how much of your time was eaten up by I/O- whether opening/saving or
swapping to disk.

The main thing to be gained from reading these things is that for high
performance, Mac and Intel based machines cost about the same, and both
require some work to wring maximum performance out of them. I've already
reached the conclusion that for me, neither the mac or the pc is the answer
(but in 6 months a mac with PowerPC will be a much more attractive option than
a Pentium machine.)

What matters is whether or not you are able to get your work done quickly and
efficiently, and that the tools allow you to deliver a good creative product,
and that you can continue to convince your clients that what you are
delivering is what they need.

alan

#: 91422 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  16:31:35
Sb: #91279-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

>> in 6 months a mac with PowerPC

Hmmm, Echoes of those "happy" 840av owners who are now screaming that PS
doesn't run right on their jacked-up 8-wheel drive 2000Amp ghetto blasters --
all you've got to do to get it to run PS is buy this extra gizmo and that
extra whatsit and soon you'll have invested enough to have purchased a
high-end graphics station. Duhh, they didn't tell me that at Comdex when they
took my order. Well Bunkie, that's what happens when you've got to be the
first kid on the block...you end up -- On The Block, the chopping block, that
is.

After dealing with one of the first released Q800's I'm convinced that the
ghost of Steve Job's rotten attitude is hanging around Apple like the stench
of a corpse secreted in the walls. As their coat of arms says..."Screw 'em,
where else have the suckers got to go." Hey, I like doing business with a
company that has the same kindly attitude toward its customers as does the
IRS.

As Mr. Rogers says..."you can spell Guinea Pig, 'cause you're special." Sorry
Alan, I'll wait until the Power PC has been sitting in insecticide for a year
or so. Who knows, it might live up to its promise as well as the 840av!...Rob

#: 91461 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  21:01:53
Sb: #91422-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624 (X)

I've never heard of any problems getting Photoshop to run on an 840av- what I
did hear is that people were disappointed that Photoshop didn't automatically
take advantage of the DSP chip in the 840av. I bought one of the first Quadras
(a 900, two years ago now)- people screamed about problems- but I have to tell
you - I really didn't have any, and there's a good reason- a month before I
bought the thing, I went through my entire system looking for the software
that I needed on the new machine, and checked with each vendor whether or not
it worked. Everything that I needed did work- Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop
as well as assorted utilities and extensions. It is not possible anywhere to
buy a new machine and expect that it will run everything that ran on a
previous generation of machine. I firmly believe that Apple (and the entire
Intel world) have been too kind in making new machines and new releases of
system software backward compatible with obsolete software and hardware- it's
kept certain things from moving forward. Hey, I won't defend Apple further,
but their machines that I have now and had in the past have worked very well,
and I'll buy others in the future. This doesn't mean that Apple is the only
solution.

Where computing power translates into productivity, I'll always go for the
most powerful system- computer power is cheaper than my time, and I'd rather
spend my time thinking and trying to do good work than waiting for a stupid
machine.

>>> soon you'll have invested enough to have purchased a high-end graphics
station.<<<

well, that's what you're almost getting. I don't know if you've priced a high
end graphics system lately, but even an Indigo2XL with Eclipse will cost a
minimum of $30K.

alan

#: 91357 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  23:04:32
Sb: #91164-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Roberts Howard 71514,3624

<... the tenor of the discussion leads one to the conclusion that very few Mac
afficianados will dump their gear and buy PC's or vice versa. Thus, one would
have to conclude it's all self-congratulatory and not in the spirit of
scientific inquiry (whatever that may be).... all you're doing is running a
drag race ...>

Now, wait just a minute. I started this because I wanted some real numbers to
compare PCs and Macs as a Photoshop platform. As a matter of fact, I have both
 PCs and a Macintosh. The 386/33 and the IIsi are both a couple of years old,
but only one is going to get upgraded. This discussion is very meaningful to
me.

1. There are a lot of people who will say that PCs are just as good as (and
cheaper than) Macs for electronic publishing. In particular, you hear over and
over again that a 486 will "run rings" around a Quadra. What's the truth?

2. A few months ago, I read a newspaper report of an image editing test on a
Pentium. I tried the same test on my little IIsi -- it was substantially
faster. (These things don't add up.)

Now, there's lots of things to be considered when making platform comparisons.
24-bit video and service bureau compatibility are important to me.

Speed, however, has the simplest relationship to productivity, and it's the
easiest to measure. (And I'd rather swim the Atlantic in an iron lung than try
to hash out subjective questions such as ease-of-use.)

So, why not test a few claims? I decided to get some PS/Win users to compare
results.

What does it mean? A 10 or 20 percent speed difference is not significant to
me, certainly not relative to other factors. Realistically, though, my $5,000
capital budget might not get me within 50 percent of the top end.

But at least I won't have to listen to a lot of hot air about what I'm
missing.

--Paul


#: 91391 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  11:03:52
Sb: #91357-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

>>1. There are a lot of people who will say that PCs are just as good as (and
cheaper than) Macs for electronic publishing. In particular, you hear over and
over again that a 486 will "run rings" around a Quadra. What's the truth?

2. A few months ago, I read a newspaper report of an image editing test on a
Pentium. I tried the same test on my little IIsi -- it was substantially
faster. (These things don't add up.)<<<

I think what you may be finding is that CPU performance is only one factor in
overall system performance, and that once you start dealing with large files,
I/O subsystem performance becomes the critical variable in performance- memory
speed, maximum available RAM, hard disk speed, and system and SCSI bus speed.
Most of the additional hardware that speeds up both machines costs the same on
either Mac or PC (fast hard drives and RAM). There's nothing I've seen that
would make it worthwhile for me to get a Pentium machine to replace my Quadra-
since most overall performance comparisons seem to end in a draw, and there
are compelling reasons to stay with the mac for the future, with PowerPC CPUs
promising 3-4x the performance of 040 machines for native applications
(Photoshop should be one of the first)

alan

There is 1 Reply.

#: 91405 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  13:23:54
Sb: #91391-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

<... CPU performance is only one factor in overall system performance, and
that once you start dealing with large files, I/O subsystem performance
becomes the critical variable in performance- memory speed, maximum available
RAM, hard disk speed, and system and SCSI bus speed.>

I couldn't agree with you more. As a general rule, the file size I want to
work with seems to expand to fill all the virtual memory available. (Apology
to C. Northcote Parkinson.)

Thank you for your description of the $6,000 "starter" system. It's along the
lines I've been thinking (except that a slide scanner is higher on my list
than a digitizing tablet).

The promise of a Power PC upgrade board is a major inducement -- it's not
often that you can see clearly more than a year or two in the future. I just
hope the Quadra 650 will get an add-in just as quickly as the Centris 650.

--Paul




#: 91431 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  17:37:18
Sb: #91405-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

>>(except that a slide scanner is higher on my list than a digitizing
tablet)<<

switch that on your list- if you have a CD-rom, you can get Photo-CDs made-
they can be very good. For the things that it doesn't do well you have to go
to a drum scanner- which is considerably more $$ than you or I would spend to
buy. I cannot work without the Wacom tablet- it is an absolute necessity for
any kind of Photoshop work- once you've used one, you'll feel the same way- it
is a very precise tool. The Nikon coolscan sounds nice, but I don't scan
enough 35mm to need it- most of my work work is 4x5 or 8x10, so I have drum
scans made.

Quadra 650 and Centris 650 are identical except for clock speed- these two
machines and the IIvx will probably get the same upgrade board for PowerPC.

alan

#: 91482 S16/Photoshop
    18-Nov-93  00:40:26
Sb: #91431-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

<if you have a CD-rom, you can get Photo-CDs made>

I don't shoot film.  All the slides I use are existing photography --
client-supplied or stock. I send a substantial amount of stuff out for drum
scans. It's just that I hate having to send out for FPO images.

<I cannot work without the Wacom tablet- it is an absolute necessity for any
kind of Photoshop work- once you've used one, you'll feel the same way- it is
a very precise tool.>

I believe you, though drawing isn't my forte. At one time, I did a lot of
tracing and redrawing maps, which would probably have been *many* times easier
with a tablet.

<most of my work work is 4x5 or 8x10>

So just what are you doing? You've sure got some high-powered hardware.

--Paul


#: 91403 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  13:01:34
Sb: #91357-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563 (X)

-->Now, there's lots of things to be considered when making platform
comparisons. 24-bit video and service bureau compatibility are important to
me...A 10 or 20 percent speed difference is not significant to me, certainly
not relative to other factors. Realistically, though, my $5,000 capital budget
might not get me within 50 percent of the top end.

That being the case, I would suggest you stick with the Mac. Yes more and more
SB's will offer PC work but at this time, the large majority are Mac based (as
are design firm, ad agencies, and pre press shops). I don't know where you
live but that can be a factor too. I'm in LA and there's a SB on nearly every
corner. I still find that most SB's cater to Mac much more than PC. I don't
think that you will find much more than a 10 to 20% difference in speed
between systems unless you include "exotic" (it's really not exotic, more like
expensive) hardware like 256mb of ram in a box, disk array's or DSP's, all of
which are available on the Mac and have been for some time. I'm also a firm
believer that the Mac platform will continue to see the latest greatest
goodies first (Live Picture for example or DSP's). This of course can all
change in a few years especially with PowerPC on it's way. But then again, in
a few years what ever machine you have will be slower then the current crop of
machines (PC or Mac/PowerPC). That doesn't mean what you buy today will not
work. You *could* work with PhotoShop on either your 386/33 or the IIsi but
when you consider how much faster you could be working if you had the latest
equipment, it's hard to sit down with either machine.

I agree that this on going test we are doing is worth while. You get an idea
of speed from various systems. You may also want to know what kinds of
headache each system is generating to the end user and the time it takes to
set up and learn the system. I also think the argument that the Mac is much
more expensive than a similar PC is less an issue. Apple has been lowering the
prices on their equipment for some time now. Plus the costs for fast hard
disk, ram and such are very similar on each platform (when available). To just
look at the differences in the box's without considering the other pieces of
equipment is dangerous.

Look forward to seeing the compiled data from the tests and what you end up
buying.

Andrew

#: 91483 S16/Photoshop
    18-Nov-93  00:40:31
Sb: #91403-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Paul Serrano 76336,563
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

<Look forward to seeing the compiled data from the tests>

So do I. Actually, I'd like to analyze it, though I'm not an expert with
spreadsheets.

<what you end up buying>

I'd been looking at a closeout deal on the Centris 650, but now the Quadra 650
is within $350 of that price.

--Paul



#: 91502 S16/Photoshop
    18-Nov-93  07:07:43
Sb: #91357-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Roberts Howard 71514,3624
To: Paul Serrano 76336,563

 >> at least I won't have to listen to a lot of hot air about what I'm
 >> missing.

Oh yeah! Wait'll the first kid on the block shows up with a Power PC. And the
DX2/100 and DX3/99 owners will be crowing that their rigs do wheelies across
the desk.<G>

I remember when I was in art school (back in another geological era) and
everyone was trying to paint with this or that Lost Painting Medium of The
Masters. Well of course, the attempts were all crap student work, but that
didn't deter the searchers...maybe Sargent used a special brush, or pencil. If
only they could get one of those fabled tools, they too would be another
Sargent or Rembrandt. We're still waiting for them to transform into something
resembling an artist, let alone a master.

It's like the old jazz song says...It ain't the meat, it's the motion...Rob

#: 90981 S16/Photoshop
    14-Nov-93  22:56:07
Sb: #90899-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Pawel  Bodytko 70733,644
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730 (X)

Here it is: 486 66DX2, 32 meg RAM, 3 IDE hard drives 2x120 meg + 245 meg 64
meg swap file, not accelerated Video Card at 1024x768x256 with 1 meg VRAM

591x591 pixels in RGB (1meg)

Gaussian Blur at .5                   > 6 sec. USM at 5%, .5 Radius, 0
tolerance     > 8 sec. Rotate 1 degree                       > 9 sec. Resample
to 1/2 dpi (1/4 size file)   > 6 sec. Resample back up to original size     >
6 sec.

2290x2290 pixels in RGB (15 meg)

Gaussian Blur at .5                   > 2 min. 10 sec. USM at 5%, .5 Radius, 0
tolerance     > 2 min.  5 sec. Rotate 1 degree > 3 min. 13 sec. Resample to
1/2 dpi (1/4 size file)   > 1 min.  4 sec. Resample back up to original size
>        59 sec.

I run a digital clock on the bottom shering the screen with PShop. The clock
"freezes" during the time PhotoShop does recalculation. The number abover
reflect the moment the clock starts running again...

Pawel

#: 91068 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  14:59:28
Sb: #90899-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: J.C. Bourque 71600,2730

-->2 Files; 591x591 pixels and 2290x2290.
Run timings on each of the following for both files:

Gaussian Blur at .5
USM at 5%, .5 Radius, 0 tolerance
Rotate 1 degree
Resample to 1/2 dpi (1/4 size file)
Resample back up to original size

Time from mouse click to beep.

OK here are my results on two systems:
(Did all tests several times. Times posted are average of all tests. The 10th
of a seconds are hard to time especially when working with the smaller files.)

System #1 is a IIci with a DayStar 33mz 040 accelerator w/cache. 20mb of ram
(16mb to PS).DayStar Charger DSP and a MicroNet 303 mb drive with SCSI-2
board.

1mb file with above pixel size created new:

Gaussian Blur -----2.80 seconds
Rotate 1 degree ---5.55 seconds
Resample Down -----2.18 seconds
Resample Up -------2.92 seconds
USM ---------------4.22 Seconds

15mb file:

Gaussian Blur -----52 seconds
Rotate 1 degree ---1 minute, 33 seconds
Resample Down -----28.71 seconds
Resample Up -------29.21 seconds
USM ---------------1 minute on the nose


System #2/. Quadra 900 accelerated to 34mz with a Newer VSO. 40mb of ram with
35mb assigned to PhotoShop. MicroNet Raven gig array drive. Charger PRO DSP.
The Pro is a newer and faster DSP that uses KEPS precision filters. Both USM
and Gaussian blur are available as KEPS filters so I timed these as well (they
are faster and said to be better too). A rotate and resize filter is available
but I didn't do time tests since this seems unfair. This filter does both
operations at once!

1mb file with above pixel size created new:

Gaussian Blur -----2.91 seconds** (2.21 seconds with KEPS)
Rotate 1 degree ---5.59 seconds**
Resample Down -----2.65 seconds**
Resample Up -------2.92 seconds
USM ---------------3.49 Seconds   (2.21 seconds with KEPS)

**Interesting that the IIci seems to be a tad faster than the Quadra. However
we are only dealing with 10th's of a second difference which could be human
error in timing. It also shows that small files totally in ram going to the
DSP don't make much difference with native processors since the DSP is doing
all the work. Same is true of the HD's. The Quadra should be a little faster
but with files in Ram and the DSP, both machines are about the same. PLEASE
NOTE that all these operations are going to the DSP; none are using the native
processor in either machine. One should see bigger differences with no DSP
running. Also note that when KEPS filters are used, the difference between the
IIci times with a 15mb file and the Quadra running KEPS is about 100% (ie, USM
went from 1 minute to 31 seconds). With the 15mb file, I believe that VM is
taking place. The gig array on the Quadra is most likely the reason why the
times are so different between each machine.

15mb file:

Gaussian Blur -----34.96 seconds  (31 seconds with KEPS)
Rotate 1 degree ---1 minute, 6 seconds
Resample Down -----20 seconds
Resample Up -------28.71 seconds
USM ---------------43.74 seconds (31 seconds with KEPS)

Andrew


#: 91132 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  18:46:47
Sb: #91068-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

Andrew-

so, are you impressed with the Charger PFS? My impression that it is way
overpriced- I was just told that the upgrade will cost $1620 direct from
Daystar. I suspect that Kodak is charging a lot of money for Daystar to
license their stuff- they're probably trying to recoup all the money they
probably lost on the Premiere system. I'll probably be better off putting that
money into my SGI budget.

Your times for the 15mb are probably affected by disk access- since even with
16mb assigned some of a 15mb file needs to be on disk. Processors for both
machines are essentially equal- and all of the data *does* flow through the
CPU on its way to the Charger, and then back through the charger into RAM
where it is available for Photoshop to display.

alan

#: 91154 S16/Photoshop
    15-Nov-93  21:15:36
Sb: #91132-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

-->so, are you impressed with the Charger PFS?

I guess so. I'm more impressed with the Charger itself and PowerPreview then
the added capabilities of the PFS but then I only have a small fraction of all
the goodies that the PFS can do. The precision filters are kind of neat. The
rotate and resize is really great. When all the components are in place and
I've had time to test them out, I'll be in a better position to judge the
unit. Since I didn't pay for it, I can't be too objective. $1620 is quite a
bite out of a budget.

Andrew



#: 91277 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  13:35:57
Sb: #91154-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205

Is the rotate and resize interactive, or do you have to key in numbers? One
feature that I really like in Alias Eclipse is the ability to move, rotate,
distort and adjust cropping and transparency on floating selections- the
actual transform isn't executed on real data until the floating image is
rendered into the finished image.

alan

#: 91303 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  17:00:37
Sb: #91277-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405 (X)

-->Is the rotate and resize interactive, or do you have to key in numbers?

It's all done by numbers.

Andrew

#: 91374 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  07:27:18
Sb: #91303-#Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205 (X)

>>rotate and resize interactive, or do you have to key in numbers?

It's all done by numbers.<<

I'll pass. With all the things that we can do with Photoshop, it's very
frustrating that most of them are definitely non-interactive as soon as you
start working on large files.

alan

There is 1 Reply.

#: 91404 S16/Photoshop
    17-Nov-93  13:01:36
Sb: #91374-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Andrew Rodney 71511,3205
To: Alan Boucek 72411,3405

-->I'll pass.

Well I'm hoping that DayStar ports all the KEPS stuff to a PowerPreview.

Andrew

#: 91280 S16/Photoshop
    16-Nov-93  13:36:11
Sb: #91215-Mac vs. PC threads
Fm: Alan Boucek 72411,3405
To: robert phillips <SL> 76711,1337

>>If Adobe's talking about licensing<<

I'd heard that quite a while back Adobe declined to use FITS- that's part of
the reason that HSC is marketing Live Picture. Adobe hasn't been doing well
with porting lately unless there's really big $$ riding on it (ie Win
Photoshop)- SGI photoshop has slipped into next year- by then it will be too
little too late.

alan