Mac Rants 501
There's a piece by Scott Wasson regarding the claims of Apple, of late, and his...feelings on it. It's a pretty ranty piece, as he says in the beginning, but it's a good discussion starting piece - even tho' I disagree with him to a degree.
Overblown, but issues remain (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly true that on a slow news day (if any such thing ever afflicts /.) a good Apple-oriented flame war does wonders for the blood pressure. But both those silly AAPLtalk comparison charts and the (slashdotted) "rant" above deserve some credit for trying to shine some light into the darkness of "why do people care so much?"
Though this forum, populated as it is by many thousands of folks who go neither way in the Apple/MS debate, may not be the most sympathetic place to say it, there are big fat differences between Windows and the Mac OS.
The "MHz myth" and shitty GeForce drivers are part of what sets us apart, but the rationale of the rabid Mac user (I am one, I admit it) revolves around esthetics, both artistic and operational. I'm not talking only about pretty translucent plastic cases or sexy PowerBook curves - but the truth is, these things matter. Gaba's dismissal of the floppy's importance might ring hollow to some, but his awarding of points for the G4's easily-accessed interior is easily overlooked. Design issues have a strong bearing on how people interact with the machines that serve them - whether that relationship feels adversarial or cooperative depends on many small factors that, together, determine quality design.
Easy-access cases are just one of those; clean, uncluttered user interface, reliable hardware (something many people forget is how tough Apple products are), and genuinely useful, user-friendly bundled apps (iMovie, iDVD, iTunes) are all important parts of the Mac design ethic. You only needed to look at an issue of the Mercury News a few weeks ago to sum up the difference: Microsoft made headlines for, again, lobbying John Ashcroft to drop the Justice Department's historic antitrust suit; Apple became one of a handful of companies to begin recycling harmful computer components like mercury and boron.
It may sound simple, but it works for me: everywhere I look, whether at my computer screen, the business pages, or the aisles of a computer store, Apple products are better-designed and better-made. Dare I say, by better people? For a better world? It's easy to laugh, and then turn back to an unrecognizably ugly Windows interface that still reminds me of playing Boulderdash II on an EGA screen.
My means are as tight as anyone else's (more so, I sometimes think over my Ramen noodles), and the Apple premium's a bitch. But we are ever sub specie aeternitatis - and we must do what we can.
mac cases (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes I think everyone forgets that apple's "easy access" case design is a complete about face from their previous efforts. I don't always think pulling a 180 is good, since that means you were going half-assed to start with.
that, and from an old crusty apple tech... pretty cases do not a powerful impressive machine make (apple OR x86.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:mac cases (Score:2)
*clue plane landing runway eight, fweeeeeeeeBZZZT!*
Oh dear, the clue plane seems to have opened up an original Macintosh to poke around in it, and ELECTROCUTED itself on the HIGH VOLTAGE MONITOR PARTS inside...
In other words, damn right they were hard to open, and that is a GOOD thing. Probably saved the lives of many happy idiots who wanted to poke around in there with metal screwdrivers. If you couldn't get the thing open, you SHOULDN'T. Besides, don't tell me you were too dim to get the screws out with just the right size of bent-up T-shaped hex wrench? :) some geek you are ;)
Re:mac cases (Score:2)
and for that matter, it took me a long time to open them because people who shelled out 4000 bucks for one of them got pissed off if you scratched it or did ANYTHING that made their mac look different...
Dear Scott... (Score:4, Funny)
Quoting John Carmack himself (Score:5, Interesting)
-- John Carmack (2001-06-04)
-jfedor
I wonder... (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
Hemos: I'm curious. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, how do you disagree with him?
- A.P.
*Yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)
There will always be rants by the Apple-Ignorant, who don't understand why anyone would NOT want to use Windows. Or why you can only have one mouse button.
There will always be Mac Zealots who think, "If you aren't for us, you're against us." And then rave like lunatics against anyone who dares question them using logic and reason.
In the middle, there's Apple; a company that really seems to be holding a niche market by making good products that are pretty, get the basic jobs done, and are generally easy to use.
Who's right? Everyone. No one. I don't know, I just wish I could read about Apple without any sense of fanatacism coming into play.
Re:1-button mice suck, and other thoughts on Mac (Score:2)
As for games, OS X has Quake 3, Alice, The Sims, Tony Hawk 2, and a bunch of other stuff. Not bad for a 4 month old OS.
1-button keyboards (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though: might a better approach be to label the two (or better, three) mouse buttons, just like keyboard keys?
Re:1-button keyboards (Score:2)
It may be slightly less confusing to have only one button, but that's a small thing compared to learning to use a mouse at all, and more importantly, a small thing compared to the added functionality of multiple buttons.
I'd be curious to see studies done on children -- my guess is that picking up how to use a two-button mouse is trivial compared to learning how to type.
The main problem I see people having with two-button mice is remembering which button does what things. Good UI design goes a long way here, and, as I said, it might be a good idea to somehow label the different buttons -- maybe with an icon or a standard color code, or both.
Re:1-button keyboards (Score:3, Insightful)
I've only been using keyboards for about 10-15 years or so. The fact that people in the past has no real baring on how easy to use it is
By the way you say the mouse isn't 'natural' or 'intuitive' but the keyboard is? I recall taking an actually keyboarding class for a semester to learn how you use it properly. It is in no way easy to use, it's just something you need to learn in order to function in today's society.
The mouse, on the other hand, only takes a couple minutes to get used to. And the multiple buttons arn't very difficult if their used consistently (like right mouse == menu)
Re:1-button mice suck, and other thoughts on Mac (Score:2)
Um, so you click to get the regular action, and ctrl-click to get the other actions, except when you hit the apple key, or both, or double click, but only in these revisions of the OS...
I'm amazed that Mac users are proud of using a platform that was crippled for the slowest potential users.
I've *NEVER*, and I've done tech support, met anyone who was unable to learn the concept of the right button. You just tell them that if they click on something with it, they'll get a different set of actions.
They may view this as a bit magical, and not note the pattern of which icons give which options, and in which cases, but they'll know it's there and when they're looking around, they'll remember to use it. If you're looking for a teaching tool, use Minesweeper, most people have played it, and they'll understand how you left-click to open a square and right-click to mark a mine. Tell them that the right button performs other actions like that in various places around the OS.
Sure, they may not understand it from the beginning, but if you take someone who's never used a computer, it's the smallest of the issues.
Re:1-button mice suck, and other thoughts on Mac (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,39773
Re:1-button mice suck, and other thoughts on Mac (Score:2, Insightful)
Only on slashdot... (Score:2)
Re:*Yawn* (Score:2)
Buy only standard parts, every 18 months, pick a new standard machine, with parts that won't change. I mean, not at all. Select some generic video card that you know will be available in over a year, even down to the ammount of RAM on it.
It's actually quite easy to do, many companies have a couple products that are guaranteed to be around for a long time. There's still a thriving market in 486s and VLB video cards, for people replacing broken hardware on otherwise perfectly functional POS terminals, etc.
Then do a full install, OS, Apps, configuration, of each standard setup.
Ghost this, using Norton's Ghost, it's a HD imaging program. Copy it onto each new PC you build, they'll be up in minutes.
One other really helpful thing, go to sysinternals.com and grab the util (whose name I forget) that puts all the system info onto a desktop image, so that when you turn the computer on the MAC, IP, Config data (RAM, HD, etc) are all easily visible. Do any DHCP IP assigning on the server now, then shut the machine down and take it to where you want it installed, you're done.
There are a bunch of products that restore the HD from a protected partition every time it's powered on, those are great for public terminals. If someone gets around the basic protection and trashes the system (it'll happen, unless you lock them in a full-screen browser) you just turn the computer off and back on, and it's working perfectly.
If these are assigned terminals (as in, a few people use specific ones) and you have to give them an email application, use Eudora, it's had holes in the past, but is MUCH better than Outlook. Otherwise, simply tell people to use hotmail or email.com to check their real account...
PCs aren't bad to administer, if you take a few shortcuts. If you've got an assistant to swap HDs and you use a bit of an assembly line, you can do more then 10 PCs in an hour, from empty to fully installed and configured.
Re:*Yawn* (Score:2)
Imagine using only a leatherman, with an 8cm knife, to cut through a 20cm tree... Ugh. But if you could do it, that'd be worth bragging about.
Actually, windows can be setup to be in a diskless fashion, without actually using any MS tools to do it. I saw someone at Comdex selling a solution, which was some unix server which had a disk image and a bunch of ethernet cards with boot roms. It's easier (initially) to give them their own drive, but a lot slower in the long run.
Unfortunately, I do IT in an office, where people need(1) a computer with local storage, etc, so I have to do it the slow way. I'd love to admin at a net-cafe or a library where the machines aren't supposed to be user-changeable.
1) They don't actually NEED, I've mentioned to the boss that a lot of people could be using a stripped-down computer as an X-Terminal. For the low-end stuff most of them do (low-end as far as graphics go, if not CPU) our 100mbps switched ethernet would be fast enough that it'd appear almost instantly. And our programmers would even like it, if they got to run compiles on the server, which would be a quad-CPU machine with a few gigs of ram... The boss likes it, but says it'll never be approved by the higher-ups, mainly because we already have a full computer for each person.
Re:*Yawn* (Score:2)
Think it's possible custom designed PCs designed and tested by actual engineers at places like HP and IBM might be easier to maintain then your homebrew dual boot box?
Steve Jobs... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Steve Jobs... (Score:2, Funny)
It was fun when I overclocked my old LC III to 33MHz and it reported as a performa 460
Ticked off users (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ticked off users (Score:2)
"The other portion will sit their and bitch and wine."
There's nothing wrong with sitting down with a nice bitch and wine every now and then.
Yadda, yadda, yadda... (Score:3, Informative)
Opinions about Windows aside, 98lite runs at acceptable speeds in 32MB of RAM. Sure, RAM is cheap, so there really is no excuse to have *that* little amount of RAM... On the Mac however, 32MB with OS 8.6 is unusable. With virtual memory disabled, you get "Out of memory" messages left and right - with it turned on, the system swaps, and swaps, and SWAPS. Yuck. Okay, time to buy more RAM.
The system didn't seem terribly stable for web browsing... Browsing the web with the latest IE or Netscape would frequently crash every few hours or so, Force quit almost never worked, usually it just brought up the dialog box and left the system in a frozen state. Overall, MacOS 8.6 seems roughly as stable as Windows 3.1. I hope OS X is a lot better.
Performence widely varied with the task being performed. Forget about good performence Divx
Overall, this wasn't a bad system... Not cutting edge, but at least as useful as my low end PII PCs. Well, it *was*... Then it got an Invalid PEOF error after an application crash and refuses to boot from the hard drive unless I reinitalize and reinstall. I can boot from a MacOS CD, but it refuses to let me eject it so I can insert one with Norton on it. If the damn thing only had a floppy drive... Eventually, I'll get around to buying a bootable Diskwarrior CD so I can get the damn thing working again without reformatting.
All things considered, it has been a nice learning experience; however, PCs are still my platform of choice.
PPC == PPC .... Rs/6000 and AS/400 (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple uses the PPC architecture.
IBM uses the PPC architecture in their RS/6000 and AS/400 boxen.
IBM even provides some of the PPC chips to Apple for their boxen.
If you've ever considered serving with AIX, OS/400, or Linux running as a virtual server under OS/400, then there ought to be nothing wrong with buying a commodity box from Apple and serving with Darwin / OS X.
Yes, the photoshop benchmark gets dragged out against windows, because it's a real world use.
I wonder what you -one-mouse-button haters would say to an AS/400-RS/6000-G4-dual athlon bake off.
Re:PPC != POWER (Score:2, Informative)
This is not entirely correct. IBM for the most part uses POWER processors in the pSeries and iSeries machines. The POWER line is a direct descendant from the arch that spawned the PPC. The processors used in these boxes are 64-bit implementations of the ISA and for the most part are a LOT faster than the PPC's that Apple sells. These machines have numbers listed on the spec.org [spec.org] (the only benchmark organization who's sole goal is to provide a cross platform level playing field) page. You would do well to
look at SpecINT/SpecFP if your interested in processor bound workstation type system loads.
This is /. material? (Score:2, Interesting)
Having covered Apple and the Macintosh community with a top-three visited Macintosh resource site and run my own Mac OS X site, I find it silly that the inference is that this discussion doesn't take place every single day.
Discussions amongst people who find Mac vs. Windows, RISC vs. CISC, Apple vs. anyone else cuz Apple sux, or any of these types of completely "to your own taste" topics are really sad when they are cast as "a good discussion starting piece" when the starting point is years in the past, and the journey has been beaten to death.
The G4 vs. Pentium tests are not for /.ers, and you all know that to be true - they are for the Mac zealots (zealot, n. - one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor) and for such magazines as PC Magazine where Apple efforts to keep its moderate mindshare by using the trade show equivalent of the "bully pulpit."
When "[Adobe Photoshop 6 is] an application highly optimized for the G4 and known to have problems on the Pentium 4" is used against the G4 and its apparent ease of exploitation and quality of performance at particular clock speeds and the article gets /.'d, it makes me wonder how low the individual requirements of objectivity and lack of bias have shrunk amongst the "digital learned"...
At the risk of pissing off... well... everybody... (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, sure, Apple has a great OS. But there are lots of people who, for reasons valid or not, want a Windows-based computer. But, as the iMac has demonstrated the last couple of years, there are also people who want a computer that just looks cool, and Apple can clearly deliver in that area.
Yeah, Dell and Compaq and other vendors have started making their own versions of cool-looking computers. They're okay, but I'm guessing the designers at Apple could build something that would blow them all away visually. It seems like it would be a good money-maker for Apple (and could help fund their non-Windows efforts), and Windows users could finally have a stylish-looking computer (on the outside, anyway).
Well, it's just a thought...
Re:At the risk of pissing off... well... everybody (Score:3, Informative)
My Macs are under my desks; I don't particularly care how they look.
Where I see the elegance is on the screen, and selling Windows machines won't help with that.
For instance, all the Photoshop benchmarks in the world can't explain why I vastly prefer the Mac for Photoshop: The mouse movement is much more smooth and natural. I can't do any fine-detail work with a mouse in Windows (as an experiment, try moving the mouse pointer in a little circle repeatedly as fast as possible with both machines. On the Windows machine, if your hand is anything like mine, the circle tracks across the screen and takes on a NW-SE ovoid shape). Worse still, when you have the mouse speed/acceleration set to any reasonable levels on Windows, it actually SKIPS PIXELS even when you're moving it as slowly as possible. So you end up having to zoom way all the time to get things done.
And don't even get me started on fonts, default locations for open/save dialogs, etc.
Yeah, there are problems (Score:2)
I'd be happy to get a PowerPC system in certain situations, though. It's generally considered to be a cleaner architecture. PPC systems aren't restricted to less than 15 interrupts like Intel systems. They make good laptops, if you only need one mouse button..
My problem has always been that Apple doesn't like to let other people inside their boxes. It took them ages to finally put several expansion slots in their boxes.
I doubt that I'll ever go out and buy a pre-built `consumer' desktop system. I will probably always go from parts. If I want to do that with Apple hardware, I think Steve Jobs will have to keel over first.
Apple doesn't let people inside their boxes (Score:2)
Yes, as there aren't as many people developing hardware for the Mac, there's a less competition, and there were higher prices. But they're not using NuBus and ADB anymore, so you can make use of PCI, USB and FireWire/iLink devices, if you so choose.
Hard drives have come down significantly as they've switched to UDMA, which many of the mac purists are still pissed off at, as they don't do tagged queuing, so there's inheriently more contention for disk I/O when doing multiple tasks. But you still can't get a machine with no hard drive, and put in one of your own.
Is this a bad thing? Well, for the sake of people who want to put in some drive that apple doesn't sell, yes. For those people who already have a nice drive that they want to move into the new machine, yes. However, in exchange, you get a hard drive with the software preloaded [okay, not a big deal], but more importantly, it's been tested. You're not going to get a DOA HD.
Memory's a similar issue. Yes, Apple charges too much for memory, but it's pre-tested, so you don't have that 'My machine came in, but I have to wait 3 more days for my new memory to come in' problems.
With the restrictions on hardware, there's better testing for interoperability. Personally, I wish I never had to learn what an IRQ was. For those who've always been Mac users, and never strayed, they've never had to worry about 'em. In all my years as a mac user, I've only had one piece of mac hardware that I ever had problems with. [NuBus video card for a Radius Color Pivot...had to get a new ROM when I went to MacOS7] I've lost count of wierd wintel interactions I've had. [eg, modem cards that just 'don't support' IRQ 4 when used in combination with a certain kind of video card, and other crap like that].
With every new piece of Mac hardware I've bought, I've plugged it in, and it's worked out of the box. And the simple reason is, that Apple's not as open with their hardware development.
I'd also argue your comment on 'It took them ages to finally put several expansion slots in their boxes', as anything since the MacII line [1987], other than the 'all in one' style boxes had expansion slots. Many of the 'all in one' boxes had expansion slots, but they couldn't be accessed easily, however, those boxes were intended for a drastically different market.
Not every item in the world, even computers, were designed for you. If that were the case, we'd all be driving the same sort of car to our same sized house, so we could watch the same TV while sitting on the same style couch. What's a problem to you may be a benfit to others, and visa-versa. [And yes, it still pisses me off when I'd let someone drive my car, and they'd completely deflate the lumbar support]
[And for those wondering what I use at home... a wintel box... because I play games, and try as much as possible not to do work from home these days. I do have 5 pre-1995 macs that make decent terminals, but they were taken down to make space for game machines]
Re:Apple doesn't let people inside their boxes (Score:2)
Apple charges something like %5,000 market value for RAM. But you can grab any old SDRAM and stick them in
ARG!!!! (Score:2)
*sigh* why do people who have no idea about what their talking about constantly feel the need to talk anyway?
The Intel ISA has 256 interrupts and 256 exceptions. There is a limitation on Interrupt Requests but that was a limitation of IBM's original PC design (just two cascading Interrupt controllers) for the CPU/pretrial interface.
While IRQs are still around for compatibility, modern machines don't have any problems anymore (PCI and USB devices can share IRQs)
My computer can beat up your computer! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hemos, please don't feed the trolls. God, let's see if we can take a look at this argument in a slightly more rational light.
Mac guy sez: Mhz don't matter. Look at my Photoshop benchmarks!
PC Guy sez: My 1.8 Gigahertz monster will crush your 866 Mhz weenie machine! Photoshop sucks.
I say: Apple has a point. If Mhz was everything, Sun would be sticking Pentium 4s in all of their boxes instead of sticking with their 900 Mhz UltraSPARC III. The G4 is an awesome processor, but for many functions raw Mhz will carry the day. If you're doing vector calcs all day then use a Mac, but for Linux I'll take a dual Athlon setup any day of the week.
Mac guy sez: My box is pretty! Your box is a boring beige bland POS.
PC guy sez: Your fruity colored box looks like a toy. Behold my case mods!
I say: A pretty case does not necessarily make for a better computer. Yes, the iMacs look like toys. On the other hand, what's wrong with having a good looking machine? The Cube was one of the most elegant computers in ages.
As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. For christ sakes people, let's stop this nonsense and get back to arguing about Linux vs. Windows.
MP and Colors (Score:2)
What does the PC Guy say about the dual G4/800?
PC guy sez: Your fruity colored box looks like a toy. Behold my case mods!
The stuff isn't so fruity at the moment -- take a look at the Ti PowerBook, the [apple.com]new G4 tower [apple.com], and the iBook [apple.com]. These things are just flat out sleek. Only the iMac is colored at the moment. Of course, this will all change eventually.
Yes, I realize this was all in fun.
- Scott
benchmarking (Score:5, Insightful)
a) has the same version and capabilities for both the PC and the Mac, and:
b) can actually tax a current machine's processor.
Other eligible apps (ie: Office) fail on both these counts.
Dismissing "Multimedia" apps out of hand is naive. Almost all the CPU intensive work done today is digital video and audio, two tasks that the G4 design permits it to do rather well. There is hardly difference between using a 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4 and a 500 Mhz Pentium 3 when surfing the web or typing a paper in Word.
Check out the ArsTechnica take on G4e design compared to the Pentium 4. [arstechnica.com]
btw: How come I don't see many touting that the 1.2 Ghz Athlon is some how lacking in ability when compared to the 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4?
Re:benchmarking (Score:3, Insightful)
> bake-offs are done running photoshop filters, I
> don't think it is a particularly unfair test.
> After all, Photoshop really is the only standard
> application in existance that:
> a) has the same version and capabilities
> for both the PC and the Mac, and:
> b) can actually tax a current machine's
> processor.
> Other eligible apps (ie: Office) fail on
> both these counts.
I disagree with this. There are plenty of cross platform apps which can potentially be used for benchmarking both PPC and x86 computers. Here's a short list:
* Adobe Acrobat
* SETI@home
* d.net rc5-64
* POV-Ray
* Bryce
* Cinema4D
* Lightwave
* Mathematica
* Heuris MPEG Power Pro
* Deneba Canvas 7.0
* MetaCreations Canoma 1.0
* Adobe Illustrator 8.0
* ViaVoice
Additionally, if you just want to compare the hardware, you can install linux on both and run kernel compiles and likely other interesting benchmarks on that kernel.
But that's not even really the point. The problem that the author had was not that the comparison used Photoshop alone. It was that
a) the comparison alleged that the results were of "OVERALL PERFORMANCE"
b) the Photoshop test tested six hand-picked filters, possibly six of those that most prefer the G4 over the P4, instead of a wider range of filters and effects that might actually have more reasonably modeled actual Photoshop performance.
> There is hardly difference between using a 1.8
> Ghz Pentium 4 and a 500 Mhz Pentium 3 when
> surfing the web or typing a paper in Word.
That is subjective. My 500MHz is slow as crud, and I can see an amazing difference even just going up to 800MHz. This is likely because I am more aggressive with my computer use (even with just internet stuff), but it still allows me to object to your statement that a jump from 500MHz to 1.80GHz means little.
> How come I don't see many touting that the 1.2
> Ghz Athlon is some how lacking in ability when
> compared to the 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4?
That is because you haven't looked. There are very few reputable places that show that the 1.20GHz Athlon is superior to a 1.80GHz Pentium 4. In general, the idea is that the 1.33GHz Athlon is in the same range as the 1.70GHz Pentium 4, and the 1.40GHz Athlon is fairly level with the 1.80GHz Pentium 4. Of course, there are benchmarks in which said P4 is much faster, and there are benchmarks in which said Athlon is much faster. But you do not see AMD zealots simply running one of the rare benchmarks that have the 1.00GHz Athlon outperforming the 1.80GHz Pentium 4 and then claiming that these results reflect overal performance. That would be going over the line, and Scott Wasson's point in his rant was that the comparison between the G4 and various P4 boxes went over the line in this fashion.
Re:benchmarking (Score:2)
* d.net rc5-64
Well, try this one then. d.net has a comprehensive list of client speeds. Let's have a look at what they have to say [distributed.net]..
Pentium IV 1700 - 2.44 MkeysPentium III 1200 - 3.39 Mkeys
Athlon Thunderbird 1400 - 4.98 Mkeys
PowerPC G4 733 - 6.54 Mkeys
PowerPC G4 867 - 7.72 Mkeys
How do you like that benchmark?
Re:Virtual memory? (Score:2)
You may have a point there. The Windows machines (running 98) mostly have 64M. My Mac has 128, though I invariably have PhotoShop, QuarkXPress, FreeHand, Distiller, Acrobat, Outlook Express, IE, and NiftyTelnet open.
Though 98 is cleverer about virtual memory than OS9 (what isn't?) so one would expect better results.
The PS files are in the 20+M range (lots of TIFFs, though what really seems to slow it down on the Windows side is documents with large numbers of fonts.
Re:benchmarking (Score:3, Insightful)
While iMacs cannot be upgraded (in the standard ways), I would say that Apple pro towers with their side opening doors, 4 full-length PCI slots plus AGP 4X, plus the fact that most drives and cards are mac compatible (often without driver voodoo hell), make upgrading even easier than on a PC equivalent.
Yes, you can build a very suitable PC for less than a grand. I don't think you would find it that easy to build one that really compared to an Apple G4 tower (think about the firewire, 1.5 Gb RAM support, Gigabit ethernet, DVD burning options, etc.).
Yup, the high end Apple machines tend to have high-end price margins on them. The same goes for Dell, Sony, HP, Compaq, IBM, or any other brand name manufacture you can think of.
trying to be objective (Score:5, Informative)
I read the rant, big whoop. He's citing a comparison by someone I've spoken to on a Mac forum from time to time. The point of his comparisons (he's done several) is not that the Macintosh will solve world hunger or anything. He was trying to debunk the myth that Macs are expensive in a bang-for-your-buck method. In other words, he tried tricking out systems from various windows OEMs and Apple's online store, compared prices, and guess what? The Mac came out even and sometimes ahead of the others.
This, apparently, caused an uninformed rant that /.'s dieties decided was newsworthy. Boy, this place has gotten so far downhill I may have to turn to NFL Fantasy League boards for higher levels of erudition and intellectual stimulation.
Re:trying to be objective (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it doesn't, because on every one of his charts, he always compares the best mac you can buy for the money against a PC that is NOT the best PC you can buy for the money.
I've sent the guy email about this, on several occasions even customizing a system at Dell.com, noting the price, and sending him a link to the shopping cart. He doesn't care about making it accurate.
If the G4 in the comparison is "equal" to the Dell using his scoring system, how well would it hold up if you ACTUALLY COMPARED the best Dell system you could buy for the same price? Not very well, I imagine, since that Dell would have double the memory, bigger hard drive, GeForce3, and 2 optical drives for the same price. (And yes, that's accurate, anyone can go to Dell.com and configure an 8100 in their home store).
This, and similar items have been pointed out to the chartmaker multiple times, he doesn't care. He is not concerned with accuracy, only with propping up the mac.
The 'comparison' was total bunk, absolutly (Score:2)
It doesn't, and shouldn't, convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
you're a little behind the times. (Score:5, Informative)
(hardware that, except for VirtualPC and Linux, has NO alternative operating systems), because of Windows licensing costs? "Nazism?" I'm not Windows fan, but what kind of logic is that? You don't even have third party choice of hardware for the Mac, let alone software diversity.
current apple hardware will run linux, netbsd, openbsd, darwin, os x, and os 9. older apple hardware will also run things like beos, a/ux, developer releases of rhapsody and copland, etc. so you're wrong on that point.
as for third party hardware, its true that apple produces all the full systems. but i've got a ton of third party hardware in my machines, ranging from IBM drives to no-name PCI cards for USB and ethernet.
try looking at some reasonably recent statistics before you make sweeping claims, eh?
(incidentally, this whole "story" is flamebait shite, in my ever humble opinion.)
--saintRe:you're a little behind the times. (Score:2, Troll)
I was thinking of getting a Mac, but it is hard to find a decent mother board, CPU that I can buy off the self... Any suggestions?
I want to build it myself (hobby of mine), but pricewatch.com doesn't list any parts. Can I get some pointers on where to look for Mac parts? Do PowerPC motherboard fit in standard ATX cases? If not, any links to Mac cases I can get?
Thanks.
Re:trying to be objective (Score:2)
Last I checked, you have to buy a copy of MacOS with every Mac you buy, just like you have to buy Windows with every PC you buy. In both cases, whether you like it or not.
Except that in the case of the PC, I can build my own and add any OS I like. With the Mac, you must pay the Apple tax - NO MATTER WHAT.
Re:trying to be objective (Score:2)
On a Mac, they say "here's what you get," which of course includes the OS. It's not like you can remove it and get a refund. However there's a difference between the hardware company that bundles an OS with its hardware and some random OS vendor that forces you to pay for their OS even though they have no connection to the hardware of your system whatsoever.
Flame bait... (Score:2, Funny)
Not too off... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Mac Team's machines run our game noticably slower than the guys running hard-hitting Athlons, but I have a (dual) 800Mhz P3, and the G4 450's seem to keep pace with it reasonably on our game builds.
One thing I will say it this: the Mac GUI feels faster to me than the Explorer Shell on Win2K...
Re:Not too off... (Score:2)
Re:Not too off... (Score:2)
Mac vs PC (Score:4, Funny)
What next? Big endian vs. little endian? Vi vs. Emacs?
Re:Mac vs PC (Score:2)
Everyone knows that the only Good Endian is a Dead Endian!
Re:/. hacked. (Score:2, Funny)
Not exactly, they'll somehow manage to mispell a few words and probably give an unsupported opinion
as well.
Conjecture, at best (Score:5, Insightful)
Just pick the right tool for the job (Score:2, Redundant)
I use my linux box quite a lot, since I'm a student of computer science and wannabe developer. The free tools are there, and they work well. I also have Visual Studio on my windows machine, but I'm not much of an end user application developer. I also serve some webpages off my dsl, and like to do geeky things... the linux box is great for that
I use my windows machine to play games. It also has the software support for my TV tuner and DVD player, and thus it is used as somewhat of an entertainment unit in my bedroom. However, things like web browsing and general computing (IE, word processing), are more a matter of OS taste and 1.4GHz vs 500MHz really doesn't make a noticable difference.
The Mac is great for photoshop, flash... all those creative things. That's what people buy macs for. Those who are buying the top of the line G4 are the professionals who spend most of their time in apps like photoshop and use a lot of filters. Joe User is just gonna web surf and word process, and the only useful comparison in that area between the 500Mhz iMac and the Gig+ PC is just a matter of OS preference.
This story was just flamebait, pure and simple. People should spend less time ranting about what platform is faster, and just pick a computer that fits their needs.
Web Development (Score:2)
For graphics, I stick with Photoshop, again, on the Mac side.
That's not to say, however, that I don't check all of my sites in Netscape & IE for both Mac & Windows.
I have no idea what macromedia did wrong [it may be writing non-thread-happy code, as they're handled a little differently between macos and windows, which was why so many java programs ran like shit on a mac]. However, to say that all web development on a wintel box is better than a Mac is a great disservice to those of us whom don't use point-and-click interfaces for web page creation.
Re:Web Development (Score:2)
A bit odd... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Submit it to K5 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Submit it to K5 (Score:2, Funny)
I know. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I know. (Score:3, Insightful)
And what does matter is an endless number of posts trying to decide just how wrong the k5 FAQ is, how evil Christians are, and general wanking about how stupid Americans are from the viewpoint of people who have never been to America, or even met an American.
Oh, and k5'ers are highly intolerant of spamming. Of course, regular k5'ers would never spam other sites about k5...um, nevermind.
Re:I know. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A bit odd... (Score:2)
Of course, if there's a week's delay between the news coming out and it being reported on SlashDot, doesn't the claim to deliver "news" seem rather lame? And if it's "stuff that matters", why wait a week to report it?
Grab.
WTF? (Score:4, Troll)
Then, some other guy writes a piece saying how wrong he feels this post is [tech-report.com].
Then some third guy (Hemos) posts the 'story' to
The only thing newsworthy about this article is that
Get a grip. There's plenty of cloning stories to post about before we let drivel like this make it to the top of the page.
flames and apples position. (Score:2, Informative)
i cant believe this actually got posted on /.
the ranter is unhappy with some irrelevant, biased, uninformed articles, and counters with an irrelevant, biased, uninformed article of his own. newsflash: the web is full of irrelevant, biased, uninformed articles. why are we posting scriptkiddie flamewars on /.?
apples official position is here [apple.com]. there is nothing wrong with it. as they point out at expos, they use photoshop benchmarks because it is the app their customers use most (they actually use real jobs their customers have done, like movie posters, etc).
as anyone who knows anything about benchmarks can tell you (hopefully all of /.) different benchmarks tell you different things. use the benchmark that applies to your job/situation. yes, the g4 is much faster at floating point. yes, the pentium runs office apps much faster. whoop-de-doo. whats new here?
i will leave all the inaccuracies of the article to other posters (no, photoshop /is/ optimized for sse)
"Fruitless" Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to him, but clock frequencies are never a good indicator of overall processor performance when comparing against different processor families. There can be some truth to the claim that a G4 at a given MHz is faster than a P4 at the same MHz -- after all, when I took my Computer Architecture a few years back, the PPC 603 had a much shorter pipeline relative to the PPro, and from what I've read since then, nothing has changed in that respect.
However, that doesn't mean that I think the G4 really is faster now, even if Intel's push for more MHz is mostly about marketing. After all, back when I took that class, we all thought RISC chips would eat CISC chips for lunch because the simpler instruction core for RISC chips would let them be run faster. Meanwhile, Intel figured out a way to engineer themselves out of that hole (using a form of microcode on the Pentium Pro, if I remember correctly), while Motorola couldn't engineer itself out of a paper bag (with 500 MHz written on it) for quite a while, as he mentions.
Anyway, as a proud new iBook owner (and an NT and Solaris user at work), I don't care who is faster, as long as I can do what I need to do.
Therein lies the dilemna (Score:5, Interesting)
My first intuitive guess would have to be dollars, but then people have the unfortunate habit of trying to get the absolute damn cheapest product out there, which does nothing for quality and performance.
We would need a value per dollar metric to compare systems, then. What value?
Features? That gets hard to compare, as different people value different options, and some people don't even know what features they value until they grow into the system.
Then there is the hard to even see metric, quality . Fit, finish, durability, ease of use, etc. Short of using a system for a couple of days, most laptops/PCs are superficially the same, until you need to open the box, swap video cards, add a new hard drive, etc.
Performance? At least you can use time as a measure, but what would you be measuring with time? Photoshop? Office? It would be twisted, but how about comparing a Windows benchmark running under Virtual PC vs a Windows benchmark on a Windows machine? Given that the virtualization would take a performance hit, you could apply some scalar or multiplier to try to normalize the scores.
I dunno. I know I bought a Mac because it looked good and felt good, and that has no bearing on MHz or performance.
Re:Therein lies the dilemna (Score:2, Funny)
Well, if the value metric is how well your computer complements a black turtleneck sweater, then a Mac has to win hands down. :-)
Re:Therein lies the dilemna (Score:5, Interesting)
So, with all those things in mind, the perfect platform for me ends up being MacOS X. I get to use all the unix tools I'm used to (in a better GUI), I have IE, Netscape and Mozilla all in the same box, and I have Photoshop and all my DV tools. Throw that into a tiny notebook (the iBook) along with Airport, and I have a pretty kick-ass all-in-one solution.
The value of a computer depends on an individual's needs.. It just so happens that a typical user can get everything he or she wants in a cheap PC (albeit less aesthetically pleasing), for less than your average Mac.
Jeez, don't make it sound like rocket science (Score:2)
People have been picking cars for years differentiating between power, features, styling, and cost.
I think they can do the same for PCs.
Re:Therein lies the dilemna (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people value their computers as gaming platforms, utilizing the latest Athlon processors and (obviously) reluctantly running windows OS. Polygon-power and compatability are the most valuable things to them.
Some people use them as simple web and word processing boxes. Any box will do, and so choice of Opera, Netscape, IE, KDE, OSX, OS9, Be, 98, NT, etc is purely an aesthetic choice, reflecting tradeoffs between simplicity, conformity, and access. To them, the Computer might as well be a television, and occupies an intimate, relaxing space in the mind where clutter is not acceptable.
Some people run servers, where Linux / Unix / BSD is essential. Some people restart servers, obvious NT users. Bandwidth, ram, requests per second are all valuable.
There are graphics professionals. Some use windows and some use the Macintosh. Many things that previously could only be done on the Mac can now be done under Windows, leveling the playfield quite a bit. Still, though, graphics professionals also appreciate the aesthetic qualities of the internals of the tools they use, and if anyone has opened their windows folder in the past 10 years they know just how unappealing it can be.
Then, of course, there is business or specialized software composed soley to run on a single platform. That user much is buying a system for a killer-ap, so anything that may optimize that (or reduce costs) is essential.
Finally, we have the pundits, ranters, and corporate iconographers who bask in the reflected glory of their chosen OS, and staunchly support it as a lifestyle representation. Their macs, windows PC's, Linux boxes, dusty old OS2 machines are symbols for other people to judge them by. It's distinctly possible that these are the people who say that coke is delicious and pepsi is undrinkable crap, but I haven't done any research into that connection. Scott "Damage" Wasson appears to fall into this category, though I cannot tell if he's a wintel pundit or a disgruntled mac pundit. We here all know that the evidence is in favor of the G4 and Athlon architectures and against the P4 marketing device, so why is this hardware guru ignorant on the subject if not either a sworn enemy or a lover scorned?
Computers have gotten to the point, thankfully, that the question of a single overarching "performance" measurement is irrelevant to most people. Most people have objectives, preferences, skills, and a budget. None of these rubrics have yet to take into account, for example, people's preferences for a quiet computer, or one that doesn't waste a lot of space. People want webcams, DSL, DVD / CDR drives, and big moniters. They want their particular cherished trackball or mouse to work, they want something that gets their work done, and they want it so that it doesn't become obsolete right away. I doubt anyone cares anymore if their cpu is 800 mhz or 900 mhz. Long gone is the day where that is the most important factor.
-Wintel machines would be great if it wasn't for the Win part.
Re:Therein lies the dilemna (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate the benchmark approach to purchasing a machine.
Hardware vs. software (Score:2, Informative)
I agree that it is difficult to measure all the features of such different platforms, but the pointsystem he uses is totally screwed.
Example: The Apple-box gets 2 points for 2MB L3 cache, but the pentium-boxes only get 0.5 point extra for 400MHz System Bus against Apples 133MHz. What is the need of L3 cache when you have a such fast system?
And that he gives points for both hardware and software in the same test isn't quite the way to do it. He gives points in the range 5,5-7,5 for major software included, while giving 2,5-3,0 points for the size of the harddisk.
Those things aren't exactly in the same area. He should rather have done to test, a hardware, and a software. But nowadays, what software you can run on the computer is less important, because you can do what you want no most computers today anyway. So I would say that hardware alone is a better method of comparision.
Though, in the earlier days, the major problems with running different architectures and platforms, was that you didn't have the same programs, they were quite incompatible with eachother, and there was major differences in performance in similar programs.
I know I bought a Mac because it looked good and felt good, and that has no bearing on MHz or performance.
That is a much better argument to buy a Mac, than because "it is better (because I read it in a test...)" :)
Hey, relax! (Score:2)
silly (Score:2, Informative)
With respect to processor speed, faster is better and necessary, as always, is a myth. I run a 400 MHz G4. At my last job I ran a 600 MHz or so Pentium. MS office on both machines ran about the same. Netscape on both machines ran about the same. SETI@Home ran faster on the G4. For most of my purposes, the platforms are to close to call. The clock speed for Windows machines needs to be fast not only for hardware reasons, but because MS, unlike Apple, has a tendency to shamelessly waste cycles.
The same is true for hard disk space. By current standards I have a very small hard disk on my G4, around 9 GB. With MacOS 9 and a very full compliment of programs and data loaded, including Virtual PC, and 640-MB virtual disk, I still have 3 GB left. Again, MS like to waste space, so a machine that runs windows needs a larger hard disk.
I may get a Windows machine if I use it regularly. The hectic upgrade and patch schedule has kept from acquiring one in the past. Likewise, I need to get a *nix machine up and running again. I just haven't had the spare hardware. Until then, my trusty G4 will serve and protect me for the evil empire. It costs more, but what can you do.
Apple shouldn't bother attacking the 'MHz gap' (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple clearly wants people to buy computers the same way. The great industrial design and things like iMovie, iTunes and OS X, with its stunning user interface, make this clear. Apple wants people to buy based on user experience, and on what they, as non-geeks, can do with their computers. Sure, it's possible to edit digital video on a Wintel machine. But is it as easy as iMovie? The capability is worthless to an average user if it's too difficult to use.
Re:It's not the chip speed, it's Net speed (Score:4, Insightful)
A few months ago my sister, who's in grad school, finally broke down and bought her first computer. She got an iMac. When it came she called me up at work to have me talk her through setting it up. Here's how the conversation went:
SISTER: Okay, I got it out of the box. So how do I...? Oh never mind, I see.
ME: ...
SISTER: Oh, now it wants... Oh, okay. And... Okay, it wants the phone number to dial the internet. Do I just put in the number the university gave me?
ME: Yes.
SISTER: Okay, oh... And now... Oh, I see. Okay. It's working! Did you get my email?
ME: Yes.
Apple must have a brain-wash app. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not a bad thing when someone hits a group right bang smack between the eyes with the facts causing them to gibber impotently as their ideological sacred cows are slaughtered.
McWeeniedom is much like membership of Scientology they take all your money and give you something in return that only members of the cult call 'advanced technology'.
The laughable comparison chart is as ridiculous as the folk flaming "go do Comp Arc. 101 and learn about the difference between CISC and RISC". Then the curious statement is made that the G4 is faster than Pentium 4 despite the slow clock speed because the G4 RISC instructions do more per cycle. Clearly the several people who made the statement would fail their comp arch course. The RISC strategy was to reduce the complexity of individual instructions, specifically avoiding the type of complex instructions that cause pipeline faults. The other part of RISC was to simplify design to allow faster to market exploitation of the latest Fab.
In short to defend the G4 the traditional RISC/CISC argument is turned back to front. You go to RISC architecture because it allows you to push for higher clock speeds faster.
There are plenty of good benchmarks around. SPECMarks, CERN Units, MFlops, etc. and most of them are cross platform. Any benchmark that fixes on a particular piece of code that was hand coded in assembler for one platform is utterly bogus.
The biggest flaw in the article however is that the majority of the marks are given for allowing the user to select their own configuration. The whole point about the PC is that you get to choose exactly the configurtation and price point you want.
So scoring 1 point for a crappy Iomega Zip drive I would never use is beside the point. Anyone who wants to pay Iomega for their overpriced faulty trash can do so. Compact Flash is rapidly approaching the cost of ZIP disks, is smaller, more reliable and has capacities up to 1Gb.
Other folk have pointed to the bogosity of giving the Apple 2 points for L3 cach and the PCs 0.5 points for a 400MHz system bus. But the fundamental error is that the processor ratings are on the basis of benchmarks that test the whole system but are then applied to the processor alone. So on the basis that an Apple was found to be equivalent to last years model of PC on a dubious benchmark the Apple gets 12.5 points and the PCs get 10.5 or less.
The 802.11B scores are also bogus, to enable the apple you need to buy an extra card, to enable the PC you need to get an extra card. The only difference is that only Apple can supply the card for the G4.
The stupidest of all is the 'virus' line. The only reason that the Mac has not been plagued is that the population of Macs is too low to allow contagion to spread. If the Mac ever became popular again it would be slaughtered. All this reflects is the fact that virsu writers have abandoned the Mac along with almost every other software maker. If you really want to be guaranteed Virus free go run Open Genera or Multics.
Re:Apple must have a brain-wash app. (Score:2)
Then the curious statement is made that the G4 is faster than Pentium 4 despite the slow clock speed because the G4 RISC instructions do more per cycle. Clearly the several people who made the statement would fail their comp arch course.
Well, I don't see any IA32 instruction while will multiply two floating-point registers, add a third register to the result, and then store the whole thing into a fourth register. PowerPC's been doing that forever. Seriously, translate some moderate FP maths into IA32 and PPC assembly, and you'll surely see that the "CISC" IA32 code has a lot more instructions to perform..
Don't even get me started on how much Altivec spanks MMX, 3DNow and SSE..
So before you make a blanket condemnation of the claim that a G4 does more per cycle, please do keep in mind that the "complex" part of the IA32's CISC architecture is the number of stupid, deprecated instructions that nobody ever uses anymore..
Children... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that in today's market both Mac and Windows offer perfect solutions for 90% of consumers. Combine Microsoft Office with an email client and a web browser and you solve the needs of MOST people out there.
The pros and cons of each are quite minor. Speed differences matter little considering how fast most common tasks get done anyway, MacOS and Windows are equally easy to use and stability seems to depend on individual configurations, MacOS has higher quality in exchange for fewer options and higher prices, Windows has more software in exchange for lower average quality of software.
There are many INDIVIDUAL reasons to choose one platform over the other, but there is no clear superiority.
In the past I chose a PC because I wanted to play more games and have an easier time programming. More recently I choose a Mac for BBEdit and Mac OS X.
In short, I think the best thing is to have both, or at least use both, and make an informed decision for yourself. Rants like the one posted are just ignorant and pointless.
Why do we get offended at this stuff? CHILL! (Score:2)
I don't really know why this needs to be an argument, though. It is really good to have variance in the industry. If we were all running the same OS and processor and software, worms like Code Red would have the potential to take out the whole internet. (don't get me started...)
Let's let the Mac folks be Mac folks. If they say their stuff is faster, who cares? There's no point in getting upset. It's not as if you actually designed the Athlon processor, and need to feel offended that someone says their potentially inferior favorite chip is better than the one you poured your heart and soul into designing. All you did was read Tom's Hardware Guide or Ars Technica. Every side has its own propaganda, and it's easy to convince someone of anything.
Tell them that you'll believe it when you do benchmarks on your own apps. Use the standard compilers and see which one wins. Until then, speculation is only wasting all of our time!
Been there, done that (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a blast on the MacNN forums pointing out all the flaws in the guys scoring formula. No matter WHAT systems were compared, he rigs the scoring so the Mac always wins. Example: he compares the iMac ($900-$1200) to Dell's cheapest offering and declares the iMac the winner. Would he have claimed the same results had he compared it to Dell's Pentium IV 8100, which can be had for under $1000? That Dell destroys the iMac, which is probably why he didn't mention it.
Likewise, in his "$2500 tower shootout", the G4 has similar components to the Dell. Yet when I configure the Dell using their website, it's $1899! If I jacked it up to $2500, I get double the memory of the G4, bigger hard drive, GeForce3, two optical drives, etc. Yet he can't seem to configure the same system on his end, even after I sent him a URL containing the shopping cart!
Other errors: earlier iterations of his charts claimed "each PC loses a PCI slot, because you have to add a USB card to make them equivalent to the Mac". Bull SHIT. Every PC has USB on the motherboard. He knows it's wrong, and prints it anyway.
I could go on and on... the whole 'comparison' is such a joke, it's not even worth ranting over. I believe in honest comparisons - this one is not, and is no better than those created by PC people that slam the Mac without knowing the facts. Pure FUD.
Mac vs. Avid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mac fans should defect. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that linux doesn't/can't/won't, but Apple does a great service to x86 owners running Windows.
Re:Depends on what you want to do (Score:2)
Re:Depends on what you want to do (Score:2)
Re:I think someone needs to get laid (Score:2)
Re:I think someone needs to get laid (Score:2, Interesting)
And this beautiful 1.7GHz P4 does around 2.6Mkeys/s. My 400MHz G4 at home does 3.6Mkeys/s.
That give you a nice benchmark?
Re:What $2500 Will Get You (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mac Gaming (Score:2)
I use my Mac for webdev and desktop publishing, for which purpose it puts Windoze to shame. But you aren't going to win any game arguments by trotting out Civ II and Quake. Please, from one Mac user to another, concede this one. PCs have more games to choose from. Period. (And the MacOS doesn't have native mousewheel support, which makes FPS games blow!)
At least you can play X-COM in Virtual PC.
Re:Mac Gaming (Score:2)
But, the mousewheel works fine on my mac. What are you talking about? Works fine in Q3A, actually.
Re:Mac Users (Score:2, Insightful)
The Mac will still continue to sell as long as it retains its appearance.
Speaking as an Amiga owner (though not a user anymore), I can say that Macs will sell as long as Apple stays in business to sell them.
I've met many Mac users who did not care that the performance was lower, they just liked the thing because it looked cool.
I've met zillions of Windo... er, make that ... Intel based PC users who didn't care that the machine they were using couldn't even run Windows 95. My next door neighbor finally replaced her old computer. A Mac classic.
I'd be surprised if as much as 15% of computer users care enough about their computer's performance if it means buying a new computer. That's just the way it is; I've learned it takes two or three generations of new computer hardware to come and obsolesce before most people even consider buying a new computer.
Well, it's not true that Macs run slowly; that's a sweeping generalization. It's not even true that the fastest Intel running Windows can run Photoshop faster than the fastest Mac.
Now that is the truth.
Re:Ignorant (micro-)benchmarking practices, redux (Score:2)
This is why PPCs do well at photoshop- heavy number crunching on moderate numbers of variables many of which can just sit in registers, unlike x86 that screams 10x as fast but spends most of the time twiddling its architecture >:)
Re:Learn the lesson of design... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
No! That's what started this whole - rather pointless - argument. Photoshop is not representative. Didn't Adobe and Apple work closely so that Photoshop could handle multi processors even when the OS as a whole couldn't? Doesn't this indicate that Adobe and Apple have a legitimate business reason to work together closely to ensure that Photoshop is highly optimized for the Mac?
I'm betting that if Adobe released its Mac and Windows user demographics you'd find that a much smaller percentage of windows Photoshop users are power users who regularly rotate 10 megapixel images .3 degrees. They are spending money on the resources who do that sort of tuning where those resources will do the company the most good - on the Mac where the high end Photoshop users are. If they did the same optimization on Windows, it wouldn't give them the same return on investment. There are good reasons that Photoshop is better optimized on the G4 than the P4, without even considering conspiracy (as I know many of the pro-windows factions are apt to do).
I think the performance argument has said only one thing definitively: if you want the best photoshop performance, get a Mac.
I think all the original aapltalk article said is that for $2500 you can get a Mac that is at least as good as a $2500 PC for running Photoshop.
If someone was trying to convince the public at large that the G4 is faster, well... The same public that finds having two mouse buttons confusing, also finds clock speed an easy value to remember when comparing two computers. If there were some independently administered number representing the relative speed of program execution, the unwashed masses would be just as happy to accept it... But neither the geeks nor the corporate entities not making the chip currently at the top would endorse such a benchmark (see SPECint and SPECfp).
People know that a 1.0GHz PIII is faster than a 500MHz PIII. It fits their world model. Asking them to accept that an 867MHz G4 is faster than a 1800MHz P4 is a good fight, but not one anybody is likely to win.