Interesting article: Mac Vs. PC on Video Edting

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 6:00 pm

Hey,

I came across this article comparing Mac vs. PC machines specifically for video editing applications:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002 ... spciii.htm

It makes an interesting read. Cutting to the conclusion, it seems that the current cheaper single-processor PC architecture outperformes the more expensive dual-processor Mac.

Mac stalwarts will cling to the notion that Mac OS X is so much better and easier to use than Windows XP, but if you’re spending all day inside After Effects, which operating system you’re using makes little difference. What does make a huge difference is if you have to sit and wait for rendering any longer than necessary. And, according to our benchmarks here, if you have an After Effects composite that needs, say, two hours to render on the Mac, it’ll take you about an hour and 10 minutes on this PC.

Phade.

Org Profile · Post by **VicBond007** » Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:27 pm

Oh like REAL WORLD NUMBERS mean anything! </Sarcasm>

Anyone working in the industry today will tell you that pros use Macs because it's professional arrogance. There was a time when the Mac was superior, and companies bought Macs. Now it would make the company look oh so stupid if they were to purchase PCs now, because that would make them look like they were WRONG! But hell, who am I to judge?

*points and laughs at the G4-ers*
*caresses Athlon*
OW THAT'S HOT!

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Fri Dec 13, 2002 1:13 am

Heh, you shoulda been in the aftermath that created on their forum... it was great fun!

BogoSort · Post by **BogoSort** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:00 am

Also part of the reason why Macs still do better in professional industry is that the interface is supposedly more conducive to creative work. I've never used Final Cut Pro, but I'm told that it just allows for much more flow from the artists brain to the video. That and if you buy from Apple, they can do service on their hardware fairly easily because it's all the same. The cost for running a studio full of PCs becomes much higher when you add in the cost of having an in house IT staff to maintain them.

I'm a PC user myself, but raw speed is only part of the equation. Good software, interface, and support all factor in. And when you look at all of them combined, Macs are still rather competitive from a video editing standpoint for a studio.

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:46 pm

Not true. I had the pleasure recently of seeing a group of experianced editors running FCP3, and the workflow looked no better then most other editors out there. It's simply a matter of what you're used to.

BogoSort · Post by **BogoSort** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:42 pm

alternatefutures wrote:Not true. I had the pleasure recently of seeing a group of experianced editors running FCP3, and the workflow looked no better then most other editors out there. It's simply a matter of what you're used to.

It is a matter of what you're used to, but if you're happy with what you're using, the ideas will flow more easily. I hear lots of people raving about how good FCP3 is. I very rarely hear people raving about Premiere. It's what people use, and if you're used to it, it's a perfectly fine piece of software.

Still I stand by my point that the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) for Macs isn't much higher, as with PCs, people tend to constantly update every year or two to get the latest and greatest stuff, and they just aren't that stable over time. You'll constantly see people using Macs that are several years old, because they still work. It's hard to say the same about PCs...

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:59 pm

BogoSort wrote:Still I stand by my point that the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) for Macs isn't much higher, as with PCs, people tend to constantly update every year or two to get the latest and greatest stuff, and they just aren't that stable over time. You'll constantly see people using Macs that are several years old, because they still work. It's hard to say the same about PCs...

The thing about PCs is that the hardware is constantly being updated, and being a large market, there's lots of software that'll take advantage of it (mostly games, but yeah).

The Mac market, on the other hand, is rather small in comparison. Although the hardware is as good, if not better, than PC stuff, Motorola and IBM (manufacturers of the PowerPC architecture) have been having problems pushing their chips to higher clock speeds, as well as delivering their current products, while AMD and Intel just keep marching forward. All of this makes it harder for Apple to keep up, without having to do things like putting dual procs in a box. It's hard to convince people to lay out big money for a product that is barely better than what they already have.

In a nutshell, a common Mac view right now can be said to be like "It currently works well as it is, and buying a new system right now will only give me a negligible performance boost". Whereas on the PC side, it's like "My 900 Mhz box is slow at *insert program*. Time for a 2 Ghz upgrade, which will give me 2 to 4 times as much performance."

Just my view.

BogoSort · Post by **BogoSort** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:11 pm

kthulhu wrote:The thing about PCs is that the hardware is constantly being updated, and being a large market, there's lots of software that'll take advantage of it (mostly games, but yeah).

And you have to remember that every new release of windows uses substantially more resources just from bloat and new "features" that people may want. Granted I love my PCs, and for individual use, I'd highly recomend them over a Mac. However in a studio enviornment, reliabilty and TCO are the issues that they want. And from what I've seen (in various college computer clusters), the Macs tend to be easier for them to maintain just due to having fewer hardware failures and whatnot, and just plain being easier to maintain as a group. Sure if my PC goes down for a couple of hours while I reinstall windows, that's fine, but in a production enviornment, those couple of hours are crucial.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:03 pm

Ahh yes, but you wonder how much revenue they're losing when the Macintosh they're using is two times slower then a PC. Windows XP is pretty stable.

I found the remarks that a apple is cheaper because their service is cheaper. That really can't be backed up. You could also get some sort of DELL contract for your computers, with onsite support from them. Kthulhu, maybe you could go in depth on what is available, although you only did home support right?

Even if you got custom builts from Joe, and Joe came in and did support. Joe is probably cheaper then Mr. Sky Bird Freely(the macintosh expert) since PCs are more common and have cheaper parts.

Fixing a PC may not even require you going to the manufactuer. What if they got a bunch of those sealed cased iMacs...mmm RMA time...

OS X has had a load of compatibility issues with it, I think more so then you'll see with any Windows operating system. OS X has quite a bit of bloat and candy coated interfaces as well.

I think you'll also notice the trend, that many companies are looking into linux PCs, atleast in the high-end production department. DreamWorks, LucasArts and some others... :O

I work in a enviroment with about 800 DELL PCs. I haven't seen one go down yet. Of course all we do on these is browse the web and run a telnet app, but based on home experience PCs don't suddenly break go pzzt and blow up, a mac can fail just as quickly as a PC. Not to mention that Macs use the same IDE hard drives and PCI video cards as PCs.

As long as you buy your PC from a GOOD vender with GOOD support and the PC is 2x faster then a Mac, then you're going to end up ahead.

One REAL reason Macs have remained in the multimedia profession is that there are alot of trained professionals who know how to use a Mac, because Mac's did do multimedia before PCs. Macs had font and color management WAY before the PCs got them, and Windows still does not have the greatest color mangagement or font system(it's quite improved tho :p).

Overall, PCs still kick the ass of the Macs. Like the article said, if you're using Premiere or After Effects all day long it really doesn't matter which interface you use since they are basically the same. You would notice how slow the Mac is putting out your composite tho.

~klinky

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:19 pm

Regarding Dell support, here's what I remember:

Home and small business people (HSB) had to troubleshoot with us over the phone, no matter what. Then an onsite tech would go out, to only replace the bad part, not to troubleshoot, or even encessarily make sure it works.

School and government people (PAI, Public Americas International, if I remember correctly) got the parts equivalent of one whole machine, no questions asked, before having to troubleshoot with us, i.e. if they had a bad hard drive, they got it, no problem, but if they ad another bad one, troubleshooting time.

Corporate and corporate relationship people (REL) , I'm not sure what they got, but supposedly it was better than PAI and HSB.

The only people I believe got onsite troubleshooting were the server customers.

All this info is something like 2 years old, so who knows what the hell is the case now.

Of course, now that Dell support is based in rural areas or in India, AND the call length time got dropped to 11 minutes, from 17 (according to klinky, who continued to work at the outsourcer Dell used on a different contract after I left) their support is probably shit.