You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Who uses a Mac? Vista?

Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 6:56am

Post 1 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Okay for years i've been a pro-PC-fanboy. Having viral aggressive knock-down arguments with mac users about visual fx, rendering, 3d modeling, graphics, etc.

Mac is everywhere. I call them hippies. They laugh and ask how my blue screen of death is doing. I then storm off and go home and watch family guy.

Well, I may have to join the other side. I need to get a new computer, and I just can't work anymore with 3GB's and 64-bit Vista is just too problematic from everyone I've heard. MS really dropped the ball with this Vista POS. Every corporate place I visit is still using XP. No one is upgrading. MS is really hurting nowadays.

So i'm gonna swallow my pride I think on this one. Gonna leave MS forever. That 3GB limit when rendering on my After Effects, Premiere, etc. projects is gonna kill me.

What do you pros use?

d

Last edited Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 7:29am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 7:27am

Post 2 of 83

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

well I use a Mac with Final Cut Studio, it seems to do the job. But most of hollywood uses macs with Avid for editing.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:52am

Post 3 of 83

The Editing Room

Force: 593 | Joined: 8th Mar 2007 | Posts: 83

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

i use mac and mac only with final cut HD, effectslabpro and Photoshop Cs3
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:23am

Post 4 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Yeah i think i'll splurge on a mac after this flick. I just can't devote a whole month learning the mac from the bottom up.

But i gotta save my money for all the production shooting stuff, as well as buying AspectHD from Cineform for my HDV editing.

Variable Bit Rate, Quadruple the speed of HDV editing in Premiere. This a must-have since Adobe is too cheap to buy more than the basic of Cineform's codec.

Sadly, MS is basically the o/s for secretaries, myspace fanatics and gamers. My friend just ran Vista Ultimate. It was like 1998 all over again. sad

Some good deals on G5's on craigslist tho. Everyone recommends Parallel over Bootcamp for running xp.

d
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:32am

Post 5 of 83

BlueSmudge

Force: 808 | Joined: 30th Dec 2004 | Posts: 401

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Remember G5's are PPC processors so they cannot run windows.
I recommend getting a mac pro if you can afford it. New or used. Its got intel so you are future proof.
There are already apps that don't run on PPC machines.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:53am

Post 6 of 83

Tommy Gundersen

Force: 530 | Joined: 25th Jan 2005 | Posts: 471

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You won't need a month to learn how to use a Mac inside-out and from the bottom and up. And I'd support BlueSmudge's suggestion on this. Rather wait a few months extra to save for Mac Pro. I'm running Windows right now (Of course not running Vista cool ), playing Halo - Combat Evolved twisted

Oh, I had to try World of Warcraft when I got it, just to see how smooth it'd go compared to my laptop...

FPS stats:

My laptop: 25-30 FPS average / 15-20 when big stuffs happened, like dungeons.

My stationary computer: 50-60 FPS average / may slow down a little bit with big stuffs.

My baby (Mac): 160 FPS average... O.o And it wouldn't go below 140. Ever.

Was so smooth it was really creepy to try it the first time. I had trouble running, cause I am used to take frame-lag in cinsideration razz


Also, for other stats. I seem to render films and music faster than on Windows.

On Mac you can open applications folder, right click "Trash" (known as delete on Windows), and you've uninstalled it.. How easy! I remember on my laptop, I had to open control panel > Add/remove software > uninstall sexy software, then get a "gathering information/configuring the uninstallation" loading which took ages, THEN it uninstalled it slow, how slow depending on the size of the software.

Installing World of Warcraft on laptop, took me a few hours.
Installing on my Mac... I thought it'd take just as long time, so I figured why not go downstairs and make dinner.. But before I got up from the chair, it had reached 40%.



Now this is just my opinions, and how I've felt the last few months with Jewel. Maybe she's just been extra kind to me than an average Mac.. Though I doubt it.. She knows I'm not dating Macs.. smile

-T.G.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 11:03am

Post 7 of 83

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Hey Donut,

Have fun with whichever route you choose to take to upgrade (I don't care either way), but here are some points to bear in mind...

1) Mac vs PC - these days it's an argument about OS, the PC architecture won the race. You may as well add Linux variants to that mix/race.

2) 3Gigs limit on memory - I think that comes down to addressing in 32-bit systems. If you want to use more, you can go 64-bit with the incompatibilities that can imply or you can use flash drives in Vista as swapfiles to reduce disk I/O and speed up. 3 Gigs is a lot of RAM though, so make sure your programs can actually make proper use of it before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

3) "...This Vista POS..." Lets get this straight - Vista is, in absolute terms, rather good. Whether or not you like it is another question. Deep inside, the architecture is solid and elegant.

4) Blue Screen Of Death? Blimey you are suffering - those are so so rare these days, and always down to hardware issues. And don't be fooled into thinking Mac's never have hardware/software issues - it's the same stuff in a glossier box, despite what the adverts wanting you to believe you're buying a personality and lifestyle.

5) So use Avid, run it on a PC or Mac, then buy whatever hardware you like, and you have an upgrade path to working on the dedicated hardware systems.

6) whatever you get, look into how you format your external hard drives - I grumpily discovered - HFS+ (Mac) cannot be read without an extra $50 bit of software on a PC
NTFS (PC) can be read but not written on a mac
FAT32 can be read/written on both (but is the worst format of the lot for large discs - NTFS is the best and most secure)

7)
Sadly, MS is basically the o/s for secretaries, myspace fanatics and gamers. My friend just ran Vista Ultimate. It was like 1998 all over again.
This is just bizarre. Like 1998 how?! Also, just for completeness, MS OS's are also running (VERY reliably) Air Traffic Control systems, warships, etc. It's not the OS that causes problems, it's the flaky software people put on them.

cool I'm not sure how VBR will help with HDV, HDV is by definition CBR. Perhaps you mean as an intermediate editing codec, so we're not really talking about HDV, and you may find DNxHD another good option. Hey, Ikegama even have direct-compress DNxHD cameras, it's rather good for intermediates.

Hope this helps
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 1:55pm

Post 8 of 83

GeekOfComedy

Force: 400 | Joined: 19th Mar 2008 | Posts: 9

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm going to be dual booting Mac leopard with my beloved blue screen of death visya soon so yay me. And i'm getting final cut express 4.0 with it
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 6:39pm

Post 9 of 83

Plainly

Force: 1537 | Joined: 27th Dec 2006 | Posts: 767

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

"...This Vista POS..." Lets get this straight - Vista is, in absolute terms, rather good. Whether or not you like it is another question. Deep inside, the architecture is solid and elegant.
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what's the big deal about it being bad. crazy (It came with my laptop, and I like it much better than XP, to be honest)

Anyway, for the (192,318th) Mac-PC debate... My opinion would be to go with what you're best able to work with. For example, I just can't work with a Mac, I don't understand them, and I don't like their workflow - and that's that, so I'm not going to go and buy a Mac. On a PC, I work great, and I understand them. Now you, I think, need to see whether there's one with which you can work with more ease.

I hope this helps you attain your decision! razz

Plainly
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:35pm

Post 10 of 83

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -4

Well, I can see my post will be attacked by mac users but here goes:

1. What is with the 3 GB limit? Dell sells PC's with 4GB+ (Alienware sells 'em with, like, 8GB)and you can add RAM to PCs. Also, my dad's Dell has 128GB of RAM.

2. Vista is better than Leopard (I think so at least). It is safer, more reliable, and more useful. I have several PCs with Vista and several with XP. I just bought Vista upgrade for my laptop. Also, some businesses have upgraded to Vista. It is better than XP. For me XP is too old. I have also found Vista to be better for media and wireless networking.

3. The OS isn't at fault for most problems- it is the software you put on them.

4. A Mac may look nicer, but when it comes down to power, the PC has more. A lot more!

If you do get a Mac you were warned by me NOT to get one. Don't blame me. If I were you I woud stick with MS and Windows.

Last edited Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:39pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:39pm

Post 11 of 83

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

DVStudio wrote:

2. Vista is better than Leopard.

DVStudio wrote:

I have several PCs with Vista and several with XP.
And do you have several Macs with Leopard too?
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:40pm

Post 12 of 83

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'd drop your money on a Mac Pro. Customize it to your liking. My friend has one and it soars. But if you are finishing up a project right now, do it on your PC. Then buy the Mac. It took me at least a month to learn the ins-and-outs of my iMac.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:41pm

Post 13 of 83

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -5

No. My aunt has 1 or two and some of my friends have Macs and to tell you the truth, I cwould throw it out the window if I had one. Tey are very laggard and freeze up a lot. They are't reliable and are awful for work. You can't play any good games on them. The only thing they are good for is photo editing... oh.... wait.... my PC does that better.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:43pm

Post 14 of 83

FCRabbath

Force: 305 | Joined: 11th Oct 2004 | Posts: 583

Member

I use a PC. Macs are a lot better though..i would get the mac for sure if i had lots of $$$ or rob a bank...
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 8:53pm

Post 15 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

the 3gb limit is for apps. 1gb is used by the o/s, video, etc.

I think i'm just gonna grab an HP Vista 32-bit Premium Dual Core 2 2.6ghz, 750gb, Nvida 8600 with dvi/hdmi and 4 gigs.

Once this junk is 'in the can' - i can then splurge on a mac, and take my time learning - instead of being rushed. Plus I have a zillion mac resources who can help me.

I'm also gonna grab AspectHD (cineform.com) to do real-fast seamless HDV editing of my Canon Xh a1's 24f in premiere/ae. That'll help out a lot.

But in terms of the argument - anyone i've found - who makes a living doing this - and is GOOD at it (Andrew Kramer, Chad Perkins both emailed me guess what the answer was?) uses a mac. You just can't argue when 99% of them use one product. Sooner or later you just gotta use some common sense in life.

But for now, i'm gonna grab that evil HP Vista PC at best buy, or hp.com. Not sure yet. I do like that geek squad option tho. smile

d
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:20pm

Post 16 of 83

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

the 3gb limit is for apps. 1gb is used by the o/s, video, etc.
Right, let's get this straight - 4 Gigs *physical* RAM is the maximum (due to 32-bit addressing). You aren't running video in that (but still address it) if you have a video card, and half-a-gig is used by the rest of the OS. You can also have much more virtual memory in a swapfile, which thanks to Vista's cleverness, you can have on flash storage instead of disk. This means you can have 10+ Gigs of memory, just each file (or logical segment of file) needs to be under 4 gigs. If Macs use 32-bit addressing, then they're in the same boat on the same hardware, I understand.

Incidentally, the reason why so many ill-informed people claim Vista to be a memory hog is that it pre-loads popular software into vacant RAM, so it can start it in an instant if required (a bit like pre-fetch with memory). It is instantly released if another program needs it.


I'm also gonna grab AspectHD (cineform.com) to do real-fast seamless HDV editing of my Canon Xh a1's 24f in premiere/ae. That'll help out a lot.
That'll be the intermediate codec again. I'm sure it'll help. EDIT - just read the product page, and I'm certain it'll help, looks like a good product line. One thing to bear in mind is that the AspectHD product uses non-square pixels for 1080 images - not the end of the world (similar to HDCAM, in fact) just an FYI. And the other thing you may want to just be aware of is the bit depth, 8-bit may cause you problems if you want to grade the footage a lot. If you can afford the extra, the next one up the product line looks a better bet for quality/resolution, and you can use it on your Mac too, if you get one.


You just can't argue when 99% of them use one product. Sooner or later you just gotta use some common sense in life.
Indeed. So why use Premiere (with or without the new intermediate codec)? 85% of film/tv projects touch an Avid at some point in their workflow, and you won't need the cineform IC as you'll have DNxHD included.

Just out of interest - 99%, that's a high figure. Maybe in your experience a lot of people use Macs, but the overall global figure is, I'm sure, a heap lower - how about all the dedicated hardware systems (running on a Windows stack, as often as not. Sometimes Unix, never OSX), I know other editors (professional) who use Windows-based systems. If you can substantiate the 99% figure, please do, if it's opinion, please state it as such.

I really don't care what you buy as hardware (it's the same stuff), OS (it's just an interoperability layer, both are stable and have their up and downsides), or editing package (if you really want to use Premiere of FCP, fill your boots).

Last edited Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 10:08pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:21pm

Post 17 of 83

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Oh, yay. Another Mac VS PC thread... gotta love these wink I'm not going either way, because each OS has it's ups and downs. I just switched over to a macbook pro (which I am posting from now) and I've been enjoying it. It all depends on your preference. On the other hand, if you want to be swayed, go Mac wink
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:32pm

Post 18 of 83

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Guys... how can we contine to post Mac vs. pC threads? There must be 6,000,000 of them. I thughtthe debate should have been sloved with the Dell/MS super computer I found.
-128 GB RAM
-5 TB HDD
-2 1.5 GB graphics cards
-3.3 GHZ duo core xeon prcessor 9supports 2 of these)
-Vista ultimate
-4 30" monitors
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:32pm

Post 19 of 83

chchaisson

Force: 60 | Joined: 1st Nov 2006 | Posts: 45

Member

DVStudio wrote:

Well, I can see my post will be attacked by mac users but here goes:

1. What is with the 3 GB limit? Dell sells PC's with 4GB+ (Alienware sells 'em with, like, 8GB)and you can add RAM to PCs. Also, my dad's Dell has 128GB of RAM.
Sorry, what? Maybe I misunderstood...the Mac Pro can go up to 32 GB of Ram. Even my iMac has 4 GB.

Have you used Leopard yet, or are you speculating? I admit that it has it's faults, but even with those faults I feel that it is more secure than Vista.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 9:52pm

Post 20 of 83

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah. And?
I checked- Dell= up to 128 GB RAM
Alienware= 64 GB RAM

Yes. I have used leopard.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Post 21 of 83

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Even 32 GB of RAM is overkill. I always enjoy reading DVStudio's posts in these topics though, keep it up.
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Post 22 of 83

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

DVStudio - You seem to think that it's a fact that Windows are, without contest, far superior to Macs. They aren't; there simply isn't one that's definitely better than the other, it's all a matter of opinion. Most of the things you're saying bad about Macs are either not true or you're ridiculously extreme opinion, you can't just say things like, "I don't like Macs.... so they're bad". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and just because you don't like something that doesn't make it bad. I prefer Macs, but not all Windows are bad, it's just a matter of opinion, and what you use the computer for. If someone is asking about what OS is better, give your opinion, but don't shoot down every positive thing said about Macs with untrue information or blatant statements about how you just don't like it.



-Jabooza
Posted: Sat, 22nd Mar 2008, 10:16pm

Post 23 of 83

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm typing this on Vista. I've used for about two years now and it's treated me well. For any skeptics out there let me set this straight: Vista is considerably better than XP. Macs are great. I might be getting one this summer, but it depends what your needs are. If you're a hardcore gamer, a Mac won't be your best bet, but if you're looking for stability(more than Windows has to offer), then invest in one. I'd call both options pretty equal in terms of filimmaking. What the Mac vs PC for post-producing really boils down to is Vegas vs. Final Cut Pro.

I could very well replace my processor myself on a PC with an LGA755 Socket(Where Intel processors are commonly put on the motherboard). In other words, I could take a Core 2 Dou and replace it with a quad core in a matter of minutes. On a Mac, it's a bit different. Apple has taken the "smaller is better" factor far enough that it compromises how expandable the upgrades are for them. I'd have to send my Mac to somewhere like OWC, wait a week, and pay a lot more money to do something that would take a lot less time on a PC. That's probably my only gripe with Apple. If you do want this expandability, you have to buy a Mac Pro. confused
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 12:24am

Post 24 of 83

jfreedan

Force: 680 | Joined: 18th Sep 2005 | Posts: 50

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I think the issue of which computer to purchase is more a software question than a hardware one.

I've used both Vegas and Final Cut Pro. I've also used Premiere. I have never used avid.

From my experiences though, FCP is the superior editing software out of Vegas and Premiere, and as FCP is a Mac-only app, I would advise a Mac, unless you are going to use Avid or something, which is what the "pros" use I hear. Avid runs on both Mac and PCs.

Personally I am looking to purchase an iMac Pro and get FCP, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Adobe CS 3, and VisionLab.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 1:22am

Post 25 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

i think the debates are important, cuz for many - this decision can affect careers.

I think i'm gonna get a 4gb hp vista32 pavillion, 750gb, br writer, intel quad dual 2, nvidia 8600 with dvi/hdmi. This'll tie me over for this flick. And then afterwards - next year - i can get a mac and have all the time in the world to play with it and learn it.

Also get AspectHD from Cineform, so toying with HDV in cs3 is a lot LOT faster.

Best Buy quoted me $1800 custom built. Gonna shop around and see if I can find it cheaper, and good warranty support.

d
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 1:31am

Post 26 of 83

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

jfreedan wrote:


Personally I am looking to purchase an iMac Pro and get FCP, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Adobe CS 3, and VisionLab.
Really... An Imac Pro... Good luck with that. wink
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 1:41am

Post 27 of 83

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I just assembled a new editing computer last week. All the CPU parts add up to $950 after shipping from newegg. It has (Without being needlessly specific):

a Core 2 Quad @3.2 GHZ

4 GB of DDR2 PC8500

640GB WD SataII HD (The new 2 platter version)

(and two EXT firewire 500GB drives)

16X DL/LS/DVD/CD burner

XFX Geforce 8600GT XXX edition (Dual-dual link DVI)

It's running a brand new high-end Gateway 24" LCD ($650)

And I'm dual booting XP pro with Vista Ultimate.


MY god, this thing is fast. That HP sounds pretty overpriced considering.

Also, after pricing out the computer I built myself as a MAC pro, the thing would have cost $4,500 on Apple.com
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 3:07am

Post 28 of 83

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

I just assembled a new editing computer last week. All the CPU parts add up to $950 after shipping from newegg. It has (Without being needlessly specific):

a Core 2 Quad @3.2 GHZ

4 GB of DDR2 PC8500

640GB WD SataII HD (The new 2 platter version)

(and two EXT firewire 500GB drives)

16X DL/LS/DVD/CD burner

XFX Geforce 8600GT XXX edition (Dual-dual link DVI)

It's running a brand new high-end Gateway 24" LCD ($650)

And I'm dual booting XP pro with Vista Ultimate.


MY god, this thing is fast. That HP sounds pretty overpriced considering.

Also, after pricing out the computer I built myself as a MAC pro, the thing would have cost $4,500 on Apple.com
Gosh, Bryce... You act as if OSX isn't worth the extra $3,400... wink
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 3:35am

Post 29 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

jfreedan wrote:

I think the issue of which computer to purchase is more a software question than a hardware one.

I've used both Vegas and Final Cut Pro. I've also used Premiere. I have never used avid.
I run large-scale and HD projects in Vegas 6 on my new sexy Vista Home Premium OS and have never had any compatibility issues or hiccups. In fact, it seems entirely enriching of the backwards-compatible-ness. Nice alerts and things now pop up that used to lay into the program.

I did have to install drivers at first, but nothing that took longer than 5 minutes to download and 8 seconds to find in the first place. Just saying.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 5:23am

Post 30 of 83

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You know... I'm not gonna lie.

This Vista hate, especially when it comes largely based off of anecdotal evidence and hearsay like that, really begins to tick me off. Vista was the first operating system made based entirely off of input from the customers, and it is a huge upgrade in OS.

Now is it perfect? No. There are some irritating bits of it, but by and large, it's pretty good. It is also a major change. Change happens in IT. You either get used to it, or you get out of it.

Vista is a damn solid OS, and from what I've read -- you haven't actually tried it, and if you have, you have approached it with a very XP-esque hand at things. I'm going to let you in on something:

Vista isn't XP. It's a huge change. Using Vista in an XP-esque manner is probably going to piss you off, because... it isn't XP. If they wanted Vista to be like XP, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RELEASED A BRAND-NEW OPERATING SYSTEM. Vista is FAR better than XP, which can only be described as "showing it's age, badly." XP was getting old -- while other operating systems were getting things like good file explorers and system-wide, integrated fast desktop search...

I can't complain. Finally.

A modern and competent OS from Microsoft. An upgrade worth... actually having. Direct X 10. Aero. Windows Desktop Search. Windows Presentation Foundation with .NET 3.0. Security that doesn't suck. A built-in browser that doesn't suck at everything including arts and crafts. A nice backup center. A brilliant programs menu. A way to easily add and remove Windows features. A FABULOUS built-in screenshot tool. Rebuilt networking. Firm control over computer power settings...

Vista has... a LOT of features.

Like, a lot.

A LOT. Tons. You have no idea how many features are in there -- and sure, you look at this sentence and say that doesn't matter, but... when you create an entire power plan just so that your screen won't turn off, only to find that all you had to was hit Windows Key + X to access the Windows Mobility Center to enable Presentation Mode... you don't realize just how... not sucky, but AWESOME Vista is.

EvilDonut wrote:

But in terms of the argument - anyone i've found - who makes a living doing this - and is GOOD at it (Andrew Kramer, Chad Perkins both emailed me guess what the answer was?) uses a mac.
Ouch. So... the skill and quality of your editing and filmmaking is predicated on the computing platform that you choose to use? That's a pretty tall statement sir, and I might add, completely untrue. You talk about how the "industry" doesn't use PC's? Why do you think Dell makes desktop and notebook workstation computers and keeps them up-to-date? Why do you think a company like Boxx Technologies, a company that designs, manufactures and sells Windows-based workstations to various visual effects firms? Why do you think Autodesk makes 3dsmax for Windows... only? Do you think ANY of these companies would bother building entire product lines around Windows if... it weren't possible to be creative with Windows?

I guess I wasn't actually being creative when I scored third place nationally in 3D Animation and Visualization, there just weren't any Mac users competing (which, actually, there were, but I won't go that low). Rrrgh. It's comments like that which remind me WHY I use Windows, which serve only to draw my ire, unjustly, towards the entire Mac community. I realize not all Mac users are a whole bunch of smug, elitist, morons. But I'll be honest: There are some of those smug, elitist morons, and they sure ruin it for the rest of the decent, normal Mac user population.

DVStudio wrote:

No. My aunt has 1 or two and some of my friends have Macs and to tell you the truth, I cwould throw it out the window if I had one. Tey are very laggard and freeze up a lot. They are't reliable and are awful for work. You can't play any good games on them. The only thing they are good for is photo editing... oh.... wait.... my PC does that better.
I can't help but note how I just got done ranting about how the elitist, smug Mac zealot population ruins it for the rest of the Mac users, but... I should be fair. People like DVStudio, the exact opposite, smug and elitist PC users, ruin it for the rest of us. So I'll just say it once:

PLATFORM ZEALOTS: YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THERE CAN'T BE PEACE. DIE.

DVStudio wrote:

Guys... how can we contine to post Mac vs. pC threads? There must be 6,000,000 of them. I thughtthe debate should have been sloved with the Dell/MS super computer I found.
As it turns out, you (as usual) have completely missed the point of many people's arguments for Macs or alternatives to Windows, and are blithely pitching hardware as the only reason people should go to one computer or another. Nvidia's 8800's are kicking the crap out of ATI's HD 3000's nowadays, do you think I'd buy an Nvidia?

No. Nvidia has the worst drivers ever, and ATI cards come with AVIVO HD and have good, solid driver updates every month. Peace of mind. Now shut up or put up some decently thought-out points that don't make the entire PC userbase look like a bunch of... you.

chchaisson wrote:

Have you used Leopard yet, or are you speculating? I admit that it has it's faults, but even with those faults I feel that it is more secure than Vista.
Security through obscurity is not security. No offense, but when and if Mac OS X becomes more and more popular (as the trend indicates), you may realize it's not the last bastion of secure computing. Hackers are clever, and no offense, they've got a bone to pick with Macs.

Bryce007 wrote:

I just assembled a new editing computer last week. All the CPU parts add up to $950 after shipping from newegg. It has (Without being needlessly specific):

a Core 2 Quad @3.2 GHZ

4 GB of DDR2 PC8500

640GB WD SataII HD (The new 2 platter version)

(and two EXT firewire 500GB drives)

16X DL/LS/DVD/CD burner

XFX Geforce 8600GT XXX edition (Dual-dual link DVI)

It's running a brand new high-end Gateway 24" LCD ($650)

And I'm dual booting XP pro with Vista Ultimate.


MY god, this thing is fast. That HP sounds pretty overpriced considering.

Also, after pricing out the computer I built myself as a MAC pro, the thing would have cost $4,500 on Apple.com
No offense, but that's not really a fair comparison. The Mac Pro is a dual-socket editing machine that uses Xeons with fully-buffered DIMMs versus standard DIMMs. That's gonna raise the price. Your system has one quad-core, the Mac Pro can have up to two.

I might further add, a REAL, professional desktop editing machine will probably be using a... REAL LCD panel. Gateway? No offense, but... it's... a Gateway. It wouldn't surprise me if it was a 6-bit panel, possibly even a TN panel instead of a nice 8-bit S-PVA.

Thirdly, there isn't a 3.2 GHz Core 2 Quad. Overclocking, in addition to stressing your components to the point of operational failure, isn't a fair comparison to stock components -- benchmark-wise.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 7:57am

Post 31 of 83

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

True, But I'm only making comparisons on a purely performance to price basis.


(Also, The monitor I bought is Quite nice. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2213491,00.asp)


Also, I love Vista Ultimate. A lot more then XP. Infact, dual booting it absolutely ideal. I do all my performance based computing in XP (Editing in Vegas, After effects, etc..), and everything else In Vista. I have yet to have it crash or cause imcompatibility issues.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 8:25am

Post 32 of 83

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

DVStudio wrote:

Well, I can see my post will be attacked by mac users but here goes:

1. What is with the 3 GB limit? Dell sells PC's with 4GB+ (Alienware sells 'em with, like, 8GB)and you can add RAM to PCs. Also, my dad's Dell has 128GB of RAM.

2. Vista is better than Leopard (I think so at least). It is safer, more reliable, and more useful. I have several PCs with Vista and several with XP. I just bought Vista upgrade for my laptop. Also, some businesses have upgraded to Vista. It is better than XP. For me XP is too old. I have also found Vista to be better for media and wireless networking.

3. The OS isn't at fault for most problems- it is the software you put on them.

4. A Mac may look nicer, but when it comes down to power, the PC has more. A lot more!

If you do get a Mac you were warned by me NOT to get one. Don't blame me. If I were you I woud stick with MS and Windows.
From DVStudio's Profile: "Started computing: 2005"

Hmm.......
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 3:50pm

Post 33 of 83

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

CX3 wrote:

DVStudio wrote:

Well, I can see my post will be attacked by mac users but here goes:

1. What is with the 3 GB limit? Dell sells PC's with 4GB+ (Alienware sells 'em with, like, 8GB)and you can add RAM to PCs. Also, my dad's Dell has 128GB of RAM.

2. Vista is better than Leopard (I think so at least). It is safer, more reliable, and more useful. I have several PCs with Vista and several with XP. I just bought Vista upgrade for my laptop. Also, some businesses have upgraded to Vista. It is better than XP. For me XP is too old. I have also found Vista to be better for media and wireless networking.

3. The OS isn't at fault for most problems- it is the software you put on them.

4. A Mac may look nicer, but when it comes down to power, the PC has more. A lot more!

If you do get a Mac you were warned by me NOT to get one. Don't blame me. If I were you I woud stick with MS and Windows.
From DVStudio's Profile: "Started computing: 2005"

Hmm.......
hahaha, nice find on that...

Oh, and DVstudio, I just got a mac and I find it more powerful, the OS more realiable, and not to mention it has an awesome exterior. So, just letting you know that a lot of users that have switched like Macs..
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 3:59pm

Post 34 of 83

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Pickle and I have had many chats about Vista, and I agree with his post 100%. As I said in my last response, I'll probably be getting a Macbook this summer. I decided to chat with an Apple Rep. I think he was brainwashed.

Me: I'm typing this on Vista right now, and I like it, but my PC isn't very powerful and it's just bogging down my performance for my system.
Apple Rep: Really? I hate Vista. It's a pain to use, and very unstable. If I ever have to use Windows I just stick with XP.
Me: That's a shame. If I log off, it's not because of Vista, it's because of you.
My chat ended. neutral I started up another one and got a much more friendly person that helped me without any side comments. wink
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 5:43pm

Post 35 of 83

jfreedan

Force: 680 | Joined: 18th Sep 2005 | Posts: 50

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

jfreedan wrote:

I think the issue of which computer to purchase is more a software question than a hardware one.

I've used both Vegas and Final Cut Pro. I've also used Premiere. I have never used avid.
I run large-scale and HD projects in Vegas 6 on my new sexy Vista Home Premium OS and have never had any compatibility issues or hiccups. In fact, it seems entirely enriching of the backwards-compatible-ness. Nice alerts and things now pop up that used to lay into the program.

I did have to install drivers at first, but nothing that took longer than 5 minutes to download and 8 seconds to find in the first place. Just saying.
Don't get me wrong; Vegas is a great NLE. But I find it a tad easier and faster to do similar things in FCP, such as key-framing. The only big difference is Audio, and while Vegas is superior to FCP in that regard, FCP comes with SoundTrack Pro, which has more Audio flexibility than Vegas does.

DVD Studio Pro is also a mac-only program, and it's the best DVD authoring app I know.

Thats why I said what computer system you want comes down to a software question. Because we use them at school, I know more Mac-only programs than I do Windows ones because I've spent more time screwing around with them.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 6:47pm

Post 36 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

i've noticed MS has released SP1 for Vista 32-bit now. Of course the 4GB limit is still there.

My friend's gonna build me a souped up quad core nvidia 4gb 720gb machine. He says it should be screaming no matter what it runs. I'm excited.

d
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 8:46pm

Post 37 of 83

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hey EvilDonut,

I went to my friends house yesterday and he had just received a custom built laptop from ibuypower.com

Well, I never used vista on a "good machine" until last night. He had it loaded with 4 gigs of RAM and had a quad-core intel processor running at 2.6 GHz. The computer was very, very, fast. His background was a pre-rendered video of a waterfall and he was playing Crysis on it at one of the higher settings (I don't know how many settings there are) and the game ran very smoothly. I like Vista way more than XP now. The interface felt nicer, almost "Mac-like" wink

The reason why I hated Vista was because I only ever used it on the display computers at Circuit City! razz

Considering that you are actually going to buy a good PC, you made the right decision, if you're happy with windows and work well with them, why change? I switched to Mac because I was tired of windows, but that's just me.

One last thing. Here's a little quote I dug up...

DVstudio wrote:

...amd is better...
Now everyone should definitely stay away from Apple computers considering that they are all intel native... wink

And CX3's posts make me laugh.
Posted: Sun, 23rd Mar 2008, 11:00pm

Post 38 of 83

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

i've noticed MS has released SP1 for Vista 32-bit now. Of course the 4GB limit is still there.
The 4 GB limit will always be there in ANY 32-bit operating system. If it's a 32-bit OS, the OS can only address memory locations with 32-bit address locations. IE, you have a string 32-bits long in order to address memory locations:

00000000-00000000-00000000-00000000

That is a 32-bit string of zeroes in four octets. Those zeroes can be replaced with a binary 1 or a 0, but the maximum amount of numbers that can be represented with a 32-bit binary value is 2^32, or roughly 4,294,967,296 which is... basically 4 GB's of RAM.

So, perhaps you can see now, a little bit better, on why Microsoft couldn't really "fix" the 4 GB limit with a Service Pack to a 32-bit operating system -- and that the "fix" to the 4 GB limit problem is, in fact, the development and distribution of 64-bit operating systems. Apple acknowledges this. The OSS community realizes this. That's... why Apple... and the OSS community... have released 64-bit operating systems.

FreshMentos wrote:

Hey EvilDonut,

I went to my friends house yesterday and he had just received a custom built laptop from ibuypower.com

Well, I never used vista on a "good machine" until last night. He had it loaded with 4 gigs of RAM and had a quad-core intel processor running at 2.6 GHz. The computer was very, very, fast. His background was a pre-rendered video of a waterfall and he was playing Crysis on it at one of the higher settings (I don't know how many settings there are) and the game ran very smoothly. I like Vista way more than XP now. The interface felt nicer, almost "Mac-like"

The reason why I hated Vista was because I only ever used it on the display computers at Circuit City!
Which, in part, is a fair accusation. I don't mind Vista machines with integrated graphics, unless they're Nvidia integrated graphics. Nvidia's integrated graphics handle Aero like my face would "handle" 1,000 bricks thrown at it. They just suck. Like, I would hardly call the Geforce 6150 or 7000 "usable" with Aero, and the Geforce 7150 isn't much better. It's not that they aren't capable of handling Aero, benchmarks show that these AND the ATI integrated chips are capable of delivering about TWICE the performance of the Intel integrated chips that do BETTER in Aero than these Nvidia pieces of crap. It's got to be some kind of driver thing, but... it does make for one hell of a miserable experience.

Intel's aren't bad. They do everything in Aero at a pretty decent frame rate. They can handle LOADS of Windows opening at a time... I tried it (hold Windows Key + E). biggrin

ATI is the ONLY graphics card company that has a handle on how Aero works and looks good -- ATI's dedicated and integrated chips do Flip3D and every Aero effect well. ATI's integrated X1200 chip on a 17-inch Toshiba we have at our local Circuit City does Flip3D better than the HP notebook with an Geforce 8400M GS laptop, AND better than the other HP notebook with a Geforce 8600M GT laptop.

Realistically though, I really think the other improvements to Vista make it a damn good OS.

I really think, that... if Apple adds a numeric keypad to the 17" MacBook Pro (shame on them for not adding that), and a good amount of hard drive space... if the next iteration of MacBook Pro's has a good ATI graphics card... I'm... gonna buy one of them as my next computer. Mine has about one year left of the most pointless warranty ever, and so Apple has that amount of time to correct the mistakes in the 17".

Then I might switch... and go for a dual-boot.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 12:27am

Post 39 of 83

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I've had my Macbook Pro for about 2 and a half months. In that time, the only problem I've ever had with it was installing Microsoft Office 2008 (it also remains the slowest program that I have installed, both in start up and workflow).

When I got my brand spanking new top of the line PC in 2004, I had to take it back to the computer store at least 5 times in the first 2 and a half months.

Coming off of a new problem with my PC at least once every few months, sometimes it amazes me how I've managed to avoid any problems with my MBP so far... then I remember that it's a Mac... wink


I've been running Final Cut Studio 2 flawlessly, with absolutely no freezing or slow down (and that's including the RAM-sucker program Color). I was planning to upgrade my RAM to 4GB from the standard 2, but everything on Leopard is so streamlined and focused, that even when running FCP, Color, Motion, and the normal stuff like Firefox, Adium, and iTunes, (all together) I've still got maybe a half gig of RAM free.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 1:29am

Post 40 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

what's wrong with nvida 8600? now you're scaring me.

i want something strong, powerful, 512mb, dvi/hdmi outputs, and not too expensive <$250. ati is all about all in one, tv tuner, crap. geforce is all about games. So what do YOU recommend for visual fx work, vista, etc.?

d
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 2:29am

Post 41 of 83

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

With my 8600GT with 256mb of ram, Aero is flawlessly smooth. There is literally zero slowdown (I'm using the newest beta drivers as well)


I didn't opt for the most expensive graphics card, simply because the things I use my computer for don't require one. Although, I do play Call of duty 4 maxed out, as well as crysis at all medium or slightly above.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 4:27am

Post 42 of 83

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

what's wrong with nvida 8600? now you're scaring me.

i want something strong, powerful, 512mb, dvi/hdmi outputs, and not too expensive <$250. ati is all about all in one, tv tuner, crap. geforce is all about games. So what do YOU recommend for visual fx work, vista, etc.?

d
You're falling head over heels for marketing BS. ATI is about GOOD graphics cards. When you buy an ATI card, you get MONTHLY driver updates, and the drivers are actually GOOD. In December of last year, ATI released a driver update that fixed a bug with some Radeon 9000-series cards in Call of Duty. Do you realize that most existing Radeon 9000's are probably no longer under warranty? The Radeon 9700 Pro, which was the first Radeon 9000-series part to hit the shelves, debuted in August 2002. Call of Duty was released in October 2003.

Nvidia isn't a bad company, in fact, the Geforce 8000-series (particularly near the high-end, 8800's and up) is downright amazing. It's a stark contrast from the previous generation, the Geforce 7000-series, which downright sucked. The 7000's can't do anti-aliasing or FP32 high dynamic range rendering simultaneously. They have TERRIBLE anti-aliasing at that, and their anisotropic filtering is pretty sub par. Most of these image quality issues were fixed in the Geforce 8000-series, because ATI's X1000-series, which was competing with the Geforce 7000-series, had way, WAY better image quality.

Today, the situation is different. Nvidia has a clear performance lead over ATI, but are stuck with their usual driver moronisms. ATI has a decent card that doesn't perform as well, but has excellent tech support. Take your pick. Also note that the Geforce 9000-series has just debuted (and is surprisingly weak), and that the Radeon HD 4000-series is due in April or June.

An 8600 GT will be a decent card. Not super fast, mind you -- you'll have to turn some settings down. Honestly, if I were buying a card... I'd go with an ATI card, like the HD 3870. They look better, work better with Windows Aero, and have competent driver support. And they're DirectX 10.1 compliant. smile
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 5:06am

Post 43 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Thanks

I also want GOOD support and stability. I want to focus 90% on my film, not spending hours diagnosing driver problems, calling tech support, and other junk. So if a card, which i can tell my best buy tech to put in, install, runs beautifully - has opengl, works in AE well - and i never have to hear about it ever again - that's the one I want!

Seems $230ish on the web seems like the average price.

Most pre-packaged computers come with Nvida 8xxx series card. I assume they get huge discounts from Nvidia to buy them in mass quantities. Sad, sometimes in the corporate world, pricing > quality. "If it works, it's out the door".

d
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 8:48am

Post 44 of 83

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

After having used Vista Ultimate 64-bit for about a year, I realised how bad it actually was and recently got myself a Mac. Vista is a good operating system (as long as you don't get the 64-bit version) but I've found that OS X suits my needs better for video and image editing as everything just seems much more stable. I still have a 32-bit Vista Home Premium on my laptop though that handles pretty much all of my schoolwork.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 8:52am

Post 45 of 83

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

I also want GOOD support and stability. I want to focus 90% on my film, not spending hours diagnosing driver problems, calling tech support, and other junk. So if a card, which i can tell my best buy tech to put in, install, runs beautifully - has opengl, works in AE well - and i never have to hear about it ever again - that's the one I want!
ATI will fulfill all of those requirements. I'll be honest here, Nvidia is the lead developer of OpenGL, but that's not to say ATI doesn't support it or do well in it. OpenGL-based games (Doom 3, Prey, Quake IV) tend to perform better on Nvidia cards, while Direct3D games (most Windows titles, including Half-Life 2, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, Crysis, etc). That's not to say ATI cards perform BADLY at OpenGL-based games -- my X1900 played Prey beautifully.

In order to stay completely honest with you, I'll admit I have a personal liking to ATI cards -- this being the case due to my experience with the competitor's cards. I had used a Geforce 2 MX 200, which I then upgraded to a Geforce 4 MX 440 so that I could attend LAN parties and play EverQuest. After I had played Unreal Tournament (the first one) at a LAN party, and losing frames-per-second in a botmatch with a whole EIGHT bots, I purchased a Radeon 9600 XT in late 2003.

I had no idea what I was in for.

My parents and I helped my sister move into her apartment in Phoenix, Arizona and it was then that they decided that I could have the latest and greatest computer that they had just purchased. It was my first PC with a processor speed faster than 1.0 GHz (in retrospect, it was probably the Pentium III that 'nixed my Unreal Tournament gaming experience, but still). I put in the Radeon 9600, and began to use the best graphics card known to man. I used that thing until summer of 2005, when I invested in my Radeon X800 XL as a timely upgrade. I paid $289 for that X800 -- and two months later the Geforce 7800 GT's were selling for that price. Needless to say, I felt like stabbing myself in the eye.

Nonetheless, I was tiring of carrying my desktop from place to place to attend a LAN party, and that's when I decided I needed to purchase a laptop. Christmas of 2005 arrived, and my parents had done a little scouting around and managed to scrounge up an old Compaq Presario laptop with an 850 MHz Pentium III, 256 MB of RAM, and an 8 MB ATI Rage M1 graphics card. It not only played, but HOSTED LAN games of Age of Empires II without missing a beat. IT EVEN PLAYED UNREAL TOURNAMENT FLAWLESSLY.

Despite this, my old Compaq obviously couldn't play... Half-Life 2 very well. It couldn't even play Counter-Strike very well. Not Counter-Strike: Source, no, original Counter-Strike just didn't work on it. And, after CES 2006, I began obsessing over the idea of a Dell Inspiron E1705, Dell's 17-inch gaming laptop without the XPS name (and price). It had a built-in Geforce Go 7800, a dual-core processor, and plenty of memory space. I literally checked the price of that laptop every week. I went to Dell.com and configured one almost each week.

It wasn't until late August of 2006 that I was finally able to order one -- but there it was. By then, the E1705's featured Core 2 Duo's (instead of just plain Core Duos), Geforce Go 7900's, and Windows XP Media Center Edition. Here's where I, ultimately, chose ATI over Nvidia. When I ordered that laptop, I was most eager for the 7900 inside it. It was about time for a nice graphics upgrade, and the 7900's not only supported Shader Model 3.0 in DirectX 9 (which my X800 XL did not), but they also scored much higher in benchmarks (the X800 was meant to compete against the 6800 -- NOT the 7800's).

When I got it, I was COMPLETELY let down. The image quality in games was utterly abysmal, compared to my Radeon X800 XL. The addition of Shader Model 3.0 support was completely negated by the fact that the 7000-series cards have the worst anti-aliasing known to man. In addition, they are architecturally incapable of rendering anti-aliasing simultaneously with high dynamic range lighting, a real-time 3D lighting technique that was just beginning to show up in just about every game. To worsen it all, the card couldn't do like... ANY in-game settings on my Source games (Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, Garry's Mod, etc). Every time I tried to set my in-game settings, I got this "Could not write to config.cfg" error in the console. And, to my utter dismay, I could only force in-game settings on those games by doing it externally, through the Nvidia Control Panel -- and then I could only do one game at a time. Why? Because most of Valve's source games are ALL named hl2.exe, and, even though these multiple instances of hl2.exe are in different directories, the Nvidia Control Panel couldn't actually distinguish them as different files.

So, I could go into the Nvidia Control Panel and set my in-game settings for, say, Counter-Strike: Source, and be happy. Briefly. Because, if I later wanted to go play Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, I couldn't just go and force settings through the Control Panel, because it was ALSO named hl2.exe. I couldn't even DELETE the entry that I had for Counter-Strike: Source, and then just add an entry for Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, because... I just couldn't. No, in order for me to be able to do something as simple as setting my in-game video quality settings, I had to uninstall and reinstall my Nvidia drivers. Which, I might add, to this date have not been updated since JULY OF 2006. Yes, that's BEFORE I bought my laptop.

Awesome.

Then I bought a laptop with a Radeon X1900... and suffered none of those problems. I did encounter one issue -- for the longest time I couldn't play Prey on my laptop, but that was because Alienware wasn't actually updating the driver page for my laptop. Then they did, and it worked, and has worked ever since. Yaaaaay. The end.

Actually, it's not the end. I later found a little utility that allows me to use desktop ATI driver releases for my laptop, so I never have to worry about not having proper drivers ever again, because ATI updates it's drivers once a month, which is why they name their driver releases like "Catalyst 7.12," which is indicative of the driver release of 2007, in December, the 12th month. Yaaay. The end for real this time. biggrin

Evman wrote:

When I got my brand spanking new top of the line PC in 2004, I had to take it back to the computer store at least 5 times in the first 2 and a half months.
No offense, but... that's probably not Windows's or the PC's fault, unless you went with some brand like Acer or Gateway, and if you didn't opt to have any security software or pre-installed program removal... well, that's probably going to happen. A PC, in the same conditions as a Mac, will work just as well as a Mac. Unfortunately, most PC's never get the chance, because they're sold by mega-OEM's who pre-install enough trial software on the machine that you could measure it with a scale, and in that regard, I give Apple the utter kudos it deserves.

But again, I'm using Vista. I've sent this PC in once -- because I spilled water on it.

Evman wrote:

Coming off of a new problem with my PC at least once every few months, sometimes it amazes me how I've managed to avoid any problems with my MBP so far... then I remember that it's a Mac...
Apart from being completely untrue, that's a fairly inflammatory statement. I feel inclined to add: 17" MacBook Pro's still don't have a numeric keypad, so hah.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 3:34pm

Post 46 of 83

Tommy Gundersen

Force: 530 | Joined: 25th Jan 2005 | Posts: 471

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm running Leopard and Vista Ultimate on my mac now, and as an old windows-boy and a new Mac-boy, I must say both Mac and Windows are good. It all depends on the user, what suits him/her best, so stop these statements of what is better than the other. None of them are "better", just different.

The only thing that would be different, is the hardware. But again, what's "best" to one another in that matter is also subjective. To me, creative, professional and work-wise, Mac /w Leopard suits me better. For entertainment (games!), XP/Vista is a clear winner.. I've just installed Vista so gaming is yet to be tested. Though all this runs on my Mac Pro.

I do have my old laptop and my sisters stationary PC, so I have seen this discussion from pretty much all the perspectives, I guess! I've had a lot of fun with Windows, and it works great. It would do exactly the same I'm doing now with Mac/Leopard, but in a different way. By that I mean softwares. For Windows I'd probably run Sonar & Gigastudio. But for me, Digital Performer, Kontakt & Vienna is the winning choice. (This is music based, not video editing as most of you guys are into).


What I'm saying is, choose what suits you better. What are you comfortable with? What are you used to? What's your requirements? Some questions for any of you guys whom are thinking of what to buy.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 6:39pm

Post 47 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

jfreedan wrote:

Don't get me wrong; Vegas is a great NLE. But I find it a tad easier and faster to do similar things in FCP, such as key-framing. The only big difference is Audio, and while Vegas is superior to FCP in that regard, FCP comes with SoundTrack Pro, which has more Audio flexibility than Vegas does.
Heh. Most people argue that the other way around, as Vegas' workflow is faster because it doesn't individually preview-render each element. It's not better all in regards, no; but if it has something going for it Vegas is the faster NLE workflow. You pay for it in rendering time, I'm sure- but really all of this is regardless of Mac v. PC debate that seems to be going around.

Lest we also not forget FCP's titler that is much better than Vegas's. (I haven't used Vegas Pro 8 yet, I've heard the titler is great and now much better) But Vegas kicks it to the curb for fast, efficient, and professional grading without the aids of things like Magic Bullet.

But again, besides the point I think. smile

DVD Studio Pro is also a mac-only program, and it's the best DVD authoring app I know.
Use DVD Architect (free with Vegas) and come talk to me. smile I don't know if it is the best overall; and it's really dependent on the person; but I've used Audition, Architect, and Studio Pro and it's my favorite of the three. But really, all are very similar and all do the pro things people like us want (customizeable motion menus, controllability, addition of subtitles, chapters, commentary, etc.)

Thats why I said what computer system you want comes down to a software question. Because we use them at school, I know more Mac-only programs than I do Windows ones because I've spent more time screwing around with them.
Absolutely true. I prefer Vegas greatly over FCP and like the speed for certain tools I use more in Photoshop better on Vista than I do OSX. Mac fixed these specific things for me, I'd gladly use both regularly.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 7:06pm

Post 48 of 83

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I don't know if it is the best overall; and it's really dependent on the person; but I've used Audition, Architect, and Studio Pro and it's my favorite of the three. But really, all are very similar and all do the pro things people like us want (customizeable motion menus, controllability, addition of subtitles, chapters, commentary, etc.)
I gather Scenarist is rather popular at the top end of the market. Just for general information as opposed to any kind of recommendation - it's very expensive and complicated, but it may answer someone's question one day so here it is for info.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 1:07am

Post 49 of 83

nitrox

Force: 105 | Joined: 27th Dec 2007 | Posts: 160

Member

DVStudio wrote:

No. My aunt has 1 or two and some of my friends have Macs and to tell you the truth, I cwould throw it out the window if I had one. Tey are very laggard and freeze up a lot. They are't reliable and are awful for work. You can't play any good games on them. The only thing they are good for is photo editing... oh.... wait.... my PC does that better.
maybe your freinds mac is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUZU0Fu_9BU
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 3:14am

Post 50 of 83

deltadirector38

Force: 1010 | Joined: 13th Apr 2006 | Posts: 18

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

nitrox wrote:

DVStudio wrote:

No. My aunt has 1 or two and some of my friends have Macs and to tell you the truth, I cwould throw it out the window if I had one. Tey are very laggard and freeze up a lot. They are't reliable and are awful for work. You can't play any good games on them. The only thing they are good for is photo editing... oh.... wait.... my PC does that better.
maybe your freinds mac is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUZU0Fu_9BU
(snicker) Those old iMacs sucked when it came to performance. My grandparents had one of those until last year when I told them it was time to get a new one. They like my old G5, and I love my new 24-inch Intel.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 4:00am

Post 51 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

I gather Scenarist is rather popular at the top end of the market. Just for general information as opposed to any kind of recommendation - it's very expensive and complicated, but it may answer someone's question one day so here it is for info.
Heh. You finally changed your avatar to something more....suiting. smile

I'll look into it, thanks.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 4:45am

Post 52 of 83

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

It's also so nice not having to worry about Viruses. On Macs there's no slowdown from programs like Norton or AVG eating up all your ram.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory or whatever. I'm just throwing my experience out there. If you want to disagree with what actually happened to me, you can go right ahead and do that.

I also think that Macs age a lot better than PCs do. My 4 year old PC is a complete POS (even though it was supposedly top of the line), and the 1 year old PCs we have in our school are so horrible that you basically can't get anything done on them short of editing word documents. The 8 year old Macs (one running OS9, mind you) that are in the editing room of my Communications department work like they're brand new. My Physics teacher also has a Titanium Powerbook G4 from 2001, which is running Leopard flawlessly and, from talking to him, works basically just as well (for normal use) as when he bought it.

I'm sure if you spent the money to get a top of the line PC (which the ones in my school aren't), it would run just fine if you kept it in pristine condition. Macs, it seems, you buy it, you do whatever you want on it, and it stays very very usable for years (future proof, if you will). Again, I could be completely mistaken, it is afterall, just my experience. wink
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 4:52am

Post 53 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

If you were a business owner, the requirements would be a bit different:

1) which can render faster? (= more time to do other stuff)

2) which is more stable? (= more time to do other stuff)

3) which has more availability of talent to find employees in?

4) which has less computing restrictions? (processor, MEMORY, storage?)

5) can you find straight out college IT tech support employes?

6) what do your employees feel?

Notice cost is not one of the criteria. When your employees can do more, spend less time at the watercooler waiting for systems to boot up, or render. And more powerful computers to do exactly what one envisons - the costs more than pay for itself.

And this is what I've found in companies all across America, and i'm sure most agree:

1) Corporate Database/Web Development : Windows (SqlServer/ASP/.Net/Oracle/VB)

2) Hardware Engineering : Unix

3) Corporate-Wide : Windows (think secretaries, accountants, ceo's, etc)

4) Gaming : Windows (End user is usually MS xbox, or a windows gaming person - so thus develop on Windows)

5) Government : Windows (the average Govt employee knows Windows and little else. Plus MS gives out huge discounts for volume licenses)

6) Design/Visual FX: Mac (fx, tv networks, studios, cable, etc.)

7) Sound Engineering : Windows (These people are trained for years in Pro Tools, Audition, etc. but all on Windows platforms).

8 ) Fortune 500 Banking/Financial/Mass Storage : VAX/AS/400/Legacy mainframes. (But this is slowly changing with SAP, Oracle, etc.).

Are there exceptions? Sure. There are trumpet playing one-legged blind people somewhere too. But by and large if you want to get a job in those areas - sometimes the O/S choice is already made way before you even walk through that door.

I'd hate to apply for an Fx job - and tell them during the job interview -- that I wouldn't be able to even find the power button on a mac. smile

d
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 5:01am

Post 54 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

I'm sure if you spent the money to get a top of the line PC (which the ones in my school aren't), it would run just fine if you kept it in pristine condition. Macs, it seems, you buy it, you do whatever you want on it, and it stays very very usable for years (future proof, if you will). Again, I could be completely mistaken, it is afterall, just my experience. wink
Quite some inflammatory experience. smile
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 10:50am

Post 55 of 83

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:


Heh. You finally changed your avatar to something more....suiting. smile
Heh...I usually keep avatars + sigs turned off for faster page loading on my PDA, but I was bored of seeing the grey head character looking so passive...

I'll look into it, thanks.
Scenarist is the mutts, but anything with *that* much power isn't suitable for home users. It supports the full DVD and Blu-Ray specs including regionalisation, copy protection, subtitles, multiple soundtracks and camera angles, blah blah - way more than your home user could cope with not making a total mess of. And not even approaching cheap. But, if you want to work in DVD creation, knowing Scenarist well will get you work :-o
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 10:53am

Post 56 of 83

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

It's also so nice not having to worry about Viruses. On Macs there's no slowdown from programs like Norton or AVG eating up all your ram.
To be completely honest... that's a temporary advantage. The day will come, and while Windows users have their well-built security infrastructure built and tempered by over a decade of dealing with hundreds of thousands of attacks, Macs won't have that. To Apple's credit, they are learning from the mistakes of the PC-ers as far as security goes -- but OS X still only has a built-in firewall, and I'd be surprised if they've got an anti-virus and anti-spyware built right-in to the OS.

I might add, security packages these days are pretty trim, with the exception of Norton and McAfee. Windows Live OneCare, AVG, Avast are all very light packages, and most do their thing without much user interaction. Ever so often, AVG'll pop up saying that it's doing an update, but it doesn't require user authorization nor interrupt my work.

I might add, of my 2048 MB of RAM, AVG is "eating" about 44 MB of it.

Evman wrote:

I also think that Macs age a lot better than PCs do. My 4 year old PC is a complete POS (even though it was supposedly top of the line)...
That's funny, because to date? My family has yet to discard a computer. My grandfather is still using the Dell XPS D300 machine that my parents purchased in 1998 with the preposterous idea that it would be the last computer they'd ever need to buy. This computer has a Pentium II at 300 MHz, 384 MB of RAM and a 20 GB HDD. It's been upgraded by me, simply out of interest, not because anything failed. It runs Windows XP Pro.

That doesn't include the Pentium-powered Dell Latitude CPi that my grandmother uses to surf the internet and check her email in Windows 98 SE. Or the Dell Inspiron 7000 (266 MHz Pentium II, 384 MB RAM, 8 GB HDD -- Running Windows XP Pro) that my father uses as a maintenance logging workstation for his aircraft stuff. Nor the custom-built Athlon XP machine that my father currently uses for his home desktop. Nor my old Dell Dimension 8300, which you catch a glimpse of in my film, "A Tale of Two Fans" here in the cinema.

My old Dell Dimension 4100 with a 866 MHz Pentium III and 512 MB RAM, which began it's life running Windows ME as the best computer I ever owned. Even my Pentium-powered Gateway 2000 desktop still runs like a champ. So does my Pentium III-powered Compaq Presario 1700US notebook (which runs XP). So does the desktop that I installed Mac OS X and dual-booted it with Vista here. As does the old Dell that I installed Ubuntu on.

I could go on to list the number of old computers, PC's, that my friends use to great effect still TODAY. I won't, simply because I've already listed TEN computers of varying ages that still continue to serve either me or my family to great effect. Really, I don't see what you're talking about, sir.

Evman wrote:

...and the 1 year old PCs we have in our school are so horrible that you basically can't get anything done on them short of editing word documents.
It was exactly the opposite in my experience. It was the Macs at my school that ran like they weren't so much computers, so much as they were just LCD monitors connected to bricks. They were abhorrent, and the THOUSANDS of new little Pentium 4 desktops that the school had just purchased were blazing fast. They all had 512 MB of RAM, 2.8 GHz Pentium 4's with hyperthreading, and Geforce 4 MX440's. I don't joke when I say would much rather have done my editing on those machines rather than the dual 867 MHz G4 desktop with 1 GB of RAM that we had to edit with.

In one instance, it took me ten minutes to edit a video at home on Adobe Premiere Elements on my Dell Dimension 8300 where it would've taken me an entire 45-minute class period to edit and do the same thing in Final Cut Pro, assuming that FCP wouldn't crash and lose all of my data, which it typically did once or more per class period. I might add, it NEVER saved the data when it crashed. The number of times that my copy of Adobe Premiere Elements has crashed, I can count on ONE hand, and EVERY TIME it has crashed without warning -- it always saved a copy of the project that contained my work to the very last edit. This was a $100 consumer editing studio, pitted against "the industry standard."

The more and more video content that we captured over the course of the school year, the more and more those computers sloooooooooowed down. One day, my camera controls in Final Cut Pro just... disappeared, with no hope of retrieving them. I had to use the actual controls on the camera to set the capture points, for the rest of the year.

I finally had to abandon using Final Cut Pro in favor of iMovie, because the level of professionalism that I had intended to include in the product was "so extravagant," apparently, that the computers required something on the order of EIGHT HOURS of render time in order to do the task I set. AltiVec my foot.

But, I digress. I'm just re-iterating my experiences to highlight just how... opposite they can be. Those experiences are where my utter ire for Macs came from. The fact that, today, I'm willing and able to say that I want an iPhone, or that I would like a 17" MacBook Pro when and if they update the graphics card and add a numeric keypad, is a stark change to the "me" of two or three years ago, where I was dumbfounded as to how any sane person could possibly say that Macs were the best computers ever while at the same time believing the words that they were uttering.

I am actually willing to admit that products manufactured by Apple are very good, high quality products, and that, barring a few flaws, I'd even pay the extra money to get myself a piece of that quality. Of course, there remains the reality of the fact that, PC's simply offer a greater number of choices. I purchased my Alienware Area-51 m5790 after deeply considering a MacBook Pro. Apple simply doesn't make a laptop with two hard drives, a numpad, and a high-end ATI graphics card.

Evman wrote:

My Physics teacher also has a Titanium Powerbook G4 from 2001, which is running Leopard flawlessly and, from talking to him, works basically just as well (for normal use) as when he bought it.
A friend of mine has one such laptop. It doesn't run Panther all that well, and can't edit videos to save it's life, though that's what it's used for.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 7:17pm

Post 57 of 83

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah, I guess it all just ends up being experience. I've had horrible experience with PCs and you with Macs.

What's with the insistence on the numeric keypad anyway? My Santa Rosa Macbook Pro has one and I never ever use it (it wasn't until a week ago that I even realized it was there).

My teacher doesn't do video editing on his Powerbook. I don't see why anyone would decide to edit films on a 7 year old laptop, no matter what the brand or OS razz . He just uses it for the internet, music, and the occasional hookup to motion detectors for physics experiments.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 7:59pm

Post 58 of 83

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

What's with the insistence on the numeric keypad anyway? My Santa Rosa Macbook Pro has one and I never ever use it (it wasn't until a week ago that I even realized it was there).
You... don't have a numeric keypad. There isn't a MacBook Pro that has one. I wish there was, because it's an absolute must if you do a lot in 3dsmax and Microsoft Excel. Which I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeric_keypad

Evman wrote:

My teacher doesn't do video editing on his Powerbook. I don't see why anyone would decide to edit films on a 7 year old laptop, no matter what the brand or OS.
I did a lot of image editing on mine...
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 8:24pm

Post 59 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

[quote="A Pickle
I did a lot of image editing on mine...[/quote]

image editing doesn't require a lot of processor power or ram usage.

my xp froze yesterday while burning a dvd if it makes anyone happy.

d
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 8:45pm

Post 60 of 83

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

My MBP has a numlock key at the top and 789uiojklm become 7894561230.

The recent Penryn update nixed this feature.

I really don't see a laptop being able to handle those extra buttons while still making the main bulk of the keyboard usable. But what the hell do I know anyway? razz

And you said your friend did video editing, not image editing. And as EvilDonut said, image editing isn't as intensive as video editing anyway.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 9:12pm

Post 61 of 83

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

A Pickle wrote:


I did a lot of image editing on mine...
image editing doesn't require a lot of processor power or ram usage.
You're... joking, right?



Mind you Photoshop's not even doing anything. It's just sitting there. If you were really doing some Graphic design, you'd have Illustrator open with it, which costs even more RAM and CPU usage. Don't underestimate the power it takes to edit an image. In some cases, image editing can take more resources than video editing.
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 9:33pm

Post 62 of 83

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

A Pickle wrote:

I did a lot of image editing on mine...
image editing doesn't require a lot of processor power or ram usage.
That's... a pretty far cry from the truth.

Evman wrote:

My MBP has a numlock key at the top and 789uiojklm become 7894561230.

The recent Penryn update nixed this feature.
Ah, one of those "numpads". I meant a real one. Like a dedicated numeric keypad. You're right that most laptops can't handle a dedicated numeric keypad without, in some way, cramping the keys.

Evman wrote:

I really don't see a laptop being able to handle those extra buttons while still making the main bulk of the keyboard usable. But what the hell do I know anyway?
People manage to get along on 13.3" and 12.1" notebooks, which have considerably smaller keys than your standard notebook, and thus, are fairly cramped. That doesn't change the fact that people buy... and use those notebooks.

That brings me to my next point -- where Micro-Star International (MSI, yes, the motherboard maker) made a 15.4" gaming notebook with a full-size keyboard. That is, a standard keyboard + numeric keypad. If they can pack it on a 15.4", then... there's no reason for any company NOT to pack it on a 17" notebook. Laptops are all about integration. In general, the more features you can pack into a notebook chassis, the better. That way, you don't need more crap to lug along in your notebook bag. That includes external, wired-or-wireless, Targus numeric keypads. If I've more integrated into my notebook, I've got less extra crap in my bag.

Most 17" notebooks these days pack a numpad. Mine does -- that's one of the reasons I got it. In fact, that's one of the reasons I ditched my Dell Inspiron E1705 and got this notebook. I have to have a numeric keypad, and when a company is selling a 17-incher, there's no excuse NOT to have one. Currently, I adore Toshiba for having the absolute BEST keyboard layout I've EVER seen on a laptop. Big, pretty-looking, silver keys. Most of the keys, like "Home" or "End" are dedicated keys, too, so you don't have to use the "Function" key. My laptop keyboard has really skinny, almost barely usable arrow keys, and the "Home" and "End" keys require you to hit "Fn" when using them.

Toshiba rocks my face, as far as keyboard layout goes. Now if only they'd make a nice 17" with an HD 3870 graphics card...
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 10:47pm

Post 63 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Rating: -5

Fill wrote:

[Mind you Photoshop's not even doing anything. It's just sitting there. If you were really doing some Graphic design, you'd have Illustrator open with it, which costs even more RAM and CPU usage. Don't underestimate the power it takes to edit an image. In some cases, image editing can take more resources than video editing.
Prove it.

Don't take the lazy approach and run off and hide.

Prove common tasks and their appropriate benchmarks, cpu cycles required, ram utilization and calculations per second.

Imagine you're at a conference, and you spew out this B.S. to the audience that image editing requires more power than video editing or FX rendering.

Now back it up.

I doubt you will tho. Probably make some excuse and then go hide.

Here, since I know you'll be lazy I did some work for you:

Photoshop CS3 min requirements:

Intel Pentium 4, Intel Centrino, Intel Xeon, or Dual-Core Intel Xeon processor
Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista
320MB of RAM (512MB recommended)
64MB of video RAM
650MB of available hard-disk space
1,024x768 monitor resolution with 16-bit video card

After Effects CS3 min requirements:

Intel® Pentium® 4, Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon®, or Intel Core™ Duo (or compatible) processor
Microsoft® Windows® XP with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista™ Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
1GB of RAM for DV; 2GB of RAM for HDV and HD
3GB of available hard-disk space plus 2GB of space for optional content (additional free space required during installation)
1024x768 monitor resolution with 32-bit video card; Adobe recommended graphics card for GPU-accelerated playback

--> 320MB of RAM vs 2 GIGABYTES of RAM.

Hmm.

Okay, now let's hear your lousy excuse, which won't matter anyways.

d
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 10:54pm

Post 64 of 83

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Eh... Donut, you seem a bit excessive in your defensive tone there. It's not that big of a deal, is it?
Posted: Tue, 25th Mar 2008, 11:05pm

Post 65 of 83

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

EvilDonut wrote:

Fill wrote:

[Mind you Photoshop's not even doing anything. It's just sitting there. If you were really doing some Graphic design, you'd have Illustrator open with it, which costs even more RAM and CPU usage. Don't underestimate the power it takes to edit an image. In some cases, image editing can take more resources than video editing.
Prove it.

Don't take the lazy approach and run off and hide.

Prove common tasks and their appropriate benchmarks, cpu cycles required, ram utilization and calculations per second.

Imagine you're at a conference, and you spew out this B.S. to the audience that image editing requires more power than video editing or FX rendering.

Now back it up.

I doubt you will tho. Probably make some excuse and then go hide.
Yeah, you obviously didn't read my post.

I wrote:

In some cases, image editing can take more resources than video editing.
Prove it? Okay. Look at Bert Monroy's Damen.

Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline.
The rest was created in Photoshop.
• The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.
• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.
• It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.
• The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.
• Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.
• Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.
• Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.

That piece of art is mural. Flattening that image, yes, one frame, an IMAGE is 1.7GB. Can you imagine how large the project file as a total would be? How much power your PC would have to work to render that? So, yes. In some cases, image editing can take more resources than video editing.

Read, sir. Read.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 12:54am

Post 66 of 83

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

System resources use for stills and video editing isn't a cut-and-dried one-size-fits-all argument, here's why...

Stills are often a far greater resolution than even HD images (appx 2 Megapixels @ 1920x1080), and if the software is written to load the whole image into memory for the whole time, the RAM/pagefile will bear the brunt, CPU utilization will be high as transforms are applied, and image composition will tend to be in an uncompressed format with high colour depth (ie lots of bits per pixel). Disk I/O will tend to be quite low (unless the pagefile/swapfile is churning hard).

Video editing in (say) HDV will be working on HEAVILY compressed images, but lots of them per second. This will involve a heap of I/O, but not necessarily that much RAM to decode the video on-the-fly. Video editing tools use cunning tricks to optimise the users experience, such as lower resolution canvases, or proxying, which doesn't make as much sense for stills. Of course you could try working with uncompressed HD, let's say 6MB/frame @ 25fps - 1.2 Gigabits/second - Waaay more than anything but dedicated hardware is confident to handle in real time.

In both toolsets there are good and dreadful tools, with different requirements. Video rendering can be a slow job, but not all NLE's require rendering every time, some can render on-the-fly for colour corrections, dissolves, etc, or offload the work from the processor to hardware (eg Avid Mojo). Some stills packages manage their memory better than others. It's not as simple a case either way as 'x is always more demanding than y'.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 1:08am

Post 67 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

And as EvilDonut said, image editing isn't as intensive as video editing anyway.
I think your argument fizzled out around there. And anyone who is serious shmerious would obviously know serious shmerious industry people only use what EvilDonut says and any opinion differing won't make it anywhere because he knows how everything works.



Obviously. smile Oh,



You've got to be kidding me if you're refuting the fact that photshop is ram-intensive.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 1:34am

Post 68 of 83

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

When did I ever say the Photoshop isn't RAM intensive?

Compared to rendering something in Vegas or Final Cut, it's not as intensive.

And don't be an ass about it Atom, you know I'm not saying that EvilDonut's word is the end all be all. You know that, don't be a dick. That's the kinda stuff that perpetuates these circular, go-nowhere arguments about nothing. razz

I am not tech savvy at all. I didn't really learn much about the internal workings of computers until I started researching my Macbook Pro. I don't really think all that knowledge is completely necessary anyway. Final Cut Studio runs flawlessly, and so does Photoshop. And that's all that I need. I think that's what is ideal anyway. It works, and you don't have to worry about it.

With my PC, I was always fighting with it, or having to tweak things to get everything working right. With my Mac, everything just works. You can complain and whine and moan about how I'm wrong all you want. I'm not ruining your PC experience. I'm telling you what I've observed in my computing lifetime.

Who knows, my Mac could simply stop working tomorrow. All I know is that it's the most flawless computer I've ever used. And no one can dispute that. wink
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 1:42am

Post 69 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

When did I ever say the Photoshop isn't RAM intensive?

And don't be an ass about it Atom, you know I'm not saying that EvilDonut's word is the end all be all. You know that, don't be a dick. That's the kinda stuff that perpetuates these circular, go-nowhere arguments about nothing. razz
You seem to assume any bit more than the first of that first sentence in my post was directed at you. It wasn't. smile I'm also upset you didn't even seem to notice the super awesome dialogue I was writing in Celtx I let slip into that screen grap.

I am not tech savvy at all.
Surely you know I realized that the minute you moved from PC to Mac; no? smile

Who knows, my Mac could simply stop working tomorrow. All I know is that it's the most flawless computer I've ever used. And no one can dispute that. wink
I can, actually. See, for 15 minutes I can live life through your eyes and have seen more joy and flawlessness come out of a PC. Of course I can't say past that, as I was immediately thrown onto the side of I-95 by the airport after the time period ended.

Last edited Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 1:45am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 1:45am

Post 70 of 83

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I'm also upset you didn't even seem to notice the super awesome dialogue I was writing in Celtx I let slip into that screen grap.
I'm sure it got in there by complete accident... smile
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 1:50am

Post 71 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This one definitely isn't, though
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 2:17am

Post 72 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Rating: -5

lol!

This is your biggest defense:

"• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes. "

Wow, this is so every day usage!

Yeah, I could load NOTEPAD with a 800MB text file, and my cpu would be over powered ,and my RAM usage would go off the roof in task manager too.

Conclusion:

*NOTEPAD.EXE uses more computing power, ram usage, cpu cycles and threads than after effects or photoshop combined!*

lol. I'm so declaring that to the masses at the next NAB conference!!

That's okay. I fully expected really-reaching arguments back.

Thanks for playing. My work here is done.

d

Last edited Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 2:57am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 2:51am

Post 73 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Of course. Take some of those times when you decide 'you quit' the argument and actually do so for a change.

EvilDonut wrote:

But hey, if you wanna go through life telling bosses that that they need to order Quad Processors with 16 Gigs of RAM and 800MB of storage, and 64-bit O/S's with multiple rendering farms to edit Targa files. Hey, knock yourself out sir! Good luck with that.
You know, I'm a little sick of this sense of authority and 'knowledge only EvilDonut knows/can dispense'. And what's more, the pitiful and mocking attitude that follows rebuttals.

Thanks for playing. My work here is done.
This basically sums it up. You don't care what other people have to say. It's all just a game of how to tell people you're right and they are absolutely wrong. Well, I won't play it.

"Go ahead blah! Take that to blahblahblah! See if I care! Good luck with failing! etcetera, etcetera."

It's weak.

P.S. Nice l33t post edit.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 3:02am

Post 74 of 83

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:


It's weak.
Quoted for truth. (and not just weak. it's also getting old. Very. Very. Quick)
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 3:30am

Post 75 of 83

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm hot sh*t in the industry, so I know these things and you don't: image editing doesn't take up RAM. Almost none! Well, suuuuuuuuuure, if you're editing images larger than 2 megapixels then it can at times be cumbersome, but hardly anyone edits images larger than these.

In fact, dare I say it, go up to a Photoshop conference and spew that people use images larger than 2 megapixels as their source. I guarantee that the pro's (I'm one of them, but because I like my privacy I don't have to substantiate where from or under what credentials) ALL use 300x500 pixels images in every Photoshop project they do. Things, like movie posters, that do not fit this aspect ratio are simply worked together in a skewed fashion and then resized upon saving.

My work here is done. Fun game!

crazy
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 6:42am

Post 76 of 83

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Atom wrote:


You know, I'm a little sick of this sense of authority and 'knowledge only EvilDonut knows/can dispense'. And what's more, the pitiful and mocking attitude that follows rebuttals.
And I care why? To get your message across, you have to be 'blunt' and 'to the point'. If you have ever directed any project or managed employees - you know how powerful this trick can be.

Writing posts to win "Atoms popularity and approval on the internet" is not very high on my list i'm sorry.

d
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 6:49am

Post 77 of 83

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Then this sort of begs the question, doesn't it:

Why the hell are you here?

You're clearly not in this to offer advice; at least, not any that isn't coupled with a fierce serving of hypocritical malice. Anybody can boast about being big in the industry, and yes, at the end of the day this is just the internet.

But holding your self-appointed title of 'man in the film industry' is a bit like a disjointed Prometheus: you're trying to tempt people with the fire of your knowledge and success but fail to actually follow through and substantiate any of your claims. At least the other people here- the non-professionals who you so openly mock- are honest about their filmmaking status.

Either cut the charade of your alleged 'pro' status, substantiate it, or quit the act altogether (true or not) by scratching out the sweeping condescension that so often absorbs your posts.

Thank you.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 11:59am

Post 78 of 83

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +3

EvilDonut wrote:

To get your message across, you have to be 'blunt' and 'to the point'. If you have ever directed any project or managed employees - you know how powerful this trick can be.
Hello my abrasive confectionary item friend.

Being straight and to the point is very different from trying to elevate ones own ego by belittling others. Indeed tyrany through dickswinging and confrontation as a "management style" is counterproductive - you may get short term results, but it makes people think you're a childish insecure arsehole. If that's the case, consider how many 'dirty' cups of coffee your runners will get you after you embarress them unnecessarily in front of everyone to prop up a feeble sense of self. Yes, use the stick when necessary, but if you let everyone retain their dignity, you retain your own. Every film is a collaboration, turn people against you and you lose a lot of the benefits of employing good people.

Now we both know you're not VP of Sony Classics, for instance, but relatively young, somewhere in the low-to-middle of your game, and desperate to make it bigtime. That's fine, but please do take care who you step on on the way up, the knives will be waiting for you on your way down, and truly our industry is smaller than you think.

Some of your posts have genuinely useful comments and ideas, some seem like a toddler crying out for attention. More of the former will get you the respect of your peers, the latter will get you 'dirty' coffee. Seems an easy choice to me, but hey, you'll choose whatever you choose, and learn your own life lessons however you learn them. I genuinely don't care, not really. I offer the above thoughts from my own experience in a gesture of goodwill and comeradeship, in case they help.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 12:46pm

Post 79 of 83

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

Design/Visual FX: Mac (fx, tv networks, studios, cable, etc.)
This site is called 'FX'home...just in case you hadn't noticed... eek
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 3:13pm

Post 80 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

Atom wrote:


You know, I'm a little sick of this sense of authority and 'knowledge only EvilDonut knows/can dispense'. And what's more, the pitiful and mocking attitude that follows rebuttals.
To get your message across, you have to be 'blunt' and 'to the point'. If you have ever directed any project or managed employees - you know how powerful this trick can be.
It may not be the big leagues that you apparently run, but I've probably coordinated more people, locations, props, and times, etc. with the production of my movie Madison Street Boys than the average project you've likely taken on. Seeing as how you've given no indication of what your role actually is you leave me open to assuming.

I'm directing a project and managing employees, at least in a sense. And for me it's quite the other way around. More gets done when people aren't so damn stubborn. Maybe it's just in my humble experience, but this has always been the case.

And I care why?
If you don't care, I honestly think you should leave. This is a rather tame, helpful, and brotherhood-like community. We aid eachother, even if we do argue occasionally. If you can't take that without spouting your point is the second coming of Christ.

Leave. You don't care enough to hear other people, why should we care to hear you?
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 4:03pm

Post 81 of 83

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

Okay for years i've been a pro-PC-fanboy. Having viral aggressive knock-down arguments with mac users about visual fx, rendering, 3d modeling, graphics, etc.

Mac is everywhere. I call them hippies. They laugh and ask how my blue screen of death is doing. I then storm off and go home and watch family guy.

Well, I may have to join the other side. I need to get a new computer, and I just can't work anymore with 3GB's and 64-bit Vista is just too problematic from everyone I've heard. MS really dropped the ball with this Vista POS. Every corporate place I visit is still using XP. No one is upgrading. MS is really hurting nowadays.

So i'm gonna swallow my pride I think on this one. Gonna leave MS forever. That 3GB limit when rendering on my After Effects, Premiere, etc. projects is gonna kill me.

What do you pros use?

d
You started this whole thread! You've been up in everybody's faces about how they are all wrong and that you are the one with all the answers when this entire time these people were just trying to help...you. Doesn't seem like a good way to get people's help in the future...
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 4:38pm

Post 82 of 83

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Glad to see you're all having fun. smile

I've honestly never seen such a large collection of mis-information collated into a single thread so efficiently! It's really quite a remarkable feat.

From my skim-reading (some people here really need to learn the art of being concise!), I've a few things to say:

- The Mac/PC argument always has been stupid, still is, and always will be. It's entirely down to your own interests and personal preference. Anybody that tries to tell you otherwise likely has an agenda.

- nVidia release drivers about once a month, sometimes more frequnetly. The GPU market is always shifting about, but currently nVidia offer both best performance and best value. In other words, don't listen to Pickle if you're buying a PC. Again, he appears to have some kind of strange agenda.

- Anybody who thinks that image editing, especially on a professional level, doesn't require a powerful computer is, quite clearly, a nincompoop. The image work we do here tends to strain our computers far, far more than anything we do with video.

- Anybody who thinks that 'blunt' is the most effective form of employee management seriously needs to go on some management training courses, or at least get a wider view of the world and a better understanding of people.

- Listen to PDRG, he almost always speaks the truth.
Posted: Wed, 26th Mar 2008, 4:48pm

Post 83 of 83

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:


- Anybody who thinks that image editing, especially on a professional level, doesn't require a powerful computer is, quite clearly, a nincompoop. The image work we do here tends to strain our computers far, far more than anything we do with video.

- Anybody who thinks that 'blunt' is the most effective form of employee management seriously needs to go on some management training courses, or at least get a wider view of the world and a better understanding of people.

- Listen to PDRG, he almost always speaks the truth.
Served. smile