MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Marc McCal » Sat, 03 Jun 1995 04:00:00




> Path: failure.news.pilot.net!newsprime.pilot.net!x15.pilot.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!pendragon!ames!hookup!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news.ak.net!news

> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.multimedia,alt.binaries.pictures.misc,alt.binaries.pictures.utilities,comp.compression,comp.graphics,comp.graphics.animation,comp.multimedia
> Subject: Re: MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia
> Date: 31 May 1995 12:58:12 GMT
> Organization: mua
> Lines: 23
> Distribution: world


> NNTP-Posting-Host: term1-s10.ak.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.4
> Xref: failure.news.pilot.net alt.binaries.multimedia:27970 alt.binaries.pictures.misc:32662 alt.binaries.pictures.utilities:17429 comp.compression:9127 comp.graphics:25676 comp.graphics.animation:11889 comp.multimedia:21041


> >bah,
> >you and i and everyone else in the entire world knows that the
> >MACINTOSH was made for multimedia and DTP. You know it. Sure, windoze
> >and os/poo have their share of graphics and video etc shit but the mac
> >(ppc esp) was simply created to be a multimedia machine. I have both
> >puters right here, I am not an ignorant mac user, nor a dipshit pc
> >user. The PC is good for everything BUT graphics and multimedia, no
> >matter the OS. The mac is good at that, not at anything else, well
> >maybe some other things.

> >my 3.5 canadian cents
> >-brian

> >******************************************
> >*             Munchkin On IRC            *
> >*     http://www.halcyon.com/larryf/     *
> >******************************************

> What can the mac do with graphics that the pc can't?

Oh please! you MAC users have your heads buried so deep into a hole you have
NO IDEA whats up in the REAL computer world!
I was woried about the PC's presence in the grafix world after the unveiling
of the PowerPC.... that is until I saw one in action. The powerPC 601 is
slower than a 486-66 with a $100 graphics card!

And by the way , I am now running Windows 95... which blows windows3.1 away in
the multimedia dept. It's gonna be a sad year for Apple in '95

also, wish you could see Descent on my PC... you would burn your friggn' MAC!
Didn't they just release wolfenstein on the MAC? hahahahah =)

Dream on, MAC Fanatics! your superiority exists only amongst yourselves! Just
wait till P^ is out this year! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH =)

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Josh Thompso » Tue, 06 Jun 1995 04:00:00



Quote:> "gonna be...in '95"  Despite numerous reports of Apple's demise, it is
> still selling more PPC-based systems than any single vendor of Pentium
> systems.

I really object to that statement, "single vendor" There's dozens of
Pentium vendors and only one PPC vendor (at this point, although those
mac clones are on the way and ibm may have ppc eventually.
Quote:> Providing, of course, Windows '95 *does* come out this year, I don't see
> why anyone would want to wait to run it when they can have OS/2 now.  If
> nothing else, it's bound to be more stable.

The reasons for not flocking to os/2 now are similar to the reasons
several years ago to wait for windows and not flock to macs. not the
same, but similar.

----------------------------------------------------

Josh Thompson - Coming to you from Cheverly, MD, USA




 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by RoGeR JoHaNsS » Wed, 07 Jun 1995 04:00:00




> I was woried about the PC's presence in the grafix world after the unveiling
> of the PowerPC.... that is until I saw one in action. The powerPC 601 is
> slower than a 486-66 with a $100 graphics card!

Slower at what? Running WinDOS?

Quote:> And by the way , I am now running Windows 95... which blows windows3.1
away in
> the multimedia dept. It's gonna be a sad year for Apple in '95

Win95(6) blows itself away a lot. Kaboom - restart.

Quote:> also, wish you could see Descent on my PC... you would burn your friggn' MAC!
> Didn't they just release wolfenstein on the MAC? hahahahah =)

Wish you could see Marathon on my PM... you would burn your friggn' PC!

Quote:> Dream on, MAC Fanatics! your superiority exists only amongst yourselves! Just
> wait till P^ is out this year! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH =)

P^ what? Just wait till the 604 is out this year! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;)
 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by George La » Wed, 07 Jun 1995 04:00:00




> > "gonna be...in '95"  Despite numerous reports of Apple's demise, it is
> > still selling more PPC-based systems than any single vendor of Pentium
> > systems.
> I really object to that statement, "single vendor" There's dozens of
> Pentium vendors and only one PPC vendor (at this point, although those

                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:> mac clones are on the way and ibm may have ppc eventually.

I usually try to avoid "X vs Y" subjects, but I will try to correct
some misinformation.

There is more than one PPC vendor, most notably Motorola. Their
PowerStacks are some awesome machines, and have been shipping for
quite a while. Why does everyone equate PPC with PowerMac?

George Lane
Opinions are mine only. No employer would claim them.

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Scott Elyar » Wed, 07 Jun 1995 04:00:00




>Oh please! you MAC users have your heads buried so deep into a hole you have
>NO IDEA whats up in the REAL computer world!
>I was woried about the PC's presence in the grafix world after the unveiling
>of the PowerPC.... that is until I saw one in action. The powerPC 601 is
>slower than a 486-66 with a $100 graphics card!

Was this native or emulated?  I suspect emulated.  The emulator that
comes with 601-based Macs is roughly around the speed of a 20Mhz 68LC040.
 This is a fairly impressive feat, considering.

Quote:>And by the way , I am now running Windows 95... which blows windows3.1 away in
>the multimedia dept. It's gonna be a sad year for Apple in '95

"gonna be...in '95"  Despite numerous reports of Apple's demise, it is
still selling more PPC-based systems than any single vendor of Pentium
systems.

Providing, of course, Windows '95 *does* come out this year, I don't see
why anyone would want to wait to run it when they can have OS/2 now.  If
nothing else, it's bound to be more stable.

Quote:>also, wish you could see Descent on my PC... you would burn your friggn' MAC!
>Didn't they just release wolfenstein on the MAC? hahahahah =)

As if I cared.  I use my 68030-based Mac for raytracing, graphic design,
and heavy word processing.  And you use your machine to play games.  It's
no surprise the Mac is seen as a productivity tool more than anything
else.

Quote:>Dream on, MAC Fanatics! your superiority exists only amongst yourselves! Just
>wait till P^ is out this year! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH =)

P6:  All the speed of a Pentium, at six times the cost.

Scott Elyard

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Mats AAhlbe » Thu, 08 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>Oh please! you MAC users have your heads buried so deep into a hole you have
>NO IDEA whats up in the REAL computer world!
>I was woried about the PC's presence in the grafix world after the unveiling
>of the PowerPC.... that is until I saw one in action. The powerPC 601 is
>slower than a 486-66 with a $100 graphics card!

>And by the way , I am now running Windows 95... which blows windows3.1 away
in
>the multimedia dept. It's gonna be a sad year for Apple in '95

>also, wish you could see Descent on my PC... you would burn your friggn' MAC!
>Didn't they just release wolfenstein on the MAC? hahahahah =)

>Dream on, MAC Fanatics! your superiority exists only amongst yourselves! Just
>wait till P^ is out this year! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH =)

Hmmm you hav got it wrong. The PC is very well adapted to low res games as
descent to give them high speed. I use both PC and Mac alot and i hav tried
to run Photoshop on both systems. A Pentium 90 mhz with 16 Megs o RAM and a
Macintosh Quadra 700 20 Mhz with 16 Megs. The mac runs Photosop about three
times as fast when handling a 10 meg picture. And to tell you something about
Wolfensten it has been out for mac for a looong time and it is in high RES not
Low res as the PC version.. That is why it took them some time to do it they
had to remake all the graphics to the mac version. and descent is sceduled
to Oktober november...

Hope this cleared the subject..
MVh Mats ?hlberg

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by delli.. » Fri, 09 Jun 1995 04:00:00


What kind of pathetic idiot thinks PC's are better because of Doom?
Yes, I want lousy graphics.  Get a clue.  Look at Marathon compared to
Doom, Doom II, or Dark Forces.  No contest, Marathon wins.  Game
developers understand the average PC user has come to expect less
quality and that's what they give.  Yes, There is a 10 to 1 advantage
in the number of software applications but who cares?  90% of it is
crap.

Thanks,
Dave

I was sad because I had no shoes then I met a man with Windows.

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by video.. » Sun, 11 Jun 1995 04:00:00



>What kind of pathetic idiot thinks PC's are better because of Doom?
>Yes, I want lousy graphics.  Get a clue.  Look at Marathon compared to
>Doom, Doom II, or Dark Forces.  No contest, Marathon wins.  Game

Agreed, still doom can be fun deathmached and networked but that does not
make a PC better.

Quote:>developers understand the average PC user has come to expect less
>quality and that's what they give.  Yes, There is a 10 to 1 advantage
>in the number of software applications but who cares?  90% of it is
>crap.

See here is the rub, I bet they made 100x more $$$ on doom than on
marathon, in fact they were down right brave to put out a game for a Mac,
and yes your right is HAS to be better quality, and more work, and more
time, and take more money and effort to make, fo maybe 100th the return
on the money.  And because of this I spent 4-5K on a high end PC not a
High end mac, and so will others.. so that hurts Mac's

I don't think the PC is better, can't stand the beasts, I'll agree that
the mac is better in many ways, but that software reality, and economics
is going to kill you. I hope it does not i hope IBM/Mac kick intel's but
and i'll happly dump my pentium for the "PPC standard" that everyone is
develping for.... but I have for years spent money on the best hardware,
and the best OS... guess what   If the software companys can't make a
bunch of $$ on your system, it's history.
--
.__________________________________________________________________________.
|   -== When Dreams Become Reality ==-                    -= IM Design=-   |
|"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""|"""""""""""""""""""""|""""""""""""""""""""|


| Mosaic Home Page: file://ftp.netcom.com/pub/vi/videoman/web/HOME.html    |
|3 Amiga's and a 100Mhz Pentium/triton/f&w SCSI/4Meg Stealth-VIDEO/3601CD  |
~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Sun, 11 Jun 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>> well so... run os/2  Or as we are talking REAL run WIN NT real 32 bit
>> real muti tasking .. it kicks, it's hard to belive MS made it!  

>I have to agree on the Window NT 3.5, it is very nice.  I've run it, and
>it was very difficult to make it crash. It 's biggest flaw has to be the
>system requirements.  I still like the Macintosh better, and think that
>for multitasking one Unix still takes the cake.

Unix is best for multi-user multitasking, but OS/2 and NT threads provide
better real-time performance in a single-user environment.  Preemptive,
priority-based threads are better for time-critical control, communication
and multimedia applications than is Unix's round-robin process scheduling.
For example, OS/2's multimedia subsystem uses threads to to ensure smooth
performance despite changes in system load. With a fast PC and the right
sound card, one can play multiple .avi files and .wav files at the same time
to illustrate this.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Sharon DiOr » Mon, 12 Jun 1995 04:00:00




> >What kind of pathetic idiot thinks PC's are better because of Doom?
> >Yes, I want lousy graphics.  Get a clue.  Look at Marathon compared to
> >Doom, Doom II, or Dark Forces.  No contest, Marathon wins.  Game

> Agreed, still doom can be fun deathmached and networked but that does not
> make a PC better.

Doom networked is cool to play but hell on network bandwidth (and a
network administrator - ME).  But that's beside the point.  The graphics
are rudimentary.  Programming games for Macs takes more technical skill -
hence the lack of choice, but the better quality of Mac games.

Quote:> >developers understand the average PC user has come to expect less
> >quality and that's what they give.  Yes, There is a 10 to 1 advantage
> >in the number of software applications but who cares?  90% of it is
> >crap.

> See here is the rub, I bet they made 100x more $$$ on doom than on
> marathon, in fact they were down right brave to put out a game for a Mac,
> and yes your right is HAS to be better quality, and more work, and more
> time, and take more money and effort to make, fo maybe 100th the return
> on the money.  And because of this I spent 4-5K on a high end PC not a
> High end mac, and so will others.. so that hurts Mac's

I just don't buy the software excuse for not choosing a Mac.  This may
have been the case when the Mac was a 128K machine and the only software
for it came on the machine.  Anything worth having comes on both
platforms.  The notable exceptions (particularly in corporate consulting)
are some software tools for implementing large-scale systems in corporate
structures, and those crappy games I see in the discount bin for $5.00.

Quote:> I don't think the PC is better, can't stand the beasts, I'll agree that
> the mac is better in many ways, but that software reality, and economics
> is going to kill you. I hope it does not i hope IBM/Mac kick intel's but
> and i'll happly dump my pentium for the "PPC standard" that everyone is
> develping for.... but I have for years spent money on the best hardware,
> and the best OS... guess what   If the software companys can't make a
> bunch of $$ on your system, it's history.

But see, the software reality is that there are still people willing to
pay for quality.  People have been saying that the Mac is doomed for how
long now?  Um, since it was introduced?  It's a quality machine that even
at it's worst is easier to use, and at it's best is a powerful multimedia
(face it, Mac's are the true multimedia machine since the start) platform
that is also very nice for other things.

Peace.

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Sharon DiOr » Mon, 12 Jun 1995 04:00:00



> well so... run os/2  Or as we are talking REAL run WIN NT real 32 bit
> real muti tasking .. it kicks, it's hard to belive MS made it!  

It does kick.  Too bad nobody is buying it for anything besides servers.
 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by FJ Madd » Tue, 13 Jun 1995 04:00:00


Ummm... Try an Acorn (ITS RISC based, British and does FMV at 25fps, no
hardware assistance)
I like Macs too... Progress is through respecting diversity, not pandering
to a monoculture.
:-}#
 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Tue, 13 Jun 1995 04:00:00





>> well so... run os/2  Or as we are talking REAL run WIN NT real 32 bit
>> real muti tasking .. it kicks, it's hard to belive MS made it!  

>It does kick.  Too bad nobody is buying it for anything besides servers.

OS/2, on the other hand, is selling like mad.  As are OS/2 apps. Indelible
Blue, a mail-order company that only sells OS/2 software, is currently
one of the 10 fastest growing companies in North Carolina.

And OS/2's multimedia features (and driver support) are more extensive
than NT's.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Tue, 13 Jun 1995 04:00:00




>The general consensus of threads like this which do not devolve in mere
>advocacy discussions and remain true to the original post (specifically,
>multimedia), seems to be that the tools on the Mac are more mature, but
>the audience size is definitely with Windows.

>All serious Mac MM development apps are either currently cross-platform or
>will be by year-end, but the same is not true for apps on the Windows
>side.

>A common solution offered by experienced folks seems to be to take the
>common appraoch of developing first on the Mac and then porting to
>Windows.  There are fewer tools available to go the other way around.

The reason why Windows 3.x has fewer authoring tools is because it is
awkward to handle large amounts of multimedia data with a 16-bit
operating system. It is harder to write an authoring package with
this handicap, and the software will run slower, because the address
calculations are more complex.  The 32-bit Mac has been the platform of
choice....

OS/2, however, is 32-bit and supports preemptive, time-critical threads.
This lends itself well to both multimedia authoring and playback. OS/2
is the most popular 32-bit IBM PC-compatible operating system, which
has attracted the attention of authoring tool developers. IconAuthor
supports OS/2, and there are players on the way for Director and
ScriptX.

Windows '95 may encourage more multimedia development on the PC under
Windows. However, Windows '95 will not support multi-processor PC's,
which may make OS/2 prefereable to those who need maximum performance
during software development. Cross-platform development tools and
native OS/2 authoring systems will provide developers with
more choices than would a Windows-only world.

Don't blame the limitations of DOS on the PC.

- Also, please note that I've trimmed the binaries groups to avoid
annoying those groups inappropriate for this subject.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU

 
 
 

MAC versus Windows PC versus OS/2 PC for multimedia

Post by Steven Georg Goodrid » Wed, 14 Jun 1995 04:00:00






>>For example, OS/2's multimedia subsystem uses threads to to ensure smooth
>>performance despite changes in system load. With a fast PC and the right
>>sound card, one can play multiple .avi files and .wav files at the same time
>>to illustrate this.

>A Mac can do this sort of thing just fine, too. You don't even need the
>"right" sound card.

Of course. Mac hardware is built for this sort of thing. But a lot of PC
hardware and device drivers were designed with lower expectations in mind
(DOS and Windows.)  So we OS/2 users have to be careful to avoid all the
*on the market.  Not every sound card manufacturer supports OS/2,
especially when it comes to those features that OS/2 does better than
Windows.  But if we shop smart, OS/2 users can do things Windows users
cannot (without spending a lot more money.) OS/2 users aren't dazzled
by pretty boxes on the shelf of the local software stores. They plan
ahead and are particular about what they run (and they all get
catalogs from Indelible Blue.)  If they didn't care, they wouldn't
be using OS/2 in the first place.

Most sound cards work under OS/2 (like Creative labs) but the MWAVE-based
sound cards from IBM have the best multitasking sound capabilities.

Macs are great. PC's are great too - if they run a mature, 32-bit
operating system, IMHO. One simply has to choose the right hardware and
software.  There's a lot of *out there that needs to be avoided.

Steve Goodridge
NCSU