Author Topic: MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ  (Read 1244 times)

SLEEPING-BOT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Kudos: 0
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« on: 2 August 2002, 12:44 »
-- All right, folks. I'm going to just come right out and say it: For professional digital video editing, I think the Mac sucks. Yep, it bites the big one. And, I'm going to spend the rest of this editorial space telling you why I feel that way.

Understand, I am a Mac user from way back. But I just don't trust the Mac for professional applications with digital video, especially when you're talking about rendering sequences like After Effects composites. I think the Mac OS, as it is sold today, is old-fashioned and shopworn. And, given the hardware choices for the Mac, it's just too damn slow. There's no amount of marketing that will convince me that for video editing and especially compositing any Mac, even with dual processors, can beat a dual processor 1 GHz Windows 2000 machine with an ICE accelerator board inside.

Sure, the new G4 machines are beautiful. Sure, they have a "supercomputer" chip. Yeah, right. It probably seems fast if all you do is run certain Photoshop filters all day. It's all smoke and mirrors, because underneath that beautiful exterior is an operating system that dates back to the days when Boy George was the coolest thing going -- 16 years ago. Hey, that's a long time -- that's 112 years in dog years! And in computer years, well, that's at least a couple of centuries.

You get the point. If you're looking to edit some wedding footage for cousin Sally or put together that montage of your kid's first steps, go ahead and get an iMac DV and go to town. Wait for all those effects to render and wait for the thing to restart about ten times a day. But if you have clients breathing down your neck, you might want to consider a real OS, one that's able to do more than one operation at a time, one that can handle two (or even eight) processors, and one with an operating system that's as stable as the day is long.

The frustrating part of this equation is that Apple is teasing us. At January's MacWorld Expo, there was a carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show starring the all-new Mac OS X, with the "insanely great" Steve Jobs quacking on and on about this fantastic new OS with all its graphics capabilities, blah, blah, blah. I think those graphics capabilities so far consist of a bunch of artists armed with Photoshop (probably running on NT), simulating a really hip interface that might be actually built someday. I didn't see any real video editing applications running on that fake OS.

Even though Apple promises this and that, namely OS X by January 2001, I don't believe it for one second. I don't expect to see anything running at all on OS X that can edit video natively, even in an absurdly unstable way, for at least a year and a half. Anyone who believes otherwise is being taken for a high altitude ride by Jobs in his new Gulfstream V jet, without benefit of cabin pressurization.

Look at it like this: Microsoft, with its billions of dollars and armies of developers took about five years (from the shipment of Windows NT 3.1 until NT 4 was finally almost stabilized) to ultimately get a multitasking, multithreaded OS to the point to where one could actually edit video with it. Does anyone really think Apple, with its comparatively tiny (albeit enthusiastic) team of developers, will be able to refine its OS in a few months? I don't think so. It'll take them that long just to figure out how to add right-click functionality.

Please don't think I am one of those Mac-hating bigots with an ax to grind against Apple. No, to the contrary -- I have always liked the Mac OS and used it until I just lost so much time with crashes that I couldn't make any money with it any more. I came to a relization that it was Avid and Media 100 that gave the Mac any credibility for digital video editing, not Apple. I was burned by the Mac. I will wait until it's actually ready for professional use before I consider using it again. And, I would predict it to be marginally usable for editing around two years from now -- in 2002. The ironic thing is, that's probably the time a 64-bit Windows OS will be mature enough to edit video, too. All on a 64-bit multiprocessor hardware platform totaling at least 10 GHz (that's gigahertz!).

Which brings up an interesting question for Apple: Will Motorola keep developing chips for the Mac, in light of Motorola's still-hurting hard feelings over Mac licensing? There were some strange reasons why that 500 MHz G4 chip was said to be available and then suddenly wasn't -- and all this was quickly and unconvincingly explained away by Jobs and his PR acolytes. And, will Motorola ever break that mighty 500 MHz barrier? Not any time soon.

And then there's Linux. Our wildest dreams can't predict where that OS will be two years from now. It's safe to say, though, that it'll probably be in more video editing suites than its distant vaporous cousin, MacOS X.

Seems to me like the handwriting is on the wall, and X does not mark the spot
   

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]


Master of Reality

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,249
  • Kudos: 177
    • http://www.bobhub.tk
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #1 on: 2 August 2002, 13:00 »
so what OS do you use for video editing?
Disorder | Rating
Paranoid: Moderate
Schizoid: Moderate
Linux User #283518
'It takes more than a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head to stop Bob'

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #2 on: 2 August 2002, 13:15 »
quote:
Originally posted by SLEEPING-BOT FROM RULING GERMANY:
-- All right, folks. I'm going to just come right out and say it: For professional digital video editing, I think the Mac sucks. Yep, it bites the big one. And, I'm going to spend the rest of this editorial space telling you why I feel that way.



Im no mac fan but reading your stuff i have to tell you what i think you dont know
 
quote:


Understand, I am a Mac user from way back. But I just don't trust the Mac for professional applications with digital video, especially when you're talking about rendering sequences like After Effects composites. I think the Mac OS, as it is sold today, is old-fashioned and shopworn. And,


We already have simlar thoughts on Mac OS, but Mac OS X is BSD based, so it kicks ass
 
quote:

given the hardware choices for the Mac, it's just too damn slow. There's no amount of marketing that
will convince me that for video editing and especially compositing any Mac, even with dual processors, can beat a dual processor 1 GHz Windows 2000 machine with an ICE accelerator board inside.


A dual processored mac (1 ghz) is about 3x faster than the average intel P IV (4 if you dont know roman numerals) also i have confirmed that Windows is... shit, im a Linux... Junkie.
I understand Microprocessor's to the electronic level, The MACS cpu uses Wide instructions which are faster but require more bits. Intel CPU's use lots of small instructions and this makes it ineffiecent.
 
quote:


Sure, the new G4 machines are beautiful. Sure, they have a "supercomputer" chip. Yeah, right. It probably seems fast if all you do is run certain Photoshop filters all day. It's all smoke and mirrors, because underneath that beautiful exterior is an operating system that dates back to the days when Boy George was the coolest thing going -- 16 years ago. Hey, that's a long time -- that's 112 years in dog years! And in computer years, well, that's at least a couple of centuries.


You got it wrong now its besed on one about 30 years old... unix its the best OS, and finally CPUS can handle / need it. In the old days UNIX was for the powerfull computers, the cheap intel 386's, 286's all used MS-DOS because not all worksations needed perfect multitasking and most people did not want to use 10% of there living area to play electronic poker.

Nowdays computer should run UNIX because it has well developed multitasking and "Time shareing" And computers these days can run it. Windows 2000 and XP are not too bad but there overall proformance is... shit compared to Linux. I have run tests... Linux can execute binarys on an average of 3x faster than Windows. Windows 95/98/ME is hopeless because its binarys execute on a application that runs on DOS, and makes it even slower. Linux and Mac OS X, all binarys are executed at the kernel level.

 
quote:


You get the point. If you're looking to edit some wedding footage for cousin Sally or put together that montage of your kid's first steps, go ahead and get an iMac DV and go to town. Wait for all those effects to render and wait for the thing to
restart about ten times a day. But if you have clients breathing down your neck, you might want to consider a real OS, one that's able to do more than one operation at a time, one that can handle two (or even eight) processors, and one with an operating system that's as stable as the day is long.


Urm idiot, Mac OS X is BSD based and can handle... lots of CPU's, maybe you should consider a real OS yourself... Linux can handle somthing like 32 cpu's
And Linux is a muliuser os... meaning "Many users on one machine" not "Many User profiles on one machine" Linux can have about 2.4 million users logged in at once.
 
quote:


The frustrating part of this equation is that Apple is teasing us. At January's MacWorld Expo, there was a carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show starring the all-new Mac OS X, with the "insanely great" Steve Jobs quacking on and on about this fantastic new OS with all its graphics capabilities, blah, blah, blah. I think those graphics capabilities so far consist of a bunch of artists armed with Photoshop (probably running on NT), simulating a really hip interface that might be actually built someday. I didn't see any real video editing applications running on that fake OS.
Quote
[QB]
What people here on this forum are running Mac OS X.

[/b]
Even though Apple promises this and that, namely OS X by January 2001, I don't believe it for one second. I don't expect to see anything running at all on OS X that can edit video natively, even in an absurdly unstable way, for at least a year and a half. Anyone who believes otherwise is being taken for a high altitude ride by Jobs in his new Gulfstream V jet, without benefit of cabin pressurization.

 
quote:

Look at it like this: Microsoft, with its billions of dollars and armies of developers took about five years (from the shipment of Windows NT 3.1 until NT 4 was finally almost stabilized) to ultimately get a multitasking, multithreaded OS to the point to


BSD Unix has lots more development than NT you dopey fuck. About 15 years and has been stabilized since the late 70's
 
quote:


where one could actually edit video with it. Does anyone really think Apple, with its comparatively tiny (albeit enthusiastic) team of developers, will be able to refine its OS in a few months? I don't think so. It'll take them that long just to figure out how to add right-click functionality.


Linux can use 6 mouse buttons, so can Mac OS X!
 
quote:

Please don't think I am one of those Mac-hating bigots with an ax to grind against Apple. No, to the contrary -- I have always liked the Mac OS and used it until I just lost so much time with crashes


Mac where aware of this, so they got the BSD kernel and made Mac OS X. Which is a lot more stable than Windows
 
quote:

that I couldn't make any money with it any more. I came to a relization that it was Avid and Media 100 that gave the Mac any credibility for digital video editing, not Apple. I was burned by the Mac. I will wait until it's actually ready for professional use
before I consider using it again.


It is so get out Mac OS X on a G4 which is a damn'd site faster than a PC!
 
quote:

And, I would predict it to be marginally usable for editing around two years from now -- in 2002. The ironic thing is, that's probably the time a 64-bit Windows OS will be mature enough to edit video, too. All on a 64-bit multiprocessor hardware platform totaling at least 10 GHz (that's gigahertz!).


There is such a thing these days called a "Sun Sparc", in fact if Video editings your bag... get somthing from SGI that will boot Windows and Mac alltogether.
 
quote:


Which brings up an interesting question for Apple: Will Motorola keep developing chips for the Mac, in light of Motorola's still-hurting hard feelings over Mac licensing? There were some strange reasons why that 500 MHz G4 chip was said to be available and then suddenly wasn't -- and all this was quickly and unconvincingly explained away by Jobs and his PR acolytes. And, will Motorola ever break that mighty 500 MHz barrier? Not any time soon.


I personally think Mac should use Sparc CPU's
 
quote:

And then there's Linux. Our wildest dreams can't predict where that OS will be two years from now. It's safe to say, though, that it'll probably be in more video editing suites than its distant vaporous cousin, MacOS X.


Any software that will run on OS X will be able to run on linux and vise-versa!
 
quote:


Seems to me like the handwriting is on the wall, and X does not mark the spot
     



Anyway to sum up everything i have said:
    You are a boner biting ass raming uncle fucker! Who masterbates over bill gates and steve blammer having sex over the desk in the Microsoft's
HQ So fuck you you Microsoft loving heroin addict.
[/list]

That tells you what i think of you

trc3

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.sk8mafia4life.com
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #3 on: 2 August 2002, 16:16 »
quote:
Originally posted by SLEEPING-BOT FROM RULING GERMANY:
--
Wait for all those effects to render and wait for the thing to restart about ten times a day. But if you have clients breathing down your neck, you might want to consider a real OS, one that's able to do more than one operation at a time, one that can handle two (or even eight) processors, and one with an operating system that's as stable as the day is long.



Is this a joke of some sorts???  What the fuck is this all about, either someone is trying to be funny or this guy is a complete fucking moron.

the_black_angel

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Kudos: 0
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #4 on: 2 August 2002, 18:06 »
Um he might be a little late?

Shake, final cut pro, idvd ???
--
The Black Angel

cocoamix

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Kudos: 0
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #5 on: 2 August 2002, 19:07 »
Do some good work on your PC to get some cred before you start saying that the huge number of Mac video professionals using Macs are wrong.
So whose opinion should we trust? Some guy I don't know from germany on a PeeCee or Mac video professionals making the movies and trailers I see every day?
Tough choice.


"Thank You -
Apple
AMD"

End credits of Attack of the Clones.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: cocoamix ]


Master of Reality

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,249
  • Kudos: 177
    • http://www.bobhub.tk
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #6 on: 2 August 2002, 19:20 »
i wonder if he is a member of the Nazi party?
Disorder | Rating
Paranoid: Moderate
Schizoid: Moderate
Linux User #283518
'It takes more than a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head to stop Bob'

choasforages

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,729
  • Kudos: 7
    • http://it died
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #7 on: 2 August 2002, 19:55 »
an operating system thats 16 years old, try like 30. and just becuase something is newer desn't make it better. my opion is that unix has not ever been completed, its always in devolpment. owell
x86: a hack on a hack of a hackway
alpha, hewlett packed it A-way
ppc: the fruity way
mips: the graphical way
sparc: the sunny way
4:20.....forget the DMCA for a while!!!

TheQuirk

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,154
  • Kudos: 315
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #8 on: 2 August 2002, 20:55 »
it sounds like he wrote that in 2000 and submited it in 2002.

ravuya

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • Kudos: 0
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #9 on: 3 August 2002, 01:21 »
Notice how he makes references to 'editorial space'?

This is obviously some opinionated article written before OS X came out (note the references to 'the new OS X') and reposted by some idiotic lamer who's trying to bait us all into a flamewar for his amusement.

TheQuirk

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,154
  • Kudos: 315
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #10 on: 3 August 2002, 01:23 »
quote:
Even though Apple promises this and that, namely OS X by January 2001


Yeah, he definetly copied it.

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #11 on: 3 August 2002, 15:21 »
He probably wont be back.

Pissed_Macman

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,499
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.macrevolution.tk
MAC SUCKS (at video editing)! GERMANY RULEZ
« Reply #12 on: 3 August 2002, 18:41 »
I reckon Mac videoation is more gooder than that there Windows hooey