<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mac vs. PC - Adobe Benchmarks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/</link>
	<description>Eric Cheng's Journal</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Simkiss</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-4264</link>
		<dc:creator>Simkiss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2005 14:50:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-4264</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Apple finally &lt;a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=AAVL0LFRMEMPGCRBAEKSFEY?type=technologyNews&#38;storyID=8574207"&gt;coming&lt;/a&gt; to its senses...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was inevitable with Longhorn and 64-bit PCs.  The best dual Xeon 32-bit PCs already exceed the best dual proc G5 in Adobe App speed (Adobe makes that clear).  When Windows goes 64-bit next year, well, the Mac'll be pretty darn slow in comparison.  Surely Jobs wants to keep his job, so it's time to throw in the towel.  It was an excellent and respectable run there, Steve.  Applause and Kudos.  But it's over now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Welcome to world of Intel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mac users:  This is a good thing.  If you don't follow the PC world, Intel's next chips (for us in this forum) are 64-bit, 3-4 GHz each, paired in twos, and each is dual core.  Dual core?  That means two processors (with physical, not just logical resources) on each "chip."  That means we're talking 4 64-bit processors at 3-4GHz each.  That's blaaazing fast and ADobe is going to be right there taking advantage of it all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've only got a dual 2.8GHz xeon proc Dell and HDTV at 1920x1080 editing is real time.  I can't waaaaait to see Mr. Intel 64. :)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apple finally <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=AAVL0LFRMEMPGCRBAEKSFEY?type=technologyNews&amp;storyID=8574207">coming</a> to its senses&#8230;<br />
<br />
It was inevitable with Longhorn and 64-bit PCs.  The best dual Xeon 32-bit PCs already exceed the best dual proc G5 in Adobe App speed (Adobe makes that clear).  When Windows goes 64-bit next year, well, the Mac&#8217;ll be pretty darn slow in comparison.  Surely Jobs wants to keep his job, so it&#8217;s time to throw in the towel.  It was an excellent and respectable run there, Steve.  Applause and Kudos.  But it&#8217;s over now.<br />
<br />
Welcome to world of Intel.<br />
<br />
Mac users:  This is a good thing.  If you don&#8217;t follow the PC world, Intel&#8217;s next chips (for us in this forum) are 64-bit, 3-4 GHz each, paired in twos, and each is dual core.  Dual core?  That means two processors (with physical, not just logical resources) on each &#8220;chip.&#8221;  That means we&#8217;re talking 4 64-bit processors at 3-4GHz each.  That&#8217;s blaaazing fast and ADobe is going to be right there taking advantage of it all.<br />
<br />
I&#8217;ve only got a dual 2.8GHz xeon proc Dell and HDTV at 1920&#215;1080 editing is real time.  I can&#8217;t waaaaait to see Mr. Intel 64. :)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Playground</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-237</link>
		<dc:creator>The Playground</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-237</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Mac vs. PC - Adobe Benchmarks&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Irgendwie hatte ich es damals in der Fortbildung schon im Gef&#252;hl. Am Mac l&#228;&#223;t sich zwar super arbeiten, aber ein wirklicher Performance Forteil im Gegensatz zu einer aktuellenDose   sah ich nicht. Das belegen auch folgende Test gefunden bei ECHENG&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Mac vs. PC - Adobe Benchmarks</b><br />Irgendwie hatte ich es damals in der Fortbildung schon im Gef&#252;hl. Am Mac l&#228;&#223;t sich zwar super arbeiten, aber ein wirklicher Performance Forteil im Gegensatz zu einer aktuellenDose   sah ich nicht. Das belegen auch folgende Test gefunden bei ECHENG</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: echeng</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-212</link>
		<dc:creator>echeng</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-212</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Seems like a fantastic money-making opportunity! :)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems like a fantastic money-making opportunity! :)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Breitigam</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-211</link>
		<dc:creator>David Breitigam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-211</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I know the picture processing capabilities of my dual Ghz P-mac sucks. Everything I've tried is really slow and iphoto is the worse. I wonder if maybe everyone uses the built-in jpg routines. If they are really slow then that would explain it why everything is slow. Hmmm. Something I should look into.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dave&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know the picture processing capabilities of my dual Ghz P-mac sucks. Everything I&#8217;ve tried is really slow and iphoto is the worse. I wonder if maybe everyone uses the built-in jpg routines. If they are really slow then that would explain it why everything is slow. Hmmm. Something I should look into.<br />
<br />
Dave</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: echeng</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-206</link>
		<dc:creator>echeng</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-206</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;hey, eric -- how is it that you are "eric" on MY website, and I have to use "echeng?!?"&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
;)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey, eric &#8212; how is it that you are &#8220;eric&#8221; on MY website, and I have to use &#8220;echeng?!?&#8221;<br />
<br />
;)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eric</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-205</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;well ... well ... my dad could beat up your dad! :p&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
no no -- i always fall back to the anti-Microsoft argument. in addition to everything else, that does the trick for me. besides, without Apple, who would do Microsoft's R&#38;D?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well &#8230; well &#8230; my dad could beat up your dad! :p<br />
<br />
no no &#8212; i always fall back to the anti-Microsoft argument. in addition to everything else, that does the trick for me. besides, without Apple, who would do Microsoft&#8217;s R&amp;D?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: echeng</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-199</link>
		<dc:creator>echeng</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-199</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;the one thing that pisses me off the most about Macs is trying to view large images.  Why is it that it is nearly impossible to flip through 6 megapixel images real-time?   Normally I'm done doing a quick processing batch with a group of images from my camera before the mac folk (all professional photographers) can even look at their photos.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
bizarre.  but yes, I agree that you will be faster on the platform you are used to. I used to be really fast on my Mac, but have found that I'm faster on a PC.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the one thing that pisses me off the most about Macs is trying to view large images.  Why is it that it is nearly impossible to flip through 6 megapixel images real-time?   Normally I&#8217;m done doing a quick processing batch with a group of images from my camera before the mac folk (all professional photographers) can even look at their photos.<br />
<br />
bizarre.  but yes, I agree that you will be faster on the platform you are used to. I used to be really fast on my Mac, but have found that I&#8217;m faster on a PC.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alex</title>
		<link>http://echeng.com/journal/2003/03/25/mac-vs-pc-adobe-benchmarks/#comment-195</link>
		<dc:creator>alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=59#comment-195</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;yeah, yeah...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://alexking.org/blog/index.php?p=164&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yeah, yeah&#8230;<br />
<br />
<a href="http://alexking.org/blog/index.php?p=164" rel="nofollow">http://alexking.org/blog/index.php?p=164</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
