Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Comparing Apples and Amigas  (Read 7674 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sean Cunningham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2014
  • Posts: 95
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192445
Re: Comparing Apples and Amigas
« on: July 02, 2014, 03:11:28 PM »
No, no there's no hypocrites around here.
 

Offline Sean Cunningham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2014
  • Posts: 95
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192445
Re: Comparing Apples and Amigas
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2014, 09:20:01 PM »
A big part of that mistake was believing Motorola and IBM could be partners.  Those two plus Apple getting together...you couldn't find three dissimilar tech companies with entirely different ideas or priorities.  They tried, with Somerset, but the writing was on the wall very quickly that things were likely going to go the way they did.  Scully had no choice but to go down that path though given the choice made before he was there to hitch Apple's wagon to Motorola in the first place.

Mistake or not the move to PPC was a logical one and the decision by Jobs to stick with it jumping to the G3 was also kind of a no-brainer at the time.  There was no other move to make that offered a transition to a real, modern OS.  He already had to "cut bait" and cancel the failed internal effort to update OS9 to something worth keeping around, sent the Newton team packing, there was simply no way to move to Intel when he took hold of the company again until some years later when it was the only decision that made any sense at all.  Once users were weened off OS9 they had options.  Not before.

That took as long as it did largely because big software developers are lazy (ie. Adobe being horribly, horribly lazy).

Motorola was/is an engineering-centric company that doesn't understand software, or anything much beyond the component level use of their tech and whose bread-and-butter was non-PC implementations of their technology.  Apple might have been the most high profile public PPC customer but they were just a fraction of the PPC market.  They were the tail trying to wag the dog.  That and, though they're not unique in this, they (Motorola) were and are a company run by Lumberghs.   Freakin' idiots.  And so they will continue to spin off parts of their company that have any value until Motorola will simply cease to exist.  Because they're idiots.

IBM could also not give a crap about much of anything but embedded applications which is why they didn't care about Altivec regardless of the fact that Apple's products were more than a little dependent here.   Embedded applications didn't need that kind of floating point acceleration.  The rub was IBM had the better manufacturing technology and could deliver a better version than Motorola, they just didn't care.

The switch to Intel was something he had in his back pocket the entire time because NeXT had already been running on "white hardware" for years and OpenStep was already powering a majority of the behind-the-scenes enterprise level web technology.  Apple was coy about this for years for the sake of their tenuous alignment until it was simply idiotic for them to stick with it given how utterly disappointing the G5 was and no indication that they could ever get back to being competitive in markets they had been dominating that were starting to slip.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 09:24:20 PM by Sean Cunningham »
 

Offline Sean Cunningham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2014
  • Posts: 95
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192445
Re: Comparing Apples and Amigas
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2014, 10:50:34 PM »
Some of that could be the coding of Logic Pro.  I don't know that app specifically but I know the maker of ProTools was one of the "lazy" application developers I was talking about back in the OS transition periods.  Every single Adobe app, when you could dual-boot OS9 and OSX, was faster in OS9 because they hadn't actually written an OSX version, not really.  

It's been so long since I cared to keep track of the compatibility layers, it could be a lack of optimization in the app or it could also be a flaw in their earlier Core2 Macbook.  2008 marks a year where there's a performance difference in some applications between similarly spec'd Core2 models due to chipset implementation and memory.  I have one of the effected iMacs.  Just unlucky I guess.  It was what was available when I went to buy in 2008.

Power and heat was a problem though, yeah.  It pointed to a cap they were going to hit on the performance they could expect in the future.  It didn't inspire confidence in their ability to keep scaling.  It had been similarly an issue with the dual-G4 desktops as well.  We got lucky when I built our Cinewave and I got the dual 1K G4 that I did and not the next generation.  It ran flawlessly for our configuration while folks with newer, slightly faster systems were having more issues and then more issues still with the G5.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 10:54:38 PM by Sean Cunningham »
 

Offline Sean Cunningham

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2014
  • Posts: 95
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192445
Re: Comparing Apples and Amigas
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2014, 07:53:44 AM »
You're not above revisionism either it seems, agami.  Adobe Premiere, in the G3 era, wasn't even frame accurate.  It ran very poorly, even though DV wasn't a terribly taxing format and even the slowest G3 offered realtime playback of the media.  In 2001 I co-authored one of the first 24P HD narrative features and we did the roughcut with DV proxy material in Premiere on my G3 while raising money to eventually build our dual-G4 Cinewave for online HD editing not quite a year later and switched to FCP because of how not up to the task Premiere was at the time(*).

Part of that was very niggling issues with Quicktime during the 1999-2003 period and a lot of third party vendors having issues but Premiere for Mac had languished at Adobe.  Rather than answer the assault from Final Cut Pro they killed the app for a number of years and I held my breath waiting for them to do the same with After Effects because not only did it work better under OS9 than OSX but the Windows version on Intel and AMD hardware killed After Effects performance on the fastest dual-G4 you could get at the time.  Photoshop users were likewise jumping to ship in droves and not because all of a sudden folks just up and decided to give Windows a try.  The hardware was much faster and a helluva lot cheaper, with AMD offering slightly better floating point performance per dollar.

This is why longtime Mac fanatics like Stu Maschwitz grudgingly switched The Orphanage over to NT because After Effects was their bread and butter and it was just too slow on the best Mac hardware available at the time (compared to what was available to run it under Windows).  I stuck with Mac as my main interactive machine but built a couple dual-AMD boxes to offload rendering to because they were so much faster.  I didn't have clients sitting on my shoulder so I just continued using it in the environment I preferred until it more or less caught up again and Adobe re-invested in making their apps on the platform.  

I was really happy when they re-introduced Premiere to Mac because I've always preferred Premiere to FCP.


(*) to put Premiere's poor performance on the G3 into perspective, it actually worked better and smoother a couple years prior on my DEC Alpha through FX32, which allowed the DEC RISC chip to run Intel Windows software through continuously optimizing and re-optimizing emulation, controlling a DPS Perception Video.  So that box was running Premiere through emulation talking to specialized hardware doing realtime A/V (AVI based) and it worked quite well and never introduced trimming errors like were rampant on the G3 + Premiere combo (Quicktime based).
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 08:20:05 AM by Sean Cunningham »