Jeremy, you know all the criticisms -- some justified, some historical but now incorrect, and some totally unjustified -- that you get when you suggest that FCPX is a viable solution? That's what I'm seeing when I suggest that Windows as a viable solution.
Just like you, I'm trying to help the community here move past perceptions and stereotypes, and see that the situation has changed drastically while no one was looking.
[Jeremy Garchow] "As I said, Walter, this isn't true anymore. Windows has caught up in the stability department. That was my point earlier in this thread. It's there to reread. "
Yes, we are totally agreed on this. Windows used to be way, way behind on stability, but that is no longer the case.
[Jeremy Garchow] "Msoft needs to run the worlds servers (along with Linux), Apple does not. They bowed out of that game."
Microsoft's server OS is a bit different than their desktop OS, as is Apple's (and Microsoft doesn't design hardware whereas Apple does), so I'm not sure where this fits in.
[Jeremy Garchow] "I will stop trying to compare Apple system stability vs msoft stability as that's not what I'm saying exactly."
I guess I didn't make it clear enough in my post, but I do know from our previous conversations about this that this is not what you're saying, and I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I'm sorry if that didn't come across.
I did say "it may be unintended, but there's an implication..." but what I probably should have said is instead that it's easy for someone to incorrectly infer that if Apple prioritizes stability over performance, and if Windows is faster than OS X, then Microsoft must prioritize speed over stability.
[Jeremy Garchow] "Henceforth, I will say simply, Apple is not in the CPU speed race. They want small and fast, which by default doesn't mean the fastest available."
I can only half-agree with this. Apple is very inconstant in CPU speed race. Every Mac Pro is a speed demon at its launch, but after launch, competitors get updates with speed bumps while the Mac Pro stagnates. I see Apple's commitment to CPU speed as stop and go, and as a user who likes OS X and cares about performance, I've found it absolutely maddening. It would be easier for people like me if Macs were either always competitive or never competitive on speed, but while I agree that Apple fails to consistently offer the fastest CPUs, I don't see how you can deny that their workstations are competitive at their launches.
If Apple kills the Mac Pro, then small and fast will indeed be best description. If they release a dual E5 sizzle core beast Mac Pro next week, then the Mac Pro will again for a time be among the fastest systems available. Apple will be in the CPU speed race until Intel releases the next mid-architecture speed bump that Apple ignores and other manufacturers adopt, and this argument will continue another round.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at
Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
