Charlie White: Macs sucked in 2000---has anything really changed?

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Joe, Jul 17, 2003.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    January 2000 -- 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
    Joe, Jul 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Joe

    Max Volume Guest

    And what would be the point of posting an editorial that's over two
    years old, was inaccurate then, and is TOTALLY irrelevant now?

    Fucking troll.

    Max Volume, Jul 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Joe

    nappy Guest

    you fell for it though eh Max?
    nappy, Jul 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.