Back on topic, the really interesting bit is when/if apple release BootCampWindows that lets you load OSX onto a PC. Thats when the shit really hits the fan. 
I really can't see that happening as Apple have so far had the advantage of being able to optimise the OS to each model. Having said that they were adamant they'd never let Windows onto a Mac
I don't have a definitive resource, no
Have you approached the equipment manufacturers for ICC profiles? Most setup drivers these days come with them. Not all, though, I know. They should be available for download somewhere, though.[EDIT] I just remembered a monitor profiling tool (hardware/USB!) a friend mentioned to me. I can't remember the details now but apparently it's brilliant (3rd hand). I'll give him a shout and ask the details.
I think graphics cards have some colour profiling options.
That's because Apple is no more than a PC anymore. About the only truly nice thing about the new Aptel machines are the fact they boot with EFI. Otherwise, Apple is just a fancier Dell with a different OS.
But as to the topic of this discussion, now that Bootcamp is out (or will be fairly shortly) all you have to do is fork out the cash for a version Windows XP and you can run any PC game on your Mac hardware and use MacOSX for whatever it the user does with the computer.
That's a misconception. The Apple architecture still leaves the antiquated PC to shame. I wrote a benchmark program to test out the new Intel iMac. I have tested it under Windows XP on an iMac, and I ran an indental mac version on OSX under Rosetta (old style pre-Intel Mac emulator). I also compared it to some other Mac's and my PC.
My PC uses a top of the range Acer motherboard A8N-SLi Premium Deluxe, the fancy copper heat pipped one. I have 2gb of CAS 2 RAM, twin 7800GT graphics cards, a SATA-2 striped RAID array for hard disk use, a high performance ultra quiet power supply and a fancy 2ms gaming optimised active matrix flatpanel screen. The process is the week link being only an AMD 3800 dual core with 1mb L2 cache, it's entry level by dual core chip standards (although perfectly adequate for gaming).
The Intel iMac I tested was a BASE specification 17" model, which cost £100 less before I bought my £280 screen...
These where the results of the 5 areas I tested.
Figures are test cycles completed in a given timeframe.
Integer Operations
6th Intel iMac Rosetta 2,868,239
5th G3 Dalmation 3,342,920
4th G4 Quicksilver 4,559,123
3rd G5 Workstation 12,090,515
2nd Becky’s PC 83,705,522
1st Intel iMac BootCamp 153,043,702
Float Operations
6th Intel iMac Rosetta 2,474,183
5th G3 Dalmation 2,848,109
4th G4 Quicksilver 3,932,425
3rd G5 Workstation 10,309,080
2nd Becky’s PC 73,502,251
1st Intel iMac BootCamp 130,491,015
The iMac, £380 cheaper than my PC - leaves my computer for dead at processor intensive tasks such as 3D rendering & LFS.
Next I did an architecture test which was designed to test the claim that Macophiles make that a 2Ghz Mac runs like a 3Ghz PC. Is it really true? Well natively yes, although the difference isn't quite so high when running XP on the iMac - nonetheless it's still better and demonstrates that the CPU rating you see on the box of a Mac is under-rated when doing a comparison.
Figure is the time (in milliseconds) to complete a set task
Architecture Test
6th G3 Dalmation 88,687ms
5th G4 Quicksilver 22,781ms
4th Becky’s PC 7,353ms
3rd Intel iMac BootCamp 5,985ms
2nd G5 Workstation 4,928ms
1st Intel iMac Rosetta 3,931ms
I then did a hard disk write/read test on a large file. Under XP the iMac was a little slower, although natively it's fine - and when you consider it's up against a striped RAID stack.
Hard Disk Test
6th G3 Dalmation 94,606ms
5th G4 Quicksilver 44,562ms
4th Intel iMac BootCamp 13,639ms
3rd G5 Workstation 11,014ms
2nd Intel iMac Rosetta 10,079ms
1st Becky’s PC 10,046ms
Finally I tested OpenGL draw speed. This wasn't testing any 3D techniques or anything. I simply sent a text based billboard to the graphics card and saw how many times it would do so in the given timeframe. It should be noted that the PC is using nVidia cards which are optimised for DirectX (which I didn't put in the benchmark program as the Mac's dont have it) - all the same the Mac is up against an SLi system here.
Operations completed in a set timeframe.
OpenGL Write Test
6th Intel iMac Rosetta 1,004
5th G3 Dalmation 2,554
4th G4 Quicksilver 5,118
3rd G5 Workstation 20,905
2nd Becky’s PC 21,920
1st Intel iMac BootCamp 57,599
In short the Intel iMac running WindowsXP is faster than a high end gaming system for applications and OpenGL based games. If I had the same money and built a PC for applications rather than games, or built an ATI Crossfire system for OpenGL support the results might be slightly different - but I can only benchmark what i've got.
But to the guy who wrote off Mac's as expensive and underspecced. I feel entitled to laugh right now except i've just finished work and i'm not in the mood...
I should add I tried running a 3D DirectX game I wrote on the Intel iMac and it ran and displayed fine, although didn't get the same framerate I get on my PC. It achieved a stable 27fps which I know is slower than my PC - but i'd need to install it to be sure of the fps my PC actually gets.
Worryingly the Intel iMac did not display a VP31 encoded video correctly despite installing the codec software.
Worryingly the Intel iMac did not display a VP31 encoded video correctly despite installing the codec software.
OMG!! A geeky chick who's into racing!!:heartbeat
Seriously though, I will have to look at the Mac again when I next build a machine. It's a significant step forward for Apple, to leave behind the Motorola chips. I know they've been frustrated for a good few years at Motorola's inability to keep up. Now Macs are unleashed, in a way.
I still have concerns about the Mac regarding TCO (upgradeability, steep depreciation etc). Perhaps these concerns can be shelved now, although I doubt it. To some extent, it's the nature of the beast with such a tightly integrated infrastructure.
Another issue at this point which I think is likely to get worse is the DirectX matter. Most of the gaming I do (gaming is where performance matters for me, rather than business) is DirectX optimized. If I had a choice, I'd personally opt for OpenGL, but I'm not writing the games.
I suspect Microsoft is fuel-injecting impetus for software houses and hardware manufacturers to kiss the DirectX. Correct or incorrect, right or wrong, I need good DirectX support.
If the Mac turns out to have more bang for the buck (including the above considerations), I'll buy it. I'm not proud.
That doesn't mean I'd start condoning Apple's propaganda against Microsoft. I find that offensive not for its anti-MS content but because it's propaganda.
Seriously though, I will have to look at the Mac again when I next build a machine. It's a significant step forward for Apple, to leave behind the Motorola chips. I know they've been frustrated for a good few years at Motorola's inability to keep up. Now Macs are unleashed, in a way.
I still have concerns about the Mac regarding TCO (upgradeability, steep depreciation etc). Perhaps these concerns can be shelved now, although I doubt it. To some extent, it's the nature of the beast with such a tightly integrated infrastructure.
Another issue at this point which I think is likely to get worse is the DirectX matter. Most of the gaming I do (gaming is where performance matters for me, rather than business) is DirectX optimized. If I had a choice, I'd personally opt for OpenGL, but I'm not writing the games.
I suspect Microsoft is fuel-injecting impetus for software houses and hardware manufacturers to kiss the DirectX. Correct or incorrect, right or wrong, I need good DirectX support.
If the Mac turns out to have more bang for the buck (including the above considerations), I'll buy it. I'm not proud.
That doesn't mean I'd start condoning Apple's propaganda against Microsoft. I find that offensive not for its anti-MS content but because it's propaganda.
LFS and MacOS X
(58 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG