On Fri, 03 May 2002 15:59:24 -0700, newvideo@amug.org (Bill Davis) wrote:
DR wrote:

>> Well, it's good that you get a good laugh out of
>> it - and this may be the ultimate value of many
>> such usenet discussions, but there really may be
>> some value in discussing the relative merits of
>> some competitive products since these can exist,
>> there can be some interest in this type of
>> discussion (they are popular on usenet, probably
>> at least partly for good reasons ;-), and there can
>> be resulting understanding of the real relative
>> merits of these products for some (based on user
>> experience instead of just advertising hype),
>> possibly useful when making purchasing decisions.

>But David, this is where I have such an uneasy feeling. As long-time
>usenet denizens, we've both seen plenty of posts from folks having big
>ugly problems using equipment that we both use seemlessly everyday!
>
>Someone pops up, convinced with the rightous fury of the evangelical, that
>Brand X is the spawn of Satan and that Brand Y is the true path to
>paradise.
>
>And we both know that's poppycock. The diferences between ALL this stuff
>is subtle at best. Particularly in areas as fluid and as processor
>development sensitive as rendering speeds. (Today brand X by a hair,
>Tomorrow Brand Y by a nose.)

This is true - but it is also good and useful to point
out when advertising hype has passed over the bounds of
reality...;-) I used to laugh at the "Mac folks" who
claimed their G-3s were so very fast, and that the first
version of FCP was so great, yet the early Mac DV-codec
was insufferable, and these folks would not dare do
basic editing processes like color corrections since the
processing times were so uselessly lengthy (and ordinary
PCs of the time could do them in a fraction of the
time, at a fraction of the cost...;-).

>It's much like that classic distinction between what's URGENT and what's
>IMPORTANT. It might seem URGENT to get to the store quickly - but it's
>IMPORTANT to get there safely.
>
>With NLE systems all the hue and cry about how fast system B renders how
>many polygons appears to be URGENT to waaaay to many people for my taste.
>If you think about it, the cases where that kind of smalish incremental
>speed advantage would actually make any practical difference would be in
>something like a pure production shop where clients are stacked up one
>after another and saving a few minutes on each job would allow for easier
>scheduling. BUT THE VAST, VAST majority of people posting and reading here
>will NEVER be in that situation.
>
>For most folks here, what's IMPORTANT is a stable system that gets the job
>done with a minimum of fuss.
>
>And there are oodles of Mac systems (and PC systems!) that do that just fine.

I agree with this. But some do want that marginal
speed increase (for whatever reason), making the speed
comparisons useful to some, if not very important
to most. Should we then limit what info is available
only to what is useful to the majority...? ;-)

>> which I have often seen... In this case, I'm
>> writing this on a NG that is devoted to desktop
>> video production - so, where would it be more
>> appropriate to hear that Mac claims of superior
>> processing speed of video file rendering are
>> evidently false???

>Again, you've been around too long to believe that. Marketing departments
>of large corporations don't make those kinds of mistakes.

I'm sure you cannot possibly believe that is true...! ;-)
Marketing hype is the normal condition of business.
What maker is going to say, "Our car is only marginally
comfortable, but in view of the relatively modest price,
it still (even with its numerous other deficiencies taken
into consideration) represents a good value for the money",
instead of, "Our car is available in 37,000 nifty colors,
and it is the best available in its class", or some such...
For Mac, it is the plastic goo on the cases, and claims
about relative processor speed - not the number of
expansion slots, extra internal bays, "real-world"
processing times, price, and other practicalities that are
pushed in the advertising... The products may actually be
functionally similar enough, but "clearing out some of
the cobwebs" may be useful, anyway...

>I'm sure if you
>read the fine print on the benchmarks run by Apple, under the conditions
>they specify, every claim they make is supportably valid. (We both know
>that they have as many in-house lawyers assuring this as any other major
>publically-traded corporation!)
>
>The point you're really trying to make with the above statement is that
>the tests they choose to publish are cherry-picked to support claims that
>they believe will benefit their brand. Wow, what a revelation! Let
>me stop here for a second and count the number of companies I'm aware of
>that feel good about promoting comparisions where their products
>attributes score comparatively poorly........... huh....... well, I'll
>work on it.

Yes. Exactly. So what is so bad about pointing out these
things, especially when they bear directly on operations
of interest to videographers???

>So at best, your argument comes down to the fact that you don't like the
>numbers they choose to use in promoting their products. My argument is
>that the range of acceptable numbers in this area is (or at least should
>be) so large that it makes virtually ALL modern NLE systems capable of
>equivelent success in sustaining an otherwise sound NLE shop business
>model.

I agree...

>In sum, I don't care who's PC can pee farther. I further believe that
>peeing for distance is rarely important in life.

I agree...

>Again, I believe that people who spend their time thus engaged are somehow
>secretly afraid that they don't "measure up" to the distances achieved by
>others and therefore, they won't be as popular as the kids who can hit
>"that pine cone, over there." Personally, just can't find it in myself to
>spend much time worrying about about hitting pine cones - feeling that as
>long as I have access to a functioning bathroom - that "test" is pretty
>unimportant.

I agree - but I do wonder why you feel this very elaborate
defense is necessary... This was, after all, a simple,
apparently well-conducted comparison between Mac and PC
rendering speeds while doing real-world operations of
interest to videographers, reported in a videographers'
NG... This appears OK to me, if probably of marginal
importance to many. So, the question arises: in such tests,
what is your "margin for importance"...? ;-) 2X render
times? 3X render times? (I guess not 1.5X render times,
since this is the order of difference that appeared in
the comparison...) At what point is it worth upgrading
a computer's performance (or choosing one type over
another)? ;-) At what point shall all discussion of
speed differences be worthy/not-worthy of being
reported here? ;-)

> Especially since people often
>> upgrade, modify, or replace their gear to gain
>> speed increases that are less than the measured
>> differences between the Mac and PC gear tested...

>Unsupportable assertation. A small part of the market may do that, but I
>suspect more just buy the best they can afford, then live with that until
>they flog the system to death, investing in a new system only when they're
>dragged into it by an OBVIOUS and compelling need to change.
>Case in point: My zippy new Dual 1-Gig G4/Cinema display system arrived
>after 3 full years of productive work on a G3-350 with a 15" display. Oh
>wait, I added two ever larger hard drives in that time, but only because I
>had the additional clients (and workflow) necessary to support the
>upgrades. In between, I just used what I had because it WORKED without
>hassles. I'll bet zillions of others to the same simply because we don't
>find that unpaid time spent tinkering for perfection - particularly with
>the downtime attendent to that kind of exploration - all that productive.

Very practical approach - but I think most buying
decisions are not really made on this basis...

>> So, pardon me if I now snicker at some of the
>> last entries in this thread.....! ;-)

>Feel free.
>
>However, you might want to note that in the traditional sense, snickering
>is a kind of an anti-social habit.
>It's purpose is typically to subtly inform the world that the snicker-er
>feels somehow vaguely superior to the others - an attitude that doesn't do
>much for communal contentment.

I was mirroring an earlier poster's "snicker"...;-)
And, yes, part of your description may well apply here...;-)

>And from your proven history of contribution here, I didn't really get the
>sense that you want to portray THAT. Right?

It depends on the quality of the comments that preceeded
my post.....;-) I am not snickering at yours, here...;-)
I do laugh at the irony of people pointing out in a
gear-related NG the "uselessness" or "inappropriateness"
of pointing out gear-related differences in performance,
though...;-) This is by definition silly, and a snicker
*is* appropriate for this...;-)