MAC or PC?

[ce nedra]

rlefebvr- this one is just for you lol

Which do you choose/prefer and why?

I am one for Mac's. We just understand each other well.

[mike_lang]

Good things about a Mac:

1. I can update the contacts on my Razr phone via bluetooth.  I simply keep my address book on the computer up to date, and this is also stored on .Mac (and my iPod, when it is updated).

2. Every software installation requires password authentification.  A good feature of Unix.

3. Doesn't freeze, at least has not yet. (Knock on wood)

4. All the features of the Windows OS, five years in advance.

5. User friendly in general - I've never had to look anything up in a help section or user manual (though both of these resources exist, and in great comprehensiveness).

6. Doesn't take as long as Windows to do anything, even with a slower processor.  (Is more efficient)

7. Video editing, audio editing, music publishing - really, anything creative is easier and faster.

8. It isn't Windows.

Best,
ML

[Kassaa]

I have never used a Mac before, but what I do know is that you have a serious lack of software and it is a lot more expensive than a Windows pc, but I have also heard Mac is a lot faster than Windows, and a lot more stable. I won't vote

[rlefebvr]

First of all, it's not really more expensive then a PC when you look at the components inside the machine.

As for software. What software are you talking about. The only thing that is lacking is the game department and that is quickly changing.


It's not just a little faster then a PC, it puts a PC to shame.

It's ease of use is incredible.

It's networking capabilities are unmatched by a PC and again set-up is child play.

It never crashes.

It's pretty.


I work on the Mac, but own a PC at home because I am a PC gaming freak.

However, the new macs are incredible machines. Their laptops are out of this world.

And the Best part of the Mac is.....NO BILL GATES and NO MICROSOFT BULL that makes you want to go over there and blow everything up.
 

[Kassaa]

First of all, it's not really more expensive then a PC when you look at the components inside the machine.

As for software. What software are you talking about. The only thing that is lacking is the game department and that is quickly changing.


It's not just a little faster then a PC, it puts a PC to shame.

It's ease of use is incredible.

It's networking capabilities are unmatched by a PC and again set-up is child play.

It never crashes.

It's pretty.


I work on the Mac, but own a PC at home because I am a PC gaming freak.

However, the new macs are incredible machines. Their laptops are out of this world.

And the Best part of the Mac is.....NO BILL GATES and NO MICROSOFT BULL that makes you want to go over there and blow everything up.
 

The components inside are not more expensive but Apple sells them expensive. And yes, with software I mean the gaming-division.

[allthumbs]

VHS or Beta? Same analogy in my mind. 

[Mozartian]

Macs, foh sho'.

They're more intelligently designed! Plus, they're prettier, lol. 

[rlefebvr]

VHS or Beta? Same analogy in my mind. 

I agree....but guess what? Beta was 10 times better than VHS.


Go figure

[Tash]

i have a pc, except for some bizarre reason i accidently clicked 'MAC' on the poll...god i'm a moron sometimes...

macs confuse me, i like having a start button and the little bit at the bottom where the windows are, and on macs the icons pop up in my face and get in the way. they are aesthetically pleasing, but i'm such a windows person i can't really handle the macs on a long term basis

[mike_lang]

i have a pc, except for some bizarre reason i accidently clicked 'MAC' on the poll...god i'm a moron sometimes...

macs confuse me, i like having a start button and the little bit at the bottom where the windows are, and on macs the icons pop up in my face and get in the way. they are aesthetically pleasing, but i'm such a windows person i can't really handle the macs on a long term basis

Sounds like someone needs to be evangelized in the ways of Mac.

[musik_man]

PC's all the way.  Two big reasons.  The first is that PC's  have a line of software known as 'video games,' that I use from time to time.  The second reason being that I don't have to buy a new computer to upgrade my hardware.  My PC's components get slowly replaced as I begin to find them inadequate.

I used Macs all through public school and one thing always really bugged me.  No second mouse button.  Oh, and the fact that click the X button on the window wouldn't quit the program.  Going file>>exit everytime was a Sisuphysian(sp?) ordeal.

BTW

&search=mac%20gamer

[pianolearner]

Good things about a Mac:

7. Video editing, audio editing, music publishing - really, anything creative is easier and faster.

What benchmark are you using? I saw a side by side comparison of a Windows and Mac computer running the same package and asked to perform the same process. The Windows PC was about 3 times faster.

After all things considered like cost, software,compatability, Windows computers come out way way ahead. Mac users think they are elite when all they are is a dying minority 

[rlefebvr]

The new macs work with left and right  mouse buttons and they can use the scroll.

Macs are made for video and audio and music editing. Any magazine that says a PC is faster in these categories should be sued for libel.

[pianolearner]

The new macs work with left and right  mouse buttons and they can use the scroll.

Macs are made for video and audio and music editing. Any magazine that says a PC is faster in these categories should be sued for libel.

This is absolute nonsense. Digital is digital, 1's and 0's irrespective of whether it is Video, Audio or Text. The computer that can process 1's and 0's the fastest ie/FLOPS and MIPS is going to do everything faster. I didn't read about this test in a magazine, I SAW it demonstrated.

Visit this website.

https://www.avid.com/

When I did the Avid training course it was only available on the MAC platform. Now they have moved products to the PC and some are only available for Windows PC. As always, when it comes to the debate between MAC's and PC's, it's usually the "Artsy fartsy" people that know nothing about computers that think MAC's are better 

 

[quantum]

I use PC at home, but I love MAC's. 

Well first of, UNIX vs. Windows  - no comparison when it comes to security UNIX pwns

Windows has a tradition of bloatware with every new release (check out the sys req. for Vista)

MAC was designed functional, the features that are there you actually use. 

OS X is prettier than Windows

If the last Mac you've seen was pre OS X, than seriously check out OS X as it blows away previous Mac OS's. 

The new Mac monitors (the ones with the crazy 20k x 10k or whatever resolution) are inzane.  Having these in dual monitor would be like haveing 4 huge regular sized monitors.

---

My only complaint for OS X is some quirks in the GUI.  If you accidentally click on the desktop within something like Photoshop, desktop becomes active and you have to switch back to the program.  This is sort of coupled with the issue of how to maximize an app full screen so you can't see the desktop anymore.  Does anyone know a solution for this?

Why I don't use Mac at home?  $$$$$ and lack of availability of programs. 

[rlefebvr]

I guess 20 years working on computers makes me ignorant....who knew. 

Insults aside, I must have done a terrible job explaining my position, cause your comments make very little sense. 0 and 1 have nothing to do with anything. It's the way computers are set-up to handle the 0 and 1 that make a difference.

Apple has always been made to handle large clusters unlike windows who are just now becoming competitive. Large clusters work best with Image sound and video. Word Processing works better with small clusters and take less harddrive space. Also the apple's architecture made sending 0 and 1 from the hardrive to the video card and so on  better suited for the above mention.

I am willing to agree with you this is no longer the case although Mac is way ahead still with 64bit and that makes a huge difference with Images, although I can't comment for video as much.

-Apple now powers with a  64-bit as I said. Pc's are just coming out with them and windows is not even equipped to handle the new chips.

-Xserve RAID provides massive storage capacity in a rack-optimized enclosure. Xsan, Apple’s 64-bit cluster file system, lets multiple computers concurrently access terabytes of storage on Xserve RAID.

-Macs use a UNIX foundation. With pre-emptive multitasking and protected system memory.
That means the system remains free of system crashes and compromised performance. 

-UNIX-based Mac OS X Server provides cross-platform support right out of the box for native file sharing,

-Xserve RAID with a cost of just over $2 per gigabyte is cheap.

-the Power Mac G5 offers dual 64-bit G5 processing power and great expandability.

I still prefer my PC to the mac, but the new macs, especially the laptops are awesome machines.

Merry Christmas

Ron

[pianolearner]

The "insult" was not directly aimed at you Ron. Your explanation isn't really clear or convincing because you need to explain what you mean by "Large clusters work best with Image sound and video". Clusters (as I know them) are an allocation unit that represents the smallest amount of disk space a file system uses to store information on a hard disk. Small cluster sizes are a more efficient way of using hard disk space. In other words if you had 32 KB clusters but the file you were saving was only 2KB, you have 30KB of unused disk space in that cluster which cannot be used to store anything else.

The limiting factor when it came to capturing and playing video was not the PC but the hard disk. MACS (as far as I know) use SCSI disks as standard which had/have much higher sustained data transfer rates than the old IDE drives. This DTR is essential to smooth Video capture/playback because it is less likely to drop frames. But there has always been the option to add SCSI to PC with a plug in card and they can also support RAID.

Processing of Video ie/effects, transitions has little to do with cluster size because as I said earlier, this takes place in the microprocessor. If its "raw" processing power is higher (FLOPS/MIPS) then the effect will be processed quicker, this has nothing to do with DTR or file allocation sizes on a hard disk. The same would apply to converting an uncompressed digital sound file to MP3, again, cluster size is irrelevant, processing power is all that matters.

As for the demonstration I mentioned. It was an identical graphics package (can't remember which one) running on a PC and MAC. An identical image was selected and an identical effect was applied and the PC completed the operation about 3 times faster than the MAC. Explain that.

[rlefebvr]

The "insult" was not directly aimed at you Ron. Your explanation isn't really clear or convincing because you need to explain what you mean by "Large clusters work best with Image sound and video". Clusters (as I know them) are an allocation unit that represents the smallest amount of disk space a file system uses to store information on a hard disk. Small cluster sizes are a more efficient way of using hard disk space. In other words if you had 32 KB clusters but the file you were saving was only 2KB, you have 30KB of unused disk space in that cluster which cannot be used to store anything else.

The limiting factor when it came to capturing and playing video was not the PC but the hard disk. MACS (as far as I know) use SCSI disks as standard which had/have much higher sustained data transfer rates than the old IDE drives. This DTR is essential to smooth Video capture/playback because it is less likely to drop frames. But there has always been the option to add SCSI to PC with a plug in card and they can also support RAID.

Processing of Video ie/effects, transitions has little to do with cluster size because as I said earlier, this takes place in the microprocessor. If its "raw" processing power is higher (FLOPS/MIPS) then the effect will be processed quicker, this has nothing to do with DTR or file allocation sizes on a hard disk. The same would apply to converting an uncompressed digital sound file to MP3, again, cluster size is irrelevant, processing power is all that matters.

As for the demonstration I mentioned. It was an identical graphics package (can't remember which one) running on a PC and MAC. An identical image was selected and an identical effect was applied and the PC completed the operation about 3 times faster than the MAC. Explain that.

 I re read your post several times, so I was not really insulted, but I still had to put my 2 cents in.

The cluster example is really a cheap trick as it really has no effect anymore, but years ago it did. Small cluster sizes were more efficient, but if your image had 30 megs stored in small clusters on your hard drive, your hard drive had to work that much harder to upload the image since the hardrive had to read so many clusters to upload your image. This made the macs more efficient. Also as macs (used to)  use scsi cards and disk, the information again was transferred from one component to another much faster.

Yes, you can have SCSI for PC, but not out of the box like a mac used too. That is why I mentioned before comparing prices for PC and Macs was only fair if you checked the components inside the machine. Add a scsi card AND hardrive, PLUS a motherboard that will handle scsi and tell me how much cheaper the PC is compared to the mac. Minimal difference.
Not to mention the headache of putting it together for MA and Pa who can barely work a Teller machine.(that's a bank ATM in Canada)

You talk of processor power and I agree, but what system works in 64 bits with the OS to go with it. That would be Mac, not the PC. Although Microsoft next version is supposed to rectify this.

I have seen these demonstrations you talk about and the winner always depends on what numbers you check. It's like asking a company to give your their accounting books. They will say The one that shows we are making money or the one that says we are loosing money. I have tested (again, I must point out, I have never worked video, but mainly image interpolation.) PC next to a mac and the mac was always faster and Tiger with the G5 is simply amazing, I am telling you. Even the internet is faster and I do not know why.


In the end my next home computer will still be a PC, but I can give you no good reason to do so, except of course the illegal use of software and my love for computer games.

[musik_man]

rlefebvr, my dad has a 64-bit version of XP installed on his computer.

It seems like a lot of the pro-Mac sentiment comes from OS-X.  I've never used it, but I wonder if it is really that big of a difference.  One that would make up for all the extra software, hardware, and the easiness of upgrading hardware in a PC.  XP is very stable and it's never given me any problems.  What more should an OS do?

[rlefebvr]

rlefebvr, my dad has a 64-bit version of XP installed on his computer.

It seems like a lot of the pro-Mac sentiment comes from OS-X.  I've never used it, but I wonder if it is really that big of a difference.  One that would make up for all the extra software, hardware, and the easiness of upgrading hardware in a PC.  XP is very stable and it's never given me any problems.  What more should an OS do?

Well without comparing XP (That I also think is the best thing Microsoft has ever put out) to Mac OS

I think people are exited because the new Mac OS is like comparing Windows 95 to XP. It's night and day. Mac OS X  Tiger is actually looking more and more like a PC. You can really personalize it to your needs and it's freaking fast. Is it worth the switch. Considering computer performance change every six months, I don't think so, but that does not make the Mac a less viable machine. It just means we have another  competitive machine that can compete with Microsoft. And that my friends is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

There is also a very strong anti Microsoft sentiment with people who have delt with Mr Gates.

This is a company that has bullied vendors and manufacturers and who would promise the OS of the future and only give Crap, From DOS to Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 Version 1 that was so buggy people should have gotten a refund.

From forcing companies to upgrade by refusing to service older versions to bulling vendors by threatening to stop support if they sell the other guys product and the list go on.

So the feeling is often Pro Apple because it means you can stick it to Gates.

[monsieurrenard]

PCs, although I don't think they are the superior computers.

I use PCs for three reasons:
1. I want to be able to fully customize my apps and skins
2. I want to be able to use all the software I need (compatibility)
3. I can handle the neediness of a PC

I dont even play computer games, so that's not what it's about. It's just about Windows being more flexible than Mac OS.

-Monsieur Le Renard

[pianolearner]

I re read your post several times, so I was not really insulted, but I still had to put my 2 cents in.

The cluster example is really a cheap trick as it really has no effect anymore, but years ago it did. Small cluster sizes were more efficient, but if your image had 30 megs stored in small clusters on your hard drive, your hard drive had to work that much harder to upload the image since the hardrive had to read so many clusters to upload your image. This made the macs more efficient. Also as macs (used to)  use scsi cards and disk, the information again was transferred from one component to another much faster.

Ron,

I'm not too sure this is entirely correct. You are right, small cluster sizes can result in decreased performance due to fragmentation, but it was older PC operating systems that could end up with larger cluster sizes due to the limitations of the FAT16 system. A 16Bit FAT table can only address 65,536 clusters, so the larger the Hard Disk, the larger the cluster size. It isn't a "cheap trick", it's a fact. I don't know what you mean by it not having an effect anymore because the only thing that has changed since then (as far as clusters) is an increase in the number that can be addressed by a FAT32 operating system.

For as long as I can remember, PC processor clock speeds have always run faster than MAC processors. Processing 64bits at 8Mhz isn't going to be much faster than processing 16Bits at 33 or 66Mhz. I can't give exact performance in MIPS/FLOPS.

I am now convinced that your original assertion (which was what prompted me to reply) -"Macs are made for video and audio and music editing", is wrong. I built my first desktop-editing machine almost 10 years ago. It was a Pentium 2/266Mhz with 33Mhz FSB running Windows 95. The standard EIDE Drives (which were a significant improvement over the old IDE's) were PIO Mode 4 and had a Sustained Data Transfer Rate of 16.7 MB/s. I could capture video with about a 5:1 compression which is 7MB/s and I didn't get any dropped frames. The new Ultra DMA drives are much faster, comparable to SCSI.

Below are excerpts from different articles on the web (if you are interested). I'm sure after reading them you will agree that cluster sizes have little (if anything) to do with what a machine is made to do. As I said earlier, it's all about 0's and 1's and how fast a computer can process them irrespective of what they constitute.

-------------------
Everything in the digital world is measured in bits and bytes. Bits are a measurement of different components and functions depending on what is being referenced. Following are the most common. See binary values.

CPU
The size of the computer's internal registers. This is the computer's "word" size, which is the amount of data the CPU can compute at the same time. Theoretically, if the clock rates were the same (800MHz, 1GHz, 2GHz, etc.) and the basic architectures were equal, a 32-bit computer would work twice as fast internally as a 16-bit computer. In practice, 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit architectures are rarely identical to each other even from the same manufacturer. Thus, a 64-bit computer may be (internally) less than twice as fast or more than twice as fast as a 32-bit computer.

In order to take advantage of a CPU with larger words, operating systems and applications must be recompiled with a compiler that supports the larger word size. If not, the older software may actually run slower in the bigger CPU, but this is totally dependent on the mix of instructions used in the program.

Most important, this measurement does not result in twice as much actual work being done for the user, as the computer's cache size and bus and disk speeds are all part of the performance equation.

Capable of addressing an astronomical 18 billion GB, or 18 exabytes, of memory, 64-bit integers also accelerate complex mathematical calculations through their ability to perform calculations directly on 64-bit numbers, as well as performing multiple operations on smaller numbers within a single CPU cycle (see Resources for the definition of exabyte). The impact of 64-bit processing is substantial: the time it takes to render a 3D model can be reduced dramatically, freeing up computing resources, compressing diagnostic timeframes, and enabling you to work more efficiently.

This processing power, which used to be available only on high-end servers for complex enterprise applications like real-time business intelligence, is now available on the desktop. Small businesses and home PC users can perform video editing and rendering tasks that were the stuff of dreams a decade ago. Just as 32-bit processing became commonplace in desktops and entry-level servers, so 64-bit processing is poised to become more and more ubiquitous over the next few years. From a theoretical feature bragged up in trade magazines, to a reasonably cost-effective choice for high-end embedded systems, 64-bit processing has come a long way.

System Bus
The size of the computer's system bus (frontside bus), which is the pathway over which data are transferred between memory and the CPU and between memory and the peripheral devices. If the bus clock rates are equal, a 32-bit bus transfers data twice as fast as a 16-bit bus.

Address Bus
The size of the address bus, which determines how much memory the CPU can address directly. Each bit doubles the number, for example, 20 bits addresses 1 megabyte (MB); 24 bits addresses 16 megabytes (MB); 32 bits addresses 4 gigabytes (GB). See binary values.

Color Depth
The number of colors that can be displayed at one time. This is called "bit depth," "color depth" and "pixel depth." Unless some of the memory is used for cursor or sprite movement, an 8-bit display adapter generates 256 colors; 16-bit, 64K colors; 24-bit, 16.8 million colors. See alpha channel and bit depth.

Bit specifications, such as 64-bit and 128-bit, refer to the display adapter's architecture, which affects speed, not the number of colors. See 64-bit graphics accelerator and 128-bit graphics accelerator.

Sound Sample
The quality of sound based on the number of bits in the samples taken. A 16-bit sample yields a number with 65,536 increments compared to 256 in an 8-bit sample. See 8-bit sample and 16-bit sample.

---------------------------

In personal computer storage technology, a cluster is the logical unit of file storage on a hard disk; it's managed by the computer's operating system. Any file stored on a hard disk takes up one or more clusters of storage. A file's clusters can be scattered among different locations on the hard disk. The clusters associated with a file are kept track of in the hard disk's file allocation table (FAT). When you read a file, the entire file is obtained for you and you aren't aware of the clusters it is stored in.

Since a cluster is a logical rather than a physical unit (it's not built into the hard disk itself), the size of a cluster can be varied. The maximum number of clusters on a hard disk depends on the size of a FAT table entry. Beginning with DOS 4.0, the FAT entries were 16 bits in length, allowing for a maximum of 65,536 clusters. Beginnning with the Windows 95 OSR2 service release, a 32-bit FAT entry is supported, allowing an entry to address enough clusters to support up to two terabytes of data (assuming the hard disk is that large!).

The tradeoff in cluster size is that even the smallest file (and even a directory itself) takes up the entire cluster. Thus, a 10-byte file will take up 2,048 bytes if that's the cluster size. In fact, many operating systems set the cluster size default at 4,096 or 8,192 bytes. Until the file allocation table support in Windows 95 OSR2, the largest size hard disk that could be supported in a single partition was 512 megabytes. Larger hard disks could be divided into up to four partitions, each with a FAT capable of supporting 512 megabytes of clusters.

---------

Until Windows 95 OSR2 (OEM Release 2), DOS and Windows file allocation table entries were 16 bits in length, limiting hard disk size to 128 megabytes, assuming a 2,048 size cluster. Up to 512 megabyte support is possible assuming a cluster size of 8,192 but at the cost of using clusters inefficiently. DOS 5.0 and later versions provide for support of hard disks up to two gigabytes with the 16-bit FAT entry limit by supporting separate FATs for up to four partitions.

With 32-bit FAT entry (FAT32) support in Windows 95 OSR2, the largest size hard disk that can be supported is two terabytes! However, personal computer users are more likely to take advantage of FAT32 with 5 or 10 gigabyte drives.

-----------------

[rlefebvr]

Ron,

I'm not too sure this is entirely correct. You are right, small cluster sizes can result in decreased performance due to fragmentation, but it was older PC operating systems that could end up with larger cluster sizes due to the limitations of the FAT16 system. A 16Bit FAT table can only address 65,536 clusters, so the larger the Hard Disk, the larger the cluster size. It isn't a "cheap trick", it's a fact. I don't know what you mean by it not having an effect anymore because the only thing that has changed since then (as far as clusters) is an increase in the number that can be addressed by a FAT32 operating system.

For as long as I can remember, PC processor clock speeds have always run faster than MAC processors. Processing 64bits at 8Mhz isn't going to be much faster than processing 16Bits at 33 or 66Mhz. I can't give exact performance in MIPS/FLOPS.

I am now convinced that your original assertion (which was what prompted me to reply) -"Macs are made for video and audio and music editing", is wrong. I built my first desktop-editing machine almost 10 years ago. It was a Pentium 2/266Mhz with 33Mhz FSB running Windows 95. The standard EIDE Drives (which were a significant improvement over the old IDE's) were PIO Mode 4 and had a Sustained Data Transfer Rate of 16.7 MB/s. I could capture video with about a 5:1 compression which is 7MB/s and I didn't get any dropped frames. The new Ultra DMA drives are much faster, comparable to SCSI.

I only say it's a cheap trick because computers can retrieve information from the hard drive so fast today that one or more cluster is not going to make a difference. Your first computer may have been a P2, but mine was an XT that came before the AT that came before the 486 that came before the P1. Yes that is how old I am.I will not even mention my Amiga 500.


Now I am willing to concede and even agree on some of your points for the hardware as they are valid, but when I said Macs were better suited for Imaging, I was really thinking of the OS and not only the Hardware. We got caught up on the hardware point so this may seem to be coming from left field.


When working graphics, most of us use more than one software at a time. At work I have Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, Indesign, Acrobat writer, and several more all opened at the same time. Multi tasking is very important. I'm talking about user multitasking now and not computer multi tasking.
In Windows, most applications are designed to take over the interface of the system.
On Macs, applications take up only what is actually needed. That way you can see other apps in the background and desktop, Font management is also easier.

It's much easier to switch between programs on a Mac, because they never really close,  it just runs in the background not taking up that much memory.

Try this on a PC and see you will notice it slowing down and even crashing.

[pianolearner]

I will not even mention my Amiga 500.

Oh no! Let's not start an Amiga Vs Atari debate...! My first computer was an Atari 1040ST. Do you know you could boot it up off a single floppy!? Tears well in my eyes...

[rlefebvr]

I am trying to remember which one had cassette....

[living_stradivarius]

Can Mac OS embed flash/html to the desktop?

[yooniefied]

Mac is the Fisher Price of the computer world.

That being said, Windows reeks of insecurity. 

Personally, I'd rather get down and dirty with my screwdriver, a little thermal paste and some tweaking...Yeah, that's right - I build my own damn toys! 

A Mac is great for someone with basic computer know-how and who cares more for security and functionality than "skill", who would rather work in the safety of knowing that it's quite hard to seriously mess up the system..and doesn't mind sending the entire thing back to be repaired by Apple instead of a quick self-fix.

If you are knowledgeable with computers and don't mind dishing out the expense for high-performance parts or spending the time to regulate - the PC is your best friend. The expandability is limitless and you can have yourself a system a hundred times better than a Mac.

Unless a LINUX/UNIX OS becomes *ENTIRELY* compatible with all programs (which I admit, is plausible in the near future), then Windows will still be the choice of business professionals and home users.


Just an opinion.

Linux is a great thing to install on an old laptop, by the way...one of those ancient, bulky ones that run on Windows 95. Great for use out by the pool or to leave on all day for huge downloads.

[yooniefied]

The "insult" was not directly aimed at you Ron. Your explanation isn't really clear or convincing because you need to explain what you mean by "Large clusters work best with Image sound and video". Clusters (as I know them) are an allocation unit that represents the smallest amount of disk space a file system uses to store information on a hard disk. Small cluster sizes are a more efficient way of using hard disk space. In other words if you had 32 KB clusters but the file you were saving was only 2KB, you have 30KB of unused disk space in that cluster which cannot be used to store anything else.

The limiting factor when it came to capturing and playing video was not the PC but the hard disk. MACS (as far as I know) use SCSI disks as standard which had/have much higher sustained data transfer rates than the old IDE drives. This DTR is essential to smooth Video capture/playback because it is less likely to drop frames. But there has always been the option to add SCSI to PC with a plug in card and they can also support RAID.

Processing of Video ie/effects, transitions has little to do with cluster size because as I said earlier, this takes place in the microprocessor. If its "raw" processing power is higher (FLOPS/MIPS) then the effect will be processed quicker, this has nothing to do with DTR or file allocation sizes on a hard disk. The same would apply to converting an uncompressed digital sound file to MP3, again, cluster size is irrelevant, processing power is all that matters.

As for the demonstration I mentioned. It was an identical graphics package (can't remember which one) running on a PC and MAC. An identical image was selected and an identical effect was applied and the PC completed the operation about 3 times faster than the MAC. Explain that.

10k SATA drives > SCSI

In your pocket AND your computer.