DVD Writers

[Adam Wakely]

This seems very helpful too!
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#2.4.3

[Bill Ravens]

oh geeez, do I gotta?
;-)

Some general misinformation floating around this board that makes this techie wince.
1. Some Windows OS CAN multitask.(WinXP, Win2K, WinNT 4) To get true multitasking you must have two or more CPUs in the machine. Multitasking in its pure definition is the ability to process two or more tasks simultaneously without IO interupts from the other process. PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING is based on a time slice model: Each process that needs the OS (hence CPU) is allotted time to use the CPU based on the priority given that process. To humans, it looks like it is all happening simultaneously when it reality each process is given a slice of time, and all of the processes are cycled rapidly. I can, in the above mentioned OSs, select programs and give them a higher priority, hence longer use of the processer = bigger time slice. This is one of the reasons why your computer (regardless the make) slows down when you pile on additional tasks to process (more programs/processes = more time slices to assign and prioritize = more time.) Going back to multitasking, if I have two processes and two CPUs, then each process can have its own CPU and both CPUs can crank away uninterupted. (That was a very oversimplified example).
2. Windows 95, 98/SE, and ME CANNOT recognize more than one CPU, hence CANNOT perform pure multitasking (no single CPU that I know of can) however, ALL of the above mentioned OSs in this post CAN and DO perform preemptive multitasking. Is Apple making a big fuss over preemptive multitasking? I can understand if they just recently moved from COOPERATIVE MULTITASKING (where the program uses the CPU until it is done, and then turns it over to the next program for use) but to my knowledge they have been using the preemptive multitasking model for a while now (note: Microsoft started using it with Win95).
3. Comparing Pentuim 4 and the G4 is like comparing apples and oranges. The chips handle instructions differently (read: SISC and RISC). But if you still feel the urge you may want to drop the Intel chip and start comparing the G4 with AMD XP line of chips. Currently AMD is skating circles around Intel in many aspects of performance and doing it with less clock speed (in some cases 500MHz less clock speed). Later this year you will see the xHammer line introduced from AMD, a 32/64bit chip that is very scalable and extremely powerful.

Hope that clears up some misunderstandings. Note that this is not to start a flame war over the varrious chips and OSs (reread #3). If you want to investigate the benchmarks on any chip go to www.cpuscorecard.com and research to your hearts delight. If you need more techie (read: geek) sites to go to post a reply and I would be happy to list more sites.
What machine do I use? Dual P3 1GHz w/2GB SDRAM. Running Adobe Premeire 6 and varrious plug-ins through Canopus DV Storm (solid!) 120 GB RAID 0 (2x60GB IBM Deskstar GXPs) and another 40GB system drive. Finished projects are stored on other computers on my LAN with redundancy. I tek my own machines (i.e. I build and repair them). I get more options and more performance for less money going the microsoft route than the macintosh. Once again this is me and my business (reread #3).
Best regards to all.

Chad Whitlock
Editor, owner, and geek
Ampersand DesignWorks

Just a word about the Pioneer if it is not to late as I was looking also for a DVD writer.

The Pioneer is not bad but in all tests the Philips DVDRW 208K/ DVD/CD-R IDE got better results. So I decided to buy this one and had never problems in burning so far.
To save some money I bought it at ebay :-)

[John Locke]

Hi Chad,

I'm not a techie, so I'll always defer to someone who knows what they're talking about. Makes me wonder about some of the things we read though. Are they leading us astray? I'm referring to claims like below:

<<The PowerPC G4 with Velocity Engine — the chip that put supercomputing power on the desktop with the original Power Mac G4 — now takes performance to stratospheric levels with a version that delivers a peak performance of 15 gigaflops.

What makes a supercomputer “super” is its ability to execute at least one billion floating-point operations per second, a staggering measure of speed known as a “gigaflop.” The PowerPC G4, architected by Apple, Motorola and IBM, was the first microprocessor to deliver a sustained performance of over one gigaflop, thereby winning renown as the first supercomputer on a chip. Well, it’s time to rewrite the record books. Because the new Power Mac G4 desktop system with the dual 1GHz PowerPC G4 processor configuration hits speeds of 15 gigaflops.

The original single processor 500MHz Power Mac G4 had a measured peak performance of 3.7 gigaflops. Power Mac performance has increased fourfold since then. In other words, you’d need four of the original Power Mac G4 systems to get the processing power available in the new Power Mac G4.

The performance advantage of the PowerPC G4 starts with its data pipeline. The term “processor pipeline” refers to the number of processing steps, or stages, it takes to accomplish a task. The fewer the steps, the shorter — and more efficient — the pipeline. Thanks to its efficient 7-stage design (versus 20 stages for the Pentium 4 processor) the G4 processor can accomplish a task with 13 fewer steps than the PC. You do the math.

All advanced processors try to guess what they will need to do next in order to increase performance. This is known as “speculative operation.” Of course the processor doesn’t always guess correctly, and when it’s wrong it must often clear out the pipeline and start over. This results in bubbles — or periods of time where no data is available for processing — that leave the processor idle while it waits for new data. Because the G4 pipeline is short, the processor recovers from bubbles more quickly, resulting in higher processor utilization. With fewer processing steps, faster recovery and higher processor utilization, processor output is maximized.

Another aspect of speculative operation worth noting is that it is possible to create (for testing purposes) a contrived set of instructions that can make the processor guess correctly much more often than it would under real-world conditions. Thus a “benchmark” with no relation to actual performance can be crafted to cleverly avoid the bubble problem and thus indicate unrealistically high performance. This underscores the importance of using real applications to provide valid performance comparisons.

Behind the PowerPC G4’s phenomenal performance is its aptly named Velocity Engine. The Velocity Engine processes data in huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit chunks used in traditional processors (it’s the 128-bit vector processing technology used in scientific supercomputers — except that we’ve added 162 new instructions to speed up computations). In addition, the PowerPC G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle — two to four times faster than processors found in PCs.

The PowerPC G4 with Velocity Engine works with the PowerPC architecture to accelerate the data-intensive processing required by next-generation video, voice and graphics applications. Among the G4 key features is a vector permute function capable of rearranging data in the registers — a priceless benefit when converting data from one format to another (often necessary with voice, video and graphics apps, which typically need to save data in a number of different formats). These vector processing advantages give the PowerPC G4 a significant edge when it comes to visualization. Making the PowerPC G4 perfect for everything from digital video, graphics and 3D games to astronomy, the biosciences and predictive modeling.>>

...and also claims like:

<<Check out a performance evaluation using a real-world application. We compared the Power Mac G4 to a 2GHz Pentium 4-based PC, using nine commonly used actions and filters that stress overall system performance — including processor, memory, system bus, and hard drive — in Photoshop.

The result? The dual 1GHz Power Mac G4 is an astonishing 72 percent faster than the fastest PC on the market with a 2GHz Pentium 4 processor. Fact is, even the single processor 933MHz and 800MHz Power Mac G4 systems outperform the Pentium 4 by 51 percent and 26 percent, respectively. How, you might ask, can even the entry-level Power Mac G4 outperform a PC with a Pentium 4 processor running at more than twice the megahertz? It’s further proof that megahertz alone is a poor indicator of real-world system performance, particularly when comparing different overall system architectures.>>

So, from a techie's point of view...is that all just hot air? Or is it a case where CPU speed isn't the only thing to consider...but that's what people seem to get hung up on?

Curious.

P.S. Apologies Chris for getting off topic here...but I've long wondered what people with a technical background think about the claims made by Apple.

[Adrian Douglas]

John,

All the tech babble from computer companies is usually just that. Babble. The average Joe computer user dosen't give a toss about Giggaflops ,Preemptive Multitasking, RISC etc. All he wants is what he considers the best machine for the cash in his pocket.

Yes Windows will multitask, but in my experience it's still not very efficient. Up until now the Mac has been a great machine let down by it's OS. AMD does run rings around INTEL but only since they ditched the K6 chip.

In the end it comes down to what Chad said, "I get more options and more performance for less money going the microsoft route than the macintosh. Once again this is me and my business " You are happy with your G4 and Chad is happy with his PC, that's the bottom line, what you feel comfortable working with. For a tech guy like Chad the PC route is great as the are so many option to pick and choose from. For the less tech amoung us who want to be able to unpack, plug in and edit, the Mac is the way to go. Whatever floats your cookie

[John Locke]

Adrian,

I agree 100%...whatever floats your boat.

But, I've been hearing this debate for so long...and all these specs and figures thrown out...just wondered if anyone who really knows this stuff can deny or confirm the babble.

As for me...the definitive "non-techie"...one plug, one program, and one option is all I need (and want) as long as it allows me to keep my mind off the hardware and focus on the task at hand. Like Tom Cruise in "Days of Thunder"..."I don't know what makes an engine work, but I know how to drive."

This new "Terminal" function that comes with OSX is the Mac users solution to DOS...allowing you to get into the inner workings and mess around. I've always heard PC friends complain about Macs saying "I don't like Macs because I like to use DOS or BIOS to get in and ticker with the system!" My response has always been, "Why?!"

Different strokes for different blokes.

Whenever testing or reviewing numbers from a test it is always a good idea to review the equipment being tested to look for any components that would cause a potential bottleneck in the system and hence, skew the results. For example, if testing with a P4 chip what kind of RAM was used? If SDRAM was used then a bottleneck was created at the RAM and on the front side bus (FSB). SDRAM will process at apx 100-133MHz, RDRAM will process at apx 800MHz (and coincidentally was made for the P4), and finally DDR SDRAM will process at apx 2100MHz. Want to choke your P4 system, use SDRAM. Want to use your P4 system with new technology that has yet to be fully tweaked out? Use one of the new 'boards that will support a P4 with DDR SDRAM (still creating a choke point). You go over the entire system like this and make sure that good, high quality parts are used. (With a Macintosh it is a simple task, you only have one flavor of manufacturer; Apple. In my estimate this is a good and bad thing. Good because they seem to be churning out fairly good quality parts. Bad because there is no competition = slower technology development and bloated prices.)

Next the test must be standard (it must be the same for both systems being tested) and it must be fair. For example this link http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html shows a comparison of a dualie G4 800 vs a single CPU P4 1.6. When I see stuff like this I crack a wide grin. Questions to ask: 1. Why is a dual processor machine being compared to a single processor machine? ESPECIALLY when the test includes programs that can take advantage of multithreading (using more than one processor to complete a task or tasks) a.k.a. some filters in Adobe Photoshop, 3D rendering etc... Erroneously, what is trying to be done on the test run at the aforementioned link is to take 2 800MHz G4s and run them against 1 1.6GHz P4 and call it an even contest. (800X2=1.6Ghz=1.6GHz) Amazing, because the inherent architecture of the chips (read: RISC and SISC) dictate that 1 clock cycle on one chip DOES NOT equal 1 clock cycle on the other. Hence magically, the apple becomes an orange or the orange becomes an apple and all is fair and square in the world of bits and bytes. (If at this point you are nodding your head yes with a silly grin on your face thinking all IS fair then you have missed the point, go back and reread.) However, this doesnt mean some good information isnt provided. A dualie G4 is only 4 seconds faster running the same 20 actions in Adobe Photoshop. Both times are slightly under 1 minute. The P4 is 11 sec slower executing the same render in Cinema 4D but is 6 sec faster rendering the Bryce 5 program. What does this tell me? Cinema 4D takes advantage of multiple processors while Bryce 5 does not. Performance differences between the two are not so great that I would run out and spend the extra money for the Mac. Simmilar tests on the dualie G4 450 vs. 1 P3 1GHz posts simmilar results (time disparity with the Adobe Photoshop at 3 sec in this case). Results posted for both the Pentium and the Mac for gaming are interesting but irrelevant, as I could go through the Windows side of the equation and tweak gaming 50 different ways to Sunday to improve/degrade performance.

Generally speaking. 1 MHz = 1,000,000 calculations per second. While the CPU may be able to perform to these specs there are other things to consider: the rest of the hardware in the system-will it jive well enough to allow the machine to fully utilize all of these wonderful calculations happening each second? Will the software? (Will your processes even take advantage of all that speed?) As of today 2.2GHz chips are available on the market with bigger/badder/better always on the horizon. The G4 may have been the first chip to break the teraflop barrier, but it is not the ONLY chip there now. So personally when I see talk of teraflop this and that I see it for what it really is; advertisment. The best way to hook anyone into a computer is to throw numbers, ANY numbers. What really matters is that marketing depts of each chip company wants you to see speed their way (Macintosh its teraflops, Intel its GHz, and AMD is their Performance Ratings (PR)). This whole mess is why benchmarks (tests) are performed on systems using real world applications--to see what it REALLY means in terms of performance. To the consumer, this is extrapolated to a performance to cost ratio (unless money means nothing to you at all :)

So my take? (I believe it was asked for) The G4 (and G5 for that matter) chip is a very powerful chip. It is a shame that Apple has such proprietary control over the system surrounding the chip. I seriously believe more things and better things would happen if there was some competition utilizing simmilar technology. The performance to cost ratio is very high - much to high for this techie. When I can build a dualie Windows system for roughly half the cost and be in the same ballpark (better and worse) performance-wise then doing so makes sense to me. Then the upgradeablility/flexibility of the Windows system appeals to me as well. My choices are nearly limitless and I can do anything. Whereas on a Mac I face severe constraints (comparitively). Competition would rectify that.
Otherwise I can produce just as high quality a picture, video, sound file, or coded program cheaper and quickly (note: I did not say faster because in some instances this is not the case. If people still insist on comparing the two, then compare both machines, dualie configured, top end of each respective make. THAT is a benchmark I would be interested in.)

Think that coveres it. Once again this is not to incite flaming of any sort, it is a response to a post asking for a techie's view. Refer to my original post and re-read #3. There are myths on on both sides of the coin (Win/Mac) that need debunking, the only problem is that you constantly deal with marketting departments who will throw numbers about in the sole interest of getting that one final number that REALLY matters; the dollar.

Best regards to all-

Chad
Owner, editor, and geek
Ampersand DesignWorks

[Bill Ravens]

THE THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE!!

Once upon a time, back around 1940, there was a car designed and built called the Alerion. The Alerion was ahead of its time with full crash sfety features, roadworthy aerodynamics and many other futuristic features that are now included in car models de riguer. Has anyone ever heard of the Alerion? No, probably not. Why? Well the American consumer isn't swayed by logic, but more by emotion. So, what am I trying to say here? Duh.

[John Locke]

Chad,

Could you elaborate more?

(just kidding...thanks for one heck of a response!)

Yep, my last post was the technical way of saying just that. Duh.

Chad
owner, editor, and geek
Ampersand DesignWorks

[Adam Wakely]

Hello, me again! The guy who did the first, original post of this thread! That later technical babble did not help! Maybe that could of been a 'one on one' email instead. Thanks to those with some simple helpful replies! ....someone Please kill this thread...sorry I asked! :)


Adam.....

[Mike Butler]

>>>

I don't mind some extra coaster as I have alot of CD ones anyway!

Well, as for me, I don't especially like those $8 coasters. Actually, now they are down to $5 each from apple.com which is a little better. Still not in the pennies-per-disk range of CD's...oh well, maybe someday. VHS tape is still way cheaper for field distribution, not just cuz the blank tapes are 70¢ each but it takes a lot le$$ of my time as I can crank them out eight at a time. But now people are craving the DVD format for the videos I send them...just had to burn another 10 disks of "Pass the Courvoisier" for one of the division offices.



My favorite line in this entire thread:

Like Tom Cruise in "Days of Thunder"..."I don't know what makes an engine work, but I know how to drive."

THANK YOU for saying that!!! My point exactly! Who cares about how many cylinders or valves, or variable cam timing, or multiport fuel injection or turbocharging or Ford vs. Chevy or ANY of those techno-arguments! Strap me in the seat and let me grab the wheel!
To paraphrase Tom Cruise, i ONLY WANT to drive! Oh yeah, BTW, I drive a Mac...took it out of the box and plugged it in, and proceeded to earn a good year's pay with it (didn't even have to think about it), and I'm still trying to figure out how I'm gonna make the Wintel box on my other desk work at all for video.* As for the purchase price, that's chicken feed, and all the more so is the perceived price difference between the two platforms.

*For the record, I would LOVE to hook that one up with Avid XDV3 once I can know for a fact that it is going to work.