New Computer Time: Why Not Apple?

[wxwax]

I've finally had it with my computer's agonizingly slow processing of 5D files.

I even tried adding 1GB of memory this weekend, the whole thing crashed, the video card gave itself some weird setting, I spent hours putting things back and recalibrating, my desktop pile of magazines nosed dived to the floor, taking the lamp and breaking it.... aaaaghhh!

Enough!

I yearn for a machine that's faster, reliable and just plain works.

Being the open-minded chap I am, I'm completely open to a Mac. And yet, a Mac doesn't make sense. Principally, it's because they cost twice as much, are not appreciably faster in real world terms, and become obsolete about as quickly as a PC. I thought about a 17" Macbook, running the laptop screen as my second monitor. But I really should wait until the 2nd generation comes out. And I don't want to wait. And all of my above reservations about Macs apply to the Macbook, too.

My option?

Go back to the local store that built and sold me my current machine. I can get the fastest AMD processor (currently the king of the hill, faster even than Macbook's Intel chip) with lots of memory for about $900. At that price, a two-year lifespan is affordable. Insane, but affordable.

So, that's probably what I'm going to do.

[gus]

Thats what i did mate...bought a 3. something box, 2 gig ram & 256 video card for about that money...make sure you get a card reader that sits in the front of the box so you can easy access your cards. Runs like a bullet with RAW files & life is good.

..my 2 bob & i want it brought to the attention of the court that i didnt bag macburgers once in my reply.

[wxwax]

Thats what i did mate...bought a 3. something box, 2 gig ram & 256 video card for about that money...make sure you get a card reader that sits in the front of the box so you can easy access your cards. Runs like a bullet with RAW files & life is good.

..my 2 bob & i want it brought to the attention of the court that i didnt bag macburgers once in my reply.
:lol3

Sounds like I'm on your page, mate. Can't make the math work any other way. :dunno

[Andy]

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/14326051-L.gifhttp://www.smugmug.com/photos/14326051-L.gifhttp://www.smugmug.com/photos/14326051-L.gifhttp://www.smugmug.com/photos/14326051-L.gif

[DanielB]

read zeez:wink

my mac convincing thread: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=7386 (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=7386)

andy's mac convincing thread: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=34290

[DavidTO]

I'm not looking to troll, but honestly, I believe that the answer to your question is that you're short-sighted in your analysis.

[gus]

Hey waxy...you want it to be able to do the job effectively for a price or are you looking for an expensive show pony ?

[DavidTO]

Hey waxy...you want it to be able to do the job effectively for a price or are you looking for an expensive show pony ?


Not biting, Gus.

[wxwax]

I'm not looking to troll, but honestly, I believe that the answer to your question is that you're short-sighted in your analysis.
I told you I'm open minded. In what way am I being short sighted?

[Mongrel]

This same question has been taking up wayyy too much space in my head the last week or so....

Current machine ain't that bad (AMD 2800+ XP, 2GB PC3200 DDR, dual-channel nVidia board, two pretty fast Seagate 160GB ATA drives, yadda, yadda...).

But I've been processing several hundred RAW files from a school play, and between that and the uploading I've been getting pretty antsy :rolleyes

I love the specs on the MACs, but as usual cash is tight (when isn't it?), and I'm having a hard time "doing the math" to justify it. The other concern is the literally hundreds if not thousands of dollars in software that I'd lose :uhoh

With dual-core PCs available (either pre-built or parts) for around a grand and the benchmarks to compete very well with the Mac-boxes, is it really worth a platform change :dunno

Basically, with a new mother board and an AMD dual-core I'd be up and running. If I went with an Intel board, I'd have to pick up DDR2 and a processor, and I'd be up and running.

Lastly, the 20" iMac I was looking at for around $1600 did rather poorly in some CS2 benches in comparison to the dual-core G5, a Wintel 'core-duo' box, and an AMD Opteron box.

decisions, decisions.....

[wxwax]

That's how I see it, Mongrel. :dunno

Apparently, I'm being shortsighted.

[marlof]

I always get a simple Windows desktop. Nothing beats that in sheer price/functionality. I do get Apple notebooks, since they're so well designed, and all notebooks are bloody expensive for what you get, so Win machines don't have a particular advantage there.

[wxwax]

I always get a simple Windows desktop. Nothing beats that in sheer price/functionality. I do get Apple notebooks, since they're so well designed, and all notebooks are bloody expensive for what you get, so Win machines don't have a particular advantage there.
As I said, I see the appeal of a Macbook Pro running my Lacie monitor. But I'd have to wait for the first generation quirks to be solved. And I'd have to pay more than twice as much as for a PC with similar performance. :dunno

[marlof]

Very wise. Never buy Rev A Apple hardware is my motto. So I fully agree that this might not be the best moment in life to become a switcher, since all Intel based Macs are Rev A, and the G5 is being faded out.

When you speak about PC, do you mean a notebook (Apple portable computers no longer can be called laptops (http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/19/warning-from-apple-dont-put-our-laptops-on-your-lap/).....) or a desktop? I know you'd have to pay a bit of a premium to get a Mac, but I've not seen something comparable (desktop-desktop; notebook-notebook) that would have you pay double the price. So what are the two setups you're comparing?

[gubbs]

Sid,

I swapped for an easy life!
As you know my PC had some problems which I just couldn't get to the bottom of. I know things can go wrong with any system so for me it's how the problems are likely to be resolved that's more important.
Advent Customer services were useless, when, or if, I actually got through to them it seemed to be their policy to blame the software. After many hours on the phone without resolution I gave up & got an independant engineer to have a look but he was unable to give a definitive diagnosis either. If I had of replaced all the possiblities he gave, I would have pretty much ended up with a new machine anyway :dunno

I am sure there are PC suppliers out there that also have good customer services but the fact that with apple the hardware and os come from the same supplier ensures that there is no responsiblity dodging.
This coupled with talk of top notch customer service from apple was a powerful influence for me to make the swap.
I have had a couple of problems with the mac, first was due to my inexperience with OSX, the second was more serious. After installing the os updates the machine refused to boot. In both cases apple customer services were 1st class and sorted me out quickly and efficiently.

I find the speed, even under Rosetta to be acceptable, I had 500 5D RAW shots to process last weekend. Using this (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=309345&postcount=2) workflow which allows a lot of the work to go in the background or while I'm eating/sleeping etc...I have no complaints. I'd like more speed but it's not a big issue.
I am dissapointed adobe are taking so long to release a universal version of CS but if the speed increase of the the new noise ninja universal version is anything to go by it should be worth the wait.

I prefer using OSX to XP, but it's not a WOW and not enough of a reason to swap...
I do love how everything just works though!! No hardware wizards, no conflicts, no lock ups, no crashes (well just the 1 :D), no worries! I start a batch process, I walk away and I'm confident it will finish. IMO far more important than raw speed.

The screen is excellent, the design, even the box is cool. Erin doesn't mind it in the lounge :thumb
My gut feeling is that the resell value is better :dunno

I'm glad I swapped :):

[gus]

Seriously....you lost your original av ?

[Mongrel]

I do love how everything just works though!! No hardware wizards, no conflicts, no lock ups, no crashes (well just the 1 :D), no worries! I start a batch process, I walk away and I'm confident it will finish. IMO far more important than raw speed.

While I can certainly appreciate that "everything just works" I can honestly say that I just have not experienced "conflicts, lockups, and crashes" to any real extent using XP! :dunno

Just doesn't happen (once I got the initial setup complete). I have four home-built XP boxes in my home right now, and apart from a hard drive failure on a secondary machine, they all just hum along 24/7 and have been soing so for over a year (one machine over THREE years!).

Consider this-

My thirteen year old daughter and my wife share a computer with the following specs:

ASUS P2B (BX baby, BX!!! :rofl )
Intel PIII 733 Coppermine OVERCLOCKED to 933 (since the first week I had it).
768MB memory
IBM 20GB HD
GeForce 2 Pro GT graphics card
DVD player
Soundblaster Live! value soundcard
XP Home

Neither of these two know anything about PC's or PC maintenance. I can't even get them to log off the internet :wxwax . But guess what? The ONLY failure on that machine in the last FOUR YEARS was the fan on the graphics card :thumb Think about it, the motherboard alone is probably five years old (I pulled if from another machine to build this one...).

So when I hear of 'issues' with Windows boxes :dunno

Bottom line is that I'm completely comfortable with a Win-tel or Win-AMD box, but if a MAC would really and truly offer me something unique then I'd go for it.

[patch29]

I am missing why you would not want the 20" imac, since you intend to use it at home.

You get a 250gb 7200 rpm drive, 20" LCD, full keyboard, retain ability to run a second monitor and you can save $$ vs a Macbookpro if you don't need to take it on the road. You could take it with you in an ilugger (http://www.ilugger.com/) bag. :D I have a friend that does it all the time and loves it. Upgrade the graphics to 256mb. It is a step down from the Macbook, but if you are not playing games, I would be you will never notice. Photoshop isn't the only program to use, maybe you will like iphoto or aperture or Caputre One (which is fast on an intel mac). You are looking to buy a Mac, time to Think Different. :lol3 Time for you to take a trip to the Apple Store and test out a few machines, bring a few 5D files and see what you like, try iphoto and aperture. If you have a full install copy of XP service pack 2 you can boot in XP no problem and have the option of either OS. :dunno

[gubbs]

While I can certainly appreciate that "everything just works" I can honestly say that I just have not experienced "conflicts, lockups, and crashes" to any real extent using XP! :dunno
My pc did have a problem which I am sure was responsible for most of my issues, so maybe I'm being unfair. At work I'm still on 98 which locks up on a daily basis, I guess I'm guilty of tarnishing all with the same brush !

edit: I should also add that my xp laptop is very stable.

[DavidTO]

I told you I'm open minded. In what way am I being short sighted?


I think the long-term costs are at least equivalent, if not lower for a Mac. You get more as far as bundled software, the time saved in not having to deal with all the malware (not that you should ignore it, but you do save time on a Mac), etc.

[wxwax]

Very wise. Never buy Rev A Apple hardware is my motto. So I fully agree that this might not be the best moment in life to become a switcher, since all Intel based Macs are Rev A, and the G5 is being faded out.

When you speak about PC, do you mean a notebook (Apple portable computers no longer can be called laptops (http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/19/warning-from-apple-dont-put-our-laptops-on-your-lap/).....) or a desktop? I know you'd have to pay a bit of a premium to get a Mac, but I've not seen something comparable (desktop-desktop; notebook-notebook) that would have you pay double the price. So what are the two setups you're comparing?
I'm comparing a Macbook Pro 17" to a desktop from the corner store. Similar perfomance and features.

I already have a Sony Vaio laptop, so the Macbook would serve as a desktop with a second monitor hooked-up.

[wxwax]

I think the long-term costs are at least equivalent, if not lower for a Mac. You get more as far as bundled software, the time saved in not having to deal with all the malware (not that you should ignore it, but you do save time on a Mac), etc.

Thanks, David.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But right now, I see the obsolescence rate of Macs and PCs as being roughly parallel. IOW, about every 2 years or so, hardware and software (cameras and PS) require an upgrade in processing speed.

That's a big sticking point for me, as I'm now on my third upgrade and see the pattern clearly. This upgrade cycle is why I see computers as disposable and why I'm loathe to spend (literally) more than twice as much on a Mac. :dunno

I have the software I currently need (minus the inevitable PS upgrade.) And I have the hardware I need (I assume I'd have to mess with my external HDs to format them for a Mac?)

And truly, I find you overstate the time needed to protect a PC from malware. As Gubbs sets his machine processing overnight/over dinner etc., so do i set mine to run debugging programs while I'm away. Pain free.

I'm not looking for a fight, David. I sincerely appreciate your feedback. It's just from where I'm sitting, looking at the need for yet another computer upgrade in 2-3 years, it's hard to justify the premium I'd have to pay for a Mac. :dunno

[wxwax]

I am missing why you would not want the 20" imac, since you intend to use it at home.

You get a 250gb 7200 rpm drive, 20" LCD, full keyboard, retain ability to run a second monitor and you can save $$ vs a Macbookpro if you don't need to take it on the road. You could take it with you in an ilugger (http://www.ilugger.com/) bag. :D I have a friend that does it all the time and loves it. Upgrade the graphics to 256mb. It is a step down from the Macbook, but if you are not playing games, I would be you will never notice. Photoshop isn't the only program to use, maybe you will like iphoto or aperture or Caputre One (which is fast on an intel mac). You are looking to buy a Mac, time to Think Different. :lol3 Time for you to take a trip to the Apple Store and test out a few machines, bring a few 5D files and see what you like, try iphoto and aperture. If you have a full install copy of XP service pack 2 you can boot in XP no problem and have the option of either OS. :dunno


Thanks, I went to Apple to look it up.

Does it dual boot with XP? They didn't say. Rightly or wrongly, that's part of the appeal of the Macbook Pro.

For a 20", with 2GB memory, and fastest graphics card, and smallest hard drive (I have externals) the cost is $2,243.

As I said, that's more than twice as much as the PC from the corner store. For a machine that will likely need an upgrade in 2-3 years. :dunno

[wxwax]

Sid,

I swapped for an easy life!
As you know my PC had some problems which I just couldn't get to the bottom of. I know things can go wrong with any system so for me it's how the problems are likely to be resolved that's more important.
Advent Customer services were useless, when, or if, I actually got through to them it seemed to be their policy to blame the software. After many hours on the phone without resolution I gave up & got an independant engineer to have a look but he was unable to give a definitive diagnosis either. If I had of replaced all the possiblities he gave, I would have pretty much ended up with a new machine anyway :dunno

I am sure there are PC suppliers out there that also have good customer services but the fact that with apple the hardware and os come from the same supplier ensures that there is no responsiblity dodging.
This coupled with talk of top notch customer service from apple was a powerful influence for me to make the swap.
I have had a couple of problems with the mac, first was due to my inexperience with OSX, the second was more serious. After installing the os updates the machine refused to boot. In both cases apple customer services were 1st class and sorted me out quickly and efficiently.

I find the speed, even under Rosetta to be acceptable, I had 500 5D RAW shots to process last weekend. Using this (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=309345&postcount=2) workflow which allows a lot of the work to go in the background or while I'm eating/sleeping etc...I have no complaints. I'd like more speed but it's not a big issue.
I am dissapointed adobe are taking so long to release a universal version of CS but if the speed increase of the the new noise ninja universal version is anything to go by it should be worth the wait.

I prefer using OSX to XP, but it's not a WOW and not enough of a reason to swap...
I do love how everything just works though!! No hardware wizards, no conflicts, no lock ups, no crashes (well just the 1 :D), no worries! I start a batch process, I walk away and I'm confident it will finish. IMO far more important than raw speed.

The screen is excellent, the design, even the box is cool. Erin doesn't mind it in the lounge :thumb
My gut feeling is that the resell value is better :dunno

I'm glad I swapped :):


Gubbs, thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post. :thumb

Honestly, the appeal of ease-of-use and good service is strong, especially after my weekend wrestling match. I'm ready for it. But at what cost?

[patch29]

Thanks, I went to Apple to look it up.

Does it dual boot with XP? They didn't say. Rightly or wrongly, that's part of the appeal of the Macbook Pro.

For a 20", with 2GB memory, and fastest graphics card, and smallest hard drive (I have externals) the cost is $2,243.

As I said, that's more than twice as much as the PC from the corner store. For a machine that will likely need an upgrade in 2-3 years. :dunno


Don't forget to go the the NAPP discount page and it will drop the price some.

I believe it runs XP via bootcamp, just as the Macbook's do.

For starters you will now have two computers in one. You are also getting a 20" widescreen monitor, which I do not think you factored into the other computer. Then you get a much smaller computer footprint.

I don't know if I buy the need to buy a new computer every 2-3 years statement. I don't have any plans to replace my G5 and it is almost half way through your replacement cycle. My 3.5 year old laptop still works. The main reason I bought the new one was to get a smaller laptop and run XP. I am also happy to have a lot of new features, but many of them are also available on my G5. You are also not comparing Apple's to Apple's. You are trying to compare a window's tower with a Mac laptop. Not laptop to laptop. Apple will eventually release an Intel based tower and it will probably be super fast, but you will have to wait. :dunno

[mercphoto]

I've finally had it with my computer's agonizingly slow processing of 5D files.

I even tried adding 1GB of memory this weekend, the whole thing crashed, the video card gave itself some weird setting, I spent hours putting things back and recalibrating, my desktop pile of magazines nosed dived to the floor, taking the lamp and breaking it.... aaaaghhh!

Enough!

I yearn for a machine that's faster, reliable and just plain works.

Being the open-minded chap I am, I'm completely open to a Mac. And yet, a Mac doesn't make sense. Principally, it's because they cost twice as much, are not appreciably faster in real world terms, and become obsolete about as quickly as a PC.
I'm confused. Did you start this thread just to bash Apple? You are fed up with a machine that crashes, and yet you don't see the value in paying more for something that is actually reliable and actually works. Instead you are going back to the same store that sold you your old machine.

I'm speechless.

[mpmcleod]

I have four home-built XP boxes in my home right now,

My thirteen year old daughter and my wife share a computer with the following specs:

Now how cool is that!

You have 3 computers for yourself and your wife and daughter share one....

:rofl

[DJ-S1]

I'm confused. Did you start this thread just to bash Apple? You are fed up with a machine that crashes, and yet you don't see the value in paying more for something that is actually reliable and actually works. Instead you are going back to the same store that sold you your old machine.

I'm speechless.

Why can't he make a value judgement that differs from yours without it being "Apple-bashing"? I don't see any bashing of Apple here.

[gubbs]

Gubbs, thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post. :thumb

Honestly, the appeal of ease-of-use and good service is strong, especially after my weekend wrestling match. I'm ready for it. But at what cost?

I wasn't sure how the clock speeds of apples / pc's related to speed or each other (still not actually). So rightly or wrongly tended to look at benchmarks. I found that similar speed, reputable brand pc's with a comparable screen weren't that much difference in price :dunno

[DavidTO]

Thanks, David.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But right now, I see the obsolescence rate of Macs and PCs as being roughly parallel. IOW, about every 2 years or so, hardware and software (cameras and PS) require an upgrade in processing speed.


I just upgraded my laptop, which was 3.5 years old. It's still going great. The biggest reason I upgraded? No USB 2.0 for my new iPod. Other than that, no complaints.

[DavidTO]

Don't forget to go the the NAPP discount page and it will drop the price some.




I bought my latest macbook pro from amazon and used an elaborate matrix of money-saving ventures to shave some of the cost. Wish I had bought it from Apple, in spite of the higher cost and tax I would have paid. My logic board failed after 5 days, I took it to the Apple store near me. They would have replaced it with a new one right then and there. Now that's service. Instead, I had to send it in for repair... :wxwax

[mercphoto]

Why can't he make a value judgement that differs from yours without it being "Apple-bashing"? I don't see any bashing of Apple here.
Fair enough. I'll rephrase my question then. He complains that his machine crashed simply because he added more RAM, etc. etc. etc. Says he wants more reliability etc. etc. etc. Then says Apple isn't worth the extra dollars on the basis of relative performance. What he seems to be ignoring is you don't pay more for Apple because it performs faster. You pay more because it works better. He seems, however, fixated on comparing computers on $$$ per performance while complaining about stability issues, which have nothing to do with $$$ per performance.

[DJ-S1]

Fair enough. I'll rephrase my question then. He complains that his machine crashed simply because he added more RAM, etc. etc. etc. Says he wants more reliability etc. etc. etc. Then says Apple isn't worth the extra dollars on the basis of relative performance. What he seems to be ignoring is you don't pay more for Apple because it performs faster. You pay more because it works better. He seems, however, fixated on comparing computers on $$$ per performance while complaining about stability issues, which have nothing to do with $$$ per performance.

Yep, I see your point. The only comment I would have to that is that he isn't (as I read it) complaining about stability in general, just that his 3 year old machine is now too slow for him and he's having trouble upgrading it.

[NHBubba]

wxwax: I agree. I too have a hard time justifying the 2x price-tag on the macs. I'd love to buy one and would love to run OSX.. but I just can't see paying that much when I can get a well equipped PC to do the same thing for 50% of the cost. In my experience the price difference is enough to buy a helluva lot of nice software.. or other toys.

At work I'm still on 98 which locks up on a daily basis, I guess I'm guilty of tarnishing all with the same brush !Yes.. If you want to compare an Apple to a Win98 box you should be looking for something running OS9 or maybe even OS8..

[wxwax]

I'm confused. Did you start this thread just to bash Apple? You are fed up with a machine that crashes, and yet you don't see the value in paying more for something that is actually reliable and actually works. Instead you are going back to the same store that sold you your old machine.

I'm speechless.

You aren't grasping it, merc.

I'll try to help.

The machine itself isn't broken. Adding memory caused it to crash. That, plus the loooong delays in processing 5D files, has me very frustrated.

Is that frustration worth paying twice as much? That's a lot of coin for a solution that will last 2-3 years before it too, is in need of a solution.

As for Macs being trouble free, I work around them everyday. They're computers. Computers have problems. There is no promised land of trouble free computing.

No, this isn't a Mac bashing thread. I'm being open and above board. Apparently this tweaks you. I hope you regain your speech. :1drink

[wxwax]

I wasn't sure how the clock speeds of apples / pc's related to speed or each other (still not actually). So rightly or wrongly tended to look at benchmarks. I found that similar speed, reputable brand pc's with a comparable screen weren't that much difference in price :dunno
I wonder if that's still true? Dell's been dropping their prices. :dunno

As I said, if I buy a PC, it's back to the corner store, not a brand name. They stand by their product.

[wxwax]

Fair enough. I'll rephrase my question then. He complains that his machine crashed simply because he added more RAM, etc. etc. etc. Says he wants more reliability etc. etc. etc. Then says Apple isn't worth the extra dollars on the basis of relative performance. What he seems to be ignoring is you don't pay more for Apple because it performs faster. You pay more because it works better. He seems, however, fixated on comparing computers on $$$ per performance while complaining about stability issues, which have nothing to do with $$$ per performance.

I think I explained it above.

Other than the crash when adding memory (which tipped the balance for me) the machine's worked fine.

It's not crash prone. It's just slow and in need of an upgrade. However, the way it behaved on Sunday was extremely annoying, to say the least.

Annoying enough to pay twice the cost of a direct replacement? Like it or not, that's the choice.

[DavidTO]

the crash when adding memory


bad ram?

[wxwax]

bad ram?
I'm not sure.

The computer has three slots. Two are taken, each with a 512. I'm thinking putting a 1GB in the third slot made it crap its pants.

I showed him the spec sheet they gave me when I had the thing made, so the type of memory should have matched. The memory itself looked different, but that may just be because so much time has passed it's been redesigned?

I'll be going back this weekend. By which time I'll have made my decision.

[patch29]

Have you demoed a mac yet? The Apple Store is not far away from you. Try it maybe it will sell you. :dunno


If you are looking for Photoshop performance why not a G5 tower? They are still very fast? You have a PC to do PC stuff, make a photoshop machine.

Go work on one at an Apple Store. :dunno

Why do people pay for a sports car instead of all buying Honda Civic's?

Is the PC you are building souped up for PS or just a good PC? Just as a gamer would want a different computer than a home user with word and surfing. :dunno

[wxwax]

A coworker (an artist who works on Macs) thinks the Macbook is a real bargain.

It will support a second monitor (but not the Apple 30" display, dunno about my 21" LaCie.) The only real difference between it and the Macbook pro is the graphics card and hard drive, he says. He says the card should be fine for PS, but not for video editing (not an issue, at least, not right now.)

That would leave me with a second screen of 13".

[gus]

Waxy....a PC machine that is current ie 3.? gig with normal ram..Xp & everything else does not crash.

No-one & i mean no-one mistreats a computer more than me & i couldnt get either of mine to crash if i tried.

[wxwax]

Don't forget to go the the NAPP discount page and it will drop the price some.

You're right, down to $2,099.

I must admit, I'm seduced by the idea of a 17" Macbook Pro with the bells and whistles. But dayum, the price.

[wxwax]

Waxy....a PC machine that is current ie 3.? gig with normal ram..Xp & everything else does not crash.

No-one & i mean no-one mistreats a computer more than me & i couldnt get either of mine to crash if i tried.
:lol3

There is a third option. Address the memory issue on my current machine (I'm sure it's a simple thing) and limp along until next year, when the Macbook Pro will be second gen, and all the Intel problems solved. Give me time to save, too. *gulp*

[mercphoto]

There is a third option. Address the memory issue on my current machine (I'm sure it's a simple thing) and limp along until next year, when the Macbook Pro will be second gen, and all the Intel problems solved. Give me time to save, too. *gulp*
I have to admit that suggesting a new Intel-based Mac to a photographer at the moment is indeed problematic. CS2 is not a Universal Binary right now, which is why CS2 benchmarks poorly on the Intel Macs. This won't be solved until Adobe releases CS3.

[Awais Yaqub]

:clap superb idea Appels just look like something from outer space :):

[patch29]

You're right, down to $2,099.

I must admit, I'm seduced by the idea of a 17" Macbook Pro with the bells and whistles. But dayum, the price.


If you are not going to use it portably, which bells and whistles are you referring to?

Macbook, intergrated keyboard (with backlight) imac full keyboard.

2.16 DC vs 2.0 DC

bump up the vram in the imac, same.

120 gb 5400 rpm (could be swapped for a 100/7200) drive vs 250 gb 7200 rpm in the imac

no FW 800 on the imac, but 3 usb 2.0 ports.

I am sorry outside of portability the imac wins with a bigger screen too. :dunno I don't think I am missing anything. The MacbookPro may have a tweaked motherboard, but :dunno


Macbook Pro Specs (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html)

Macbook Specs (http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html)

imac Specs (http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html)

[ChrisJ]

Just FYI,

In July, Intel is set to release the Conroe family of CPUs. Current expectations are that these will significantly leapfrog AMD in terms of performance, and cut down on heat/power consumption.

This should reduce prices of current Intel and AMD CPUs and motherboards, but you have to wait a couple months.

Also, AMD just released the new AM2 chipset and Athlon X2 64 5000+ CPU. These are incremental upgrades. The chipset adds support for DDR2 memory, which will be useful down the line for them.

I've found that new CPU generations tend to be a good time to get bargains on older chips. It's also a good time to get the latest/greatest because it should last a little while (as long as anything lasts in the silicon world).

[patch29]

:lol3

There is a third option. Address the memory issue on my current machine (I'm sure it's a simple thing) and limp along until next year, when the Macbook Pro will be second gen, and all the Intel problems solved. Give me time to save, too. *gulp*


I still would not recommend replacing a desktop computer with a laptop (unless you will take it with you). If you are going to wait, buy the replacement tower, they have always been traditionally much faster, hold a lot more ram (some up to 16gb vs only 2gb in a Macbookpro), come with faster harddrives and a lot of tweaking to make them scream.

[ChrisJ]

:lol3

There is a third option. Address the memory issue on my current machine (I'm sure it's a simple thing) and limp along until next year, when the Macbook Pro will be second gen, and all the Intel problems solved. Give me time to save, too. *gulp*

If your system supports DDR memory, you should be replacing BOTH of your current RAM modules with two new matched modules of higher capacity. You only get a speed benefit from DDR if they're paired up.

You seem to have either a faulty RAM module *or* a faulty RAM slot on your MB. If it were me, I would return the possibly bad module, and get the two biggest ones you can find to replace the known good ones.

[Mongrel]

If your system supports DDR memory, you should be replacing BOTH of your current RAM modules with two new matched modules of higher capacity. You only get a speed benefit from DDR if they're paired up.

You seem to have either a faulty RAM module *or* a faulty RAM slot on your MB. If it were me, I would return the possibly bad module, and get the two biggest ones you can find to replace the known good ones.

:agree

Sid, we really should have started here. List your system specs-give as much detail as you possibly can (motherboard would be most helpful).

Once we have the specs it's possible you could spend as little as $150 and solve your problems immediate, plus get a nice bump in performance.

On a standard intel\amd box running 98 I'd easily (and comfortably) say that you could invest in:

1. Win XP Home O.E.M ($85)
2. 2GB Ram (DDR would be nice, but even sdram should work, if only 1GB)
3. Maybe-maybe a processor upgrade for $100.00 or so.

This would tide you over until things settle 'out there' in regard to platforms and CS3. The older stuff is so cheap right now, you really should look into it-imho.

I can easily run CS2, C1Le, RSP, Bibble, DPP, etc. on my current 'out-dated' machine. Although I complained about speed earlier in this thread, it's really not that bad.

[wxwax]

If your system supports DDR memory, you should be replacing BOTH of your current RAM modules with two new matched modules of higher capacity. You only get a speed benefit from DDR if they're paired up.

You seem to have either a faulty RAM module *or* a faulty RAM slot on your MB. If it were me, I would return the possibly bad module, and get the two biggest ones you can find to replace the known good ones.

Thanks Chris. That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm sure you've identified the reason for the crash.

[wxwax]

:agree

Sid, we really should have started here. List your system specs-give as much detail as you possibly can (motherboard would be most helpful).

Once we have the specs it's possible you could spend as little as $150 and solve your problems immediate, plus get a nice bump in performance.

On a standard intel\amd box running 98 I'd easily (and comfortably) say that you could invest in:

1. Win XP Home O.E.M ($85)
2. 2GB Ram (DDR would be nice, but even sdram should work, if only 1GB)
3. Maybe-maybe a processor upgrade for $100.00 or so.

This would tide you over until things settle 'out there' in regard to platforms and CS3. The older stuff is so cheap right now, you really should look into it-imho.

I can easily run CS2, C1Le, RSP, Bibble, DPP, etc. on my current 'out-dated' machine. Although I complained about speed earlier in this thread, it's really not that bad.

That's very helpful, Mongrel, thanks. When I get home I'll check the spec sheet.

[wxwax]

I still would not recommend replacing a desktop computer with a laptop (unless you will take it with you). If you are going to wait, buy the replacement tower, they have always been traditionally much faster, hold a lot more ram (some up to 16gb vs only 2gb in a Macbookpro), come with faster harddrives and a lot of tweaking to make them scream.
Point taken, Patrick.

Yes, I had thought of taking it on select trips, such as the one just taken, when bulky luggage wasn't an issue and many photos would be taken. I could edit on PS in the field, on a first rate machine, rather than waiting to get home.

[patch29]

Point taken, Patrick.

Yes, I had thought of taking it on select trips, such as the one just taken, when bulky luggage wasn't an issue and many photos would be taken. I could edit on PS in the field, on a first rate machine, rather than waiting to get home.


Well that is a different story. I also don't see a revision B Macbook PRO coming out any time soon, so you are back to the waiting game. :dunno

[patch29]

:agree

Sid, we really should have started here. List your system specs-give as much detail as you possibly can (motherboard would be most helpful).



Yes and how about the actual working document size in Photoshop? Then other dgrinners can run a test and let you know the time difference on different machines set up with different amounts of ram, etc.

[wxwax]

Yes and how about the actual working document size in Photoshop? Then other dgrinners can run a test and let you know the time difference on different machines set up with different amounts of ram, etc.
Yes. Clearly I was looking in the wrong place for document size last time.

[patch29]

Yes. Clearly I was looking in the wrong place for document size last time.


:doh

I bet this will have a lot to do with the slow performance.

[DavidTO]

Well that is a different story. I also don't see a revision B Macbook PRO coming out any time soon, so you are back to the waiting game. :dunno


I disagree. They're at least going to be upgrading the processor to 64bit, I think in August/September. I would call that some time soon. That would also allow for more than 2GB of RAM.

[patch29]

I disagree. They're at least going to be upgrading the processor to 64bit, I think in August/September. I would call that some time soon. That would also allow for more than 2GB of RAM.

That would be a nice bump, but do you think we will see it that soon? What about new desktops?

[wxwax]

I disagree. They're at least going to be upgrading the processor to 64bit, I think in August/September. I would call that some time soon. That would also allow for more than 2GB of RAM.
Different Mac guy at work was guessing more likely the first part of next year. :dunno

[NHBubba]

If you are looking for Photoshop performance why not a G5 tower? They are still very fast? You have a PC to do PC stuff, make a photoshop machine.I would still go w/ a new Intel based if you go mac. I tried Andy's little quick benchmark on a brand new imac a few months ago. It came in within 1 second of a fully doped out dual-processor G5 powermac. As I said at the time, either the emulation bit doesn't take as much of a performance hit in p-shop as you might think, or the Intel chips are just way way faster.

Either way, the Intel stuff is more future-proof in my opinion. I wouldn't go near a PPC based machine unless it was uber-cheap.

[DavidTO]

Different Mac guy at work was guessing more likely the first part of next year. :dunno


I still say Aug/Sep. The Conroe chip is due out in July, this is the MacBook Pro that Apple wanted to release initially. I think that they'll start shipping as soon as possible after the Conroe is released. By normal release schedules your friend would be right. I think he's wrong. But nobody knows until they've actually released it...

[wxwax]

Good discussion, thanks folks. :thumb

I spent a while at the Apple online store, even looked at refurbs. This business of waiting the next big thing - that's never going to change.

[ChrisJ]

This business of waiting the next big thing - that's never going to change.

Yep, you just have to buy something. That's why I love Fry's. Every so often they have an MB/CPU deal I just can't pass up. Poof! I'm upgraded. :D Instant gratification; no waiting for delivery!

[wxwax]

:lol3

So here's the store I go to.

Basically, build your own.

Anyone want to take a crack at building a super-fast Photoshop machine? I don't need no stinking fancy hard drives, got my externals. :lol3 But I know nothing about motherboards, and next to nothing about chips and memory.

http://www.ginstar.com/

[patch29]

I still say Aug/Sep. The Conroe chip is due out in July, this is the MacBook Pro that Apple wanted to release initially. I think that they'll start shipping as soon as possible after the Conroe is released. By normal release schedules your friend would be right. I think he's wrong. But nobody knows until they've actually released it...


A 64 bit MBpro and 32 bit MB makes a lot more sense. They seem a little too close right now. I can see it being released so soon, maybe by the end of the year. :dunno Just as long as it is released with PS CS3. :deal

[Mongrel]

I just ran the benchmark that Andy posted a ways back....

3 minutes flat

:dunno

Not sure where that leaves me in the grand scheme of things....

[wxwax]

With the help of a workmate, here's a fast system. Just over $900 as is, will cost maybe another $100 - $200 to upgrade memory to 2GB.


http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/71219925-L.jpg

[wxwax]

They seem a little too close right now.
That's what the kids upstairs were saying.

[DavidTO]

With the help of a workmate, here's a fast system. Just over $900 as is, will cost maybe another $100 - $200 to upgrade memory to 2GB.



You're not getting a DVD burner, but you are getting a floppy drive? Does anyone still use those things?

[patch29]

That's what the kids upstairs were saying.


That is why I bought what I did. I also saved some money to put to the super fast Macbookpro's to come. :deal

[DavidTO]

A 64 bit MBpro and 32 bit MB makes a lot more sense. They seem a little too close right now. I can see it being released so soon, maybe by the end of the year. :dunno Just as long as it is released with PS CS3. :deal


I would put money on new MBP's by the end of September. If gambling were legal, of course.

[wxwax]

You're not getting a DVD burner, but you are getting a floppy drive? Does anyone still use those things?
Already have an external DVD burner. Can't get rid of the floppy drive, comes with. We took one of their standard systems and upgraded components.

Not sure if the graphics card supports 2 monitors, that might up the cost.

[wxwax]

That is why I bought what I did. I also saved some money to put to the super fast Macbookpro's to come. :deal
Which you won't buy for another 4-5 years, of course. Because there's no need to upgrade. :evil

[patch29]

You're not getting a DVD burner, but you are getting a floppy drive? Does anyone still use those things?

Ditto on the DVD, a lot of software is only coming out on DVD now, plus what will you burn to? Eventually you will need to take something off your HD's. :dunno

40gb HD? I know you have externals, but I would think you would want a bigger one. One not put in two and use a 40gb for your PS scratch disk.

I also think you need more memory for PS. The more it has the happier it is. I would think 2gb is a minimum. When you are working in PS next, use the info palette and watch the efficiency of your computer.

No OS, is that how your last computer came? I think I found the cause of your problem. :bad

[patch29]

I would put money on new MBP's by the end of September. If gambling were legal, of course.

No, a 64bit dual core chip, at least 4gb of ram, CS3 and a couple of other goodies and I will be in line to upgrade. That is a huge difference. The big test will be with the Desktops, can they make something so fast that it makes sense to upgrade. :dunno

[ChrisJ]

Yeah, they don't list 1 Gig chips... so add appropriately.

Here's my take:

12839

From their website Add $49 for (http://www.ginstar.com/barebone.aspx):
Case and Power Supply
CPU/Motherboard Combo
CPU Fan
Floppy DriveDefinitely get a SATA drive (not IDE/UDMA). To go cheaper, replace the DVD Burner with a reader only, but software is starting to arrive on DVD now.

[Mongrel]

I just ran the benchmark that Andy posted a ways back....

3 minutes flat

:dunno

Not sure where that leaves me in the grand scheme of things....

I don't know what the heck I ran the first time, but I went back to the thread and ran THE REAL benchmark from Fred Miranda.....

Anyway.....ran it three times (yes Resized-radial blur-100-BEST settings...) and my 'new' grand total is:

80 Seconds :thumb

Ok, one time it was like 79 seconds and change :rofl

Not bad for an old dog :clap

[DavidTO]

No, a 64bit dual core chip, at least 4gb of ram, CS3 and a couple of other goodies and I will be in line to upgrade. That is a huge difference. The big test will be with the Desktops, can they make something so fast that it makes sense to upgrade. :dunno


You'll have the first two in September, is what I'm saying.

[wxwax]

Ditto on the DVD, a lot of software is only coming out on DVD now, plus what will you burn to? Eventually you will need to take something off your HD's. :dunno

40gb HD? I know you have externals, but I would think you would want a bigger one. One not put in two and use a 40gb for your PS scratch disk.

I also think you need more memory for PS. The more it has the happier it is. I would think 2gb is a minimum. When you are working in PS next, use the info palette and watch the efficiency of your computer.

No OS, is that how your last computer came? I think I found the cause of your problem. :bad


I answered David.

I have an external DVD burner. No need for two, waste of money.

Why spend money on a larger internal hard drive that will sit empty? I scarcely use mine as it is, everything goes to the externals. :dunno Is there some performance benefit to a larger disk?

As I noted in the post, I'd spend $100-$200 more to get to 2GB. :deal

I have XP pro on my current machine, I'd just transfer it over, kill the current machine.

[ChrisJ]

X600 Video card in image...

That should have been the $189 X800 Video card.... *not* the X600 which is already pokey by today's standards.

[wxwax]

Yeah, they don't list 1 Gig chips... so add appropriately.

Here's my take:

12839

From their website Add $49 for (http://www.ginstar.com/barebone.aspx):
Case and Power Supply
CPU/Motherboard Combo
CPU Fan
Floppy DriveDefinitely get a SATA drive (not IDE/UDMA). To go cheaper, replace the DVD Burner with a reader only, but software is starting to arrive on DVD now.


Very cool, Chris! Thanks.

[wxwax]

That should have been the $189 X800 Video card.... *not* the X600 which is already pokey by today's standards.
Got it, thanks. :thumb

[patch29]

I don't know what the heck I ran the first time, but I went back to the thread and ran THE REAL benchmark from Fred Miranda.....

Do you have a link? I would like to run it on my Macbook in OSX and XP. :D

[DavidTO]

Ditto on the DVD, a lot of software is only coming out on DVD now, plus what will you burn to? Eventually you will need to take something off your HD's. :dunno

40gb HD? I know you have externals, but I would think you would want a bigger one.


I don't know how you expect to get by with only 40GB, myself. I keep all of my photos off my internal drive, and I still have about 75Gb of my 100GB used...

[patch29]

I have an external DVD burner. No need for two, waste of money.

Why spend money on a larger internal hard drive that will sit empty? I scarcely use mine as it is, everything goes to the externals. :dunno Is there some performance benefit to a larger disk?

As I noted in the post, I'd spend $100-$200 more to get to 4GB. :deal

I have XP pro on my current machine, I'd just transfer it over, kill the current machine.

I use two drives at the same time on many occasions, usually if I have to pull data off several drives at once.

What will you do when the new programs come out and need more space? HD space is cheap, 40 just seems low, how much are you saving vs gb given up.

[wxwax]

I don't know how you expect to get by with only 40GB, myself. I keep all of my photos off my internal drive, and I still have about 75Gb of my 100GB used...
Wow. What the heck are you running?

I'll check mine when I get home.

No biggie on getting a bigger drive, I was looking to save wherever I could. If it's a dumb idea, not very expensive to go bigger.

[DavidTO]

Wow. What the heck are you running?

I'll check mine when I get home.

No biggie on getting a bigger drive, I was looking to save wherever I could. If it's a dumb idea, not very expensive to go bigger.


My iTunes Library is around 30GB all by itself....

[wxwax]

My iTunes Library is around 30GB all by itself....
Aaaaah!

OK, now I understand. Yeah, I don't do the music thing, color me boring.

[Mongrel]

Do you have a link? I would like to run it on my Macbook in OSX and XP. :D

Patch, here's the link to the test...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/145693

I'm really interested in the numbers you are getting on this. The only question I have is whether it is the same using CS and CS2. I have CS2, so :dunno .

Trust me, if a 20" core-duo iMac can rip the pants off my current system, I will surely consider it. Just don't know if Adobe will let me trade my one month old copy of CS2 for a Mac version :scratch .

That's really my only concern at this point. The machine I'm on right now will serve me fine as a general-purpose rig. My goal is to have a separate stand-alone photo-editing rig.

Again, I'd love to see your numbers!

Thanks,

Mongrel

[wxwax]

I don't know how you expect to get by with only 40GB, myself. I keep all of my photos off my internal drive, and I still have about 75Gb of my 100GB used...
Point taken. I'm currently using 41GB.

[wxwax]

Patch, here's the link to the test...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/145693



Took me 120 seconds on CS.

Pentium 4, 2.67 GHz
1 GB

[marlof]

41s, AMD3700+, 2GB RAM, PSCS2, WinXPSP2

it's good to know that I can blur any image in less than 3/4 of a minute. it may help with some of my lesser pictures.

[wxwax]

41s, AMD3700+, 2GB RAM, PSCS2, WinXPSP2

it's good to know that I can blur any image in less than 3/4 of a minute. it may help with some of my lesser pictures.
:lol3

[gus]

Took me 120 seconds on CS.

Pentium 4, 2.67 GHz
1 GB

29 seconds exactly for me.

intel 2.8 gig 800FSB dual core
2 gig ram (533mhz Twinmos)
128MB 6600GT PCI express video card
CS2

Ta-darrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!

[ChrisJ]

That was fun, but it makes me wanna upgrade...

78.5 seconds

Athlon XP 2700+ (2.16 GHz)
1 Gig DDR RAM @333 MHz
WinXPsp2, PSCS2

I closed down all of my open apps and it shaved off a whole 2 seconds!

[wxwax]

That was fun, but it makes me wanna upgrade...

:rofl

[wxwax]

29 seconds exactly for me.

intel 2.8 gig 800FSB dual core
2 gig ram (533mhz Twinmos)
128MB 6600GT PCI express video card
CS2

Ta-darrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!
Wow.

[gus]

Wow.

Photoshop can use the dual core well...not a lot else about can atm...i think this is why its so fast as well as the ram being fast.

Are you looking at a dual ?

[gubbs]

FWIW, there's another ps benchmark thread here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8440&page=1&pp=15)

[Mongrel]

FWIW, there's another ps benchmark thread here (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8440&page=1&pp=15)

THAT'S the one I ran first! I had it saved as an action so I could run it after tuning my system.

The one above is heavier than the one linked to in Andy's original post.

So I'm at three minutes on that one and 80secs on the other one.

thanks Gubbs!

[DoctorIt]

holy crap I looked away and this grew to 10 pages! :uhoh

We just got 2 new duo-core PC's in the lab, and one new MacBook - gonna give that test a whirl when I get in this morning.
:evil

[Mongrel]

to that Doc :thumb

I'd really love to see a benchmark on an 20" iMac core-duo with 2GB of ram. Price-wise that's about as much as I could envision spending on a system ($2000 +\- ?...) PC or Mac.

[bwg]

holy crap I looked away and this grew to 10 pages! :uhoh

We just got 2 new duo-core PC's in the lab, and one new MacBook - gonna give that test a whirl when I get in this morning.
:evilcore-duo, not duo-core

i only say that because duo-core can be more easily confused with dual-core which is not exactly the same thing as core-duo.

and because i'm annoyingly pedantic.

[gubbs]

to that Doc :thumb

I'd really love to see a benchmark on an 20" iMac core-duo with 2GB of ram. Price-wise that's about as much as I could envision spending on a system ($2000 +\- ?...) PC or Mac.
79 secs for 2gb ram
82secs for 1gb ram

for the retouch pro test (http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8440&page=1&pp=15)

[patch29]

So far I have only run the test on my

G5 dual proc 2.7ghtz 8 gb ram CS2

Retouch Pro

43 sec, 8 bit file
53 sec, 16 bit file

Fred Miranda

21 secs

[patch29]

Now the benchmarks on my Macbook

core duo 2.0ghtz, 2 gb ram, CS 2 (tryout)

booted in OSX

RetouchPRO

81 sec, 8 bit
130 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

36 sec

booted in XP CS2 (tryout)

RetouchPRO

65 sec, 8 bit
72 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

26 sec

[patch29]

Benchmarks for my G4 Ti Powerbook 1ghtz 1gb ram CS2

RetouchPRO

200 sec, 8 bit
256 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

98 sec

[gubbs]

Now the benchmarks on my Macbook

core duo 2.0ghtz, 2 gb ram, CS 2 (tryout)

booted in OSX

RetouchPRO

81 sec, 8 bit
130 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

36 sec

booted in XP CS2 (tryout)

RetouchPRO

65 sec, 8 bit
72 sec, 16 bit

Fred Miranda

26 sec
Patch, do you reckon the xp booted times give an indication of the likely speed increases once the universal version of ps is released, or doesn't it work like that ??

[patch29]

Patch, do you reckon the xp booted times give an indication of the likely speed increases once the universal version of ps is released, or doesn't it work like that ??

I don't know but I do hope that it is at least that fast with CS3. :D

[patch29]

OK, since this is starting to head a little off topic and these tests could be useful to other buyers, I started a benchmark test thread here (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=34794). Please also post your results there. Thanks. :thumb

[wxwax]

Photoshop can use the dual core well...not a lot else about can atm...i think this is why its so fast as well as the ram being fast.

Are you looking at a dual ?
Absolutely.

[NHBubba]

I'd really love to see a benchmark on an 20" iMac core-duo with 2GB of ram.Did the RetouchPro radial blur test on a brand-spanking-new 20" iMac 'core-duo' in an apple store a few months ago. It only had 512 MB of RAM and did not have CS2, just CS. But it scored 1:24.

Of note is that a dual processor G5 based PowerMac adjacent to it also w/ 512MB of RAM and running CS only scored 1 second faster at 1:23. As I said, that leads me to think that either the 'rosetta' emulation required to run p-shop doesn't result in as much of a performance impact as one might think... or the Intel chips are just that much faster than the old PPC G5's..
core-duo, not duo-core

i only say that because duo-core can be more easily confused with dual-core which is not exactly the same thing as core-duo.
Is this true?! I thought the 'duo-core' trade name was Apple's cutsey way of saying dual-core.. I always attributed the very good p-shop performance the new 'core-duo' products demonstrated was due to the fact that they had dual cores..

[wxwax]

I'm curious about the impact Patch's 8GB of RAM had on the test.

I really hadn't considered going above 2GB on whatever machine I buy.

[bwg]

Is this true?! I thought the 'duo-core' trade name was Apple's cutsey way of saying dual-core.. I always attributed the very good p-shop performance the new 'core-duo' products demonstrated was due to the fact that they had dual cores..

core-duo is intel's name for their new architecture of dual core chips. they had dual core processors previously but they were a different (older) architecture.

[mercphoto]

Did the RetouchPro radial blur test on a brand-spanking-new 20" iMac 'core-duo' in an apple store a few months ago. It only had 512 MB of RAM and did not have CS2, just CS. But it scored 1:24.

Of note is that a dual processor G5 based PowerMac adjacent to it also w/ 512MB of RAM and running CS only scored 1 second faster at 1:23. As I said, that leads me to think that either the 'rosetta' emulation required to run p-shop doesn't result in as much of a performance impact as one might think... or the Intel chips are just that much faster than the old PPC G5's..
Rosetta definitely slows things down. So once we get a Universal Binary of Photoshop that Core Duo will get quite a bit faster than the G5 iMac. Two things to remember is the impact of Rosetta, and also the impact of two cores versus one core. Not all applications can make any real use of two cores, but Photoshop absolutely can.

[bwg]

Rosetta definitely slows things down. So once we get a Universal Binary of Photoshop that Core Duo will get quite a bit faster than the G5 iMac. Two things to remember is the impact of Rosetta, and also the impact of two cores versus one core. Not all applications can make any real use of two cores, but Photoshop absolutely can.ok, so now for the million dollar question. does running photoshop through rosetta utilize both cores?

[patch29]

I'm curious about the impact Patch's 8GB of RAM had on the test.

I really hadn't considered going above 2GB on whatever machine I buy.


I think it allows me to run a lot of programs and keep going without making the machine usless.

So, I did another quick test on the G5

this time I had a lot more going on.

checking mail
surfing in safari
burning a dvd
bridge processing raw files to jpgs
quickbooks running
itunes playing music
excel running
journaling software running
photoshop running the benchmark

so it did slow me down for the 8 bit retouchpro test

88 sec vs 43 sec with nothing but safari running.

I bet it would not have as big a hit if I was not processing files via bridge or burning the DVD, but what kind of test would that be. I am also not running a separate disk for cache so that could slow me down too.

[DoctorIt]

core-duo, not duo-core

i only say that because duo-core can be more easily confused with dual-core which is not exactly the same thing as core-duo.

and because i'm annoyingly pedantic.so whats the difference between dual core and core duo? you can't just tell me I'm wrong and not inform me!!!
:D

[bwg]

so whats the difference between dual core and core duo? you can't just tell me I'm wrong and not inform me!!!
:Dyou're not wrong...just not entirely accurate.

Core Duo is intels newest dual core architecture, it's significantly better than their first gen dual core chips that were more or less rushed to market so they could compete w/AMD. "L@@K! we have dual-core too" kinda thing. If you're in the market for an Intel dual core, make sure it's a Core Duo. And since that's not confusing enough, the next revision of this architecture will be renamed to Core2 Duo.

yeeeah.

[DavidTO]

you're not wrong...just not entirely accurate.

Core Duo is intels newest dual core architecture, it's significantly better than their first gen dual core chips that were more or less rushed to market so they could compete w/AMD. "L@@K! we have dual-core too" kinda thing. If you're in the market for an Intel dual core, make sure it's a Core Duo. And since that's not confusing enough, the next revision of this architecture will be renamed to Core2 Duo.

yeeeah.


That's2 confusing.

[patch29]

That's2 confusing.


It could have been Core2 Duo S mkII v3.06a r193. :uhoh

[bwg]

It could have been Core2 Duo S mkII v3.06a r193. :uhohType R

adds 50hp

[patch29]

Type R

adds 50hp

but what about mpg? Whoops wrong forum. :rofl

[DavidTO]

Type R

adds 50hp


That's good, cause I'm a level 30 Ranger.

[StevenV]

That's2 confusing.

the simple version:

Intel® Core™ Duo (http://intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/index.htm) is the trademarked name of the product being used.
dual core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_core) is a description which could apply to products from various companies.

[gus]

So far I have only run the test on my

G5 dual proc 2.7ghtz 8 gb ram CS2

Retouch Pro

43 sec, 8 bit file
53 sec, 16 bit file

Fred Miranda

21 secs

So why is my $1000 box 29 secs ? This is confusing.

[DavidTO]

So why is my $1000 box 29 secs ? This is confusing.


Why is it confusing? The new Intel Macs are running under emulation until Adobe releases a Universal Binary version of PS. When they do the times should be equivalent at least...including the MacBook at $1099, I would think...but we'll have to wait and see.

[wxwax]

Why is it confusing? The new Intel Macs are running under emulation until Adobe releases a Universal Binary version of PS. When they do the times should be equivalent at least...including the MacBook at $1099, I would think...but we'll have to wait and see.
He's comparing his 29 seconds to the blunderbuss G5's 21 seconds, not the Intel Macs.

Gus, did you resize the piccie the way they specified, before you ran the test?

[gus]

He's comparing his 29 seconds to the blunderbuss G5's 21 seconds, not the Intel Macs.

Gus, did you resize the piccie the way they specified, before you ran the test?

resize ????? what resize............................................ .......:dunno











yes i did...after resizing all i could see was a giant orange blur on my screen covered in noise & crap. If anyone wants proof im happy to photograph its progress with a clock next to the screen in several shots to show it does indeed do it in that time. I didnt even have everything shut down either.

[gus]

Why is it confusing? The new Intel Macs are running under emulation until Adobe releases a Universal Binary version of PS. When they do the times should be equivalent at least...including the MacBook at $1099, I would think...but we'll have to wait and see.

woulda coulda shoulda....waxy....i dont pick you as a bloke to buy a promise.

Just drop the K on a box & be done with it. You dont need any more proof that what you are reading here 'bang for buck' wise.....unless that turtle neck is calling.

[wxwax]

yes i did...after resizing all i could see was a giant orange blur on my screen covered in noise & crap. If anyone wants proof im happy to photograph its progress with a clock next to the screen in several shots to show it does indeed do it in that time. I didnt even have everything shut down either.

:lol3 I believe you! Control-0 (zero) makes the document fit your screen again.

[gus]

:lol3 I believe you! Control-0 (zero) makes the document fit your screen again.

Out the door to work now but tonight i will shut everything down & try it on its own to see if it can do it faster.

This whole story reminds me of the guy in the turtle neck out to impress his new girlfriend in his porche when some bogan in a blown '72 chev pulls up beside him at the lights & leaves the porche like its standing still.

The porche dood will still be making up excusses to the next 5 girlfriends.

[patch29]

woulda coulda shoulda....waxy....i dont pick you as a bloke to buy a promise.


I heard a rumor that a certain someone also wants to be able to run Final Cut Pro, not sure where I heard that however. It certainly could turn the tables.

[DavidTO]

I heard a rumor that a certain someone also wants to be able to run Final Cut Pro, not sure where I heard that however. It certainly could turn the tables.


Makes a lot of sense.

[NHBubba]

core-duo is intel's name for their new architecture of dual core chips. they had dual core processors previously but they were a different (older) architecture.Okay.. so it's an Intel trade name, not an Apple name. But I still thought seeing the core-duo trade name meant dual-cores on a single chunk of silicon. Even the Intel product breif (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/index.htm) says 'dual-core' in the second scentence..

What's wrong w/ mistaking 'core-duo' for 'dual-core'? Aren't they synonymous?
Two things to remember is the impact of Rosetta, and also the impact of two cores versus one core. Not all applications can make any real use of two cores, but Photoshop absolutely can.But the G5 PowerMac I tested against was a multi-processor machine as well. It was a dual processor machine running at a similar clock speed (both 2.0 GHz) and had very similar performance. I expected the dual-processor G5 based Mac to pretty well clober the new Intel based iMac because of the emulation. Instead they were comparable. This leads me to think that there is very little, if any performance penalty OR the Intel procs are just so much faster. Either way, for the end user, there seems to be little or no penalty under this test in photoshop for going for the new Intel based macs, despite the emulation. And of course that means that once the 'universal' version of photoshop is released, Intel mac users should see even better performance.

[bwg]

Okay.. so it's an Intel trade name, not an Apple name. But I still thought seeing the core-duo trade name meant dual-cores on a single chunk of silicon. Even the Intel product breif (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/index.htm) says 'dual-core' in the second scentence..

What's wrong w/ mistaking 'core-duo' for 'dual-core'? Aren't they synonymous?
yes and no.

intel has 2 versions of a dual core chip, one significantly better than the other...by calling it a dual core chip you're being ambiguous. core-duo is the specific name of the newest intel dual core architecture.

[wxwax]

So I played with a Macbook tonight. PS in Windows is much, much faster than on my machine. It's markedly slower in Mac OS.

I like the layout, the keyboard and the look/feel. The screen's a great size, doesn't feel like 13".

But it's also the worst part of the computer. I found it to be hard to see things on. Patch thinks it was the light. Maybe, maybe not. I think my tiny Vaio has a better screen.

But if I use it as a desktop running my Lacie monitor, the screen becomes less of an issue.

Cost is still a thing. After beefing up memory, adding XP and putting in a larger drive, I'll be up to $1900, quite a bit more than my $1000 for the corner store hot box.

Still, the Macbook has a lot of appeal.

[wxwax]

OK, I got Patched. :bluduh The f****r had the screen brightness down to 35%.

Upon further review, the screen's just fine. Wouldn't mine seeing what it looks like in matte instead of glossy, but they don't offer it.

[patch29]

OK, I got Patched. :bluduh The f****r had the screen brightness down to 35%.

Upon further review, the screen's just fine. Wouldn't mine seeing what it looks like in matte instead of glossy, but they don't offer it.


Ha-Ha.

That's what I need to do from being blinded when working in the dungeon. :bad

[DavidTO]

OK, I got Patched. :bluduh The f****r had the screen brightness down to 35%.

Upon further review, the screen's just fine. Wouldn't mine seeing what it looks like in matte instead of glossy, but they don't offer it.


The other thing to be aware of, and has been discussed here, is that the native gamma in OSX is 1.8, and for PCs it's 2.2.

One of the first things I do with a new machine is to use the OSX calibration software and set the gamma to 2.2. It looks much better. Long explanation for the reason, having to do with the Mac's roots in pre-press.

[DavidTO]

Cost is still a thing. After beefing up memory, adding XP and putting in a larger drive, I'll be up to $1900, quite a bit more than my $1000 for the corner store hot box.

Still, the Macbook has a lot of appeal.


Now you're going for a larger drive? If you are, just get the next model up, for $1499, and add the memory yourself. Not saying that solves the money issue, just saying it makes more sense to me to get the better machine that already has the larger drive in it.

As for speed in PS, I can't speak to what you're seeing in Windows/OSX. But it sure makes sense that until PS gets out of emulation on an Intel chip that it's going to be slower.

[DavidTO]

And don't forget it'll run Final Cut Pro really well (http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717).

[gus]

And don't forget it'll run Final Cut Pro really well (http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717).
Good to see it can do something. Hey waxy...whats with the windows on it :scratch Are you aware that cheaper computers run windows also ?

[patch29]

Now you're going for a larger drive? If you are, just get the next model up, for $1499, and add the memory yourself. Not saying that solves the money issue, just saying it makes more sense to me to get the better machine that already has the larger drive in it.


Why pay the extra $150 for black? You can pay Apple less to bump up the hard drive. :dunno

[marlof]

Why pay the extra $150 for black? You can pay Apple less to bump up the hard drive. :dunno

perhaps the black comes with a matching turtleneck?

[DavidTO]

Why pay the extra $150 for black? You can pay Apple less to bump up the hard drive. :dunno


Because I mis-read it.

[DavidTO]

Good to see it can do something.



<sigh>


Gus, Gus, Gus....


:rolleyes

[patch29]

Because I mis-read it.


You just wanted to call him Darthwxwax. :wxwax

[bwg]

Good to see it can do something. Hey waxy...whats with the windows on it :scratch Are you aware that cheaper computers run windows also ?it can do a lot of things gus...

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/71519865-L.jpg

[wxwax]

:lol3

[ChrisJ]

it can do a lot of things gus...

Internet Explorer? Don't corrupt a perfectly good Mac with that! :D

[patch29]

it can do a lot of things gus...

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/71519865-S.jpg


I have been thinking about testing that out. How do you like it? Did you also try boot camp? Since my XP partition is already there, can I just install Parallels and run it? So many questions, how about USB devices via XP in Parallels? Time for a speed test. :D

[NHBubba]

Upon further review, the screen's just fine. Wouldn't mine seeing what it looks like in matte instead of glossy, but they don't offer it.I'm not a huge fan of the new glossy screens either. Sure, they look great in perfect light, but my light is rarely perfect. I much prefered the matte screens of yester-year. Sadly all the big laptop makers, Dell, HP, etc etc all seem to be going this way, not just Apple.

[DavidTO]

I'm not a huge fan of the new glossy screens either. Sure, they look great in perfect light, but my light is rarely perfect. I much prefered the matte screens of yester-year. Sadly all the big laptop makers, Dell, HP, etc etc all seem to be going this way, not just Apple.


I could see choosing a glossy if I knew I was going to be in a controlled environment, but on a laptop? Nu-uh.

[Seamus]

. You dont need any more proof that what you are reading here 'bang for buck' wise.

Thanks Gus, I just put 4 gigs memory into my dell 8300. I got it from Crucial.co.uk (thanks for the link gubbs). The 'puter is flying now.

Shay.

[wxwax]

Thanks Gus, I just put 4 gigs memory into my dell 8300. I got it from Crucial.co.uk (thanks for the link gubbs). The 'puter is flying now.

Shay.
Truth to tell, this is the first thing I'm going to do. On Saturday, I'm going to buy a matching 1GB memory strip to go with the one that crashed my machine, remove my current memory and snap in the two new modules.

On Sunday, you may see me on my knees at the Apple store. :evil

[bwg]

I have been thinking about testing that out. How do you like it? Did you also try boot camp? Since my XP partition is already there, can I just install Parallels and run it? So many questions, how about USB devices via XP in Parallels? Time for a speed test. :Di just installed parallels today (hence the IE screenshot). my first impressions are that it is really fast. if i'm in full screen mode i dont notice any difference from sitting down at my pc. granted i dont have anything running on it besides IE at this point, but it's a promising start. a co-worker of mine uses parallels on his iMac when he works from home with no complaints...we're a microsoft shop.

it found the dvd, usb, sound and network no problem.

i was never able to get bootcamp working on my MBP...it didnt like the slipstreamed SP2 cd that i have so i just gave up on it.

[wxwax]

With the introduction of its new, 13-inch, low-cost laptop,
the MacBook, Apple has officially eliminated its iBook and
PowerBook families. Apple's laptop line is all MacBook, all
the time.

By Apple's own description, the MacBook is essentially the
same thing as the MacBook Pro, which I've already reviewed
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/technology/circuits/02pogue.html),
with different cosmetics.

Inside, both the Pro and non-Pro laptops have the same
blazing-fast, blazing hot Intel Core Duo chip that rips
through software tasks--as long as you're running so-called
Universal programs (those that have been adapted for the
Intel chip). If you're running un-adapted programs, like
Microsoft Office and Adobe anything, expect noticeable
sluggishness.

All Mac laptops now have a built-in camera with surprisingly
good video quality, even in low light. All come with a remote
control and Front Row, the software that lets you control
playback of your photos, music, videos and DVD's from across
the room. All have widescreen displays and a clever magnetic
power-cord attachment that detaches when struck, rather than
dragging the whole machine to the floor.

But none of them have a built-in modem. If you stay
exclusively at hotels with wireless Internet--and an employer
that will reimburse you for using it--great. But if you ever
find yourself at a bed-and-breakfast or friend's house, you
won't be able to get online at all unless you've bought, and
remembered to pack, Apple's $50 external USB modem.

That's not to say that there are no differences at all. Take,
for example:

* Size. The new laptops have 13.3-inch screens, so they're
more compact than the Pro models (which come in 15 or 17
inches).

Sadly, they're nowhere near as small as the deliciously small
12-inch PowerBook that they replace. In fact, the MacBook is
two full inches wider, despite adding only one inch to the
diagonal screen size.

In fact, the MacBook is only about an inch narrower than the
15-inch MacBook Pro. What's up with that?

* Case. MacBooks come in matte black or iBook white. The
material is polycarbonate, a.k.a. bulletproof plastic (vs.
the unpainted aluminum cases of the Pro models). As a result,
MacBooks's Wi-Fi antennas get much better wireless reception
than the Pro models--fantastic reception, in fact.

The black model--the BlackBook--is unbelievably cool-looking.
Every element, from the tiny screws to the fuzzy lining of
the slot-loading DVD burner, is jet black. On the other hand,
all the accessories are white (power adapter, external modem,
and so on), which looks a little odd. The BlackBook's
trackpad gets greasy and fingerprinty after very little time.
Finally, this is expensive paint indeed; you'll pay $150 more
for the black model than for an identically configured white
one.

(You may recall that the black iPod cost more than the white
one. It sold just fine, and so will the BlackBook; looks
sell, if you hadn't noticed.)

* Price. The white MacBook starts at $1,100 (512 megs of
memory, 1.83 gigahertz processor, CD burner-DVD player); $200
more gets you a slightly faster chip and a DVD burner. If you
order from the Apple Web site, you can (and should) pay $100
more to double the memory.

So what's the difference between the MacBook and the Pro
version, which costs at least $900 more?

Not much, really; it's mostly about the screen size. The Pro
models also have dedicated memory for graphics, which Apple
says makes them much faster on high-end games (Doom 3) and
high-end pro apps like Aperture, Final Cut and Motion. And
the Pro models have a card slot (ExpressCard), although
there's not much you can put into it yet.

* Screen coating. The MacBook has a glossy screen surface,
also popular on Windows laptops, that makes blacks blacker
and colors richer. There's been much hue and cry online about
the potential for reflections and glare, but in practice,
it's really not much of a problem.

* Keyboard. The MacBook has a new keyboard design. Instead of
cutting a hole in the top "deck" of the laptop and lowering a
full modular keyboard into it, only the stalks of the keys
protrude through individual holes in the deck. Apple says
that the keys are therefore less likely to pop off, and my
guess is that gook and gunk is less likely to get inside. The
completely flat, non-sculpted key tops take some time to get
used to, however.

(The MacBook's rubber feet are also secured from within the
case. They, too, will be far less likely to pop off--another
common PowerBook complaint.)

* Trackpad. All Apple laptops let you scroll (a Web page, for
example) just by dragging two fingers, not one, across the
trackpad. It's a trick that quickly becomes second nature.

The MacBook adds something new: if you touch the pad with two
fingers and then click the clicker, you produce what, on a
Windows machine, would be a right-click of the mouse. Cool.

* Latch. Speaking of little details that make a difference:
there's no lid latch, no button to press. Instead, a strong
magnet holds the clamshell shut. A gentle push of your thumb
opens the lid. It works great.

So how does the new MacBook stack up? Depends on where you're
coming from. If you're a longtime Mac fan, you'll like the
thin design, superbright screen, the convenient built-in
camera and the speed. But you may be acutely aware of all
you're giving up: a built-in modem, for example, and the easy
one-handability of the old 12-inch model.

If you're coming from the Windows world, or if you've never
owned a laptop, the MacBook is a different story; you'll
probably be bowled over by its beauty and power. (Why is it
that the underside of Windows laptops are patchworks of
stickers, logos, raised bumps and ugly panels, rather than
the sleek and unbroken surface of Mac laptops? As an Apple
executive puts it, "The bottoms of our laptops are better-
looking than the TOPS of Windows notebooks!")

You'll also enjoy the way a Mac laptop is instantly powered
up and ready to go when you open its lid--no 40-second wake-
up sequence is required. And, of course, there's the freedom
from the constant worry about viruses and spyware, not to
mention the nagginess of Windows itself.

And so, as always, Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. On
balance, though, the MacBook is a very sweet laptop that's
gained more than it's lost.

[DavidTO]

The MacBook adds something new: if you touch the pad with two
fingers and then click the clicker, you produce what, on a
Windows machine, would be a right-click of the mouse. Cool.



Nice write-up, but this is something that the MacBook Pros do, too.

[wxwax]

Nice write-up, but this is something that the MacBook Pros do, too.
I'd never heard of this, nor of 2-finger scrolling. I must admit, with my laptop, I prefer to use a USB mouse instead of the trackpad. Patch laughs at me, but I sometimes also pack a USB keyboard.

[DavidTO]

I'd never heard of this, nor of 2-finger scrolling. I must admit, with my laptop, I prefer to use a USB mouse instead of the trackpad. Patch laughs at me, but I sometimes also pack a USB keyboard.


2-finger scrolling is great, and it scrolls horizontal, too

[wxwax]

2-finger scrolling is great, and it scrolls horizontal, too
I played with patch's new Macbook last night. I really like the keyboard. The keys are somewhat spaced out, really helps a fat-finger such as myself.

[DavidTO]

I played with patch's new Macbook last night. I really like the keyboard. The keys are somewhat spaced out, really helps a fat-finger such as myself.


Have you seen the backlit keyboard on the MBP? Very cool, it has an ambient light sensor, so they turn on if you're in low/no light.

[wxwax]

Have you seen the backlit keyboard on the MBP? Very cool, it has an ambient light sensor, so they turn on if you're in low/no light.
No, I haven't. Sounds very cool indeed.

Macbook Pro + 12 months (and still employed) = Me.

[DavidTO]

No, I haven't. Sounds very cool indeed.

Macbook Pro + 12 months (and still employed) = Me.


I'm gonna hold you to that, Mister.

[wxwax]

I'm gonna hold you to that, Mister.
You have no idea. :evil

So, one thing I like about Windows is that the time is always displayed onscreen.

Can a Mac do that?

And can I have my shortcut icons always on the desktop, like Windows, instead of having to cursor over to find them?

[Andy]

You have no idea. :evil

So, one thing I like about Windows is that the time is always displayed onscreen.

Can a Mac do that?

And can I have my shortcut icons always on the desktop, like Windows, instead of having to cursor over to find them?

:nod, upper right. Digital OR analog, your choice. Yes, you can have any number of shortcut icons on your desktop, and you also have the dock, which has your frequently-accessed programs - also fully customizable.

[wxwax]

:nod, upper right. Digital OR analog, your choice. Yes, you can have any number of shortcut icons on your desktop, and you also have the dock, which has your frequently-accessed programs - also fully customizable.
:thumb

[DavidTO]

:thumb

Even better than shortcuts is Quicksilver (http://quicksilver.blacktree.com/) or LaunchBar (http://obdev.com/products/launchbar/index.html) (the one I use).

[DoctorIt]

That NYtimes writeup made me want an MB, but it also made me feel pretty happy that my super slim but still pretty powerful will remain the lightweight champion. It's surprising that the new case grew so much, referring to the author's quoting the screen as growing by only 1 inch but the case by a full 2" in width.

Someday (probably sooner rather than later), MrsIt will completely takeover the 12" and I'll have to buy a second lappy, but it'll be nice to keep that little bugger in the family.

Can someone tell me more about this "Parallels" thing, or give the slow kid a linkie?

[patch29]

Can someone tell me more about this "Parallels" thing, or give the slow kid a linkie?


Parallels Workstation (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/).

I am still working on figuring this out myself, but Boot Camp is working for me and PW cannot use the XP boot camp partition from what I have read. :dunno

The new screen is also a widescreen. I wonder how the size increase is vs the old ibook? The Powerbooks were always a little thinner on the edges. I think the Ti PB was the champ in that category, but it gave up wifi range which I am happy to carry a little extra plastic to gain wifi range. :thumb

[bwg]

Parallels Workstation (http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/).

I am still working on figuring this out myself, but Boot Camp is working for me and PW cannot use the XP boot camp partition from what I have read. :dunno

The new screen is also a widescreen. I wonder how the size increase is vs the old ibook? The Powerbooks were always a little thinner on the edges. I think the Ti PB was the champ in that category, but it gave up wifi range which I am happy to carry a little extra plastic to gain wifi range. :thumbyou dont need PW and bootcamp, so i'm confused why parallels not being able to use the xp partition is an issue for you?

[DoctorIt]

you dont need PW and bootcamp, so i'm confused why parallels not being able to use the xp partition is an issue for you?so if I'm reading this correctly, Parallels is like VPC, but better because it is geared for processors (hardware) that can read the "Pentium II instruction set". I don't know what that really means, but its obvious its now a new alternative to VPC because of the new Intel chip. Right?

(Darn, I was yet again hoping something came along that would let me run my Garmin software on my G4 :cry)

[bwg]

so if I'm reading this correctly, Parallels is like VPC, but better because it is geared for processors (hardware) that can read the "Pentium II instruction set". I don't know what that really means, but its obvious its now a new alternative to VPC because of the new Intel chip. Right?

(Darn, I was yet again hoping something came along that would let me run my Garmin software on my G4 :cry)yeah, it's a software virtualization environment. i'm guessing it's gonna be more gooder than VPC because it's intel instructions -> intel instead of intel -> powerPC. i have no idea about the guts of that kind of thing but it makes logical sense.

[patch29]

you dont need PW and bootcamp, so i'm confused why parallels not being able to use the xp partition is an issue for you?


I already have XP on a partition that I made with bootcamp, as per the discussion in this thread (http://forum.parallels.com/thread730.html), I don't think I can just install parallels workstation. I would have to install XP for PW? :dunno I also mainly installed XP to work with Mapsource and my GPS which several users report problems via PW with the USB connection, where XP via BC has worked well for me so far. I am sure they will get it worked out, but at the moment Boot Camp works for me, but I would like to be able to boot XP from OSX when I just want to work with Mapsource, of course by that time Garmin will release an OSX version of Mapsource and I won't need XP anymore. :uhoh :rofl

[bwg]

I already have XP on a partition that I made with bootcamp, as per the discussion in this thread (http://forum.parallels.com/thread730.html), I don't think I can just install parallels workstation. I would have to install XP for PW? :dunno I also mainly installed XP to work with Mapsource and my GPS which several users report problems via PW with the USB connection, where XP via BC has worked well for me so far. I am sure they will get it worked out, but at the moment Boot Camp works for me, but I would like to be able to boot XP from OSX when I just want to work with Mapsource, of course by that time Garmin will release an OSX version of Mapsource and I won't need XP anymore. :uhoh :rofli see, you dont want to reinstall windows. gotcha.

the way parallels works is that you create a virtual workstation and specify what type of OS it will be, then you start that workstation and load it up just like it was an empty box.

i created a new windowsXP workstation, started it up, put in my XP cd and installed windows. now whenever i want to do something in windows, i just fire up parallels and start the xp workstation and it's just like booting up a pc. the cool thing is you can also put the workstation into suspend mode instead of shutting it down, so the next time you start the workstation, it resumes where you left off instead of restarting.

i dont know about the garmin problems, but my usb mouse worked fine.:dunno

[patch29]

i see, you dont want to reinstall windows. gotcha.

Right. Space is at a premium on my HD at the moment. I am looking for a larger HD to replace the one that came in my Macbook. Anyone have any recommendations? I was thinking either 100 or 120gb. I cannot figure out the right specs. I think it should be a 2.5" SATA 5400 rpm 9.5mm drive, but 100 or 150 SATA? I have read different specs and don't know which are correct. I have seen shots of drives being pulled out, but so far I cannot find any threads with a new model # that was installed. :dunno

I would prefer to run Parallels, so if it worked with the GPS I would dump the partition and install it, but since it does not look like it is working yet. I will wait.

Does anyone have some good info on Windows XP activation? I bought an XP home SP2 full install disk and it worked fine. I am getting the countdown days before activation is required. If I activate XP and in a month put in a new HD and have to reinstall it, when I go to reactivate will I have issues? Do I have to deactivate the one copy before I remove the old drive?

[Mike Lane]

Does anyone have some good info on Windows XP activation? I bought an XP home SP2 full install disk and it worked fine. I am getting the countdown days before activation is required. If I activate XP and in a month put in a new HD and have to reinstall it, when I go to reactivate will I have issues? Do I have to deactivate the one copy before I remove the old drive?

I went through this same thing previously. If you haven't activated it too many times previously, you'll be just fine. If you have activated it too many times it'll tell you to call Microsoft. When they answer just tell them that you reinstalled it on the same computer and you'll be fine.

Note: I'm not advocating doing anything wrong here. You're allowed to do this assuming that you don't have it installed somewhere else.

You should be just fine.

[patch29]

I went through this same thing previously. If you haven't activated it too many times previously, you'll be just fine. If you have activated it too many times it'll tell you to call Microsoft. When they answer just tell them that you reinstalled it on the same computer and you'll be fine.

Note: I'm not advocating doing anything wrong here. You're allowed to do this assuming that you don't have it installed somewhere else.

You should be just fine.


I am not worried about installing it on more machines. I only have one computer it will run on. I just want to make sure that I don't run into any problems. Hopefully I can find a replacement hard drive soon and just clean install both OS's. :D

[DoctorIt]

I already have XP on a partition that I made with bootcamp, as per the discussion in this thread (http://forum.parallels.com/thread730.html), I don't think I can just install parallels workstation. I would have to install XP for PW? :dunno I also mainly installed XP to work with Mapsource and my GPS which several users report problems via PW with the USB connection, where XP via BC has worked well for me so far. I am sure they will get it worked out, but at the moment Boot Camp works for me, but I would like to be able to boot XP from OSX when I just want to work with Mapsource, of course by that time Garmin will release an OSX version of Mapsource and I won't need XP anymore. :uhoh :rofl

So have you tried PW with Garmin? And it still doesn't work! Holy crap, I figured by now they'd have that ironed out - meaning, a virtual machine that can handle the hardware (USB connections). sheesh.

I will roll over in my grave before Garmin finally supports Mac OS. They've been promising it forever!!!

[patch29]

So have you tried PW with Garmin? And it still doesn't work! Holy crap, I figured by now they'd have that ironed out - meaning, a virtual machine that can handle the hardware (USB connections). sheesh.

I will roll over in my grave before Garmin finally supports Mac OS. They've been promising it forever!!!


I have not tried PW at all. I did read this thread (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=1492) where a user was having USB/Garmin issues with PW. He then used Boot Camp and all seems to be going well.

I too have tired of Garmin's promises, getting XP on the Macbook was one factor in the new purchase decision.

[DavidTO]

Truth to tell, this is the first thing I'm going to do. On Saturday, I'm going to buy a matching 1GB memory strip to go with the one that crashed my machine, remove my current memory and snap in the two new modules.

On Sunday, you may see me on my knees at the Apple store. :evil


How's the RAM going?

[wxwax]

How's the RAM going?
I, um, changed my plan. Met my deadline, though. :evil

[DavidTO]

I, um, changed my plan. Met my deadline, though. :evil


Care to be not so cryptic?

The RAM seemed like a good idea.

[wxwax]

Care to be not so cryptic?

The RAM seemed like a good idea.

Suffice it to say I meant it when I said I was open minded.

[DavidTO]

Suffice it to say I meant it when I said I was open minded.


Good on ya.

You just qualified for free lifetime technical support.

[Andy]

Suffice it to say I meant it when I said I was open minded.
:clap

When David's not around, I'll help you, too. Anytime.

[colourbox]

Even better than shortcuts is Quicksilver (http://quicksilver.blacktree.com/) or LaunchBar (http://obdev.com/products/launchbar/index.html) (the one I use).

I am a huge fan of LaunchBar but for application launching it isn't really needed as much as it used to be. When I hit my Spotlight shortcut and type "ph" it says Adobe Photoshop CS2 for the "Top Hit" and I just have to hit Return. It's getting so I don't bother adding apps to the Dock anymore, and I've hidden it. LaunchBar still does more, but between LaunchBar and Spotlight I'm pushing my mouse to the Dock less and less...

[DavidTO]

I am a huge fan of LaunchBar but when I hit my Spotlight shortcut and type "ph" it says Adobe Photoshop CS2 for the "Top Hit" and I just have to hit Return. I'm using that Dock less and less...


I find LaunchBar much faster than Spotlight. Spotlight's great if you're not really sure what you're looking for, but when you're on a mission, nothing beats LaunchBar, IMO.

I just changed the keystrokes to ctl-spacebar. (You probably did, too?)

[DavidTO]

Suffice it to say I meant it when I said I was open minded.


Hey Sid, one of the first things you're gonna want to do is calibrate your monitor and set it to 2.2 gamma. I guess you've got a hardware dealy-bob, but I just use the calibration in OSX.

System Prefs> Displays> Color> Calibrate, and make sure you select advanced options.

I think it does a pretty good job, myself (having never used hardware, so what do I know?)

[DavidTO]

Oh, and I promise I won't tell Gus what you've done :thumb

[pathfinder]

Welcome to the lighter side, Waxy.

You're gonna love it. Not the machine for games, but for PSCS2, it's the cat's meow.:):

[Shay Stephens]

Not that it matters now for Sid, but my advice is "anything but Windows". They continue to restrict freedoms and they are slowly moving towards a rental scheme for using their software. They are already doing it for business, they plan on doing it for the poor, and we are next. Once implemented, they will have complete control over your OS, both what you do with it and when you do it.

Make Windows XP the last Windows OS you use if you value your freedom. Don't "upgrade" to Vista. Instead, upgrade to something that will actually upgrade your freedom. Start investigating your options now. That is what I am doing.

I am working on an Ubuntu Linux solution for photography. In the coming months I hope to have a system in place I can detail here on dgrin, so stay tuned if interested :):

[wxwax]

Shay, have you chosen a name yet for your movement?

Ubuntu Upstarts? Universalist Upkeepers of Ubuntu? Rentfree.com?

:lol3

You won't like this next bit.

Pathfinder, XP currently runs PS faster than Mac OS. So until PS goes universal whateveritis, I'll be a dual booter. That's cool, lets me load Office and run Word, which is a big deal to me.

David, I'll be running two monitors, my LaCie CRT and the laptop. I've been puzzling about the best way to calibrate them. I assume I can only calibrate one. So that means the 21" CRT gets priority. And since I'll be running PS in Windows, I assume that means I'll be calibrating in Windows. I may boot into Mac OS and calibrate the laptop screen, and see if it holds. I have no idea what will happen to the laptop screen calibration when I boot into Windows. Should be interesting.

Thanks for the offer of help, Andy.:1drink

[Shay Stephens]

You won't like this next bit. Thanks for the warning. I had just enough time to put my tinfoil hat on :wink

[W.W. Webster]

Don't "upgrade" to Vista.... Start investigating your options now.You'll have plenty of time before Vista arrives! And that's irrespective of how far Microsoft limits the initial feature set just to get any version of Vista into the market.

So time is on your side, but Shay is right - there's no time like the present to get started on the research and evaluation phase.

[luke_church]

I am working on an Ubuntu Linux solution for photography. In the coming months I hope to have a system in place I can detail here on dgrin, so stay tuned if interested :):

Now I am interested in that. Shay, is there any chance you could PM me, or something if I miss your post. I'll try and catch it though.

Definately tuned. :):

[Awais Yaqub]

What about work station solutions like Opteron or Xeon:scratch aren't they better then mac in speed and price ?

[NHBubba]

Does anyone have some good info on Windows XP activation? I bought an XP home SP2 full install disk and it worked fine. I am getting the countdown days before activation is required. If I activate XP and in a month put in a new HD and have to reinstall it, when I go to reactivate will I have issues? Do I have to deactivate the one copy before I remove the old drive?In my experience the worst case scenario for XP activation involves a 10 minute telephone call to them to explain and get the override key. I've done more XP installs than I'd care to remember at work and have run into this problem several times. We are continiously swapping hardware looking for the best performance combo.. and that often gets us in hot-water w/ the activation scheme. When it does, 10 minutes later we've got an override code and are back underway. It's annoying, but they really don't bother you too much. Although I'm sure that will change in the future (as Shay has elluded to!)..

I've asked. According to M$ there is no way to 'deactivate' their product licenses, only activate.

[patch29]

In my experience the worst case scenario for XP activation involves a 10 minute telephone call to them to explain and get the override key. I've done more XP installs than I'd care to remember at work and have run into this problem several times. We are continiously swapping hardware looking for the best performance combo.. and that often gets us in hot-water w/ the activation scheme. When it does, 10 minutes later we've got an override code and are back underway. It's annoying, but they really don't bother you too much. Although I'm sure that will change in the future (as Shay has elluded to!)..

I've asked. According to M$ there is no way to 'deactivate' their product licenses, only activate.


Thanks for the info, hopefully I can keep from having to reformat and reactivate more than once, if I install a larger hard drive or install for Parallels Workstation.

[Seefutlung]

My 'puter ate the big one this weekend. Picked up a Gateway with an AMD 64 X2 and 2 GBs of ram ... runs PS very quickly ($850).