What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
75 Comments
- tutorbell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34@flashboy
Yes, because it just now finished running the benchmark... - Sunsneezer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Exactly, it's like 35% less not fast enough.
- peorth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26It's faster, but STILL SLOW!
- seinman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23@MioTheGreat:
Yes, yes it is. The requirements for Leopard state that it will run on all G4 systems, the first of which were released in 1999, almost eight years ago. - skoles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Tiger ran on 5 year old hardware fine. I have a 333mhz G3 w/768mb of RAM and it runs Tiger well.
So yea, I expect Leopard to run just as well on the next bracket of 5yr old hardware. - tabledesk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21I really respect the OS X development for enhancing the abilities of current hardware with each release (major and minor) while others raise requirements to ludicrous/wasteful levels (Vista).
- flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2435% faster?... how do you measure slow?
Blog post was dated yesterday, 10.4.8 was released Sept. 29 2006, did they just figure this out now? http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosx1048updateintel.html - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1520 seconds from zero to sixty!?!?!
Uhhh LOL
PS is cake. Try running Premiere, After Effects, and Audition at the same time...... - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Apple has delivered fast machines running a native fast OS on Intel. All the whiners can blame Adobe for the slowness due to them dragging their heels for years. Get off your collectives arses and write some new code damn it!
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It's cool that it runs better with the latest updates, but let's be real, there's really only so much that you can do for speed when you're emulating an entire processing architecture. What we really need, is universal binaries from Adobe, which, as everyone should know by now, won't be coming around until CS3.
For those not in the know, there are a couple of reasons for this. 1. Money (duh) - Those who just can't deal with their Photoshop running a bit slower will upgrade, and for the most part, Adobe will get paid! 2. Versioning. Adobe doesn't want to make CS3 be nothing more than a universal binary version of CS2, and no changes at all would be made to the PC version. This would be confusing for customers, and would really just make things wonky in the software versioning. CS3 is due out in spring of 2007. You can check out Adobe's website for more info on this stuff (as well as several other stories posted on Digg).
One thing I've noticed about this situation, is that a lot of people seem to be blowing the speeds way out of proportion. No, it doesn't bench as well, no it's not as fast, but for day to day use, it's really not that bad. Our designers use it, some of which are using Intel based Macs now, and have had nothing but praise for how fast it is as opposed to their previous G4 systems. I've used it personally, and for the light webdesign work I do, it was more than sufficient to get the job done.
As it stands, the wait for CS3 isn't that long, and with the release of the Core 2 Duo Macs, it's more than tolerable until that time comes. - danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8With each release by Apple performance improves. At least it did on my G3 iBook. 10.2 was good, 10.3 was faster, 10.4 was even faster. I don't think that leopard will support the G3 though.
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Agreed. My personal server is a B&W G3 400 with 768MB of memory, runs Tiger beautifully. Even when I'm pounding databases with testing, the machine pulls through without a hitch. That's one of the things I really love about Apple systems, and the OS. It lasts incredibly long. While hard drives may need replaced here and there, and memory is added from time to time, the machines stand up amazingly well. Try installing XP on a 400MHz P2 or K6/2 system, and let me know how well it works out. Even when I log in remotely via VNC or ARD, things are nice and snappy.
One of my greatest hopes is that the newer Intel systems will withstand the test of time as well as the PPC systems have. Any thoughts on that? - Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's obvious that you use CS2 on an Intel Mac for light purposes as you described.
For anybody in a serious production environment the speeds are SLOW and it hinders my work -- especially when doing last minute changes flipping from InDesign to Illustrator, etc. - gavroche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They optimized the emulator, its alot of work, give them credit idiot.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why are you getting dugg down? You're totally right, Illustrator and InDesign have major features broken. It's total ***** and I know I'm not the only one pissed as hell.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You're right I use neo-Office, its free, all the features I need, and I have extra beer money, kiss my Apple ass.
- DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"PS is mind crushingly slow on my MacPro with 1GB"
Parallels/Boot Camp can be a quick fix until a universal Photoshop is released. - kolywater, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8owned! sorry, couldn't resist.
- Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10InDesign and Illustrator still run like crap.
- BurtCokain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mtnxfreeride, uownedge
Tiger 10.4.8 runs great on my G4 400 Mhz titanium w/320 Mb RAM (it's my backup server), but i run mail, iphoto (with my backed up full library of far too many pictures), itunes, firefox 2through vnc over an ssh server very nicely thanks. I don't think your XP system will be doing that... It has an uptime (yeah, lets compare uptimes) of however long it is since that airport security update came out, and it is always on. Also, this isn't running a five year old OS. - uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@mtnxfreeride
Yeah...I believe that just about as much as I believe the moon is made of cheese. Sure, it'll run...but it'll be all different kinds of slow. I'm sure most of the folks here who work with Windows on a regular basis, even those who hate Apple, will agree with me. - bedouin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3He should be fired for saying ""Git-r-done."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ajax is free to.. its built into your browser with a great excel/word copy.. all you need is Firefox 1.5
- MNiT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use PS (and Illustrator) very regularly on my core duo intel iMac, and sure, its not the speediest thing in the world, but its fast enough for me. Would it be nice running at native speeds? Sure. But I'm in no real rush, and the slowness of running CS2 through rosetta really isn't as parallysingly bad as some seem to make out. (Then again, back when I was at college, and properly got into Photoshop and the CS2 suite, the college refused to by anything but entry level Dells - try running Photoshop, Illustrator AND InDesign all at once on a PC that cost approximately half of what the CS2 suite itself costs - so perhaps I'm just used to the slow speeds.)
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Really if you're a graphics professional, get a G5 until Adobe release a native suite. You don't want to run your daily work tools in emulation. You'd rather boot in XP with bootcamp.
And if you're only using photoshop to open, crop and resize an image then you should get some other tool. - DonCarcharo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've got an iMac 20" Core 2 Duo with 2GB of ram. This replaces my G5 Tower dual 1.8 (since Apple refuses to build an entry level tower). As a web designer I figured the ability to run Windows side-by-side via Parallels verses my KVM / RDP setup was worth the gamble to switch early.
My biggest problem with my new MacTel system isn't the horsepower required to run Photoshop through emulation. It's the ram situation. All of the MacTel apps seem to eat more ram, especially the stuff emulating under Rosetta. Add in Parallels and I'm paging out constantly - and there's not much I can do about it. I can only have a handful of apps open at once otherwise I'm grinding the hard drive.
More than anything I hope that with each improvement to Rosetta we see lower RAM requirements. In my mind, that's the real bottleneck. - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"As a Mac user, I'm sort of pissed that OS X had a bug that was killing my perf by 30%. I'm not reading this as a Apple is great story, and I don't think anyone else should either."
Wow chriswo, what a healthy attitude! If everyone had an attitude like that, Apple wouldn't ever implement speed increases since it would only get them negative press. - somnus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jabbar: Mac Pro RAM is more like $170/1GB because it's Fully Buffered RAM, plus you'd have to buy them in pairs. Two 512MB sticks would be something like $200.
- n00bst3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe Adobe likes Windows users better..
- rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Photoshop CS2 runs fine on a MacPro. In fact, a quad G5 is only 28% - 41% faster, even though it's running through Rosetta, according to tests done here: http://barefeats.com/quad13.html
- negativefx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4amen bruva
- jabbar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3newegg.com. 1GB of RAM - 69.99 after $10 mail in rebate. that was in the summer.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've noticed Word and Excel are a little smoother. PPC PS is now as fast as Universal GIMP.
- lowridah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Out of curiosity, do you legally own your copy of PS?
From what I understand, with parallels the product repeatedly attempts to activate, and you only get two activations per 6 months...
or are you using that "free" version of PS? - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This story is somewhat inaccurate. Depending which Photoshop tests you run, the Mac OS 10.4.8 update provided more of a performance improvement for G5 Macs than it did for Intel Macs.
http://barefeats.com/quad13.html - jeffyjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Honestly, since I'm a switcher and use Parallels, and already have Windows PS, it's really no big deal. The only real inconvenience is having to hit a window in a window.
- DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also keep in mind the MacPro has special cooling requirements for the RAM so just because it matches up with the specs doesn't mean its the kind you should put in there. If I spent a few grand on a MacPro, I'd spend the few extra bucks on the RAM that meets the cooling requirements. Typically though I use the cheapest PC RAM I can find, I've been using some off-brand sticks in my PowerMac G5 for a few years now with 0 problems.
- Stelex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At the same time 10.4.8 seems to make my MacBook Pro cook again :-(
http://www.silvermac.com/2006/macbook-pro-running-hot-again/ - rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Adobe is being lame and taking their sweet time moving to universal binariesl. Except for Lightroom, since it's competing with Aperture - Adobe sure had no problem getting that single universal binary out...
It's cool that Apple continues to performance-tune Mac OS X Tiger like this. MacBooks are faster than PowerBooks at running PowerPC applications at this point, making it easier for people to make the switch. http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firstlooks/macbookbench/index.php - DigDugDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I have a question, does Macbook RAM same as the RAM used in PC's?"
RAM is RAM. There is a difference between laptop RAM and desktop RAM because laptops have tighter size requirements. But Mac laptop RAM is the same as PC laptop RAM, and same applies for desktops. I have a Crucial stick in my Macbook Pro right now, just match up the memory type and you're good to go. - deltree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2this is bull, whenever CS2 is launched it gobbles up tons of ram and causes everything else to slow down.
- rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree. I wanted faster game performance on my MacBook Pro, so I overclocked the graphics with ATI Tool. It gave Oblivion a nice boost in Windows.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You guys are ***** idiots. The guy beneath me said the same thing, and +25 diggs?
- Tlogmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've been working with applescript automation of Illustrator CS2, and some of the scripts take half an hour to run (macbook duo, 1 GB ram) because illustrator takes 2 seconds to reflow a text frame. Not an average case, I know, but damn annoying.
- mscman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"As a Mac user, I'm sort of pissed that OS X had a bug that was killing my perf by 30%. I'm not reading this as a Apple is great story, and I don't think anyone else should either."
The original release of Rosetta was rushed. This simply improved the software performance; it happens with all software. It wasn't a "bug." - ryanschmidt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here I thought I was coming home to a new update... and here, I have had it for weeks. :(
- skidooer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have to agree with the Web 1.0 client: Who prints out a web site?
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh, I won't disagree -- it certainly isn't as fast as it should be. I just think a lot of people are nitpicking over it. Out of curiosity, how much time do you usually have to wait for those applications to do something on the Intel system as opposed to the PPC? I'm not one to rely heavily on benchmarks to be completely accurate to life -- I'd rather hear it from someone actually using the system or see it for myself.
- jettloe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I KNEW something had changed!
Runs great on my iMac 20" Core Duo 2 w/2GB Ram - (mind you was trading up from a Powerbook but still - does all my day to day graphics stuff with no probs at all - and not being driven crazy by slowness...) - AeroSquid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1if you want faster just overclock... oh wait.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is