| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/18/2006 11:06:51 AM · #1 |
Hi guys,
I am looking to get in a week or so the above machine. 2gig ram 250Gb HDD with Aperture 1.1 to edit photo's
Now i have heard great reviews of the hardware but i am looking to see if anybody here has any real world useage and opinions on this beast. 20" Imac is an option but space in the house is limited so i need to stick to the 17 if possible.
Cheers in advance.
D
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:37:48 AM · #2 |
We've got a 17" iMac core duo. My biggest reservation before purchasing was how much of a hit we'd take in performance in running Photoshop CS since neither CS nor CS2 are coded for intel yet (on the Mac side). I'm happy to report that PSCS runs fine. Everything else runs blazingly fast. The Core Duo is a great chip, no doubt.
I don't have any experience with aperture though. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:40:10 AM · #3 |
my real concern as you pointed out was maybe Elements running in non-native form. the only thing i would do is resize pics, and the standard edits. If performance is not hit too much then it will suffice until a Universal Elements comes out next year
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:41:58 AM · #4 |
mixed reviews on Aperture, supposedly much better with 1.1
You can also DL a beta of Adobe's Lightroom. I've hreard good things about it.
On the iMac, you'll really appreciate the 20" screen if you can find room for it. I don't think it takes up all that much more room than the 17". Its a LOT heavier though! |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:02:32 PM · #5 |
A note on performance: computer makers like to play up the percentage difference in their equipment: "Runs Photoshop filters 50% faster!"
Well, in the "old days" (say Photoshop 2, 3 or 4) that meant waiting maybe three minutes instead of six minutes to sharpen a large image, and actual gain of three minutes.
With newer machines, you are more likely talking about a difference of (say) 4 vs 8 seconds -- an immaterial amount unless you are in a mass-production environment where those seconds add up over hundreds or thousands of images.
In the home environment, the "performance hit" you take (under almost any circumstances) just won't be that much in "real" time.
You might check at cNet to see if they have some real-world speed tests with the equipment and software combo you have; they almost always include some Photoshop operation(s) in their testing. |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 12:11:43 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Brookied:
my real concern as you pointed out was maybe Elements running in non-native form. the only thing i would do is resize pics, and the standard edits. If performance is not hit too much then it will suffice until a Universal Elements comes out next year |
If running elements is anything like the performance of CS under Rosetta, you won't have any complaints at all.
On another note, I finally sprung for Parallels Desktop for the Mac, and installed an old version of Windows 98 that I happened to have (came with my wife's laptop from many years ago). Parallels is not as easy or intuitive as Virtual PC was, but I've got windows running on my Intel Mac, FWIW. There are maybe two or three minor windows programs that I will run, and my wife has a handful that she can benefit from having installed as well. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 07:53:40 PM · #7 |
hi guys,
Thanks for the advice there, I got the 17" eith 2gig RAM What a beasts of a machine, great to set up very easy on the eye and the display is just awesome.
Thanks again for the advice.
Brookie |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 10:50:20 AM EST.
