[ajshades]

ok I don't want to step on anyone's toe's here but I am a little peeved about apples recent system requirements to run certain programs.

here's the story, I bought a copy of final cut pro express to do some basic video editing (imovie is just way to simple stupid ) brought it home to find out not only will it not work on my parents new emac 1ghz g4 (not enough ram) it will not work on my older mac (IMAC DV+ 450 G3 with 10.3.5 and 384 megs of ram)

before anyone makes a comment yes I am aware of the min. requirements written on the box but please keep in mind my computer (IMAC DV) will run Final Cut Pro 3.0 without a problem (only down side is the video preview is very small but it imports dv film and exports perfect) I also realize that more ram would of course help the emac to perform better and allow the express program to run.

HOWEVER

I have seen a rise in the number of apps that are having mandatory requirements.

I wonder if this is really fair...?

meaning

Are the mandatory requirements apple has begun to enforce really necessary?

OR

Is this a ploy to force apple users to upgrade computers sooner?

[milhous]

i think one way to look at the minimum requirements is that apple wants to ensure that to have a good user experience with software x, a certain level of system horsepower is necessary to ensure that positive experience.

just like how iChat AV requires a 600 mhz system or above to operate because though it may very well run on my 500mhz pismo, if i try to run a video conference, it would choke up the system.

i completely understand what you mean, but if apple were to lower the bar to have the software work on a wider array of systems, i don't think it would help bolster their image.

yes, there are always workarounds, but the typical joe who tries to run the latest and greatest only to find out it's sluggish and unresponsive will i think have a negative impression of the mac user experience which is not in their best interest.

[ajshades]

well i simply wounder if the software and computer programming advances are now outrunning the hardware....

because my IMAC is 4 years old and is still working great (minus one dead firewire port)

but to keep up (esp with video editing) my IMAC won't cut it anymore

one it kinda makes me sad but just kinda disapointed that I am going to have to upgrade in the near future.

[larkost]

ajshades you have it the wrong way around. Every time hardware increases it brings computationally intensive tricks that were impossible on older hardware into the spotlight. Compressed full TV size movies were not an un-thought of thing 10 years ago, they simply were not possible with the hardware at the time.

Right now on-the-fly compression of full resolution motion video to create a video conference with great resolution is out of reach (not to mention out-of bandwidth), but in a few years it will be all the rage, and a few years after that, old hat. Welcome to the wonderful world of computing...

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by ajshades:
well i simply wounder if the software and computer programming advances are now outrunning the hardware....

because my IMAC is 4 years old and is still working great (minus one dead firewire port)

but to keep up (esp with video editing) my IMAC won't cut it anymore

one it kinda makes me sad but just kinda disapointed that I am going to have to upgrade in the near future.

If you want to use cutting edge software, be prepared to learn that your four year old computer simply won't run it. I believe that Apple has been rather kind in recent years concerning minimum requirements. WIth that said, the pace of computer hardware advancements has slowed, and a computer you purchased in recent years will hold up better than old computers have held up historically. My 8600/300 gave me a good six years before I found it essentially unusable, whereas my previous Mac (Quadra 650) was only bearable for four years. I'm expecting at least a decade from my G5. That does not mean old computers will continue to run new software indefinitely, but it does mean that old computers will be useful for longer periods of time.

[Millennium]

For the record, four years is actually quite a remarkable run for a personal computer. Most Wintel PCs last only two.

It is true that the average useful life of a Mac has gone down; it used to be in the 6-7 year range. However, Macs are still some of the most long-lived personal computers out there today.

[wataru]

Uh, just upgrade your RAM already. It's the easiest and cheapest (and sometimes the only) thing you can upgrade in a computer. The stock RAM is unbearable, in my opinion.

[tooki]

This is not a thread about Mac OS X, and thus does NOT belong in the Mac OS X forum (read the forum description!).

tooki