[Daniel Bayer]

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/02/...ac.commitment/

This is troubling. 8 months to a year until Photoshop runs well on a new laptop?

I might just cancel my order...dunno.

I was at least hopeful that coming from a 1.33GHZ, 2gb slow-ish ram, 7,200 RPM ATA to a maxed out McBook would see a bit of a speed improvement in Photoshop CS2. If it were the same or a tad faster than my current machine, I will stick with it.

But if it is a dog, back or on ebay the thing goes. I'll know in the first hour when I batch convert 20 13 MP raw files I guess.

This could really suck!

[mduell]

The Intel iMacs aren't too far behind the G5 iMacs using Rosetta, so the MBP should be as fast or faster than the PB in Photoshop for most things (rotations and colorspace conversions will probably be slower).

[Daniel Bayer]

Originally Posted by mduell

The Intel iMacs aren't too far behind the G5 iMacs using Rosetta, so the MBP should be as fast or faster than the PB in Photoshop for most things (rotations and colorspace conversions will probably be slower).

Thanks. I just got done reading the iMac section for real world times and it did calm me down a bit.

[HazMacFan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bayer

Thanks. I just got done reading the iMac section for real world times and it did calm me down a bit.

I don't make a living using CS2 so I am not in that pickle, since I can wait on Rosetta as it emulates 6 megapixel raw images. If you use the file sharing option (i think that's VUE) it will not work under Rosetta.

[Jerome]

If it's just to convert files, you could probably use GraphicConverter. I'm sure it will be a universal binary application soon, if it's not already...

[dialo]

It seems to me that the problem is less the speed than the amount of memory it will take up under rosetta

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell

The Intel iMacs aren't too far behind the G5 iMacs using Rosetta, so the MBP should be as fast or faster than the PB in Photoshop for most things (rotations and colorspace conversions will probably be slower).

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. Also, Rosetta seems to be quite a memory hog. Even in native applications, if you switch off a core, the G5 doesn't do bad at all.

On the other hand, a G4 (at 1.25 GHz, same speed I have right now) is considerably slower than a G5 … 

Edit: The order for my MacBook Pro was placed last week … 

[paul w]

The word on the grapevine seems to be on the intel iMacs Photoshop is pretty usable, but certainly not *fast*. The other Adobe/Macromedia apps range from "ok" to "slow" to "pretty much unusable".

Other rumblings are that even a year is optimistic for the new Universals - especially for the Macromedia apps. I had to rethink things and as I spend too much time using photoshop and Illustrator with the odd dabbling in flash and Dreamweaver. I can't justify the expense of the MBP.

However rather than cancel the order, my mother wants it and I'll trade her my tibook for here albook 1.5 ghz. So I can last at least another year, it would appear. And I save some cash. And someone else is getting a nice tibook 1gz switch-to-mac incentive package.

[Eug Wanker]

Photoshop is slow on the Core Duo. However, whether or not it's good enough for your usage is up to you.

Barefeats Photoshop CS Test:




Macworld Photoshop CS2 Test:

iMac G5 2.1: 76 seconds
iMac Core Duo 2.0: 170 seconds

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by paul w

The word on the grapevine seems to be on the intel iMacs Photoshop is pretty usable, but certainly not *fast*. The other Adobe/Macromedia apps range from "ok" to "slow" to "pretty much unusable".

Of course for those like me still limping along in Photoshop on a PB G4 667, all the programs are slow right now, and most tests I've seen indicate the Macbook will be much faster than the 667, even in Rosetta.

[jeebus]

Did anyone else notice in the Barefeats tests that they had universal binaries of Doom 3 and Unreal 2004? Was I the only one not aware that these were available? When were they released? Are the updates available to users who already purchased the games or are they going to start shipping a new universal version?

[jwoods]

I have to wonder why alot of companies are able to get their UB's out the door for this and Adobe cannot, or will not?

I mean, it's not like they didn't know it was coming. I think Blizzard said they've been working on theirs for months now, and should be released soon.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by jwoods

I mean, it's not like they didn't know it was coming. I think Blizzard said they've been working on theirs for months now, and should be released soon.

Actually, they didn't know it was coming. Nobody outside Apple knew until last July. It isn't surprising at all that Adobe will require some time to update their applications. Those apps have a long heritage and they no doubt have roots that go way back--which requires some work. Blizzard's code was certainly newer.

Chris

[Rumz]

A couple comments. I'm curious how much RAM is used in those tests that show the core duo being so horribly slow. From what I remember of the anandtech article, they may very well have had the default 512MB of RAM in there, and they admit straight up that even the Core Duo, on Universal Apps, uses a bit more RAM than the G5. I recall reading that Rosetta will cache translated instructions so that it does not have to re-translate every time a function is called, so provided you have enough RAM, it should get a bit faster over time.

I don't really know much about programming or compiling, but one would think that the fact that Adobe already has a version of the Creative Suite for the x86 architecture would simplify things a bit. Once we get some good Windows emulation going on the Intel Mac (to near native speeds, lets say), I wonder if and how well the PC version of Photoshop CS2 would run through emulation software vs. the PowerPC version through Rosetta. Not that anyone would consider buying the software on both platforms (unnecessary expense), but it'd be interesting to see nonetheless.

My 2 cents is that for those who aren't in dire need of an upgrade, hold out for Rev B MacBooks or later. At least then you're closer to Adobe's release, and you'll get the latest hardware for your money. For me-- this will be my first Mac (that I own personally), and so now is a good enough time-- I'll get a speed bump with Photoshop, etc. when CS3 comes out. I simply felt the G4 powerbook was too outdated to go that route, so I was just waiting for the first Intels to come out.

[JKT]

The question is this - will e.g Photoshop be faster, just as fast, a bit slower or a lot slower than it is on the current PB G4s, not whether it is slower than the G5s which have never been and never will be in a Mac laptop? If it is just as fast or (as is likely) just a bit slower than the current models then is that acceptable to you? All the comparisons so far have been against iMac G5s and dual G5 PowerMacs... but what are the PS etc figures for the PB G4s and how do those compare?

[boombashi]

Originally Posted by JKT

All the comparisons so far have been against iMac G5s and dual G5 PowerMacs... but what are the PS etc figures for the PB G4s and how do those compare?

You are not alone I REALLY want to see those benchmarks more than anything. Nobody doubts that the speed difference in an iMac G5 is going to be faster than a iMac Core Duo running under Rosetta. That has been beat into the ground 10x over. I think that everyone that ordered a MacBook Pro wants to see that comparison since the iMac Core Duo has the same specs.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by jwoods

I have to wonder why alot of companies are able to get their UB's out the door for this and Adobe cannot, or will not?

IIRC, Adobe hasn't used Xcode in the past, so the longer wait time for UBs is associated with moving to Xcode from whatever development environment they were using.

[Daniel Bayer]

Originally Posted by boombashi

You are not alone I REALLY want to see those benchmarks more than anything. Nobody doubts that the speed difference in an iMac G5 is going to be faster than a iMac Core Duo running under Rosetta. That has been beat into the ground 10x over. I think that everyone that ordered a MacBook Pro wants to see that comparison since the iMac Core Duo has the same specs.

We're simply not going to know until someone can get one and run a few filters on it. Mine is supposed to arrive on or about the 23rd just like everyone else in the states. Mine will be maxed too, 1.83, 2GB, 7,200 RPM so it will be a good yardstick of what is possible. I am hoping for a 20% overall increase in speed in using non-native CS2 on this new book compared to my old one. As long as it is not slower, it will be money well spent.

I am not looking forward to re-writing all my actions and droplets but that is life and I am getting better at taking them apart and modifying them for the new drive and destination folders.

I contacted iView Media Pro and they said that a UB version will be out soon as a free download and in the mean time, it will work fine under Rosetta.

Now we all just wait for someone to get one.

[Daniel Bayer]

This just showed up on the hompage:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-7891-8185

I just don't know about this upgrade.....

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell

IIRC, Adobe hasn't used Xcode in the past, so the longer wait time for UBs is associated with moving to Xcode from whatever development environment they were using.

Exactly. Adobe themselves recently acknowledged (here and here) that they first need to migrate to XCode in order to write decent UBs. I find it amazing that although Apple has encouraged companies to migrate ever since XCode was released (hinting at major recoding challenges in the upcoming future), Adobe has remained stubborn and now their customers have to deal with the unnecessary delay due to their phlegmatic attitude.

Adobe has really settled back. It's time that some serious competitor (i.e. not just gimp) steps up to the plate and lights some fire under Adobe's fat and lazy you-know-what.

[JKT]

Speaking of GIMP, I wonder how well it performs on the intels relative to the G4's? I also wonder if the relatively poor Photoshop performance might encourage some people to try alternatives (I'm not speaking of pros who rely on PS for their work, but hobbyists who don't)?

[tow the tardis]

I'm using a powermac G4 1.25 single processor with 1.5 of ram. I use Adobe CS2 very heavily and I must confess that it seems a bit slow but definitely usable. I'm wondering how it would compare in the macboo pro unde Rosetta. Anyone have any insight?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by tow the tardis

I'm using a powermac G4 1.25 single processor with 1.5 of ram. I use Adobe CS2 very heavily and I must confess that it seems a bit slow but definitely usable. I'm wondering how it would compare in the macboo pro unde Rosetta. Anyone have any insight?

My guess is it would be comparable, or a bit faster on the MacBook Pro on average.

However, it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near as fast as it could be (ie. like a dual G5 if CS2 were running natively on Core Duo).

Originally Posted by Simon

Exactly. Adobe themselves recently acknowledged (here and here) that they first need to migrate to XCode in order to write decent UBs. I find it amazing that although Apple has encouraged companies to migrate ever since XCode was released (hinting at major recoding challenges in the upcoming future), Adobe has remained stubborn and now their customers have to deal with the unnecessary delay due to their phlegmatic attitude.

?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. As you know, the only reason Adobe is going to Xcode is because of the Intel switch. If IBM had come through for Apple, there would probably not have been any Intel switch, and any preemptive migration to Xcode by Adobe would have been a complete waste of time.

Adobe made the right decision to take the wait and see attitude.

[:dragonflypro:]

Lest we not forget that while CS2 is big, there are plenty of other apps that will shortly be native… in particular all of Apple apps.

Overall productivity must be considered. If you spend 90% in CS2, well, then clearly the MBP may not be for you.

Adobe, MM, etc are to blame here, hardly Apple. These companies have had literally years to move to Xcode. That they did not is only their own fault, if you can call it that. It was a business decision, right or wrong.

My guess is that moving to Xcode while making developing for Macs easier may cause an over all increase their is less done during co-development for the Window platform.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Adobe made the right decision to take the wait and see attitude.

Obviously not. They're going to take a lot of heat from their Mac customers for dropping the ball here. You'll witness all the bitching on this board in the next months. They only reason they can get away with it is because they don't really have any serious competitor for CS. If they had, they'd lose a lot of customers starting now.

[iomatic]

No, they're fine. A lot of agencies I work with (read: all of them, here in a secondary metropolitan town which follows closely, in purchasing and economic cycles to two nearby major cities*) have just recently (past year or two) purchased G5s, dual-duals, etc. and CS2 will hum along just fine on the pro models for the next two years.

They're not dropping any balls. If, for instance Adobe rushed to market a Universal binary next week, what gain would they expect? A bunch of pros (their primary market for the CS suite) would automatically switch to Intel iMacs and MacBook Pros? No. I think, not. Simon, are you smoking something?

*Whether this has any relevance to the rest of the world is pointless, really.

[Simon]

What about all the pros that need to update their hardware in the next few months?

I'm not smoking anything (I stopped smoking many years ago), but I have been drinking a very decent Balvenie. Maybe I should stop posting till tomorrow morning.

I'll think it over again tomorrow when I've had some strong espresso.

[Eug Wanker]

Some of you guys seem to think that moving to Xcode would be the ultimate goal for a company.

I keep reading that several companies really don't like it much and much prefer CodeWarrior, but have been forced to move to Xcode because of the Intel switch (and the fact that because of the switch, MetroWerks won't be developing CodeWarrior for OS X anymore).

Originally Posted by Simon

Obviously not. They're going to take a lot of heat from their Mac customers for dropping the ball here. You'll witness all the bitching on this board in the next months. They only reason they can get away with it is because they don't really have any serious competitor for CS. If they had, they'd lose a lot of customers starting now.

I will witness the bitching, and I will call them whiners, at least if they're bitching before 2007. A 2007 release date for a CS3 UB is perfectly acceptable.

[iomatic]

Lots of G5s and CS2 are still available.

I was drinking Macallan 18yr., but man, that habit is getting expensive. Maybe we should move this to the macnn lounge like proper gentlepeople?

Originally Posted by Simon

What about all the pros that need to update their hardware in the next few months?

I'm not smoking anything (I stopped smoking many years ago), but I have been drinking a very decent Balvenie. Maybe I should stop posting till tomorrow morning.

I'll think it over again tomorrow when I've had some strong espresso.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

What about all the pros that need to update their hardware in the next few months?

Last I checked, 20" G5 iMacs and Dual G5 Power Macs (and Quads) are still for sale.

It'd be stupid for a company to switch to Intel now completely anyways, even if an Adobe CS2 UB did exist, since existing drivers for a lot of 3rd party hardware you'd find in a pre-press shop or whatever simply won't work on an Intel Mac.

The last thing pros with mission critical workflows should be doing is buying gobs of untested hardware.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Last I checked, 20" G5 iMacs and Dual G5 Power Macs (and Quads) are still for sale.

And for that matter, it's not inconceivable that the G5 will have its last hurrah in the form of one more Power Mac upgrade. The iMac's shift from 32- to 64-bitness is of little consequence, given its intended market (yes, it may have been important to a handful of budget-minded bioinformaticists or DBAs, but I'm making a generalization), but 64-bitness is much more of a selling point for some segments of the Power Mac's market. If Intel's Mac-appropriate 64-bit parts aren't available 'til this fall, the current PM G5 lineup may be pretty long in the tooth by the time an Intellified replacement shows up.

So assuming PPC 970MP development isn't at a dead standstill, it'd be reasonable for one more round of Power Mac G5s to show up. After all, even if they precede the Intels by a couple months, a Quad will still be awfully fast and useful for years to come.

Bottom line: if design pros need to replace their Photoshop rigs between now and CS3, they'll have options. If we're talking portables, your new rig will likely be at least as usable as the old for CS2 and receive a big ol' boost from a CS3 upgrade. Not so terrible.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

And for that matter, it's not inconceivable that the G5 will have its last hurrah in the form of one more Power Mac upgrade. The iMac's shift from 32- to 64-bitness is of little consequence, given its intended market (yes, it may have been important to a handful of budget-minded bioinformaticists or DBAs, but I'm making a generalization), but 64-bitness is much more of a selling point for some segments of the Power Mac's market. If Intel's Mac-appropriate 64-bit parts aren't available 'til this fall, the current PM G5 lineup may be pretty long in the tooth by the time an Intellified replacement shows up.

So assuming PPC 970MP development isn't at a dead standstill, it'd be reasonable for one more round of Power Mac G5s to show up.

Sossaman will be out in a few months (making a low-power Intel-based quad possible), but without using hacks like PAE it will be limited to 4GB RAM.

Have you seen IBM even hint at faster 970MPs in the pipeline? I haven't.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by mduell

Sossaman will be out in a few months (making a low-power Intel-based quad possible), but without using hacks like PAE it will be limited to 4GB RAM.

Well, that was fairly incomprehensible to me (still haven't spent much time reading that Wikipedia article you linked to, nor much other Intel info). Anyway, I was a tiny bit less lazy than usual and decided that PAE refers to Physical Address Extension, and what I could figure out about that in 2 minutes implies that you're talking about a 32-bit chip.

Like I was saying, I think in the case of pro towers, I think Apple will care about how folks would perceive a switch back to 32-bit processors from 64-bit ones, even though it was pretty much inconsequential in the case of the iMacs.

So what's Sossaman?

Have you seen IBM even hint at faster 970MPs in the pipeline? I haven't.

Touché. I haven't heard anything about their processor plans at all. I guess I assumed they're still working on the 970 line, since I was under the impression it powers some of their servers. But I gotta cede that "still working on" does not = "making good progress with"

[boombashi]

Originally Posted by Daniel Bayer

This just showed up on the hompage:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-7891-8185

I just don't know about this upgrade.....

Thanks for the link, but did you read it and understand what it is implying? What's not to like about a new MacBook Pro that costs the same as the one it's replacing, that is expected to be 3X as fast as it's predecessor in native applications, and about the same speed if not faster under Rosetta.

That's exactly the benchmarks I was hoping for! When Photoshop CS3 comes out, boom! Dual G5 Desktop speeds in a portable! F-in brilliant! I can't wait until mine gets here.

Am I missing something, what's not to like? Did anyone like their PowerBooks? Why wouldn't you like this upgrade? (don't bother with the missing ports etc. that's not I'm talking about)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by boombashi

Am I missing something, what's not to like? Did anyone like their PowerBooks? Why wouldn't you like this upgrade? (don't bother with the missing ports etc. that's not I'm talking about)

Some software/drivers may be buggy on IntelBooks, or won't run at all.

For example, Word's convert-to-HTML function crashes the program under Rosetta, but works fine on PPC.

Now, I NEVER use that feature, but nonetheless it tells you not everything is perfect in Rosetta-land.

[boombashi]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Some software/drivers may be buggy on IntelBooks, or won't run at all.

For example, Word's convert-to-HTML function crashes the program under Rosetta, but works fine on PPC.

Now, I NEVER use that feature, but nonetheless it tells you not everything is perfect in Rosetta-land.

Good point, but I don't really use those things myself. Hopefully Apple will fix those little bugs in a near future upgrade. I hear 10.4.5 is already in developers hands. Photoshop is the main app that I'll have to under Rosetta, so for me all is good if that is relatively stable. I'm sure there will be plenty little issues for everyone, but that is life in the emulation world. It can only get better.

[olePigeon]

Just be lucky you're not using Quark.

You'll probably see an Intel version in... uh... well, maybe.

[Simon]

Well right now, Adobe is starting to sound a hell of lot like Quark.

What I don't understand is why people defend Adobe for forcing their customers to use older hardware. Of course this is moot right now with just iMacs and MBPs, but Apple will certainly be offering more powerful PM G5 replacements before Adobe can offer a UB of CS. Effectively this will force pros to wait with the purchase of new hardware. Of course some might do that anyway because they're playing it safe, but there might be others who don't or who can't. And basically Adobe is telling those people to go stick it. How can anybody defend that attitude?

[Daniel Bayer]

Originally Posted by boombashi

Good point, but I don't really use those things myself. Hopefully Apple will fix those little bugs in a near future upgrade. I hear 10.4.5 is already in developers hands. Photoshop is the main app that I'll have to under Rosetta, so for me all is good if that is relatively stable. I'm sure there will be plenty little issues for everyone, but that is life in the emulation world. It can only get better.

That's all I am really hoping for until a UB version too. If I were running a G4 1.67 w/ a 100 7,200 RPM, I would more than likely wait for a Rev-B and UB CS3, but it is upgrade time and this going to have to be it. Now that I have a desktop at home, I can also afford to shed a few inches of screen to fit on the tray table of United's tight flights.

If Adobe were to be exceptional and get out CS3 at the 18 month mark, Fall will not be a bad wait.

Glad to be your beta tester!

[michaelb]

Originally Posted by Simon

And basically Adobe is telling those people to go stick it. How can anybody defend that attitude?

Because Adobe has an effective monopoly in the Photoshop industry. There is nothing for them to fear of losing customers to if they delay in making Universal Binaries, so they don't.

It's only when viable alternatives exist that healthy competition keeps companies on their toes. For example, of the 4 or 5 popular 3D modeling programs on the Mac, at least 2 have already released Universal Binaries.

For example, Maxon, makers of Cinema 4D, have NOT taken Adobe's attitude ("Gee, I'll guess we'll think about making Universal Binaries about the same time as our next major version upgrade, how does 2007 sound?"), their app is out NOW. Same version of the Cinema 4D suite and all its modules, recompiled as a UB, free download, now. They are the sort of company that deserves support.

I just hope Apple can get the "1.0 product taint" off Apple Aperture so that at least pro photographers can give Adobe some pause in their arrogance. It would be bad if Adobe extended their monopoly with Lightroom as well.

It's no coincidence that the first (and only) app that will ship from Adobe as a Universal Binary this year is one that actually has some competition.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by michaelb

Because Adobe has an effective monopoly in the Photoshop industry. There is nothing for them to fear of losing customers to if they delay in making Universal Binaries, so they don't.

That's exactly my original point. And yet, there are people here who defend Adobe and think it's good CS users should have to wait to make any Intel purchase. Go figure.

[Eug Wanker]

What I don't understand is why people defend Adobe for forcing their customers to use older hardware.

Errr... That would be Apple. You can go out and buy the fastest Intel machine today and run Adobe CS2 on it... on Windows.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised anyone actually thought CS2 would have a chance in hell of being a universal binary.

Anyways, it seems to me for the real pros, this is a non-issue. For most, to buy an Intel Mac in 2006 for mission critical work would be foolish.

[Simon]

You know that's not true.

MBP runs CS2 worse than the PB. iMac CD runs CS2 worse than iMac G5.

It will be that way with every new Intel Mac. And we can thank Adobe's laziness for it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

And we can thank Adobe's laziness for it.

Gimme a break.

Apple itself has adopted the exact same plan for it's pro app Shake:

"The next release of Shake for Mac OS X will be a Universal application, which will run on both PowerPC- and Intel-based Mac computers."

ie. Shake 4 will never be a universal binary. And it's even worse for Shake, cuz it doesn't run under Rosetta.

[Simon]

And that sucks too. But you'd never see me defend Apple for it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

And that sucks too. But you'd never see me defend Apple for it.

Good, and I hope you finally understand the reality of the situation.

[Simon]

Umm, whatever.

Eug, do you own Adobe stock or something? Sounds like it's getting kind of personal here

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Umm, whatever.

Eug, do you own Adobe stock or something? Sounds like it's getting kind of personal here

No, I don't own Adobe stock, or Apple stock for that matter. Have you shorted Adobe stock?

By the way, would you honestly tell a pre-press shop to go out and buy 10 Intel iMacs today (even ignoring Photoshop for the moment)? If so, I guess we'd just have to agree to disagree.

As some of the reviews have already suggested, one should consider the next six months as beta testing time for Apple's Intel hardware. Most pro users need not apply.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

So what's Sossaman?

Touché. I haven't heard anything about their processor plans at all. I guess I assumed they're still working on the 970 line, since I was under the impression it powers some of their servers. But I gotta cede that "still working on" does not = "making good progress with"

Sossaman is an SMP capable (probably only 2-way) Yonah; still 32-bit.

The only IBM workstation/server product with 970 is the JS20 blade with PPC970FX @ 2.2Ghz (where its been since release years ago). All their other Power hardware is POWER5 (PPC440 in the supercomputer space and PPC750 in the embedded space too, but those aren't really personal computers).

[Eug Wanker]

Yeah, I'd be somewhat surprised to see Sossaman in any Mac. I'd expect to see the towers go Woodcrest or something.

So, in six months or so:

iMac: Faster Yonah
Mac Pro Dual: Conroe or Woodcrest
Mac Pro Quad: Woodcrest
MacBook Pro: Faster Yonah

In a year:

iMac: Conroe or Allendale
MacBook Pro: Merom

P.S. I'll probably be buying after 6 mos to a year. but more so for software/driver compatibility issues and Blu-ray. I don't really care about 64-bitness, especially in a laptop.