[inkhead]

The details are simple, this person used the "nocpu" hack being disturbuted by warez groups. Stop talking about the software you pirated.

The only people running this hack pirated or used illegal copies. Nobody with a computer that DOESN'T support aperture purchased it to "try anyway"

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Could you provide some details?

Well, I think the 4 440 Go is just the mobile version of the 4 MX, so they probably use the same driver.

The GeForce4 MX is based off the GeForce2 MX. Perhaps that means I could try running aperture on my Cube?

[inkhead]

yeah that was 1969. we are in 2005.

welcome to DIGITAL.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No one uses Hasselblad or Leica??

Those are only the best cameras in the world. NASA chose Hasselblad to use for the moonlandings (with a Zeiss lens)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...res/moon/1.htm

Those two are the best of the best.

cheers

W-Y

[inkhead]

1. aperture isn't for FILM based workflows.
2. find me a good review of any hasselblad digital cameras, that compare them to canon or nikon.
3. Find me a professional photographer (by name) USING one of these cameras

Originally Posted by ChrisF

Wow. You're either seriously misinformed or just crazy. Directors are not photographers and I suspect your source has misled you. There are innumerable photographers out there using Hasselblads, with film or with digital backs. Leicas are far less common because, in general, they are too expensive for a working photographer to justify; Canons and Nikons rule among pros working with 35mm, in spite of the fact that Leitz lenses are widely regarded as some of the best in existence.

[Maflynn]

I've been using aperture on my G5 now this past weekend and I can confirm with demonhood the imported raw images are darker.

Overall I'm pleased with the digital work flow, the project management and the process. Editing and touch ups seem to be its weakest link. I prefer PS default importing of RAW over aperture's default. I understand I can tweak both, but I was hoping for a more streamlined process within aperture.

Since I have it, and since I'm tired of the work needed to organize my images within iview (create directory structure, batch import RAW via PS, import converted into ivew, organize)

Right now I think I'm going to tuff it out. The one thing I am tempted to do is let PS do the raw conversion and then import the tiff file that I'll create from the raw - kind of counter productive since I wanted to avoid this extra work and was the reason why I bought it.

There's a lot of discussion over at dpreview.com it seems about a 60-40 against aperture for various reasons.

I'm hoping with the negative reviews and somewhat negative responses apple pushes out an update shortly.

Mike

[powerbook867]

Originally Posted by inkhead

The details are simple, this person used the "nocpu" hack being disturbuted by warez groups. Stop talking about the software you pirated.

The only people running this hack pirated or used illegal copies. Nobody with a computer that DOESN'T support aperture purchased it to "try anyway"

No, I don't want to run a pirated version of Aperture. What I do want is my 1800 dollar machine (PM 1.6 w/ a 5200 + 1.5 gig of ram) to run this app. I will probably be attempting this hack on a PURCHASED copy of aperture since I am beginning to make money doing some photography work.

I don't feel after purchasing a fairly recent Powermac that, even at the low end, I should be restricted in my Apple software options to the degree that Apple restricts Aperture. There are reports of this app running fairly well in this forum on much lower end machines than my 1.6. If it does run fine, then Apple is just trying to force me to buy new hardware.

Just because someone is asking about a hack doesn't automatically make them a pirate. One of the mods all ready said it is all right to post this information about the hack.

I am going to purchase it to try. If it doesn't work to my satisfaction, then I'll start looking into purchasing a new PM.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by powerbook867

There are reports of this app running fairly well in this forum on much lower end machines than my 1.6. If it does run fine, then Apple is just trying to force me to buy new hardware.

I think it's more a case of Apple not wanting to (1) waste resources on tech support caused by problems with underpowered machines, and (2) having the app's reputation soiled by slow performance on less capable machines. Obviously, if they could sell a copy to every Mac user without these problems, they'd try to.

Good luck with finding and applying the hack, and let us know how it goes. Also, consider buying a really nice video card instead of a whole new machine if you upgrade.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

it is a bit dark

here it is with the curves way out of wack:



and yeah, i've already sent a handful of bug reports and feature requests to apple. i suggest everyone do the same. hopefully we'll get 1.1 soon.

Interesting...so Aperture doesn't throw away data during the conversion (at least less than PS when it comes to darker regions.)

[powerbook867]

Thanks Captain. I just don't have 2k burning a hole in my pocket right now for a new machine. The only apps I use currently for my photo work is Elements 2 and iphoto.

I'm starting to do some portrait work and I want to start shooting in RAW. I'm hopeful that Aperture will help me get where I want to be in terms of work flow. Right now, the best way to describe my "workflow" is tedious/tiring.

[kidtexas]

I've been using Aperture for a couple days on a 1.25 mhz powerbook (first al book) with 1.25 gigs for ram. Been using it on about 3000 Canon digital rebel Raws that have been converted into DNG's. It is slow at times, but not unusable. There are some tools that are slower than others. It takes a few seconds to load up an image for the first time, but it does in any other program as well. The large previews pop up pretty much instantly.

The highlight and shadow tool does seem slower than the others, but I haven't really played around with it much. Of course, while some aspects are slower than with a Bridge/ACR or iView/ACR system, others are much faster. Being able to group images together and quickly rate, keyword, etc is so much faster for me.

Haven't had any problem entering any kind of metadata - entering keywords is incredibly easy.

As far as quality of the converted raw, it seems pretty good. On high ISO images (800 and 1600) noise gets a little bit much, especially on darker images. Adobe camera raw definitely wins out there. On better exposed low ISO images I think it looks pretty darn good. That being said, the Camera Raw controls seem more intuitive to me than Aperture's. I really like the highlight and shadow clipping sliders in ACR and the counterpart in Aperture isn't as easy to use nor as effective (in my mind).

Being able to do multiple versions is really nice.

Overall, I would love to get a big G5 for this program, but I'm in no real hurry. The program has some problems, but I would imagine it will get better. I'm willing to deal with some of the problems for now since overall, the workflow aspects of the program are really nice.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

The whole need for the desktop metaphor is GONE/USLESS if they use this interface.

Why?

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I HATE the current interface for the Finder and I am not talking about the brushed metal or icons.

Then what are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Just the way importing images shows you with that cool u-turn arrow where the images are coming from to where they are going is a godsend.

Yes, it is neat but it is nothing special.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by inkhead

yeah that was 1969. we are in 2005.

welcome to DIGITAL.

Low end digital cameras are self contained units. The high end digital cameras like Leicas and Hasselblads are medium format cameras with a digital camera back. They can achieve much higher resolution and better quality than the self contained typical digital SLR.

Photographers want the best bodies and lenses and those are and will probably always be Leica, Hasselblad and Zeiss, both in films and digital.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by inkhead

1. aperture isn't for FILM based workflows.
2. find me a good review of any hasselblad digital cameras, that compare them to canon or nikon.
3. Find me a professional photographer (by name) USING one of these cameras

1. No it says here right on the box it is for digital photography. Everybody already knows, don't concern yourself about it.

2. There are no Hasselblad digital cameras. They just put one of these on the back - 16 MegaPixels (that particular model was new in 2003)

3. You can use google it just as well as the rest of us.

cheers

W-Y

[Montanan]

While there are definitely still people out there shooting with Leicas and Hasselblads, there's little doubt that their number is stagnant at best in absolute terms, and dropping rapidly in relative terms. Realistically, the things are anachronisms in the eyes of all but a handful of people ... though the remaining diehards will certainly keep both brands going, at least in the short term.

I have an acquaintance who's a dealer in used camera equipment, and he tells me that the resale market for medium and large-format cameras has collapsed dramatically in the last few years, because of the advent of quality digital SLRs.

Kind of sad, in a way ... but so it goes.

[ism]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Low end digital cameras are self contained units. The high end digital cameras like Leicas and Hasselblads are medium format cameras with a digital camera back. They can achieve much higher resolution and better quality than the self contained typical digital SLR.

W-Y

This is quite true. Not a photographer, but even I've heard of digital backs. It's only very recently that the DSLRs have managed to get full frame size. Another reason why people stuck with digital backs.

[ccrider]

OK, so I own aperture, installed in on my G5 just fine. Now I want to install it on my dual 1.25 G4.

Instead of all this runaround, can someone tell me how to bypass the system check?

I was able to install it (simply removing the system check file from the install package), but there's a different checker imbedded in the app.

Can someone let me know how to do it? I OWN it, I HAVE a personal serial, it's NOT pirating.

All I keep hearing is "go to the warez sites, blah blah blah". Gimme a break...

Thanks for your time

[CaptainHaddock]

If the embedded checker does a one-time-only check, it must save the result somewhere. You could try copying your application settings over from the other machine or editing the plist file. (I have no real idea if this will work, though.)

[jhogarty]

Waiting for my copy to ship. I'm very much new to photography so alot of the discussion here is way above me. But I appreciate the feedback and looking to learn. BTW I have a Nikon D70.

J.

[crouchingtiger]

I was wondering if anybody could shed light on an issue I'm having with Aperture. I'm using it with Canon Digital Rebel CRW files, which are 3072x2048 in resolution. Upon importing the files, everything shows up at 3072x2040 resolution. what happened to those extra 8 pixels? Exporting a JPEG and opening it in Photoshop confirms that it is now only 2040 pixels in height. The same RAW file processed in Photoshop is saved correctly as a JPEG with 2048 height pixels.
thanks.

[Demonhood]

crouchingtiger, i'm experiencing the same exact problem. that is mighty weird.

[crouchingtiger]

Thanks for the reply, it's good to know that it's not a bug with my computer/software.
Apparently the same bug happens when you open a CRW file with iPhoto, as noted by someone on Apple's discussion forums.
I filed a bug report, but I have no idea if anyone reads those things... maybe if more people filed the same?

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by crouchingtiger

Upon importing the files, everything shows up at 3072x2040 resolution. what happened to those extra 8 pixels?

Crouchingtiger and Demonhood, I think I know the answer.

The Raw data that comes off your camera's sensor and gets saved as a CRW file does not represent a precise, horizontal grid of pixels the same way a normal computer image does. Rather, it represents a more complicated grid, possibly hexagonal, of red, blue, and green sub-pixels (called a Bayer array). These sub-pixels provide enough data, in your case, for an image roughly 3072x2048 in size.

When a program like Photoshop or Aperture processes Raw data, it must take clumps of these subpixels and estimate the best possible full-colour pixels to substitute for display and image export. Naturally, along the edge of a photo, these sub-pixel clumps get "cropped", so there's less data to generate a full pixel from. In this situation, the Raw parser can either generate inaccurate pixels along the edge, or simply crop the edge by a few pixels. I suspect OS X's Raw parser (used by Aperture) performs the latter.

This process of turning Raw data into a real picture is explained in more detail here.

I wouldn't worry too much; you're not losing much useful picture data. I should emphasize that this is not a bug; it's perfectly normal to crop a few pixels when parsing a Raw image.

[one09jason]

Well, I have Aperture, and have read this whole thread and read the responses to the Ars review. While I think the review was certainly lopsided, no one has commented on two very good points by the author:

1) Is Aperture short on filters/adjustments, because only so many real-time effects can be added to an image before the App becomes unusably slow? Very good point. If each filter / adjustment adds more calculations needed to display an image in real time, then this puts an upper limit on the realistic number of adjustments one can make to an image, no matter how fast Aperture or future hardware becomes. This is compounded by growing sensor array sizes. Not so with saved individual versions of files.

2) What happens when Apple changes filter/adjustment algorithms in the future? Will all your images using those filters change? Do we want them to? If they don't, will you have to manually update to take advantage of beneficial changes (say, lower noise in RAW conversions). In order for our final images to stay the same, Apple will have to maintain the filters in the version of Aperture you used, bugs and all, into the future, forever. Can they do that?

I love Aperture for it's attempt to give us all real workflow that works without mucking around in 3 or 4 different Apps plus the finder. But perhaps saving change instructions in a database instead of saving additional files is not the way to go for photography workflow, even if it does save some disk space. I think the jury is still out on this one. What do you guys think?

[CaptainHaddock]

But perhaps saving change instructions in a database instead of saving additional files is not the way to go for photography workflow, even if it does save some disk space. I think the jury is still out on this one. What do you guys think?

I think the benefits of this kind of workflow will outweigh the initial adjustment pains. I think the whole real-time adjustments and unlimited versioning paradigm is the future of computing - for all kinds of apps. As computers and graphic cards improve, the number and complexity of CoreImage effects you can stack on a photograph will increase. Aperture is an application for the future of Macintosh computers, not the past.

I imagine that as Raw processing improves, people's photos will suddenly look different. It's one of the "joys" of being an early adopter, and it'll affect people who do a lot of post-processing more than the pros who shoot perfect shots 90% of the time. One would expect Apple to get most Raw formats to a stable state within a few months, though.

[Eug Wanker]

one09jason,

1) I have no doubt that not only will Aperture gain improvements on the existing adjustments, it will also get more of them. Remember, this a version 1.0 after all. However, note that the functionality present is there for basic usage. The app is not built as a Photoshop competitor directly, and hence its ability to export directly to Photoshop. I think it was a conscious choice not to include all the Core Image filters for example because it doesn't help the photographer (or almost anyone else) at all.

2) That is a reasonable concern, and one I brought up in the Ars review discussion too. However, I also think that for any money shots, I'd probably be exporting to tiff after my adjustments to "lock-in" the changes and as a backup. Indeed, if you're going to be submitting them to a client or whatever, you'll have to export them anyways.

As for RAW conversion improvements, my guess is Apple will try to keep the colour balance as close as possible (when it makes sense to do so), but will try to weed out the weird bugs and such.

[crouchingtiger]

Thanks for the reply, Captain Haddock. That's useful information and it's true that 8 pixels is not a lot of information, but it's just annoying because the 3:2 aspect ratio is now screwed up. This has a subtle but annoying effect on printing, displaying pictures on the desktop, etc.

Similarly, it's annoying that the crop tool in Aperture, even if you specify it to maintain a 3:2 aspect ratio, will generate images without a perfect 3:2 aspect ratio on a pixel level. Isn't that the whole point of telling it to maintain a 3:2 ratio?

Anyway, I think it's a super cool program but it seems like it has a number of unnecessary and sloppy bugs that dampen my enthusiasm for it. If I had spent the $500 retail price I think I'd be upset. Academic pricing is somewhat more reasonable.

Regarding the slowness after applying too many adjustments -- I've certainly noticed this and it makes certain images unbearable to work with. I'm not sure what the solution to this would be -- perhaps there could be a way in the future to "lock in" certain changes and work on only subsequent changes in real time (maybe on a placeholder TIFF file?).
I've taken to generating two masters of an image in some cases and applying enhancements separately to each, and then lifting and stamping to consolidate the changes. Not ideal certainly but better than waiting ~20 seconds everytime I try to drag a slider.

(Powerbook G4 1.5 GHz, 2 GB RAM).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by GENERAL_SMILEY

(Obviously I had to slightly modify the Installation Check file to allow it to install correctly - but it works.)

In System Profile it says GeForce4 MX - and I did buy it pretty soon after it came out (weeks?)- so I assumed it was Rev A.

Occasionally when switching screens I get a bit of coloured junk flash up - I think that could be the unsupported card functions.

Confirmed.

Runs fine on my 1.7 GHz Cube with Geforce 2 MX.

[dpaanlka]

Originally Posted by inkhead

The details are simple, this person used the "nocpu" hack being disturbuted by warez groups. Stop talking about the software you pirated.

The only people running this hack pirated or used illegal copies. Nobody with a computer that DOESN'T support aperture purchased it to "try anyway"

Even though I have nothing to do with this original debate, I must chime in here.

YOU ARE WRONG... It is very childish of you to assume to "know" what everyone in the world will or will not do, based on what you yourself would or would not do.

Here is a photograph of my purchased, legal copy of Aperture next to the completely unsupported computer that I am trying to get it to run on. That sawtooth G4 has been upgraded to 1.8ghz and 1.25gb of RAM, as well as a 128mb Radeon 9800... so hopefully I can eventually get it to work.



How dare you start blaming people for stealing anything? Who do you think you are? How do you know that anybody here would not purchase aperture hoping that there would be some way to get around Apple's ridiculous and clearly greed-driven software requirements?

[crouchingtiger]

I agree that it's ridiculous to start throwing around accusations about people stealing stuff. But I think it's also a stretch to talk about Apple's "ridiculous and clearly greed-driven software requirements". They pretty clearly made the decision on the system requirements based on computers that they SHIPPED. I think it would have opened a testing nightmare for them to support 3rd party CPU upgrades and/or video card upgrades.
Given how glitchy Aperture can be even on fully supported hardware, I can't say I blame them.

Originally Posted by dpaanlka

How dare you start blaming people for stealing anything? Who do you think you are? How do you know that anybody here would not purchase aperture hoping that there would be some way to get around Apple's ridiculous and clearly greed-driven software requirements?

[dpaanlka]

Originally Posted by crouchingtiger

I agree that it's ridiculous to start throwing around accusations about people stealing stuff. But I think it's also a stretch to talk about Apple's "ridiculous and clearly greed-driven software requirements". They pretty clearly made the decision on the system requirements based on computers that they SHIPPED. I think it would have opened a testing nightmare for them to support 3rd party CPU upgrades and/or video card upgrades.
Given how glitchy Aperture can be even on fully supported hardware, I can't say I blame them.

Maybe, but here's what I don't understand...

Why couldn't they just make the requirements *any* 1.25ghz G4 (or higher) with 1gb or more of ram and core image support? Why does the computer also have to be called a "PowerBook" ??? I'm sure lots of computers fall into this category. Like the original G5s, or what about the last Mirror G4s? The only reason Apple would do this is to *force* people to buy new machines, which isn't really fair. Now, maybe it isn't Apple's job to be fair, but that doesn't make them right either. This is why I bought Aperture, fully knowing that my machine wasn't "supported."

My G4 technology-wise fully supports Aperture, in fact far exceeds the minimum requirements. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get it running.

EDIT: Having to test lots of CPUs is a pretty lame and lazy excuse. Every software company in the world has software supported by wide ranges of computers. Why should Apple be an exception? And as for third party CPU upgrades - it's the responsibility of the upgrade manufacturer to make sure everything runs as it should, not Apples. Apple just needs to *allow* Aperture to run in the first place.

[crouchingtiger]

I think the answer to this is because there was never a PowerMac G4 that was shipped with a Core Image-capable graphics card. (The dual 1.42 GHz shipped with a Radeon 9000 Pro, I believe). Therefore, anybody trying to run it on a PMG4 will have had to upgrade the CPU and/or GPU.
Likewise, although the GeForce 5200FX card shipped with the original G5s is technically Core Image-capable, it has widely been dubbed a graphics "deccelerator" due to its poor performance.

Basically, it's clearly in Apple's best interest to sell as many copies of Aperture as they can. But, they also have to make sure that it runs well enough that people don't complain too much. This is the route they chose. Whether or not they hit the "sweet spot" is not for me to judge. But the good news is that it seems like it's not too difficult to hack the thing to get it to run on unsupported systems.

Originally Posted by dpaanlka

Maybe, but here's what I don't understand...

Why couldn't they just make the requirements *any* 1.25ghz G4 (or higher) with 1gb or more of ram and core image support? Why does the computer also have to be called a "PowerBook" ??? I'm sure lots of computers fall into this category. Like the original G5s, or what about the last Mirror G4s? The only reason Apple would do this is to *force* people to buy new machines, which isn't really fair. Now, maybe it isn't Apple's job to be fair, but that doesn't make them right either. This is why I bought Aperture, fully knowing that my machine wasn't "supported."

My G4 technology-wise fully supports Aperture, in fact far exceeds the minimum requirements. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get it running.

[mikelauder]

I was just wondering if anyone else has noticed the problem shown in this screenshot:

http://mike.scottishclimbs.com/image...ureproblem.png

Notice how the colour detail in the loupe is much less refined than it is in the original. This isn't very good at all, considering that the loupe is one of the main tools for checking colour corrections.

Mike

[dpaanlka]

Originally Posted by crouchingtiger

I think the answer to this is because there was never a PowerMac G4 that was shipped with a Core Image-capable graphics card. (The dual 1.42 GHz shipped with a Radeon 9000 Pro, I believe). Therefore, anybody trying to run it on a PMG4 will have had to upgrade the CPU and/or GPU.
Likewise, although the GeForce 5200FX card shipped with the original G5s is technically Core Image-capable, it has widely been dubbed a graphics "deccelerator" due to its poor performance."

But this is exactly my point...

Apple has a really bad tendancy of having system requirements based on machine model names, instead of specs.

Instead of the specs being:

• 1.25ghz or faster PowerBook G4
• 1.8ghz or faster PowerMac G5
• At least 1gb of RAM

why can't they just say:

• 1.25ghz PowerPC G4 processor or faster
• Graphics card with core image Support
• At least 1gb of RAM

Wouldn't that cover Apple, and allow any machine that meets the specs, including older machines upgraded by users, to run Aperture?

[crouchingtiger]

heh, I think we're missing each other's points here. My point is that Apple doesn't want somebody to call up and say "hey, I have a PowerMac G4 Sawtooth with a <insert 3rd party upgrade here> and a <insert 3rd party upgrade here> and I have a problem with Aperture, which I bought for $500 based on the listed system requirements, with <insert problem here>."

Based on what Apple has done, in the above scenario they do not have to offer support.
If the listed requirements were as you would like, they would have to try to figure out what was wrong. This is the choice they've made. Whether or not it's the "correct" choice, I don't know. But I can certainly understand why they've chosen to go in the direction they've chosen to go, and without invoking any "let's screw the user because we're greedy bastards" type of reasoning.

[dpaanlka]

Your still just coming up with ways to excuse Apple from this.

And, as I said before, it is the job of GigaDesigns and PowerLogix and ATI and Sonnet to make sure their products work with Mac software, nobody said anything about Apple having to support those. If a GigaDesigns processor doesn't work with iTunes, you call GigaDesigns, not Apple. It should be the same for any Apple software.

So it still comes back to Apple forcing users to buy new machines. There is no two ways about it.

[crouchingtiger]

I'm not trying to excuse Apple from anything. I'm just telling you how it is -- Apple is acknowledging the existence of only Macs in configurations they have shipped. That's the bottom line.
The fact is that if Apple had listed the requirements as you would like, then 99% of people who had problems would call Apple, not <insert CPU manufacturer here>. Not to mention the fact that 80% of the cases of "unsupported" hardware would involve both a CPU and a video card upgrade. So, it would not be trivial to figure out exactly which interaction was leading to the problem.

I wish you the best of luck in getting it to work on your computer and I have no doubt that you will be able to.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by crouchingtiger

I think the answer to this is because there was never a PowerMac G4 that was shipped with a Core Image-capable graphics card. (The dual 1.42 GHz shipped with a Radeon 9000 Pro, I believe). Therefore, anybody trying to run it on a PMG4 will have had to upgrade the CPU and/or GPU.
Likewise, although the GeForce 5200FX card shipped with the original G5s is technically Core Image-capable, it has widely been dubbed a graphics "deccelerator" due to its poor performance.

Basically, it's clearly in Apple's best interest to sell as many copies of Aperture as they can. But, they also have to make sure that it runs well enough that people don't complain too much. This is the route they chose. Whether or not they hit the "sweet spot" is not for me to judge. But the good news is that it seems like it's not too difficult to hack the thing to get it to run on unsupported systems.

So in other words Apple is saying that if you buy a Radeon 9800 from ATI instead of Apple, then you're fscked, despite the fact that it's the same supplier that Apple gets its GPUs from.

Anyways, I guarantee an unsupported dual 1.42 GHz G4 Power Mac with Radeon 9000 would overall run Aperture better than an iBook. Yet the iBook is supported (and ironically the 12" PowerBook is not).

BTW:

Here is the Ars follow-up review.

Here is the pdnonline review.

[dpaanlka]

UPDATE: My LEGAL copy of Aperture (which I had picture above) is now running perfectly on my sawtooth G4. I'm excited!!!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by dpaanlka

UPDATE: My LEGAL copy of Aperture (which I had picture above) is now running perfectly on my sawtooth G4. I'm excited!!!

That sawtooth G4 has been upgraded to 1.8ghz and 1.25gb of RAM, as well as a 128mb Radeon 9800...

That should prove interesting. I wonder if it would be faster or slower than my (supported) G5 2.0 iMac with Radeon 9600. My guess is slower for some things but faster at others.

[dpaanlka]

Depending on how much Aperture makes use of the 64 bit processing of your system.

[inkhead]

You still didn't pay to run it on two machines ;-) However I am sorry for "accusing you" but if you have a g5 trust me it's not worth the hassle to run it on an unsupported configuration.

Originally Posted by dpaanlka

Even though I have nothing to do with this original debate, I must chime in here.

YOU ARE WRONG... It is very childish of you to assume to "know" what everyone in the world will or will not do, based on what you yourself would or would not do.

Here is a photograph of my purchased, legal copy of Aperture next to the completely unsupported computer that I am trying to get it to run on. That sawtooth G4 has been upgraded to 1.8ghz and 1.25gb of RAM, as well as a 128mb Radeon 9800... so hopefully I can eventually get it to work.



How dare you start blaming people for stealing anything? Who do you think you are? How do you know that anybody here would not purchase aperture hoping that there would be some way to get around Apple's ridiculous and clearly greed-driven software requirements?

[stukel1]

I ordered Aperture on the 12th and it was supposed to ship in 1 - 2 days. BUT it has been delayed twice now. It is not supposed to ship until the 29th!

I wonder if they are trying to get a minor update with because of all the reported problems? It seems very odd that a product could go from in stock to more then a two week delay suddenly???