Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Star-Fire · May 20, 2006, 11:48 PM

Well I have Aperture installed on my Macbook and I have to say it isn't all that bad, comes up with a min resolution warning but stills works fine and seems pretty responsive on a Canon 20D Raw file. I know this has be asked a lot so I'd figure I'd post to let you all know. If there is something specific you want me to try just ask!

mduell · May 21, 2006, 12:00 PM

I thought someone posted in another thread that Aperature wouldn't run on GMA950.

icruise · May 21, 2006, 12:15 PM

I don't know why anyone would post that, considering that a member of the Aperture development team says it will work on the MacBook. It's just not supported by Apple.

Star-Fire · May 21, 2006, 12:16 PM

It's not "officially" suported, but it runs

and on that note not really that bad.

mduell · May 21, 2006, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Icruise

I don't know why anyone would post that, considering that a member of the Aperture development team says it will work on the MacBook. It's just not supported by Apple.

It doesn't meet the minimum system requirements.

icruise · May 21, 2006, 01:28 PM

That's why it's not supported by Apple. But it does work...

Star-Fire · May 21, 2006, 03:18 PM

Yup like I said you get a min resolution error, but you can just click ok, and it runs. I'll have to post a screeny after i'm done install boot camp on mine. Granted I have 2 GB ram in it so I'm sure that helps also.

Alcoholica · May 21, 2006, 03:24 PM

This is excellent news. I'm interested in how responsive it is; hopefully enough to be workable.

powerbook867 · May 21, 2006, 04:05 PM

Star-fire, have you tried the lightroom beta from Abobe to try and do some comparison between the two? I'm sure lightroom will be more responsive, but I'm curious...

Star-Fire · May 21, 2006, 04:13 PM

I do have it, I'll give it a try also, but it always was more responsive.

Star-Fire · May 21, 2006, 05:19 PM

Well actually aperture and lightroom seem about the same, lightroom might be a bit faster but lightroom eats CPU resources, while aperture is much easier on the CPU.

Here are a couple screen shots.

Aperture: http://home.comcast.net/~jasonn/aper.jpg

Lightroom: http://home.comcast.net/~jasonn/light.jpg

powerbook867 · May 21, 2006, 08:37 PM

Well that is sort of surprising that there's not much of a difference between the two. Thanks SF for the info.

Maflynn · May 21, 2006, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

I thought someone posted in another thread that Aperature wouldn't run on GMA950.

It runs fine on my mini, so while its under Apple's specifications, it runs.

Mike

ug.mac · May 21, 2006, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

It runs fine on my mini, so while its under Apple's specifications, it runs.

Mike

Did you mean G4 MINI or Intel MINI?
I have tried on a G4 MINI with 32MB VRAM, slow like hell. Totally unusable.

Maflynn · May 21, 2006, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by ug.mac

Did you mean G4 MINI or Intel MINI?
I have tried on a G4 MINI with 32MB VRAM, slow like hell. Totally unusable.

The mactel mini as that one has the GMA950.

Mike

Eug Wanker · May 22, 2006, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

I thought someone posted in another thread that Aperature wouldn't run on GMA950.

I wonder if that was just for Aperture 1.0, and then perhaps Apple relented on Aperture 1.1? Or did Aperture 1.0 also work on the Intel Mac mini?

Originally Posted by Star-Fire

Yup like I said you get a min resolution error, but you can just click ok, and it runs. I'll have to post a screeny after i'm done install boot camp on mine. Granted I have 2 GB ram in it so I'm sure that helps also.

What does it say? Aperture 1.1's stated minimum resolution requirement is 1280x780. That's what I got when I tried to run it on my iBook with Radeon 9550.

By the way, it runs fine on a 1024x768 screen, so that resolution requirement is bogus. You can run it on that iBook simply by plugging in (and then promptly unplugging) an external screen. ie. Plug in monitor, launch Aperture. Once it's launched you can simply unplug the external screen and it runs fine at less than 1024x768 if you want. It's all the more bogus because Aperture 1.0 ran fine on on the iBook as is. The 1280x780 limitation was only introduced with 1.1, despite the fact that the minimum app workspace size is unchanged.

Eug Wanker · May 26, 2006, 12:03 AM

It runs fine on my MacBook. In fact, it runs much better on the MacBook than it does on my Radeon 9600-endowed iMac G5 2.0.

The reason is that RAW conversions are much, much faster on the MacBook, which isn't surprising considering that RAW conversion is all CPU.

andreas_g4 · May 26, 2006, 05:03 PM

Eug, though I'm not too familiar with Aperture, I'd like too know how the GPU intensive tasks, e.g. the loupe, run on you MB. Does the CPU fill in? A friend of mine is going into digital photography and I'd like to advise him to get a MB instead of a MBP, since he is really short on cash. But the laptop must run Aperture. That said, he'scoming from a 1.33 GHz PowerBook, and I suppose Aperture runs on a new MB a lot better than on a 1.33 GHz G4, no matter what the GPU is, not?

powerbook867 · May 26, 2006, 05:34 PM

not to derail your request andreas, but I downloaded the demo of lightroom at Compusa today on a MB and it seemed pretty responisve. I was only playing with one raw image from a Canon 10d (6 megapixel) but the machine only had 512 ram...

For a beta, it seemed pretty nice.

Eug Wanker · May 26, 2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

Eug, though I'm not too familiar with Aperture, I'd like too know how the GPU intensive tasks, e.g. the loupe, run on you MB. Does the CPU fill in? A friend of mine is going into digital photography and I'd like to advise him to get a MB instead of a MBP, since he is really short on cash. But the laptop must run Aperture. That said, he'scoming from a 1.33 GHz PowerBook, and I suppose Aperture runs on a new MB a lot better than on a 1.33 GHz G4, no matter what the GPU is, not?

The Aperture loupe is usually OK (as long as you don't have a bazillion edits), but editing can be slow on the MacBook.

If he's going into photography and this is his primary computer, I really do recommend getting the MacBook Pro. Not only is Aperture fully supported and the graphics card better on the MacBook Pro, the higher rez screen of the MBP really helps. I prefer the matte screen on the MBP in many lighting conditions too.

Plus, every time I launch Aperture it gives me this annoying message saying that the minimum supported screen size is 1280x854 (even though it does run fine on even a 1024x768 screen).

If it's his secondary Mac though, then I'd say the MacBook is perfectly fine for Aperture. I suppose he could get away with a MacBook and an external LCD for home, but I'm not entirely sure how the MacBook would fare with that extra screen and lots of edited images and stuff on screen, given the MacBook's 64 MB RAM limitation for the GPU.

Somebody has to patch OS X to allow 224 MB GPU support.

Eug Wanker · May 26, 2006, 06:42 PM

From the BareFeats thread:

Now, iMaginator is not Aperture, but it does give you an idea why Apple recommends fast GPUs for these types of functions.