Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

blindemboss · Feb 1, 2006, 05:32 PM

I make my living with Illustrator. Given Adobe's love/hate relationship with Apple, it's really up in the air as to when their Creative Suite will go Universal Binary.

I have Illustrator CS (not CS2) and was wondering any experiences with it running Rosetta on a Intel iMac. Is the performance is anywhere around 80% of the speed running on a G5 iMac?

Weezer · Feb 1, 2006, 05:44 PM

I make my living with Illustrator

don't get an intel yet

imitchellg5 · Feb 1, 2006, 09:51 PM

I would not go intel yet.

blindemboss · Feb 1, 2006, 11:20 PM

Thanks for you opinions. Have either of you had first hand experience using Illustrator in Rosetta mode?

Stefdar · Feb 2, 2006, 06:08 AM

Well my friend, go for G5. I made that mistake and I got an iMac Core Duo with 2 GB RAM and 256 VRAM, and I am telling you, stay away from it. The native apps which are very few offer a very moderate speed increase (nothing that's 2 times faster), where everything Rosetta from Stuff-It to Photoshop CS2, Indesign and Illustrator 10 and CS2 are horribly slow, compared to my 2 GB RAM Powerbook 15" 1.67 GHz.. The iMac G5 or any G5 smokes the Intel thing. Plus the system is rather weird, it is fast like when you open Safari or Mail or the Apple toys like iDVD or iPhoto, but still it doesn't feel like a Mac, sorry but I can't explain it in words, you have to see it to understand.
For example it's the first Mac I have owned (and I have plenty), that the mouse skips when disks are accessed, almost like a PC. (2 GB RAM on the Duo mind you).

Plus Adobe today released a statement that the universal versions are still a year or more away.

Stay away, I am exchanging for a G5 as we speak. Not for us, not now.

Stefdar · Feb 2, 2006, 06:14 AM

And I forgot to mention that font manager soultions don't exist yet too.
Linotype Font Explorer which is blazing fast on PPC is very slow, and Suitcase is also slow with weird problems too.

WOPR · Feb 2, 2006, 10:32 AM

The news from Adobe is really bad for Apple I feel. I think a lot of people will avoid the MacBook Pro for a long time now until more apps are ready, I reckon the PB G4 is going to be with us for a long time yet...

:dragonflypro: · Feb 2, 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by WOPR

The news from Adobe is really bad for Apple I feel. I think a lot of people will avoid the MacBook Pro for a long time now until more apps are ready, I reckon the PB G4 is going to be with us for a long time yet...

No and No.

The news from Adobe only seems bad viewed in the context that the intel machines are 6 months early. Secondly, as iMacs are not the core (notice i said core) of the Adobe app market it is less of an issue.

Assume MacPros (sic) are released in, say Oct or November, the Adobe apps will be, what, maybe 4-6 months out.

Hardly a 'sky is falling' scenario.

As for the PB, people need to get a grip.

The Core Duos are besting 2Ghz G5 iMacs in most areas. So by comparison a Core Duo versus a 1.6Ghz G4 would be a slaughter. Even with a Rosetta penalty.

Now, if there were G5 PBs there may be an issue.

My Al15 1.42 seems to think otherwise.

T

mduell · 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Stefdar

Plus Adobe today released a statement that the universal versions are still a year or more away.

Adobe said we could see Creative Suite Universal Applications in as little as 8 months.

Stefdar · Feb 2, 2006, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

No and No.

As for the PB, people need to get a grip.

The Core Duos are besting 2Ghz G5 iMacs in most areas. So by comparison a Core Duo versus a 1.6Ghz G4 would be a slaughter. Even with a Rosetta penalty.

Now, if there were G5 PBs there may be an issue.

My Al15 1.42 seems to think otherwise.

T

That is where you are wrong. In most of the Photoshop CS2 actions and filters, my Powerbook hires 15" 1.67 GHz with 2 GB RAM bested the 2GHz Core Duo. In the surface blair filter for example, took 1 minute on the PowerBook, 3 minutes in the Duo.

I think in general the Intel proccesors are overhyped, they would be slaughtered even by the dualcore G4 that Motorola has.

mduell · Feb 2, 2006, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Stefdar

they would be slaughtered even by the dualcore G4 that Motorola has.

Haha, good luck on buying one of those. Are volume shipments even going to start before the end of the year?

Horsepoo!!! · Feb 2, 2006, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stefdar

...but still it doesn't feel like a Mac, sorry but I can't explain it in words, you have to see it to understand.

Of course...you *can't* explain it in words. We have to *see* it to understand. *clap clap clap*

15 posts eh?

Stefdar · 06:24 AM

I am a graphics proffessional, with not a lot of time to write posts, and I am also Greek, being mostly active in my own country's Mac forums. I am a Macuser for 15 years, and I currently own a 1.67 GHz Powerbook, a dual G5 2 GHz, and a Core Duo 2GHz 20". I believe if there is anyone able to comment on performance differences between G4s, G5s and Intel Macs, it's me, especially on graphic suites.
The person who started this thread wanted a serious answer to a serious question, and I think I tried, based on my own experience, to give a serious answer, which is more than I can say for your comment.
Being a Macuser is completely different than being a fanboy I suppose. Are all of your 1500 whatever posts so stupid and irrelevant?

Grow up.

WOPR · Feb 3, 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Of course...you *can't* explain it in words. We have to *see* it to understand. *clap clap clap*

15 posts eh?

Idiot.

kulverse · Feb 3, 2006, 10:54 AM

While I don't agree with the intel iMac not feeling like a Mac (mine feels no different to me other than a really fast UI), I too am a graphics professional. I still have my original 1984 Mac. Been using them since year one. I currently use a dual 2.5/8 gig G5 at work and I just upgraded from a dual 800 G4 (Upgraded from a Dual 450) at home to the new 20" iMac. The UI is faster on the iMac than the G5. It's more fluid. I only really use Graphics apps and video apps on the G5 though, so I can only compare these apps between the two. All Adobe products that I use (the CS suite, After Effects & Acrobat), Flash MX & Quark just kinda suck on the iMac right now. My Dual 800 G4 blows the iMac away on non-universal binary apps. So i half agree with Stefdar.

I was expecting this result honestly. G3 emulation isnt going to do Altivec apps any justice, I didn't really buy the iMac for graphics work. I don't do much outside of work. I do expect that the universal binary versions of these apps to be a huge leap (of course they will). I don't expect them to beat my G5 though... given the spec difference. The current universal binary apps run great and fluidly. I have no issue.

I think the intel move will bing nothing but good once most vendors make the jump.

Stefdar · 12:15 PM

I never said the machine is not fast. In Safari, Mail, Activity Monitor :-), it's really fast.
The problem is that in the Adobe programs is horribly slow, that not even essential stuff like Stuffit are universal yet, and most of all it doesn't feel right.
For example, when the disk is accessed agressively, the mouse pointer stops and skips for a split second, which is the FIRST AND ONLY of my 20 Macs over the years to do that. I have only seen this behaviour on PCs. Another thing is that yesterday I was copying around 30 GB of files to an external Firewire drive and while it was copying, and although it is dual core it was very very slow trying to do anything else, something that I have seen on Windows PCs too.

The memory consumption is ridicoulous, after 4 hours I am left with 54 MB free, and thousands of pageouts. That Mac can not be on for days and weeks, not at it's current state.
OSXx86 feels fast yes, but it also gives me a feeling of Windows XP with a MacOS skin, if you can understand what I mean.

As for the benches, it all depends. The surface blur in Photoshop is 3 times faster on my Powerbook, 7 times faster on my Dual G5. Even with a native Intel version, I am wondering if it would catch up.
The Quicktime Export to DV function takes almost the same time on the Powerbook (forget the Dual G5), and on the CoreDuo. And Quicktime is supposed to be Universal...

Ofcourse other tests are faster here or faster there, but for me it's the user experience that counts, otherwise I would get a PC which was supposed to be faster especially before the G5s.

And the user experience on that iMac is not right yet. Maybe parts of OSX are not optimized yet, although I suspect that underneath the Mac exterior the 945 Intel chipset still has to deal with IRQs, DMA disk access and PC stuff like that.
In my personal opinion even my single 1.6 GHz PowerMac G5 I had 2 years ago multitasked better than the Duo.

That's a week's experience, I don't know how long you had yours and if you started installing and used all your progs, but please tell me again in a few days.

kulverse · Feb 3, 2006, 12:11 PM

Well, Like I said. My Grapgics apps are almost useless on the iMac now.

As far as everything else, i have been using it for 2 weeks, mostly for music related stuff and have not noticed anything weird. I will try to keep an eye out for those issues though.

blindemboss · Feb 3, 2006, 01:44 PM

Hey Stefdar, thanks for your honest evaluation of the new iMac (you too kulverse).

Yeah, I'm not looking for proped up reports from fanbois who haven't actually used the new Intel iMacs in real world situations.
It's a little disappointing to hear about the poor performances in CS, but I suspect they'll get better in due time. I think I'll wait till rev B. when all the apps are ready and all the bugs are ironed out.

Horsepoo!!! · Feb 3, 2006, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Stefdar

OSXx86 feels fast yes, but it also gives me a feeling of Windows XP with a MacOS skin, if you can understand what I mean.

I understand exactly what you mean. You've been had...OS X on the iMac Core Duo IS Windows XP with a Mac OS skin. Hahahaha! You just lost yourself 1600+ bucks.

The use of Rosetta for graphics apps is not recommended...it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out with all the benchmarks out there.

But OS X is OS X...not Windows XP. Your mouse acceleration won't suddenly feel like Windows mouse acceleration and you won't suddenly get blue screens instead of the grey curtain kernel panic on OS X because it's running on an Intel chip. Be less stupid, please.

Calimus · 04:58 PM

I got my wife a 17 inch duo core imac with 512ram(upgrading to 1 gig soon) to replace her 1.42 mac mini with 1 gig of ram. She used illustrator CS mostly for illustration hobby work, but for some free lance jobs. Like Stefdar, I would agree that Safari, finder, and general UI feel very speedy, and in a number of cases, faster than my dual 1.8 G5. I haven't noticed the mouse skipping he mentioned, but I had read a review that mentioned it and he said it was due to the bluetooth mouse he was using. The illustrator files she uses tend to be heavy on gradient meshes and I would estimate between 50 and 300 objects. The iMac is certainly faster than her Mac mini, although I realize that is not saying all that much. We've also ran a number of PPC games, and I was pretty impressed by the speed. I ran Dungeon siege, call of duty, and the Sims, all with good speed. Not 60fps mind you, but certainly better than what many people play at. Just thought I would throw in my experience.

cambro · Feb 3, 2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Stefdar

The memory consumption is ridicoulous, after 4 hours I am left with 54 MB free, and thousands of pageouts. That Mac can not be on for days and weeks, not at it's current state.

Umm....where to start with this one...

OS X has really great dynamic memory management. Is it not to your advantage to have a bunch of "free" memory. In fact, it is to your advantage to have all of your installed memory used at all times. Saying something like "I only have 54 MB free" is irrelevant and using it is a criticism of an OS is meaningless.

Do you know what pageouts and pageins are? My PM G5 (1.5 Gig RAM) has been on, serving as a web server, for 23 days straight, without interruption. It has registered 336,389 pageins and 4,998 pageouts. These numbers do not mean that the system's "memory consumption" is "ridiculous" or that the computer is slow or inefficient. The OS is SUPPOSED to page data in and out of memory as necessary and these numbers SHOULD be large and keep growing over time.

ACTIVE pageouts and ACTIVE pageins (numbers in parentheses in top) are what are relevant to performance. This is "disk swapping"...that is, putting data into and out of RAM from the HD, which takes time.

It is true that OS X will actively page in and out a lot if you have little RAM because it is designed to make the most use out of whatever RAM you have installed and is hungry for it. The less that is there, the more swapping there has to be.

Get more RAM if you are swapping too much and performance is slow. But most of all, quit looking at how much RAM you have free and cumulative pageins/outs and spouting that as some measure of "performance."

As for OS X on a different processor not feeling like a Mac...I don't get it....but then, I don't get a lot of things about human perception.

Horsepoo!!! · Feb 3, 2006, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by cambro

As for OS X on a different processor not feeling like a Mac...I don't get it....but then, I don't get a lot of things about human perception.

People perceive what they want to perceive. I just so happens Stefdar wants to perceive cursor skips and weird slowness...so he's seeing those.

Is it congruent with the reality most people are experiencing? Nope.

Keda · Feb 3, 2006, 04:22 PM

Lots of OT stuff i this thread. I have a 20" iMac CD, 1GB, 256, and posted results in the other PSD performance thread. However, filter tests don't tell the whole story. The iMac CD is VERY usable. After working on a Dual2.5 G5 all day, I came home last night and did Flash (also working in PSD and Illustrator) development on my iMac. Not once did I feel like I was on a slow machine.

Most of the "reports" I have seen are from people who do not own the new iMac. I am doing freelance work at home, as well as stuff for school and my day job. In the few weeks that I have had this machine, I have put it through some heavy use...and I'm very happy with it. The best part is that I will enjoy a huge speed boost when Universal apps are released. The only complaints I am reading are from these filter tests. OK, but do you sit around running filters all day? I've been doing this stuff for years, and filters are not the mainstay of design. The interface is fast and I don't find myself waiting for the machine.

BTW, it feels like a Mac.

mduell · Feb 3, 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Stefdar

I never said the machine is not fast. In Safari, Mail, Activity Monitor :-), it's really fast.
The problem is that in the Adobe programs is horribly slow, that not even essential stuff like Stuffit are universal yet, and most of all it doesn't feel right.
For example, when the disk is accessed agressively, the mouse pointer stops and skips for a split second, which is the FIRST AND ONLY of my 20 Macs over the years to do that. I have only seen this behaviour on PCs. Another thing is that yesterday I was copying around 30 GB of files to an external Firewire drive and while it was copying, and although it is dual core it was very very slow trying to do anything else, something that I have seen on Windows PCs too.

Other operating systems have no problem maintaining fluid mouse movement on similar x86 hardware. What you're seeing is OS related, not hardware related.

Originally Posted by Stefdar

The memory consumption is ridicoulous, after 4 hours I am left with 54 MB free, and thousands of pageouts. That Mac can not be on for days and weeks, not at it's current state.

Read up on modern OS memory management. Free memory is a waste of money and electricity.

Originally Posted by Stefdar

And the user experience on that iMac is not right yet. Maybe parts of OSX are not optimized yet, although I suspect that underneath the Mac exterior the 945 Intel chipset still has to deal with IRQs, DMA disk access and PC stuff like that.

Oh that must be it, PPC Macs perform better because they don't use DMA! wtf? Why must you spew in these fine forums?

hardcat1970 · Feb 4, 2006, 12:34 AM

You should consider getting a dual core powermac if you want to run adobe illustrator.

I think illustrator sucks ever since version 9. I got a 1.8ghz single G5 at work and illustrator CS is very slowly running on it. I bought a dual core 2.0 later and for the first time i really feel it is useable.

iREZ · Feb 10, 2006, 09:52 PM

version 9 of illustrator is the worst version in its existence. if you want classic apps of illy go with 8, after that...10 CS CS2 are all almost the same other than the 'new' features.