[iREZ]

:/ not that big a deal, but if you're planning on making money using their apps, it'd be wise to sit out on the intel machines till next year according to this article. I for one am pleased with the the performance of my intel core duo imac 17" compared to my 12" 1ghz powerbook, and it'll only get a kick in the pants once this update is released.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by iREZ

:/ not that big a deal, but if you're planning on making money using their apps, it'd be wise to sit out on the intel machines till next year according to this article. I for one am pleased with the the performance of my intel core duo imac 17" compared to my 12" 1ghz powerbook, and it'll only get a kick in the pants once this update is released.

you have a link to the article? thx.

[art_director]

that blows but i'd rather have solid apps than crap like quark puts out.

[Sourbook]

Originally Posted by art_director

you have a link to the article? thx.

The release was mentioned in this 'Forbes' article.

Creative Suite 3 will be introduced in the second quarter of 2007... There will be a lot of integration between [Macromedia] products and [Adobe] products as part of those offerings. By the time we launch CS3, the value of the two companies will be clear.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/23/ado...0324adobe.html

[art_director]

i look forward to seeing what they keep and what they scrap from macromedia. both adobe and macromedia have their strengths and weaknesses. hoping for the best...

[iREZ]

whoops..thought i tossed it in there...

heres the article i read http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/03/...ue.in.q2.2007/

[zoetrope]

Well, this is a good thing for my wallet. I'm purchasing a condo later this year, so it will allow me enough buffer room to build up the finances in order to afford a new MacBook and the CS3 Suite. However, I will sit around envious of those with the Mactels as my 12" PB drags along for one more year.

I guess I feel conflicted, sort of like watching my mother-in-law drive off a cliff in my new Porsche.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by zoetrope

However, I will sit around envious of those with the Mactels as my 12" PB drags along for one more year.

wow, is it tough doing design work on a 12"? wanted to buy one but thought it would make me go mad with palletes and such.

[zoetrope]

Originally Posted by art director

wow, is it tough doing design work on a 12"? wanted to buy one but thought it would make me go mad with palletes and such.

Its not too bad, I switch to full screen mode for Photoshop and Illustrator and then use virtual desktops for multi-tasking. I only use the PB when traveling to client sites, and even then I bring along my miniDVI to DVI connector. My PowerMac Dual 2.7GHz does the heavy lifitng.

[iREZ]

a 12" is not as bad as some make it seem, ive created some of my better stuff without spanning onto my external monitor. with that said, the palettes werent as bad as the constant zooming in n out, but i would never trade my powerbook for a 15" (or 17" for that matter), its just too damn convenient....a 13" widescreen isnt out of the question though .

also for whoever is interested, in my opinion...the intel 17" with 1.5gb of ram runs the adobe cs 2 suite about as fast as a 1.5ghz g4 with 2gb of ram, this is only my comparison based on feel and no scientific numbers. so dont be too envious zoetrope, you still got a comparable machine when it comes to design apps that arent universal.

[art_director]

i work on a 15" when away from the office. it gets the job done but i get frustrated with progress bars and lag. of course i'm accustomed to my dual 2.5 w 6.5 gb ram.

[chirpy22]

I'm hoping that Adobe makes Flash more like their old LiveMotion program. That was so easy to use in comparison.

[production_coordinator]

To be fair, no professional designer would buy an iMac... and the gap between CS3 and the MacTower Pro will only be 3-6 months.

Most designers aren't cutting edge... and tend to weather out transitions until their software of choice is native on the platform (or at least that is how the OS 9 to OS X transition was handled).

[almaink]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

To be fair, no professional designer would buy an iMac... and the gap between CS3 and the MacTower Pro will only be 3-6 months.

Most designers aren't cutting edge... and tend to weather out transitions until their software of choice is native on the platform (or at least that is how the OS 9 to OS X transition was handled).

Well then, if thats so I guess my two best clients and a very good designer friend of mine aren't Pros. In fact one just called me this morning to tell me just how much faster his new Intel iMac is compared to the G4 1.25G tower he's been running for the last 2 years. Rosetta isn't giving him any issues and he only has 1.5 gigs of ram installed. He did say it takes longer for Photoshop to load but once it's running it's at least as fast as the G4 was. I see no reason to shy a way from the iMacs, these days it's all Firewire and USB anyway so towers are just space hogs anymore. If Apple put more ram slots in these iMacs I really think they could replace towers.

[art_director]

Don't mean to speak for p_c but I'm guessing he meant that those of us who make our daily bread in design prefer the horsepower that comes with a tower. Sure, you can get by with a laptop or a mini or an iMac but, if you can get your work done *much faster* why not spring for the big boys?

My two machines at present are a PowerBook w 2GB RAM and a dual 2.5 G5 tower with 6.5GB RAM. Guess which one I try to do most of my work on.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by almaink

Well then, if thats so I guess my two best clients and a very good designer friend of mine aren't Pros. In fact one just called me this morning to tell me just how much faster his new Intel iMac is compared to the G4 1.25G tower he's been running for the last 2 years. Rosetta isn't giving him any issues and he only has 1.5 gigs of ram installed. He did say it takes longer for Photoshop to load but once it's running it's at least as fast as the G4 was. I see no reason to shy a way from the iMacs, these days it's all Firewire and USB anyway so towers are just space hogs anymore. If Apple put more ram slots in these iMacs I really think they could replace towers.

I'm sorry, but Yes, I would really question just how "pro" they really are. Not because they purchased an iMac, but because they purchased an iMac knowing that their bread and butter applications would be running under emulation... about about 1/2 speed... and that the drivers for their scanners, higher end printers, etc. may not be properly supported.

It's not that there ARE problems... it is that there may be problems... and most pros don't gamble on "it should work" especially in a transitional phase (PPC to x86).

If CS3/Quark/Microsoft Office were released tomorrow, I would be singing a different song.

[iREZ]

imac is consumer, powermac is pro.

IM still a college student...with that said...

imac = $1175, powermac = $1799 + 17" ( should be a 20") lcd $250 - $400

ill stick with the imac for now, and when i get enough work under my belt...then ill spring for a powermac.

besides...i work with a 2.0 dual g5 at work, and use my 1.83 imac at home and feel no significant difference in the two machines and get my work done just as fast on both, maybe a sec or two slower on the imac but nothing substantial. go check out some of the photoshop benchmarks in the imac and powermac forum if youre skeptical.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by iREZ

imac is consumer, powermac is pro.

IM still a college student...with that said...

imac = $1175, powermac = $1799 + 17" ( should be a 20") lcd $250 - $400

ill stick with the imac for now, and when i get enough work under my belt...then ill spring for a powermac.

besides...i work with a 2.0 dual g5 at work, and use my 1.83 imac at home and feel no significant difference in the two machines and get my work done just as fast on both, maybe a sec or two slower on the imac but nothing substantial. go check out some of the photoshop benchmarks in the imac and powermac forum if youre skeptical.

iREZ,

I apologize if I came off sounding anti-iMac... I think the system is fantastic, and very speedy. You can do great design on an iMac... My point was, most professionals use the fastest system they can get... which would be the tower. This is compounded by the fact that the current iMac uses an Intel CPU... and our bread and butter applications aren't UB... yet.... so there is a good probability that there could be quasi-significant glitches in the software (I haven't seen any major issues so far).

I guess my point is, most professionals don't take unnecessary chances when dealing with hardware/software. I know designers that wait weeks before installing updates to ensure that nothing causes problems with their systems. They really hold true to the "if it ain't broken..." mentality.

I'm in no way insinuating that ALL pro designers are like this, just the 4-5 that I work with.

[iREZ]

i whole heartily agree with your post P_C, and if anybody knows the old adage well enough, its me (we still use adobe 8 and quark 4 at where i work...even on dual 2.0's). im just stating that youre correct, the tower is a professional machine where the imac isnt. but i also wanted to state the price difference between the two and that the imac is a capable machine right now, and is only going to get speedier with the next adobe cs update. if i could swing it, id get a 2.0 over the imac...but im happy with my current setup.

[tpicco]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

To be fair, no professional designer would buy an iMac... and the gap between CS3 and the MacTower Pro will only be 3-6 months.

Most designers aren't cutting edge... and tend to weather out transitions until their software of choice is native on the platform (or at least that is how the OS 9 to OS X transition was handled).

Bite me... I'm a professional designer, with 25 years of experience, on an iMac...

Most designers aren't "cutting edge" because most clients and most consumers aren't "cutting edge." To me, most "cutting edge" people are "change for the sake of change" types or else, even shallower, "oooh look new shiny pretty!" fools.

I have nothing against change. Change is good. I dislike judgmental a-holes who think they know it all... as my Italian Uncle would say "If you knew, you'd know that you don't know!"

[art_director]

Originally Posted by tpicco

Bite me... I'm a professional designer, with 25 years of experience, on an iMac...

Most designers aren't "cutting edge" because most clients and most consumers aren't "cutting edge." To me, most "cutting edge" people are "change for the sake of change" types or else, even shallower, "oooh look new shiny pretty!" fools.

I have nothing against change. Change is good. I dislike judgmental a-holes who think they know it all... as my Italian Uncle would say "If you knew, you'd know that you don't know!"

I'm a professional art director and I would not buy a Mac Mini or an iMac for work. My weapon of choice is a Dual 2.5 tower with a whole heck of a lot of RAM jammed into it. The reason? As a freelancer I get called when projects are on a short deadline and every second counts. I don't have the time or patience to watch progress bars.

I've worked in dozens of ad agencies and design shops, not one of them has given a consumer-grade machine (ie. iMac, Mac Mini) to a designer or art director simply because it makes for slow turn arounds and bad business.

BTW, when on the road I suffer with my PowerBook.

To suggest that most designers aren't cutting edge is simply not true.

[tpicco]

i was agreeing with an earlier poster... most design work is not "cutting edge" and ergo, there is little need for "cutting edge" designers...

[art_director]

Originally Posted by tpicco

i was agreeing with an earlier poster... most design work is not "cutting edge" and ergo, there is little need for "cutting edge" designers...

Sorry, my bad. Apologies, tpicco.

You're right, the über-hot styles aren't for Joe and Jane lunchbox. However, they do make the mainstream designers push themselves. That's where their impact is felt.

[Thorzdad]

Over the years, I've discovered that being "cutting edge" only ends up "cutting" yourself. Really, though, being cutting-edge has less to do with style than it does with the technology. It all boils down to compatability. Hell, I still run into printers that can't handle PDF files made to Acrobat-6 (pdf 1.5) spec. They can only take Acrobat 5, or even 4 files.
You can only be as cutting edge as your clients and suppliers allow.

[::maroma::]

I'm sorry, but the speed of your computer does not make you a better designer. Of course, when your deadline is in the range of a few hours to turn around a whole job, then the speed of your computer comes well into play. Otherwise it has nothing to do with how "pro" you are or how "cutting edge" you are. Nor does it have and influence on the quality of a designer's work.

I mean come on, what did all those amazing designers do 30+ years ago when they had no computers? Did they judge their leetness by the size of their photo stat?

That argument just doesn't hold any water.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

...Did they judge their leetness by the size of their photo stat?

No. We judged ourselves by how large of a marker collection you had.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

I'm sorry, but the speed of your computer does not make you a better designer. Of course, when your deadline is in the range of a few hours to turn around a whole job, then the speed of your computer comes well into play. Otherwise it has nothing to do with how "pro" you are or how "cutting edge" you are. Nor does it have and influence on the quality of a designer's work.

I mean come on, what did all those amazing designers do 30+ years ago when they had no computers? Did they judge their leetness by the size of their photo stat?

That argument just doesn't hold any water.

You're right.

A computer is a tool just as a saw is a tool. That being said, if you were in the tree trimming business, a chainsaw would not make you any better at trimming trees. But, in the same amount of time you could cut a lot more wood.

Now apply that to the world of design.

If you can do the same job faster with more processing power it allows you to try more things, thus, in theory*, making your design better. The computer does not make design better, it makes it more efficient so that more time may be dedicated to concept, exploration and finesse.



* Mileage may vary.

[tpicco]

Well I will say this... computer design has given me options that price & time constraints would not have permitted 20 years ago... and so in that sense, I have been able to make more choices and open up my design palette... but in nearly 30 years of graphic design and dozens and dozens of clients, very very few have ever wanted "cutting edge" design...

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by tpicco

Bite me... I'm a professional designer, with 25 years of experience, on an iMac...

Most designers aren't "cutting edge" because most clients and most consumers aren't "cutting edge." To me, most "cutting edge" people are "change for the sake of change" types or else, even shallower, "oooh look new shiny pretty!" fools.

I have nothing against change. Change is good. I dislike judgmental a-holes who think they know it all... as my Italian Uncle would say "If you knew, you'd know that you don't know!"

Are you on an Intel iMac? (which was my original point)

If yes, you are not a professional designer in my opinion... as you are acting unprofessional [potentially jeopardizing MY product by using emulation]. I'm obviously talking from a hardware perspective. I have designers that are still using OS 9, Quark 4.1 and Photoshop 5, and turning out QUALITY!

I'm in NO WAY saying you MUST have the latest and greatest hardware to be a professional designer... but I must be honest. I would question just how "pro" you were if I showed up and you were using an iMac... in the same way I would question a professional photographer that showed up with a $1000 digital camera.

[tpicco]

Nope... just an old-fashioned iMac... but I would think it foolish to question somebody based on their equipment, and not their portfolio & reputation. If Phillipe Halsman or Gordon Parks showed up with what I considered a "cheap" camera, unless I smelled liquor on their breath I woud trust them.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by tpicco

If Phillipe Halsman or Gordon Parks showed up with what I considered a "cheap" camera, unless I smelled liquor on their breath I woud trust them.

I wouldn't trust them if they showed up with a cheap camera. Why? Because I represent my clients and it's my responsibility. If a photographer wanted to shoot with a cheap camera I would insist they cover it with the proper equipment as well. I hold the checkbook so I get what I want.

[tpicco]

So you think you know how to take a picture better?

I'm talking about profesional respect for peers.
The designer and artist are the human beings, not the equipment.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by tpicco

So you think you know how to take a picture better?

I'm talking about profesional respect for peers.
The designer and artist are the human beings, not the equipment.

Rather than participating in a tit-for-tat exchange, let me give you a real world example.

Last year a client hired their own photographer and asked me to cover a number of shoots with this person. Up front she was asked to shoot RAW. We argued about it on the first leg of the shoot. My understanding, after a heated exchange, was that she did as requested.

Three months later I get the files for all the shots – literally thousands of shots. Guess what, she overruled my request and shot JPEG. Bad move on her part. She doesn't understand production and made the call 'based on a file-management basis.'

In the end, we ended up with a sub-standard product. The outdoor produced from her files looked like shiit. The work from the three other photographers on the job looked brilliant. All four photographers are well known, accomplished shooters. None of them understand production. Three of them listened, the fourth did not.

In the end she was lucky to get paid. She has now been blacklisted by that client. I had no role in the decision.

As I said earlier, I represent my clients. It's my responsibility to get the job done. And, since it's on my shoulders, I make the call, not the photographer, in the instance above.

This is not about professional respect for peers. This is about having a job to do and doing it right.

As I stated earlier, photographers don't know production, why would they? It's not their job, it's mine to ensure we get what we need from a shoot.


NOTE: I'm not going to entertain debate about RAW vs. JPEG files. Not the point of this post and there are technical details I've omitted for clarity and brevity.

[iREZ]

the intel imac is not a professional computer, but it is capable of producing work in a professional environment (through rosetta or not). if i were a professional id use a powermac if i could, if i couldnt...i wouldnt hesitate to use an imac, both are superb and each has its own advantages.

i think P_C's words are getting misconstrued. he isn't stating that the imac isnt capable and therefore not professional, he's stating that the imac is in a experimental stage right now and a professional doesnt experiment with his clients work.

with that said, its also interesting to point out that one top of the line powermac costs twice the amount of the top of the line imac. not to mention the cost of a 20" widescreen monitor to boot. so a designer could buy a g5 imac as of now...use it for a year then buy another imac (this time intel) once all the software is universal and now this person not only has two very capable machines, but im almost sure that the intel imac released in a year would almost be on par with these new quads out now. so in the same lifetime as one powermac, you could have yourself two imacs that are just as capable as any professional machine used in design, but hey...thats just one noob's opinion.

[tpicco]

Originally Posted by art_director

Rather than participating in a tit-for-tat exchange, let me give you a real world example.

Last year a client hired their own photographer and asked me to cover a number of shoots with this person. Up front she was asked to shoot RAW. We argued about it on the first leg of the shoot. My understanding, after a heated exchange, was that she did as requested.

ok... i see your point... i don't expect photographers to understand production either... but i do expect 'em to follow orders/requests, particularly when they are working for hire... blacklisting is too good for her...

[art_director]

Originally Posted by tpicco

ok... i see your point... i don't expect photographers to understand production either... but i do expect 'em to follow orders/requests, particularly when they are working for hire... blacklisting is too good for her...

The blacklisting was not my doing. I avoid the political side of things as best I can. That's the nice part about being freelance.

[tpicco]

Yeah... I freelance too... but this was beyond politics... she should have been executed... (I think I take this business too seriously...)

[art_director]

Originally Posted by tpicco

Yeah... I freelance too... but this was beyond politics... she should have been executed... (I think I take this business too seriously...)

Now that's funny.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by iREZ

the intel imac is not a professional computer, but it is capable of producing work in a professional environment (through rosetta or not). if i were a professional id use a powermac if i could, if i couldnt...i wouldnt hesitate to use an imac, both are superb and each has its own advantages.

i think P_C's words are getting misconstrued. he isn't stating that the imac isnt capable and therefore not professional, he's stating that the imac is in a experimental stage right now and a professional doesnt experiment with his clients work.

Yes, thank you.

It's like if I asked someone to dig a 50' long ditch in my back yard, and they showed up with a shovel. Yes, they could do it, and probably as good if not better than a back-hoe... but I would really questions the guy with the shovel.

I question a person using an Intel iMac even more (running under emulation).

[Kevin]

I use a 1.25mhz G4 for design. Both at work, and home.

I have still another year or so left on those.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I use a 1.25mhz G4 for design. Both at work, and home.

I have still another year or so left on those.

This may sound strange, but I would probably trust a designer using a 1.25Ghz G4 over a user using an iMac or a mac mini. It's no secret that many designers stick with their hardware for 2-3 years before upgrading.

[Chad A Wright]

I can see both sides of what you guys are saying. I have a Powermac Quad with tons of RAM paired with 30" and 20" ACDs. I've invested in the best equipment because I want to do the best work as fast as possible. Like art_director, I get so many projects that are "oh yeah, we needed this last week, but forgot about it."

That being said, I'm quickly headed to the point where I need to hire some help (beyond the group of freelancers I use now). I am seriously considering a top-of-the-line intel iMac for this employee. A) I'll have the ol' Quad as backup. B) Hiring someone is a big enough step, I just can't afford another $6K to equip them in the same way. C) I just can't see dropping that much money on a PowerPC system with the change in Powermacs fast approaching. D) It's a new iMac, or I let them use my Powerbook, which is almost always with me when I'm traveling, or I have a spare Mac mini hooked up to my TV, but I can't see letting them do work on that thing. I think the intel iMac, even under Rosetta would be faster than either the Powerbook or Mac mini.

My other motivation is that we need a couple of new iMacs anyway. We also do photography (tired of photographers that don't listen, just like a_d). As an extension of that, we have been shooting several weddings lately. We offer a package where we will shoot the engagement photos, and also shoot several events before the wedding (rehearsal dinner, rehearsal) and we will then have iMacs setup with slide shows of those events playing. The white iMac looks absolutely beautiful set up at weddings.

I'm not sure if that makes me a pro in p_d's eyes or not (although in my mind, we're plenty pro). I use pro equipment on one side, but I have a genuine need for consumer level equipment at the same time.

[production_coordinator]

chad,

I completely understand your situation, and would agree that an iMac isn't a bad choice (especially when considering your situation). By you KNOW that the PowerMac would be your first choice... and are choosing the iMac for other reasons (GOOD REASONS).

If I walked into a design office and saw a iMac and a G5, I feel my perception would be different as compared to walking in and seeing an iMac and a mac mini. I'm in NO WAY saying that a designer can't use an iMac or Mac mini to create fantastic design... I'm simply saying it casts doubt on how much of a professional you are when you are using consumer level equipment (compounded by using consumer level equipment in emulation).

You decision to buy such equipment IMHO is perfectly logical...

[iREZ]

i dont mean to sound like an ass...and sure im only a student...but im only playing devils advocate here.

but shouldnt you be more concerned with what you get than what is used to make it? its not like you go to a designer, design firm, photographer, whatever... by flipping through the yellow pages. you usually see something of theirs you like, or get a recommendation and follow up on that. with that said, who cares what tools they use to make it long as its on time and what you were expecting...no? do you guys actually ask to see what computers these people were working on? just asking these ?'s for some insight on how ya'll think.

[chirpy22]

Yeah, what an incredibly stupid argument! I know several designers that use either iMacs or Mac Minis, just because they can't afford to drop $3000 on a tower system. I also know designers that are using *GASP* Windows boxes and creatng awesome design. It's not what you use, it's the end product.
And if everyone was REALLY concerned with speed, they would still be using OS 9, because I haven't seen any OS X app that compares in speed to the same operations in OS 9. Especially Photoshop and Illustrator.
And... most clients don't even have any concept of different types of computers, nor do they care. I've designed web sites for clients that don't even know how to set up their e-mail programs. As long as they get what they pay for when they want it.

[chirpy22]

Oh yeah, and I also know a couple people that don't even use the computer to produce artwork. They still paint by hand and mail their art to their clients to scan in. Does that make them less capable at producing excellent artwork. Of course not. And they can usually get a painting done by hand faster than on a computer.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

This may sound strange, but I would probably trust a designer using a 1.25Ghz G4 over a user using an iMac or a mac mini. It's no secret that many designers stick with their hardware for 2-3 years before upgrading.

Trust? Huh? What does what computer you use have anything to do with their abilities?

[godzookie2k]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

And if everyone was REALLY concerned with speed, they would still be using OS 9, because I haven't seen any OS X app that compares in speed to the same operations in OS 9. Especially Photoshop and Illustrator.

Hmm, I must have gotten the special versions, because OSX and illustrator and photoshop all work faster for me than os9. In os9 I couldn't set photoshop to open a 1 gig file and then switch back and actually be productive in another application while it opened. (at the same speed as it would have on an OS9 machine)

[Chad A Wright]

Actually, the reason we invested in the 30" ACD is because of appearances. Sure it's fantastic to work on, and when we can afford another one, I'll have two of them hooked up to this machine, but the main reason is because when a client walks in and sees their work on the monitor, they are very impressed. It's a nice conversation starter.

I think p_c's entire point is the presentation of your business. You can do the same work on a Powermac G5 as an iMac, but it's just more impressive when you walk in. If you are in the design business, then you are probably designing some type of marketing materials, and to me having top-of-the-line equipment goes to building your own image, even as you convice others to invest in thiers.

[chirpy22]

It's still a totally ridiculous argument. I work from home and clients very rarely have ever even come here. Yet, they completely trust me and my design abilities and continue to recommend me to others because of my proven track record for good design and completing projects on time, not because of the computer equipment I use. For that matter, I don't even have my own office building, just my condo. I must seem really amateur-ish.

And godzookie, you must indeed have a special version of PS, because my PS 7 on OS 9.2.x runs quite a bit faster than CS2 on OS 10.4.x. Granted I only have a G4 933 with 1.5G RAM