[Chuckit]

I don't notice a significant difference in speed between Photoshop 6 in OS 9 and Photoshop CS in OS X. They both feel pretty goldurned Snappy™ at most things and annoyingly slow at others. If anything, I'd say there are a few parts where CS seems to have been optimized quite a bit more, but there's not a big difference overall. Maybe that's just my usage, though.

[godzookie2k]

chirpy: PS7 on 9.2 also does a ton of alot less than CS2 on 10.4. Not to mention multitasking makes for a way faster workflow.

[godzookie2k]

I'm not about to take a side in the argument above, I'm a web guy so I don't need 10 gigs of ram to do my work, I will say the dual core imac will give an evenly ram equipped dual g5 a run for its money.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

I'm not about to take a side in the argument above, I'm a web guy so I don't need 10 gigs of ram to do my work, I will say the dual core imac will give an evenly ram equipped dual g5 a run for its money.

To your point, whether an iMac / Mac Mini / PowerBook will be adequate all depends upon the work you do.

Last year I did a project with some insane art created in Illustrator CS. Each illustration had hundreds, yes, I did say hundreds, of layers, blends, etc. Each file came in at 80MB or more. My job was to take the work the illustrator had done and repurpose it for a variety of media, often mixing multiple illustrations. As you might guess, the files were enormous.

I did all that work on a dual 2.5 G5 with 6.5 GB RAM. Even with the machine I have it took a little while to save and, given the complexity of the art, I needed to save frequently because Illustrator was choking hard.

In the middle of the job I had to travel and bring the files on my PowerBook. That, my friends, was hell on earth.

For a job like that I would not even consider using a Mac Mini, iMac or a PowerBook.

[godzookie2k]

I'd agree, if the imac was an imac G5. However an intel chipped iMac or powerbook, with equal ram, (I'm not sure what the max is on the PB's or iMac boards) will out perform a G5. Check out ars' benchmarks Keep in mind with those results, the G5 tower has 7 times as much ram, twice the video ram, and significantly more clock speed, but the performance difference between it and the very under spec'd core duo imac isn't as great as it should be considering those specs. I for one wouldn't work on an imac for sheer expandability reasons, but its not as underpowered a machine as it used to be. Now, whenever the super dooper macMac intel towers ship, that will change things I reckon.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

I'd agree, if the imac was an imac G5. However an intel chipped iMac or powerbook, with equal ram, (I'm not sure what the max is on the PB's or iMac boards) will out perform a G5. Check out ars' benchmarks Keep in mind with those results, the G5 tower has 7 times as much ram, twice the video ram, and significantly more clock speed, but the performance difference between it and the very under spec'd core duo imac isn't as great as it should be considering those specs. I for one wouldn't work on an imac for sheer expandability reasons, but its not as underpowered a machine as it used to be. Now, whenever the super dooper macMac intel towers ship, that will change things I reckon.

Yeah, the benchmarks are impressive for the MacIntel's. Of course, lab tests and true work under deadline the same things are not. :•>

I look forward to what the new towers have to hold.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

I'd agree, if the imac was an imac G5. However an intel chipped iMac or powerbook, with equal ram, (I'm not sure what the max is on the PB's or iMac boards) will out perform a G5. Check out ars' benchmarks Keep in mind with those results, the G5 tower has 7 times as much ram, twice the video ram, and significantly more clock speed, but the performance difference between it and the very under spec'd core duo imac isn't as great as it should be considering those specs. I for one wouldn't work on an imac for sheer expandability reasons, but its not as underpowered a machine as it used to be. Now, whenever the super dooper macMac intel towers ship, that will change things I reckon.

I agree the Core Duo will be fast for design... but as it stands now... it is nowhere near a G5 with respects to Photoshop etc.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...-coreduo.ars/6

That's where I start to question the use of the intel iMac/mini for design now. Even if you are replacing an aging G4... you are still running in emulation. Which is my book is an unprofessional move.

Again, I call em' as I see em'. I've been proven wrong by low end designers before... and have fallen for the "all hardware no product" types as well. I just find my observations to be a general rule.

[godzookie2k]

Even looking at those stats, with the exception of photoshop rotating, the intels aren't that far off, and will easily mop the floor with an aging G4. Replacing an aging G4 with anything is the responsible, professional move. planning for the future and all, especially for those independent designers who aren't on the budget to replace their hardware once a year.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

Even looking at those stats, with the exception of photoshop rotating, the intels aren't that far off, and will easily mop the floor with an aging G4.

Isn't that far off... from a iMac G5... the PowerMac is roughly 3X faster in all areas.

Also, from the article: "the performance of the iMac Core Duo seemed to be on par with a 1GHz Power Macintosh G4" So the article basically says that running Photoshop on a Core Duo iMac would be like running Photoshop on a Low End Power Mac from January 2003.

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

Replacing an aging G4 with anything is the responsible, professional move.

I don't agree. I firmly believe that holding on to a dual 800 system until CS3, Office and Quark are Universal Binaries would be the responsible, professional move. Not jumping on a system that runs all three in emulation.

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

planning for the future and all, especially for those independent designers who aren't on the budget to replace their hardware once a year.

Few designers upgrade their hardware every year. Most pros that I know swap it out on a 2-3 year cycle (depending on need). There are 3+ year old systems that are still running just fine for general design. For many designers, it is just a pain to upgrade. Especially after you get everything working the way you want it to work. Nobody wants to spend a day reinstalling CS/Quark/Word/bla bla bla.

From my years of being in the industry, you don't buy for the future... you buy for today. TODAY, if I were a professional, I wouldn't buy anything. If I was forced to make a purchase, I would buy a mid range G5 to get me through the next two years.

Obviously if you can't afford a G5, you need to make decisions. If a G5 was out of the picture, I would look at an Mac mini personally with a 20"+ screen. So when the next upgrade comes around, I would have more choices (another mini or a tower).

[godzookie2k]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Isn't that far off... from a iMac G5... the PowerMac is roughly 3X faster in all areas.

I was referring to the intel duo, however, considering the specs of the power mac the test is pretty tough to discern a real comparison.

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

IAlso, from the article: "the performance of the iMac Core Duo seemed to be on par with a 1GHz Power Macintosh G4" So the article basically says that running Photoshop on a Core Duo iMac would be like running Photoshop on a Low End Power Mac from January 2003.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with the comparison. I haven't used the intel macs alot mind you, but I think thats a slight exaggeration. My point is, I think, that while I wouldn't give one of these to one of our production guys to use, those guys throw 2 gig photoshop files around like confetti, but I think it would be fine for someone just doing design, and it'd be totally fine for a web developer though.

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I don't agree. I firmly believe that holding on to a dual 800 system until CS3, Office and Quark are Universal Binaries would be the responsible, professional move. Not jumping on a system that runs all three in emulation.

Eh, so be it.

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

From my years of being in the industry, you don't buy for the future... you buy for today. TODAY, if I were a professional, I wouldn't buy anything. If I was forced to make a purchase, I would buy a mid range G5 to get me through the next two years.

See therein lies the problem. As "professionals", I agree, you do buy for *today* but considering the very critical transition that is taking place in the mac world, one has to consider the near-term future, being the intel shift. Today, the intels aren't ready for heavy duty production/design work because the software isn't there yet. However, the G5's days are numbered, and when the software catches up, the intel performance increase over the G5 makes considering an intel at this point (if the towers were shipping) not a bad idea (if you HAVE to purchase a machine) because once the software catches up next year, you've suddenly got a huge performance increase over those still rocking the power pc towers. So is a huge performance jump next year worth the growing pains this year, or should one save themselves the growing pains this year, but without the benefit of the performance jump later. I don't know, I'd go the first way, especially if I'm dropping 3 - 5 grand on new kit to last me the next 3 years or so.

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

IObviously if you can't afford a G5, you need to make decisions. If a G5 was out of the picture, I would look at an Mac mini personally with a 20"+ screen. So when the next upgrade comes around, I would have more choices (another mini or a tower).

This is where I got kind of lost. Because up there^^ you were saying that it'd be irresponsible to go intel until CS3, Office and Quark were Universal Binaries. I'd think by that logic, going with an affordable, fully loaded iMac G5 would be better than emulation? Or am I just reading wrong?

[Chad A Wright]

Question: Has Quark announced when their Universal Binary will be available, or is the Quark 7 Beta already Universal? The only reason I ask is because godzookie2k's post above is the first one I can remember that has even mentioned needing a Quark Universal. I find that odd. It's entirely possible, I just haven't been paying attention, because surely Quark's market share hasn't dropped that quickly.

I could be wrong, InDesign sucked me in.

Not to start another Q vs. ID battle. Just a question.

[godzookie2k]

actually p_c mentioned it first, I think that quarks next version will be universal but I can't remember where I saw that, so don't quote me on it, but its in beta now.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

actually p_c mentioned it first, I think that quarks next version will be universal but I can't remember where I saw that, so don't quote me on it, but its in beta now.

Correct. Quark 7 will be a UB. Apple inaccurately said that there would be a UB public beta of QuarkXPress, but that wasn't true. Quark has confirmed that there is a UB beta, but they are testing that differently.

I can't wait until I'm on an Intel MacTower Pro running all UB software.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Correct. Quark 7 will be a UB. Apple inaccurately said that there would be a UB public beta of QuarkXPress, but that wasn't true. Quark has confirmed that there is a UB beta, but they are testing that differently.

I can't wait until I'm on an Intel MacTower Pro running all UB software.

No no, Apple didn't lie. The Universal QXP7 BP is out. The PB program has ended for Wintels, but is in beta 3 for Mac users because it is Universal.





V

[lookmark]

Quark's Universal beta of Quark 7 is the most impressively Mac-savvy thing I've seen from the company in quite some time.

InDesign CS2 is still much, much better, but Quark leapfrogged Adobe on this one.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by lookmark

Quark's Universal beta of Quark 7 is the most impressively Mac-savvy thing I've seen from the company in quite some time.

InDesign CS2 is still much, much better, but Quark leapfrogged Adobe on this one.

I'm a die hard Quark user... and I can't believe we leapfrogged InDesign. I'll wait and see, but ID has some cool features... (granted, their program is 6 years old, and QuarkXPress is 19+)

If I had a sit down with the people at Quark... I would say "JUST FOCUS ON PRINT!"

I don't think Quark is dead... but I'm starting to realize that InDesign is going to be the dominant design app within the next 4-6 years. It's all about money... You get ID "free" with the creative suite. Quark is simply going to be pushed out... in the same way WordPerfect was pushed out by Microsoft.

Time to brush up on my InDesign

[art_director]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I'm a die hard Quark user... and I can't believe we leapfrogged InDesign. I'll wait and see, but ID has some cool features... (granted, their program is 6 years old, and QuarkXPress is 19+)

If I had a sit down with the people at Quark... I would say "JUST FOCUS ON PRINT!"

I don't think Quark is dead... but I'm starting to realize that InDesign is going to be the dominant design app within the next 4-6 years. It's all about money... You get ID "free" with the creative suite. Quark is simply going to be pushed out... in the same way WordPerfect was pushed out by Microsoft.

Time to brush up on my InDesign

Yep, print should be their focus. IMO you're right, ID will win out in time.

[godzookie2k]

but its such a FANTASTIC web layout program! Quark and Powerpoint are the two hit combo in my internet homepage design arsenal.

[lookmark]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I'm a die hard Quark user... and I can't believe we leapfrogged InDesign. I'll wait and see, but ID has some cool features... (granted, their program is 6 years old, and QuarkXPress is 19+)

If I had a sit down with the people at Quark... I would say "JUST FOCUS ON PRINT!"

I don't think Quark is dead... but I'm starting to realize that InDesign is going to be the dominant design app within the next 4-6 years. It's all about money... You get ID "free" with the creative suite. Quark is simply going to be pushed out... in the same way WordPerfect was pushed out by Microsoft.

Time to brush up on my InDesign

Oh, absolutely, I agree with everything you say. InDesign is the superior program by far.

Just color me impressed that Quark was able to beat Adobe on this one issue. Waiting another year for a UB of InDesign is going to be a PITA.

[production_coordinator]

As I see it... by the time it's important to have a UB... Adobe will have CS3 out the door. As we stand now... being UB isn't all that important to most professionals.

Richard

[godzookie2k]

Its a chicken/egg problem. Its not a problem to pros because none of them want to upgrade without UB's for their design software, and Adobe et al aren't hauling ass because not many pros have upgraded.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I'm a die hard Quark user... and I can't believe we leapfrogged InDesign. I'll wait and see, but ID has some cool features... (granted, their program is 6 years old, and QuarkXPress is 19+)

If I had a sit down with the people at Quark... I would say "JUST FOCUS ON PRINT!"

I don't think Quark is dead... but I'm starting to realize that InDesign is going to be the dominant design app within the next 4-6 years. It's all about money... You get ID "free" with the creative suite. Quark is simply going to be pushed out... in the same way WordPerfect was pushed out by Microsoft.

Time to brush up on my InDesign

I disagree that Quark is on the way out. ID is offered free, and that is the only advantage that app has, but Quark has held their user-base amazingly well during the time ID has been available. Yet during that time saying Quark's development and price wasn't stellar is an understatement.

ID fans make up all sorts of hypothetical excuses for this fact but now with Quark revitalized and with much better support and price than ever it will hold its own. Simply because it works and it is the industry standard.

ID fans hate hearing that but there you go. If Adobe hadn't packaged ID in CS then it wouldn't even have scratched Quark's user-base. That says a lot.

ID was supposed to be the Quark killer, but the Quark it was supposed to kill is long dead. Quark 7 is a very different beast and it has gone back to the roots with focusing mostly on print and just letting the web-features stay there on life support.

Quark is *the* page layout app and will be for a long time to come. That much has already been proven.

V

[art_director]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I disagree that Quark is on the way out. ID is offered free, and that is the only advantage that app has, but Quark has held their user-base amazingly well during the time ID has been available. Yet during that time saying Quark's development and price wasn't stellar is an understatement.

ID fans make up all sorts of hypothetical excuses for this fact but now with Quark revitalized and with much better support and price than ever it will hold its own. Simply because it works and it is the industry standard.

ID fans hate hearing that but there you go. If Adobe hadn't packaged ID in CS then it wouldn't even have scratched Quark's user-base. That says a lot.

ID was supposed to be the Quark killer, but the Quark it was supposed to kill is long dead. Quark 7 is a very different beast and it has gone back to the roots with focusing mostly on print and just letting the web-features stay there on life support.

Quark is *the* page layout app and will be for a long time to come. That much has already been proven.

V

Being free is the only advantage ID has over Quark? Blah, that's far from fact.

I work with dozens of ad agencies and design shops around the United States. Until yesterday the only places I've encountered that used ID were small design shops. That said, every printer I use accepts ID files. They have to, they're in a service business.

As I mention in another thread, yesterday, May 10, 2006, marks the day the first of my large clients is switching to ID for all their workflow. The transition is to be complete by the end of next month and all vendors are expected to supply ID files. To aid in the transition, this client is supplying interested parties (vendors) with video training materials and support to make the transition less painful. This client shall remain nameless but I can tell you they're a household name that does a very large quantity of print work each year.

While you're right, ID hasn't turned out to be a Quark killer, it is nipping at the heels of the almighty and poorly guided Quark. If a couple more large corporations begin to shift to ID you're going to see ad agencies and design shops jump on the band wagon. Then the Quark killer profecy will come to fruition. That or Adobe will buy them and fix what Quark refuses to fix. You know, stuff like the worst customer support in the graphic software world.

[chirpy22]

The only reason ID hasn't become a total Quark killer is because it can only open Quark 4 files. If Adobe found a way for ID to convert more recent Quark docs it would be all over.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

The only reason ID hasn't become a total Quark killer is because it can only open Quark 4 files. If Adobe found a way for ID to convert more recent Quark docs it would be all over.

You're right about that. It's been hurting them this far. That said I don't know that it's a matter of trying to make it happen, I believe it's a strategic decision. Adobe knows the design community has a love / hate relationship with Quark and they're willing to ride it out.

[voodoo]

Adobe is sitting on its ass while Macs change to Intel. Now that's bad customer service. I lost a lot of respect for Adobe when I heard when they'd release CS3.

Apple and Adobe hate each other now and I'm just waiting for a press release from Adobe telling people to switch to Windows to get full service and expericence.

Final Cut Pro, iPhoto, Preview, Aperture and Shake are apps Adobe has, had or would have had direct competition with on the Mac. Now, they don't. If Apple decides to touch their monopoly they just go crying back home with their ball.

Adobe's Wintel support is very good. Mac support is lackluster and half-assed. They are moving away from the Mac where they can and for that they can go **** themselves.

V

[godzookie2k]

I don't know, I've always put FCP on a notch or two above Premier, pshop elements a notch or two above iPhoto, preview is kind of irrellevant imo, Aperture and adobes app whatever its called were being developed at the same time, thats just coincidence, and adobe doesn't have anything that can touch shake?

[greenamp]

Indesign is very easy to learn if you're already familiar with PS and Illustrator, simply for the familiar GUI layout. Also, it's core functionalities, like Master pages, text flow, baseline grids, etc are very similar to how they function in Quark.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Adobe is sitting on its ass while Macs change to Intel. Now that's bad customer service. I lost a lot of respect for Adobe when I heard when they'd release CS3.

Apple and Adobe hate each other now and I'm just waiting for a press release from Adobe telling people to switch to Windows to get full service and expericence.

Final Cut Pro, iPhoto, Preview, Aperture and Shake are apps Adobe has, had or would have had direct competition with on the Mac. Now, they don't. If Apple decides to touch their monopoly they just go crying back home with their ball.

Adobe's Wintel support is very good. Mac support is lackluster and half-assed. They are moving away from the Mac where they can and for that they can go **** themselves.

V

To be fair Adobe was already tasked pretty heavily with it's purchase of Macromedia, and was probably neck deep in overhauling the Macromedia apps when the Apple Intel switch was dumped on them.

But I share your sentiments in that I am a bit put out that Adobe doesn't seem to really care about releasing a UB patch for their current batch of software. I will not even consider buying an Intel Mac until the Apps I need run natively.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Adobe is sitting on its ass while Macs change to Intel. Now that's bad customer service. I lost a lot of respect for Adobe when I heard when they'd release CS3.

Apple and Adobe hate each other now and I'm just waiting for a press release from Adobe telling people to switch to Windows to get full service and expericence.

Final Cut Pro, iPhoto, Preview, Aperture and Shake are apps Adobe has, had or would have had direct competition with on the Mac. Now, they don't. If Apple decides to touch their monopoly they just go crying back home with their ball.

Adobe's Wintel support is very good. Mac support is lackluster and half-assed. They are moving away from the Mac where they can and for that they can go **** themselves.

V

I'm no defender of Adobe but let's sober up and have a peek at some history, shall we?

-- 2003 Adobe launches the Creative Suite as a bundle.
-- 2005 Adobe Creative Suite 2 is launched.

Hmmm...looks like two years between updates. Could it possibly be that Adobe is regulating their product development and release cycle?

To me it seems, from a business point of view, that Adobe would be making a mistake releasing CS3 one year after the release of CS2. After all, they haven't realized all the income potential from the release of CS2 that occured just last year.

Like yourself, I wish CS3 were out now. If it were I'd have a shiny new MacBookPro on my desk at this moment. But, it's not and it's just as well. Every time I buy the firt rev of an Apple Product I get bit in the azz. Well, make the original 5GB iPod and exception to that statement.

As for the fact that Apple has been playing in Adobe's sandbox, well, in this case I do not believe that theory holds water.

[lookmark]

In defense of Adobe, the effort it will take to make Creative Studio Universal is *not* trivial. Many of their older apps, like Photoshop, are absolutely huge and use the CodeWarrior IDE. Moving from CW to XCode, which is still not fully mature, is a big, big transition. Then they have Univeralize all the plug-ins. And so on. It's a lot of work.

That said, Quark managed to lap them on this one, and Quark 7 is rumored to be coming out in the next month or two, so kudos to Quark.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by godzookie2k

I don't know, I've always put FCP on a notch or two above Premier, pshop elements a notch or two above iPhoto, preview is kind of irrellevant imo, Aperture and adobes app whatever its called were being developed at the same time, thats just coincidence, and adobe doesn't have anything that can touch shake?

Professional editors use FCP, not Premier.

Photoshop Elements and iPhoto are both consumer applications but comparing the two is like comparing a kangaroo and a ukulele.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by lookmark

That said, Quark managed to lap them on this one, and Quark 7 is rumored to be coming out in the next month or two, so kudos to Quark.

When is the last time that Quark released an update that wasn't a beta we had to pay for? I'm thinking back to Quark v.3 and I'm at a loss to see a mature product at release in anything since then.

[lookmark]

Well, yeah, we'll have to see just how mediocre Quark 7 actually is.

[production_coordinator]

7.0 Mac OS/Mac OS X, Windows Liquid Sky March 2002
19 Months Later
CS (8.0) Mac OS X, Windows Dark Matter October 2003
18 Months Later
CS2 (9.0) Mac OS X, Windows Space Monkey April 2005

IMHO, Adobe isn't sitting on their hands. Releasing a CS2 Universal Binary patch wasn't an option. They are making CS3 a UB, so what else can we ask for? Also, until Apple has all of their systems shipping with Intel chips, what's the point?

[art_director]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

7.0 Mac OS/Mac OS X, Windows Liquid Sky March 2002
19 Months Later
CS (8.0) Mac OS X, Windows Dark Matter October 2003
18 Months Later
CS2 (9.0) Mac OS X, Windows Space Monkey April 2005

IMHO, Adobe isn't sitting on their hands. Releasing a CS2 Universal Binary patch wasn't an option. They are making CS3 a UB, so what else can we ask for? Also, until Apple has all of their systems shipping with Intel chips, what's the point?

Nail on the head!

Then there's the fact that many agencies / design shops won't jump on the new stuff until it's proven.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by art_director

Nail on the head!

Then there's the fact that many agencies / design shops won't jump on the new stuff until it's proven.

Exactly. It's very similar to when people were screaming at Adobe and Quark for not releasing OS X versions of their software... weeks after 10.0 was announced.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Exactly. It's very similar to when people were screaming at Adobe and Quark for not releasing OS X versions of their software... weeks after 10.0 was announced.

That was a painful time. I bit the OS X bullet the day it came out and I paid dearly. Ahhhhh...thankfully I learned my lesson....