|
|
the need for speed?
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, so I've got this brand-spanking new MacPro.... I'm expecting to be blow away by astoundingly high speeds... and I'm not.
Did I do something wrong? Not take it outta the box right?
The lack time I'm experiencing is mostly with Quark, anybody else see that, or am I just the lucky SOB that got the dud?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well hopefully you aren't running alot of stuff needing rosetta.
And I know my iMac was pathetic at 512 MB of RAM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Quark 7.1.x and higher, yes?
Those are the versions optimized for Intel. Or at least as optimized as Quark knows how to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
Quark 7.1.x and higher, yes?
Those are the versions optimized for Intel. Or at least as optimized as Quark knows how to do.
err, what???
yes, i'm running Q7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
What is your config? How Much Ram? Isn't there a forum for this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by MrsLarry
err, what???
yes, i'm running Q7
Can't be just Quark 7. Needs to be 7.1 and higher. Make SURE you go get the updates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Status:
Offline
|
|
HMM, ok, it's other things too. 1 GB of RAM.
Has anyone else had this happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Quark 7 is slow on anything. It's Quark's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ------>
Status:
Offline
|
|
My G5 2.5 Dual was lame in Photoshop with 1 GB RAM. Adding 2 more GB solved it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
i hear they're horrible and gawd awful slow.
Better give it to me...
|
"It's weird the way 'finger puppets' sounds ok as a noun..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by MrsLarry
1 GB of RAM.
There's yer problem. OS X needs a Gb just to bother running itself these days. Pump it up to at least 4 Gb and you'll be a happy bunny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yup. I was underwhelmed with my work Mac Pro until I upgraded to 4GB RAM and chucked my swap file on to a 10K RPM Raptor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
I agree 1 gig is too little for the mac. From what I've seen memory requirements are doubled with rosetta. So if Photoshop was snappy with 2 gig, it will need 4 to get back to that level of snappiness.
I have 2 gig in my machine right now and after using photoshop and/or aperture, iweb, indesign (not all at once but different combinations) I have 5 to 6 swap files generated in /var/vm and performances goes down the hopper.
If I wasn't so broke, I'd spring for another 2 (or more) gig of ram, but money is tight so I need to accept the performance penalty when running a couple of intensive apps at a time.
|
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
768Mb is fine for my iMac G5, even while using FCP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status:
Offline
|
|
192MB of RAM is fine for Photoshop on my PBG3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Tuoder
192MB of RAM is fine for Photoshop on my PBG3.
48MB of RAM is fine for Photoshop 6.0 on my PM6100/g3.
|
Don't bully me, I got an Uzi... HOO-HAH!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Depends what Mac you are coming from, what apps you use and how much RAM.
I have a dual 2.0 G5 Tower and when I used the new MacPro's and native apps I didn't "feel" much of a change either.
I am sure if I did some heavy processing and had a stopwatch I would see more of a difference though.
|
"She's gone from suck to blow!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Dark Helmet
Depends what Mac you are coming from, what apps you use and how much RAM.
I have a dual 2.0 G5 Tower and when I used the new MacPro's and native apps I didn't "feel" much of a change either.
I am sure if I did some heavy processing and had a stopwatch I would see more of a difference though.
Yeah, native apps is quick, it's when i have Quark, PhotoShop and Illustrator all going at once is where i get into trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah that's a RAM problem. Well, that & Rosetta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by MrsLarry
Yeah, native apps is quick, it's when i have Quark, PhotoShop and Illustrator all going at once is where i get into trouble.
It is because of Rosetta, apps will take double the RAM with it so you are pretty much running them as if they are on 512.
Put 2 gigs in the machine and it should be WAY quicker.
With native apps it is still only around the speed of Quad G5s which isn't stellar.
|
"She's gone from suck to blow!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Status:
Offline
|
|
hooray!!!
Popped 2GB in here this morning and is FANTASTIC - zoom!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|