or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bikertwin

Not sure why that's being interpreted as elitist. It seems very matter-of-fact to me. It just seems that the performance issue has been beaten to death in this very thread. I do care, and it is of interest to me. It's just that the question has been answered before. FWIW, my current hardware won't run Aperture, and it's less than a year old. I feel the pain, believe me. But I also understand what Aperture can do, and why it needs that horsepower. Now, if you want to...
So? That's an almost-3-year-old notebook. That it can't run a bleeding-edge, realtime app is a given. If it did run Aperture, we'd hear nothing but complaints from this fellow about how slow it was. Hurray for him that he can run PS CS2 on it. Aperture does what PS CS2 can't do. Nothing new here. Move along.
Welcome, superhall, and jump right in! No need to worry about them producing non-elegant machines. Apple can't compete with Dell on price, so there's no way Apple will create cheapie machines. It's not in their blood, anyway. iPods weren't the cheapest MP3 players when they first came out. The Mac mini is relatively inexpensive, but not as cheap (in all senses of the word ) as a Dell. No, don't worry my child. Apple will produce nice machines . . . and you'll pay for it.
Would it be as good as running under a VM? I remember Windows apps running under OS/2 would run much faster when run in full screen mode. Those "advantages of integration with its host OS" come at a significant cost. TNSTAAFL.
Aperture is now shipping: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...ts/AppleStore/
Yeah, I agree that #1 (dual boot) is pretty much a geek/gamer solution. Your average Joe or Mary won't really care for that at all. It's so inconvenient. It's like shutting down your stove so you can use your oven. #4 (multiple independent VMs) is probably more useful than you think. I don't know the technical details of how Intel and Apple might implement it, but I'd guess you would be able to use the same networking and see the same hard drives (via networking). Yeah,...
In my earlier post, where I was saying that running Virtual PC on a G3/G4/G5 is very different from running a Windows VM on an Intel Mac, I was referring to your point #4 as the VM technology. That's why it's so different--it's partly hardware based (the CPU supports VMs, as opposed to Virtual PC where the G3/G4/G5 doesn't support VMs directlly) and there are no CPU instruction translations because both Windows and OS X/Intel run natively on Intel. Here's an interesting...
OK, maybe I'm using the terminology wrong or I'm misunderstanding something, but... Windows running in a VM on a dual-core Intel machine is a very different beast from Virtual PC running on a G3/G4/G5 Mac. In a dual-core Intel machine, one core could be assigned to OS X and one core could be assigned to Windows. There is no hardware instruction translation, since both OSes run *natively* on Intel. Both run essentially at full speed on their individual cores. OTOH, with...
Ah, but whos pro apps aren't ready? Apple's should be. FCP, DVD SP, Motion, Aperture . . . they should all be ready, no? Wouldn't Apple be thrilled with Aperture running full speed on a dual core PowerBook, while Photoshop runs in emulation mode? And Microsoft's apps aren't really 'pro'. I mean, a word processor is just a commodity nowadays. Word works fine on even fairly slow processors. Then look at recent releases. People have been impressed with recent iMac and Power...
Don't worry, RazzFazz, you're not the first one who's given up arguing with melgross.
New Posts  All Forums: