or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Public beta of Adobe Creative Suite 3 may boost Mac sales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Public beta of Adobe Creative Suite 3 may boost Mac sales - Page 2

post #41 of 64
Does having native software even matter now? I remember some seeing some astonishing benchmark results when the 10.4.8 update came out. I think a Mac Pro running PPC software ran the software only 10% slower than a G5 Quad. I don't remember seeing compatibility complaints with 10.4.8.
post #42 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

Maybe you'd like a PC and Windows98 to go along with your PS Elements?

Nooooooooooooo! I'm not going back and you can't make me!
post #43 of 64
sunilraman: thanks. I try not to be a bastard during the holidays...

As far as the "love fest", it isn't like Adobe is taking MM code bases and merging them with Adobe code bases to build some franken-apps. It is common sense that all the key MM programmers now wear Adobe ID tags, and brought their servers with them. Basically, all the same people working on all the same code bases they did last cycle. Generally, all developers now face the prospect of developing for Macintel, but that doesn't mean suddenly the development process is being transmogrified in some untenable way.

Quote:
... Dreamweaver ... will replace GoLive ...

If you say so...

A lot of assumptions being made on the scope (suite wide vs. individual apps) and reasons behind (reassurance vs. code bungling) a potential public beta. Keep your thinking simple and you will probably arrive at the right conclusions.


Jeff: there's no hard fast rule about whether an app will run faster as PPC native (on a Quad G5) vs. Intel Native (Quad Mac Pro). Some will run faster, some will be about the same, some will be a little slower. As with PPC optimizations in the past, how well they work all depends on how well it's written. Compiler optimizations and things of that nature not withstanding. But Apple's obviously been optimizing the tools for several years so that shouldn't be a burden.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #44 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Does having native software even matter now? I remember some seeing some astonishing benchmark results when the 10.4.8 update came out. I think a Mac Pro running PPC software ran the software only 10% slower than a G5 Quad. I don't remember seeing compatibility complaints with 10.4.8.

Maybe, if you have a terabyte of ram...
post #45 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Maybe, if you have a terabyte of ram...

That test was Macworld's Photoshop test done with the stock 1GB RAM.
post #46 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

That test was Macworld's Photoshop test done with the stock 1GB RAM.

No, my point was that Photoshop + Rosetta takes up ridiculous amounts of memory. The functions themselves are plenty fast, but you're essentially reduced to a 1984-like state of only being able to use a single application at a time.
post #47 of 64
I wonder how many people really need to upgrade multiple applications (excluding Acrobat) every time. Acrobat is a bit of a different story, because a lot of people end up "printing" to PDF, and using Acrobat in a limited way just about every day.
I know that I use Photoshop all the time, and want to keep it completely up to date. I use InDesign, but I don't necessarily need the latest version (I bet this is a common situation, having a "primary" application where upgrades matter a lot, and a "secondary" application that gets use, but doesn't always need to get upgraded, plus Acrobat). I barely use Bridge, and don't use Illustrator or GoLive. What the Creative Suite model does is forces people to pay for continuing upgrades on applications they never or rarely use (unless you buy individual licenses that are MUCH more expensive than the suite. I wish you could buy the suite, then pick and choose on upgrades.

-Dan
post #48 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs

PPC and Intel are on equal footing now and for a couple years at least, for all big name developers. The percentage of MacIntel users as a part of the total Mac user base is still much smaller than the PPC segment. It would be bad business for any developer to start ignoring PPC-related performance improvements and stability in their apps, at this early stage. Eventually PPC will fall by the wayside but it'll be a while.
-Moogs

That's not so sure : stats from Net applications which divided web stats from Macs Intel and Macs PPC showed that THIS YEAR, Intel Macs are already counting for 20% of Macs and that's with several Intel models begining to ship well after this year's start.

Intel Macs should become the majority among Macs in less than 2 years, maybe even one year
In other terms : Intel Macs will be the proeminent Mac machines well before CS4 is out. And CS3 will only be out this spring

I don't see Adobe focusing that much on the PPC plateform, starting now Even if many custormers in graphic arts tend to stick to old techs and many were still using OS 9, I see the Intel transition as an opportunity for those to ditch the old system once and for all and benefit from the new Mac Intel ecosystem. As soon as major RIP makers transition and thrid parties like Enfocus have their products ready (InstantPDF and Pitstop pro UB are scheduled for the CS3 time frame), the transition to intel machines in graphics arts will bring a very visible big boost in performance and I see a major architecture transition going on among Adobe customers for this reason.
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
post #49 of 64
If I was Apple I would have paid Adobe a big crapwad of cash to get this thing out the door. It would be just a smalll investment in what will be a mad intel buying crazy frenzied rush mac maniac spree. Big cash for Apple. Either that or a gun to their head for the photoshop killa.
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
post #50 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmac

If I was Apple I would have paid Adobe a big crapwad of cash to get this thing out the door. It would be just a smalll investment in what will be a mad intel buying crazy frenzied rush mac maniac spree. Big cash for Apple. Either that or a gun to their head for the photoshop killa.

I'd get Ballmer to threaten to Squirt the head honchos at Adobe. 8)
post #51 of 64
I just ran the Retouch Artists Speed Test with CS2 and CS3beta knocking my macpro's time down from 80 seconds to 45, restarting the machine each time, following instructions properly. (4x2.0 Ghz processor, 2Gb Ram, X1900 graphics card).

Seems a Quad is still faster, as well as some Windows results, but my pens and brushes are responding noticeably sharper and faster, so far pretty happy.

http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html
post #52 of 64
Those are VERY good numbers , considering you're working with .5 Ghz less. Compared to Quad's average time 40 sec , your 45 looks cool.

What i dont understand why you went with 2.0Ghz Mac Pro ?!?! That's such a bad deal compared to 2.66 , in my opinion , of course.
post #53 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally007

Those are VERY good numbers , considering you're working with .5 Ghz less. Compared to Quad's average time 40 sec , your 45 looks cool.

What i dont understand why you went with 2.0Ghz Mac Pro ?!?! That's such a bad deal compared to 2.66 , in my opinion , of course.




I was concentrating on another set of numbers - the price!

I hand-draw everything so I guessed that processing might wasn't as important as response so the 300 I saved by getting a 2.0 instead of a 2.66 covered either the extra gig of Ram or the better graphics card. Of course a 3.0 would have been soooo cool, but wouldn't have helped me work too much faster. I think.

I was actually thinking my graphics tablet pen might be worn out or something, but CS3 gives it so much sharper and more sensitive a response. I had to go for the mac pro early when the old computer broke, so I'm awful happy CS3 has come out now.
post #54 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banalltv

I just ran the Retouch Artists Speed Test with CS2 and CS3beta knocking my macpro's time down from 80 seconds to 45, restarting the machine each time, following instructions properly. (4x2.0 Ghz processor, 2Gb Ram, X1900 graphics card).

Seems a Quad is still faster, as well as some Windows results, but my pens and brushes are responding noticeably sharper and faster, so far pretty happy.

Yay, I got 8 minutes on my Intel Mini dual 1.66.

Well, I was kinda hoping for slightly better than that (maybe 5-6 minutes) but I think this is a Ram test and I only have 1GB. The CPU is actually used very little during the whole action.

Also, I believe the Ram that they put in the Mac Pros is not the fastest Ram you can get. Maybe they need to redesign it if it's to be the Highest end system around.

Do you have Windows on the Mac Pro so we can see how well Adobe have optimized the Mac version compared to the Windows one? I actually have Windows on mine so I might give it a go.
post #55 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banalltv

I was concentrating on another set of numbers - the price!

I hand-draw everything so I guessed that processing might wasn't as important as response so the 300 I saved by getting a 2.0 instead of a 2.66 covered either the extra gig of Ram or the better graphics card. Of course a 3.0 would have been soooo cool, but wouldn't have helped me work too much faster. I think.

I was actually thinking my graphics tablet pen might be worn out or something, but CS3 gives it so much sharper and more sensitive a response. I had to go for the mac pro early when the old computer broke, so I'm awful happy CS3 has come out now.

do you do professional photo illustration? just curious. i do and for years had to use the mouse, i just recently illustrated with a wacom and was very pleased with the results.
post #56 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

Yay, I got 8 minutes on my Intel Mini dual 1.66.

Well, I was kinda hoping for slightly better than that (maybe 5-6 minutes) but I think this is a Ram test and I only have 1GB. The CPU is actually used very little during the whole action.

Also, I believe the Ram that they put in the Mac Pros is not the fastest Ram you can get. Maybe they need to redesign it if it's to be the Highest end system around.

Do you have Windows on the Mac Pro so we can see how well Adobe have optimized the Mac version compared to the Windows one? I actually have Windows on mine so I might give it a go.

HOLY FRACK. I had to stop the test after 30 MINUTES. WTF. It was in the middle of a Gaussian blur.
Pentium-4-M 2.0ghz 512mb RAM WinXP2Pro PhotoshopCS2 on Toshiba TE2100 laptop.

It definitely is very heavily RAM- and HardDisk-bound, because of the huge size of the image. One needs about 2GB and a 7200rpm drive for this test to be really worthwhile, I feel... For the PC results notice that the RAID setups help somewhat, and 2GB or so gives you decent results... Otherwise one's time just blows out like the US deficit.
post #57 of 64
I think I set the Cache levels to 1 but it may not have stayed... So that could be it. But I think the benchmark is sadly, not worth running on this laptop.
post #58 of 64
While previously I have worked for several years in mostly web, some graphic design, managing one's hardware and software alongside billing clients and freelancing is not really a reasonable option at this stage. I will continue to explore other avenues of work, not pro creative stuff. I was in the rhythm and the zone, built up from '97 with tentative steps, through to 2001-2004 with actual real life "juicy" projects..... It's almost the end of 2006 now. Nonetheless, more power to ya, pro creative peoples, I *am* excited about CS3 Universal mainly for what it means for Mac users, Mac sales, Mac profits, driving OS 10.4.8 adoption (minimum requirement for CS3 on Mac) and further driving OS 10.5 adoption. And good for Apple's momentum and market share in 2007 after the haemorrhaging through 2002-2006 of users defecting to PC because of less "snappy" performance of Adobe/Macromedia on PowerPC/ MacIntel gear.
post #59 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Beatles

do you do professional photo illustration? just curious. i do and for years had to use the mouse, i just recently illustrated with a wacom and was very pleased with the results.

Once you go Wacom it's hard to go back. On the non-purely-illustration side (Illustrator or Flash), stuff like masking and painting gradients and effects all that, it makes a significant difference in your workflow. But one can do alright without.
post #60 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

Yay, I got 8 minutes on my Intel Mini dual 1.66.

Well, I was kinda hoping for slightly better than that (maybe 5-6 minutes) but I think this is a Ram test and I only have 1GB. The CPU is actually used very little during the whole action....

Actually that's alright for Intel Core Duo, not Core2Duo, 1GB RAM and a 5400rpm hard drive. 8x less performance but also your machine setup is what, like 6x cheaper as well? So, not too bad, mate.

And 720p HDTV movie clips in QuickTime are buttery smooth, right? I think 1080p HDTV it is not *that* smooth, but 720p definitely it's cool. Not bad for a dualcore silent small form factor Mac. Not bad at all. And the Mac Mini takes up to 2x1GB RAM user-installable, and you could rig up a FW400 7200rpm external drive and use that as the Photoshop scratch disk, you might get down to 5-minutes with 2GB of RAM and the external FW400 7200rpm external drive as the scratch disk.
post #61 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

Actually that's alright for Intel Core Duo, not Core2Duo, 1GB RAM and a 5400rpm hard drive. 8x less performance but also your machine setup is what, like 6x cheaper as well? So, not too bad, mate.

Yeah I guess it's ok. It performs better in pure CPU terms as it comes in about 1/4 the speed of a quad G5, which is pretty good considering it's 6 times cheaper as you say. I'm quite happy with it but this CS3 update was really needed badly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

And 720p HDTV movie clips in QuickTime are buttery smooth, right? I think 1080p HDTV it is not *that* smooth, but 720p definitely it's cool. Not bad for a dualcore silent small form factor Mac. Not bad at all. And the Mac Mini takes up to 2x1GB RAM user-installable, and you could rig up a FW400 7200rpm external drive and use that as the Photoshop scratch disk, you might get down to 5-minutes with 2GB of RAM and the external FW400 7200rpm external drive as the scratch disk.

I've tried playing two 1080p together and it drops frames on one of them but a single 1080p stream seems to play quite smoothly. It probably depends on the output screen.

I actually have an external firewire 7200rpm drive so I can run the benchmark through with that.
post #62 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

Once you go Wacom it's hard to go back. On the non-purely-illustration side (Illustrator or Flash), stuff like masking and painting gradients and effects all that, it makes a significant difference in your workflow. But one can do alright without.


its very time consuming without. each brush stroke has to be treated as a separate object almost (im talking about it photoshop). i would draw each brush stroke then selectively mask the stroke...possibly apply a filter or warp the stroke. just to make it look decent. now its much easier.
post #63 of 64
Ok so I've done the test a bit better this time. I made sure that I rebooted and had nothing running and I set the performance at maximum - same on both Mac and Windows versions.

This is on a Mac Mini Dual Core 1.66, 1GB Ram.

With 10.4.8 using a 5400 rpm internal drive scratch, I get: 5:10, 5:01
With 10.4.8 using a 7200 rpm FW400 drive scratch, I get: 4:37, 4:32
With Windows XP SP2 on the same machine with the 5400 internal, I get: 12:18, 11:49

wtf is wrong with the Windows version (or Windows itself perhaps)? It doesn't even show the image in the back when the thing is running. The whole image goes grey and white squares.

I couldn't test Windows with the external drive because it's HFS+.
post #64 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

Once you go Wacom it's hard to go back. On the non-purely-illustration side (Illustrator or Flash), stuff like masking and painting gradients and effects all that, it makes a significant difference in your workflow. But one can do alright without.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the Beatles

its very time consuming without. each brush stroke has to be treated as a separate object almost (im talking about it photoshop). i would draw each brush stroke then selectively mask the stroke...possibly apply a filter or warp the stroke. just to make it look decent. now its much easier.

If you can use it, I think it's getting very hard to justify going without. In the US, the basic Wacom tablet is $69 at Best Buy this week. Forget the pros, I think even an amateur artist should be able to justify that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Public beta of Adobe Creative Suite 3 may boost Mac sales