or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Road to Snow Leopard: Twice the RAM, half the price, 64-bits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Road to Snow Leopard: Twice the RAM, half the price, 64-bits - Page 3

post #81 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate View Post

This doesn't make sense. A copy of OS X (generally the latest at time of shipping) is included with every mac. So, Apple only sells OS upgrades to it's qualified (by qualified i mean users owning a recent enough machine) users.

I'm sure PPC and CoreDuo users will have 10.5 security updates for years to come.

Apple did offer point updates to System 9 for about 10 months after OS X came out. The situation is different since Apple was well into selling PPC-based Macs which OS X would install on, but I think Apple will continue with point updates for Leopard, perhaps even adding some aspects of Snow Leopard to the Leopard updates, until a full 36 months of support has passed.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #82 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Your posts have no purpose you are just trying to be an ass for no reason.

I have not made a single comment regarding any errors. We come to this forum to attempt civil debates and share information, you are doing neither.

In any case the fact that you are even talking about iPhones and PC's and Servers tells me right theres tells me the number on my W2 is will out of your reach. In my world systems cost 30 million just to start.


You were smugly touting how great Vista 64 was at doing mundane tasks. I pointed out how any machine should be able to do that. You went off on random tangents, (iphones and comparing a stock parts home built pc to a laptop?) that i had fun responding to. I've used forums before, thanks.

why don't u go "encode" some "extreme skating" old guy.
post #83 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate View Post

Dude, when i'm trying to get a thought out, I'm less inclined to care about my proper apostrophes. I'm going back now, to revel in my "mediocrity" that i've placed myself in due to my lack of compassion for the english language.

Thanks for showing me the light.

/asshole

Shouldn't the "e" in "english" be capitalized, i.e. English?
\
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #84 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

A little more on topic.....

I'll probably only be using it for another couple years and it'll finally die for me.
Still, it's got built in blue-tooth, and wi-fi, lots of disk speed and pretty good power. Had it three years, will have it over five years and that's a good value.

My old Dell desktop lasted me for 7 years and was still going strong (as far as my needs went...mainly browsing, some Word & Excel). It was maintained well with regular scandisks, defragmenting, very minimum 3rd party apps, etc. No hardware issues till the end. Finally I got bored of it and can't contain my excitement at the prospect of owning a new Apple...so gave it away to my domestic help and am now the owner of a recent macbook pro ;-)

point is...only 5 years life expectancy for a mac??
post #85 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Depends 3GB came with my PC laptop. Ditched that and got 2x2GB for like $70 (total delivered cost), moved over to 64-bit Vista.

Now If I'd have stayed with 32-bit Vista, single app see's 2GB maximum, OS see's all 3GB but loses some RAM due either to integrated graphics (mine is dedicated) or 32-bit Window's addressing issues. The best case 32-bit Windows is ~3.2GB usable application RAM.

So the way I see it, at best you've overspent by $35 for 2GB or $17.50 for 1GB. In other words pocket change for a $1000 computer/laptop.

Also this is another AI POS article, a current Mac memory penalty resolved in 10.6 brings both OS'es to the same level of parity. In other words all Mac's currently have the problem that 64-bit/32-bit Vista currently doesn't have.

As to the ignorance of Mac versus PC end users, both are on average the same, but the community of knowledgeable PC users undoubtedly outnumbers the entire Mac OS X user community. That's a given. Heck the PC gaming community vastly outnumbers the entire Mac OS X community for that matter, and they're all gearhead's to boot.

I would even argue that Mac users are on average more clueless, since that's the main selling point of OS X, the seemless end user experience.

Signed,
A former three time Mac owner

PS - I might buy a Mac mini if an upgrade is in the pipeline, but it depends on if it has HDMI, eSATA, nos-soldered CPU/RAM. Not very likely. Because that's all that I could afford right now on my current fixed income.

The article pointed out, quite rightly, that when buying a gaming system with one of the new 1GB cards only 2.3 GB is available. This is quite true.

Your experience is different. You don't have a high end machine. It's ironic, isn't it, when a lower end machine can use more memory than a high end machine?

Quote:
a current Mac memory penalty resolved in 10.6 brings both OS's to the same level of parity. In other words all Mac's currently have the problem that 64-bit/32-bit Vista currently doesn't have.

You will have to explain this.
post #86 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead View Post

Having more registers is nice but not a huge win. You have to recompile software and the compiler has to be smart enough to allocate the registers efficiently. The number of registers is just of of many of x86's flaws, all of which contribute to the lack of performance.

Also there is a difference between architectural registers and physical registers. The processor aliases registers and there are many more physical registers than 8. This is a better solution which is why Intel implemented it. If registers were so critical Intel would have added them long ago, it's not like they are short of transistors. I don't know why having wider registers is going to make much difference except in a few cases (multiply?).

As I said, it's hype. You're "well understood" claim isn't very convincing.

It's convincing when you understand it.
post #87 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

No mention of Apple yanking away 64 bit Carbon support at the last minute after previously promising it leaving developers with hundreds (thousands?) of hours of work down the toilet? Who knows how long the decision was made before announcing it at WWDC, but Apple kept it under wraps because things can only be announced at a big event in Appleland.

How about all the features promised for Longhorn, er Vista, that were pulled, one by one?
post #88 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Good grief. Ajmas explained it and you still don't get it. Writing in all-caps implies that a word is an acronym, therefore MAC = Medium Access Control, not short for Macintosh. Mac is short for Macintosh.



Make that all forums, not just this one.

I think what happens sometimes, is that with simple things like this, say the spelling and capitalization of Mac - MAC, is that when it's pointed out, instead of saying "oops!", there is embarrassment, and instead, the spelling is insisted upon.

There is overmuch concern about this.

If he wants to write MAC, fine, let him. We all know what he means.
post #89 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Sent from an iPhone, I presume?

I don't think so. Just not paying attention.

That's embarrassing!
post #90 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByronVanArsdale View Post

Crysis in the apple world means waiting for MBP upgrade Jan 08 only to find it still not out at June 08.

Crysis is the pc world is heaven on earth

Crysis is the game that no PC player can ever play at high resolution with all features on, and still get decent frame rates.

Anyone who claims (s)he can, is BSing.
post #91 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate View Post

do you get a t-shirt with those "higher standards? "

and does the ? go before or after the quotations?

It's what he does. Get used to it. We all have.

You can always correct your post after you write it.

I work at that too, but mess up sometimes.

I hate writing like a slob. It makes the point less presentable, and believable.
post #92 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The 50 megapixel sensor at 16 bpp would mean 100 MB file uncompressed. Not that big of a deal for single files, unless you plan to have 20 of them open at the same time, I don't know if each file could get its own 2GB/4GB space or not.

Megapixels are old hat anyway, the latest hot high end cameras have about half the pixels of its flagship competitor, it's hot because it's producing fantastic pictures in low light, offering more shooting possibilities in the dark than ever previously thought possible.

The 50 MP sensor from Canon is just a rumor, based on remarks from a canon person who was talking about possibilities down the road.

Nikon came out with a 12.1 MP sensor because this is the first high quality sensor the did by themselves designwise. You must walk before you run. They were getting killed by Canon, and decided to concentrate on noise levels first, which is much easier to do on a low MP sensor such as the one they came up with (which they don't actually make themselves).

I guarantee you that Nikon will have a higher pixel sensor. Possibly the 24+ MP one Sony will announce shortly in a new camera.

The MP race has not ended by a long shot. This has given Nikon some short term breathing room.

Canon will come close in noise with its newer cameras, if not equal it, with higher pixel counts, which ARE important.
post #93 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

I wondering if AI will also make a big deal of the fact that Apple will stop selling 10.5 when 10.6 comes out, thus screwing non-Intel C2D users...

Why would that screw anyone? I would hope that by the time 10.6 comes out, that people who wanted to, will have upgraded already.

If not, they can buy new copies at a very good discount at various places which usually sell older versions, at least for some time after they've been discontinued.
post #94 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I really don't think that's a key reason. I don't think that's even relevent. I would suggest that if they drop PPC, the real reason would be that there's not enough of them out there to justify the work needed to make them run the new OS. Only iMac G5s and PowerMac G5s can run 64 bit PPC code, and their relevance is fading pretty quickly. Only the towers can address more than 2.5GB of memory, all the base models except the dual core ones are effectively limited to 4GB based on memory board availability.

I don't believe that there won't be features that others won't want.

Even though jobs did say that this isn't going to be a feature upgrade version, I don't see anyone really believing that there won't be at least, the coming out of some features that we've been seeing included in the OS now, but not implemented for the general user, such as resolution independence.

Plenty of people will really want that. That's a minimum.
post #95 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

You really must be some kid living in his mom's basement. It's the only thing I can think of seeing you are hung up on a guy in his 30's being old.

I am sure you have used forums before, if your big event for the night is your syncing iPhones clearly you aren't getting laid all that often.

Okay now go tell your mom your going to play with your Wii for 15 mins and then go to bed.

While I'm not taking side on this argument (enough problems with my own), but didn't you say that you were in IT for 21+ years? You started when you were how old?
post #96 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehych View Post

I may be wrong but I definitely believe the minimum requirement is an Intel processor, it doesn't matter if it's Core Duo (32-bits) I pretty much think they are supported. Look at this page:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...erpc_macs.html

Using a Core Duo processor means you don't get all the good 64-bits stuff from Snow Leopard, even though there are lots of more good things besides 64-bits.

so this means:

Stripping down the PPC code base out of Mac OS X (Snow Leopard) but still 32 bit en 64 bit support.
post #97 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't believe that there won't be features that others won't want.

Even though jobs did say that this isn't going to be a feature upgrade version, I don't see anyone really believing that there won't be at least, the coming out of some features that we've been seeing included in the OS now, but not implemented for the general user, such as resolution independence.

Plenty of people will really want that. That's a minimum.

You've only got to look at what they're adding in 10.6 Server to realise there's lots of new features in OSX Client.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/snowleopard/
post #98 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You will have to explain this.

That was probably in reference to the performance-hurting cache-flushing phenomenon described in the article we're all commenting on in this thread. Apparently in any version of OS X released for the Intel architecture to-date, a certain cache needs to be flushed at least twice every time any system call is made in any current version of OSX, while such flushes only happen during context-switches with a Windows NT kernel.

As described in the article, it apparently has to do with the design decision Microsoft made to place a protected, shared 2GB kernel partition inside every process's virtual address space at the expense of leaving each process with less usable memory for its own code and data. With OS X, on the other hand, each process needs to switch to a totally different virtual address space every time any system call is made, and the addresses actually used by the kernel and the application within their respective address spaces directly overlap.

The article claims that with Snow Leopard, OS X is going to start doing the same thing as Windows - mapping a copy of the kernel into each 64-bit process's virtual address space. The kernel and the application have many terabytes to play within each virtual address space, so avoiding overlap won't be a problem. The trade-off of addressable memory per process versus performance will not be as severe as it has grown to become for 32-bit Windows.
post #99 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar View Post

Those sort of comments make me ashamed to be a Mac User. What incorrect and arrogant rubbish.

I'd agree - because it isn't just PC users, it is users in general. The average user is an idiot - "I need a computer to get on this internet thing - I don't know what the hell it is, but apparently I should have it" is the mentality of many people out there.
post #100 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by qualar View Post

Those sort of comments make me ashamed to be a Mac User. What incorrect and arrogant rubbish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

Ok, I give up.

What's incorrect?

The fact that you stated PC user instead of computer users in general - some how claiming that Mac users were 'superior'.
post #101 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's convincing when you understand it.

So what you're saying is that you understand it, but no-one else does. It's just your little secret. Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.
post #102 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead View Post

So what you're saying is that you understand it, but no-one else does. It's just your little secret. Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think it's a very well-kept secret at all.

Consider a single thread of execution containing a tight loop performing iterative mathematical operations on a set of variables. In a traditional 32-bit x86, you basically have 4 general-purpose registers available (*AX, *BX, *CX, and *DX) in which to hold those variables and perform the math. Of course, it is often possible to re-purpose the *SI and *DI registers for such information, and with major caveats sometimes (but not often) the *BP and even *SP registers. But there's clearly still a fairly limited slate of registers available for a single thread of execution to work with.

If you have more than variables to work with than will fit in the available registers, then some of those variables must necessarily be transferred back and forth with system RAM, in conjunction with the cache. Operations where one or more source and/or destination operands are located in RAM are are slower than what could be accomplished if all sources and destinations were limited to CPU registers.

On an x64 CPU operating in long mode, you have 8 more general purpose registers available (R8, R9, ..., R15), it is possible to as much as triple the number of variables that a single thread of execution can keep track of before it needs to resort to RAM (and cache) transfers. Obviously, to be useful, a compiler must be made aware of the availability of the extra registers. But equally obviously, if an application is 64-bits, then it is automatically the case that it must have been produced by a compiler that is aware of, and thus capable of taking advantage of, the extra registers available in that mode.

Quote:
If registers were so critical Intel would have added them long ago,

They did. The Itanium architecture had 128 registers. It failed where x64 succeeded, in part, because Intel didn't provide a backwards compatible path for existing software. Conversely, the x86 architecture continued to thrive with few registers for as long as it did, not because adding more registers wouldn't have been helpful, but rather because maintaining compatibility with older software was more advantageous.
post #103 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate View Post


Welcome to 2008, old guy.

It's always comforting to me to know that, in 20 to 30 years, you'll be scratching your head trying to understand why your children/neighbors kids/anyone younger than you, dismisses you out of hand with the "old guy" tag. Provided, of course, that you survive the "growing up" process.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #104 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

You've only got to look at what they're adding in 10.6 Server to realise there's lots of new features in OSX Client.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/snowleopard/

Of course. There is no way that 10.6 would come out with NO features.
post #105 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

That was probably in reference to the performance-hurting cache-flushing phenomenon described in the article we're all commenting on in this thread. Apparently in any version of OS X released for the Intel architecture to-date, a certain cache needs to be flushed at least twice every time any system call is made in any current version of OSX, while such flushes only happen during context-switches with a Windows NT kernel.

As described in the article, it apparently has to do with the design decision Microsoft made to place a protected, shared 2GB kernel partition inside every process's virtual address space at the expense of leaving each process with less usable memory for its own code and data. With OS X, on the other hand, each process needs to switch to a totally different virtual address space every time any system call is made, and the addresses actually used by the kernel and the application within their respective address spaces directly overlap.

The article claims that with Snow Leopard, OS X is going to start doing the same thing as Windows - mapping a copy of the kernel into each 64-bit process's virtual address space. The kernel and the application have many terabytes to play within each virtual address space, so avoiding overlap won't be a problem. The trade-off of addressable memory per process versus performance will not be as severe as it has grown to become for 32-bit Windows.

That doesn't look as though its a detriment right now, when compared to Windows. Performance wise, Vista has been a dog. It's only recently that most of that has been fixed. Comparable programs also seem to perform about the same on both platforms.
post #106 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead View Post

So what you're saying is that you understand it, but no-one else does. It's just your little secret. Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.

No, basically, you don't seem to understand it.

The register "problem" has been held up as a major reason why 64 bit X86 chips have an advantage in program run speeds over their 32 bit counterparts, whils the same thing isn't true for G5s vs G4's and earlier.

Obviously, there are other factors at work as well.
post #107 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I started working for them as a junior computer operator right out of high school at 17. So while I am in my late 30's im still only in my 30's, don't think I can apply for a Medicare card yet...

As far as Vista x64 or x86 for that matter both work fairly well. I have had no real problems with either but I will say x64 appears more stable now that I have been using it a while.

As to your point about features dropped, I am sure there have been several in Vista, nothing I can really say I miss. I my opinion both operating systems are getting closer and closer to having the same feel.

For me Leopard has been more of a nagging pain because it's issues affect my work. The biggest that has bugged me are the network issues.

I would say most of the problems with Vista in the begining were users attempting to install it or bought systems that simply could not handle the OS. If someone had a system with 1 gig of ram paging would go crazy and the system would take forever to start.

more non specific crap from the IT specialist. What networking issues? All that iphone syncing? It's the same setup as a Windows Mobile phone. username/pass/OWA addresss takes 20 seconds, just like you.

So you were installing Mainframes for IBM when you were 17 out of Highschool huh?

for the record, Schenanagans. I don't even think your an IT guy.
post #108 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate View Post

more non specific crap from the IT specialist. What networking issues? All that iphone syncing? It's the same setup as a Windows Mobile phone. username/pass/OWA addresss takes 20 seconds, just like you.

So you were installing Mainframes for IBM when you were 17 out of Highschool huh?

for the record, Schenanagans. I don't even think your an IT guy.

Please! Just a little bit more civility. I you're attacked, you can respond, but not just because you don't agree, or believe. If someone isn't responding, then you can get a bit snarly, but otherwise keep the level down.

Thanks.
post #109 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

There is a HUGE difference between buying more computer than you need (which happens all the time, not just with computers) and paying extra for something you cannot use at all. I can't imagine too many people would be happy to learn that most of the extra 2 GIGs of ram they just paid $250 for at DELL's recommendation is almost completely unusable by the OS. Or to learn that the OS hides the fact that it's unusable.

Totally agree. It is grounds for a class action law suit I would imagine. The misleading and untrue information is in print for heaven's sake!
(Yes still in the mountains!)
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #110 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Nikon came out with a 12.1 MP sensor because this is the first high quality sensor the did by themselves designwise. You must walk before you run. They were getting killed by Canon, and decided to concentrate on noise levels first, which is much easier to do on a low MP sensor such as the one they came up with (which they don't actually make themselves).

"killed"? Boy, you're morbid.

Anyway, to me, it appears they were doing pretty well in the business even before they introduced those two models.

Quote:
The MP race has not ended by a long shot. This has given Nikon some short term breathing room.

Canon will come close in noise with its newer cameras, if not equal it, with higher pixel counts, which ARE important.

I don't think the MP deal has ended, but it seems most people put way too much emphasis on it, I was happy to see a few examples of focusing on something else instead, those aren't the only ones, but it's rare enough. I understand that some people truly need it, a great deal more think they need it but really don't, and I'm not in either category. The files are already getting plenty big enough and for the most part, it really doesn't benefit me to have them get bigger when many of the current pixels are already getting thrown away en masse because of the output medium.
post #111 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

"killed"? Boy, you're morbid.

Anyway, to me, it appears they were doing pretty well in the business even before they introduced those two models.

Ah, come on, you know that's just an expression. Canon and Nikon have 90% of the D-SLR market together. Canon has had about two thirds of that 90%, so they were "killing" Nikon there. With the D3 and D700, Nikon has made up a bit of that.

Canon won't let them keep it. They have a history of pushing back hard when required. They also have a good deal of research into sensor and processing chip technology going on, which they have related in a public way.

Canon also sells about half of the point and shoot digital cameras out there.

Quote:
I don't think the MP deal has ended, but it seems most people put way too much emphasis on it, I was happy to see a few examples of focusing on something else instead, those aren't the only ones, but it's rare enough. I understand that some people truly need it, a great deal more think they need it but really don't, and I'm not in either category. The files are already getting plenty big enough and for the most part, it really doesn't benefit me to have them get bigger when many of the current pixels are already getting thrown away en masse because of the output medium.

It depends on which "people" you're talking about. Most amateurs (I mean serious shooters) don't need anything above perhaps 16 MP. But pro's and advanced amateurs want, and need, as much as they can get.

For example. The Canon 1Ds II was deliberately made to have a sensor of 16.7 MP. Why? Because a double page magazine spread of 11 x 17 at a 150 line screen is best with a 300 ppi file. That turns out to be 16.7 MP plus or minus a tenth MP or so.

But pros often have to do a bit of a trim (or the editors do), so voilá, 21 MP for the 1Ds III.

My printer is 17" by whatever. To make a print with a file that's 300 DPI on the print (my printer raises that to 600 DPI when printing with interpolation, if I don't do it first in PS, which I do) requires a file that's (for a 3/2 file format) 5100 x 7650, or 39MP, which is the size of a large medium format back. That gives me no option to do any cropping at all at that size and remain at highest quality. That file is increased to 156 MP for the print as I've just explained.

Does that give you an idea of what the problem is?
post #112 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It depends on which "people" you're talking about. Most amateurs (I mean serious shooters) don't need anything above perhaps 16 MP. But pro's and advanced amateurs want, and need, as much as they can get.

I don't think most amateurs benefit from anything far beyond 10MP.

Quote:
For example. The Canon 1Ds II was deliberately made to have a sensor of 16.7 MP. Why? Because a double page magazine spread of 11 x 17 at a 150 line screen is best with a 300 ppi file. That turns out to be 16.7 MP plus or minus a tenth MP or so.

But pros often have to do a bit of a trim (or the editors do), so voilá, 21 MP for the 1Ds III.

My printer is 17" by whatever. To make a print with a file that's 300 DPI on the print (my printer raises that to 600 DPI when printing with interpolation, if I don't do it first in PS, which I do) requires a file that's (for a 3/2 file format) 5100 x 7650, or 39MP, which is the size of a large medium format back. That gives me no option to do any cropping at all at that size and remain at highest quality. That file is increased to 156 MP for the print as I've just explained.

Does that give you an idea of what the problem is?

There are pros that really do need it, but going much beyond 10MP is really serving mediums that appear to be fading in relevance. I mean, there's not much point in someone demanding 600ppi from a C sized print like your example. Most people aren't going to look that close. I try to point out detail in a letter sized photo prints, but pretty much no one cares. Knock photos down to VGA size for email and nobody seems to be any less impressed with the photo.
post #113 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think most amateurs benefit from anything far beyond 10MP.

You don't think, don't you?

And other than a "feeling", exactly what technical justification makes you say this?

Quote:
There are pros that really do need it, but going much beyond 10MP is really serving mediums that appear to be fading in relevance. I mean, there's not much point in someone demanding 600ppi from a C sized print like your example. Most people aren't going to look that close. I try to point out detail in a letter sized photo prints, but pretty much no one cares. Knock photos down to VGA size for email and nobody seems to be any less impressed with the photo.


You use the expression of one who knows little of the matter.

I can assure you that people do look closely at prints. You are just not interested in photography enough to do so, and so you think that others don't either.

I was in this business since 1969, when I did my first fashion photography. I've made prints, and viewed many others over that time. There are plenty of people who would disagree with you.

If you haven;t ever seen really fine prints, which you obviously haven't, you would see the difference between them, and soft unprofessionl ones.

While I certainly agree that people wanting $200 point and shoots don't need it, they make smallish prints that can't use it, those making prints of larger sizes and of high quality, do.

I always find it interesting that people are willing to exclaim that others don't need what they don't appreciate, or understand.
post #114 of 141
Quote:
I don't think most amateurs benefit from anything far beyond 10MP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You don't think, don't you?

And other than a "feeling", exactly what technical justification makes you say this?

My justification: 10MP exceeds what's necessary for a letter size photo print at 300ppi, with plenty of margin for cropping. And that's pretty good for amateurs. Larger prints often mean that observer is standing back a bit farther anyway. They're most likely not getting stuff printed as a two page magazine spread or hung as a similar or larger sized shot in a gallery. Even with nose-printing on the print, most people don't appear to notice or appreciate any extra detail at 600.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I can assure you that people do look closely at prints. You are just not interested in photography enough to do so, and so you think that others don't either.

You misinterpreted what I said. I have no idea how you can say that in view of "I try to point out detail in a letter sized photo prints, but pretty much no one cares." I don't know how I can say I try to point out detail and you still contend that I don't care about said detail. I'm just being practical. Except for some pros, I see little use in obsessing over detail that are only of interest to the occasional nose-printers. I doubt most amateurs would stand much of a chance with that kind of crowd anyway.

I am interested in photography despite your elitist assertions otherwise. It's like telling someone they aren't really interested in Macs if they don't own a Mac pro. While there are certain niches that demand such detail, the practical reality is that the web is fast becoming the primary photo display medium, if not already, and even more so for the future. Magazines are slowly declining, there's not a whole lot of room for shooters to serve that market. Being able to capture a 21MP photo doesn't mean shit if the photo is posted to the web, it's either annoying or significantly downsampled.
post #115 of 141
ya mel,

to be honest, What consumer needs to blow things up beyond 8x10? Isn't 8x10 roughly 7-8 mega pixels? And aren't we talking about amature consumers here?

I honestly doubt (and this is not from years of taking photos' but I have used at least 20 digital cam's from my first Nikon CoolPix 990 (was $900 at the time to my current D60. ) That amature consumer needs 10mp or more.

And Mel, that wasn't NEAR nasty. I didn't even show the guy my teeth. I was just saying Schenanagans, cause nothing he said made sense with his previous posts. I was frustrated at extreme skater's changing of subjects every post however, and it showed.
post #116 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

You really must be some kid living in his mom's basement. It's the only thing I can think of seeing you are hung up on a guy in his 30's being old.

I am sure you have used forums before, if your big event for the night is your syncing iPhones clearly you aren't getting laid all that often.

Okay now go tell your mom your going to play with your Wii for 15 mins and then go to bed.

Oh my Darwin! I do believe that's Game-Set-Match.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #117 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

My justification: 10MP exceeds what's necessary for a letter size photo print at 300ppi, with plenty of margin for cropping. And that's pretty good for amateurs. Larger prints often mean that observer is standing back a bit farther anyway. They're most likely not getting stuff printed as a two page magazine spread or hung as a similar or larger sized shot in a gallery. Even with nose-printing on the print, most people don't appear to notice or appreciate any extra detail at 600.

That's no justification at all. As I wrote about what size prints I'm talking about. I'm not talking about letter size prints, as you know very well.

As I've said, for point and shoots, it's fine, even a bit too much.

And when you say amateurs, what you really mean is "casual shooters". Amateurs are people who care about something as an advocation, and shouldn't be confused with people who know little, or care little, about the subject.

You're making a lot of statements about "people" when you don't know about those "people".

Why don't you go to a gallery displaying photographs? The "people" there do tend to move in and look at detail. All of us in the profession in one way or another, understand that.

You're talking about yourself, and your friends and family. Thats different.

As I was talking about people who DO shoot two page spreads for a living, why are you dismissing them? Why are you dismissing people who shoot landscapes for a living, and often print anywhere from 17" x 20" to 60" x 120"?

Those of us who are doing this don't care about "most people". There is a big audience for this as it is, and when people do come to see these prints, often, even if they are part of that "most people" group of yours, do go nose to nose with the prints.

Quote:
You misinterpreted what I said. I have no idea how you can say that in view of "I try to point out detail in a letter sized photo prints, but pretty much no one cares." I don't know how I can say I try to point out detail and you still contend that I don't care about said detail. I'm just being practical. Except for some pros, I see little use in obsessing over detail that are only of interest to the occasional nose-printers. I doubt most amateurs would stand much of a chance with that kind of crowd anyway.

Why do you think this should be up to you?

Just say that YOU don't appreciate the high quality work people do, and leave it at that? What you mean as detail in a letter sized print would be a blob on a large print.


Quote:
I am interested in photography despite your elitist assertions otherwise. It's like telling someone they aren't really interested in Macs if they don't own a Mac pro. While there are certain niches that demand such detail, the practical reality is that the web is fast becoming the primary photo display medium, if not already, and even more so for the future. Magazines are slowly declining, there's not a whole lot of room for shooters to serve that market. Being able to capture a 21MP photo doesn't mean shit if the photo is posted to the web, it's either annoying or significantly downsampled.

Ah, I see. If someone is interested in high quality, it becomes an elitist thing. That' a VERY unfair statement to make.

Being interested in photography at the level that requires this equipment, is different from "interest" as expressed in shooting letter sized prints. Do you spend several hours on a prized photo as many of us do? That's the level of interest I mean.

The fact that you don't seem to understand the need for high quality work has nothing to do with it I suppose.

I guess the photographers who use $50,000 cameras for their work can throw them away because you think they are elitist for wanting, and needing what those cameras give them.

How nice! I suppose that people who only shoot for 4" x 6" photos made in a mini-lab should think you're elitist as well—to them.

So now, anytime someone here talks about something better than what you think THEY need, they're elitist.

How narrow minded!

You'll notice that nowhere did I say that everyone needs these higher quality pieces of equipment, just those who do.

Magazines aren't declining in many areas. In some, that can be better served by the web, yes, such as computer magazines, and others like that. But, in general, that;s not so. More magazines come out every year. More than enough to replace those that go under. And they aren't going under because of the web, for the most part, but because the field is so crowded. The poorer ones can't make it.

And people aren't going to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for web pictures as they do for properly printed and finished photographs.

I suppose painters should no longer paint, and sculptors should no longer sculpt either. They should use computer programs only, because everything they do will only be on the web.

I have nothing against people who aren't interested in making exhibition prints. They do their thing, and that's fine.
post #118 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseDegenerate View Post

ya mel,

to be honest, What consumer needs to blow things up beyond 8x10? Isn't 8x10 roughly 7-8 mega pixels? And aren't we talking about amature consumers here?

I honestly doubt (and this is not from years of taking photos' but I have used at least 20 digital cam's from my first Nikon CoolPix 990 (was $900 at the time to my current D60. ) That amature consumer needs 10mp or more.

And Mel, that wasn't NEAR nasty. I didn't even show the guy my teeth. I was just saying Schenanagans, cause nothing he said made sense with his previous posts. I was frustrated at extreme skater's changing of subjects every post however, and it showed.

If you read the conversation from Jeff's first post onward, you will see that NOWHERE did I say that "consumers" needed to do any of this.

I was NOT talking about consumers here.

I was talking about professionals for professional, and other commercial use. I was talking about photographers who photograph for artistic purposes and display, and sell their prints. I was talking about amateurs, not casual shooters, for whom photography is avidly pursued to the highest quality they can afford to make it.

It was a bit more than required. He didn't attack.
post #119 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Why don't you go to a gallery displaying photographs? The "people" there do tend to move in and look at detail. All of us in the profession in one way or another, understand that.

How big is that audience? How many people visit this country's fine art photo galleries in a year?


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ah, I see. If someone is interested in high quality, it becomes an elitist thing. That' a VERY unfair statement to make.

No, I very clearly said that it's elitist of you to say I'm not really interested in photography because I don't agree with your views. As in "everyone that disagrees is heathen".
post #120 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Ah, I see. If someone is interested in high quality, it becomes an elitist thing. That' a VERY unfair statement to make.

Unfortunately, statements like that are very common nowadays. I have nothing to contribute to the photography discussion, but as an unreconstructed audiophile, I'm always being told that "nobody can tell the difference" between even the severely limited quality of CD sound and this 128,000 bps, ear-destroying noise that people who never learned any better are now willing to pay money for. This anti-"elitist" attitude isn't harmless, either: it destroyed both the SACD and DVD-Audio formats at birth.

Of course, we're also subject to ridicule because people who know good sound from bad sound are tarred with the same brush as lunatics who take green magic markers to their CDs. Meanwhile, when 0.1% Total Harmonic Distortion was entry-level for a quality sound system 35 years ago, now people will pay ridiculous sums for "Home Theater Systems" rated at 9% (!) THD.

I am not a professional audio engineer, but I am an "amateur" in your terminology; someone who cares about quality and is willing to seek it out. Unfortunately, when my 20-year-old Carver/Cambridge Soundworks system gives out, I won't be able to afford the $20,000 it would cost to replace it with anything remotely similar. There won't be anything but crappy downloads to listen to by then anyway!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Road to Snow Leopard: Twice the RAM, half the price, 64-bits