Hmmm. Just the other day I was complaining about Apple putting all their apps together in the FCSuite. Hows does that jibe with your comment?
An intelligent debater is someone who acknowledges his rivals' good points and counters them. Someone who is completely dismissive of all his rivals' points only displays cowardice. Your last two posts in particular have been dismissive in the extreme. I don't see how they contribute to this thread.
To get back on track:
1. Do you think there is a market for running an app like Shake on any currently available, Apple-branded Intel-based hardware?
2. Do you think a two-week delay in Aperture 1.1's release is comparable to Adobe's 12-month wait for CS3?
3. Do you think that the fact that Apple can release major, complex apps like Final Cut Suite in Universal Binary format puts the lie to Adobe's claim that XCode can't handle large applications?
Thanks for your considered replies.
That's absurd. you insult me constantly. You've just done it again.
Sometimes an argument is not to the point. When that's true, there's no point in arguing it.
1. This is one of those arguments that's not to the point, because the argument that's been made is that there isn't any Pro Mac available YET that would run PS in a way that does it justice either. I never said that Shake should be out NOW. Just that Apple hasn't given us any hint as to when it will. They could say that it will be out in time for the new Powermac later this year. That should satisfy you.
Since no one yet knows what performance level Shake will exhibit when it does come out on Intel, it's premature to say that there won't be a machine available for it. I'm not expecting Shake to come out next week, if you think that that's the problem here. But the new PowerMacs will, hopefully, be out sometime in the third quarter, or at the latest, the forth quarter
What has to be remembered here, is that I'm not the one complaining that certain programs are not available yet. It doesn't bother ME that Shake isn't ready. The point I was making was that while Adobe has given us a timeline for CS3, Apple has given us none for Shake. If Shake comes out after the January Macworld, I would have no problem with that at all.
I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride. I'm not blaming Apple, and I'm not blaming Adobe. They both have their problems with this.
That's simple. I'm sure that both companies, as I've said before, are doing their darndest to get these programs out as fast as they can.
Adobe will be losing sales while people are waiting for the new version as well, so they have something to gain by doing it as quickly as possible. We should all know that.
I'm not assigning blame to anyone, again, as I've said. You are. I'm simply pointing out that if YOU must feel as though you have to assign blame to one, then the other should be included as well. After all, it's Apple's tool set they all are using. And if Adobe is being blamed for not getting on the bandwagon with it, then Apple who should have been on it from the beginning, should be well ahead in development. We should be able to agree on that.
2. If you read my posts here, you will see that I've not accused Apple of anything for this minor delay. Just the opposite. You're assuming that I said that. You are wrong. But, again, Aperture is a small program. It shouldn't take too long to convert. Apple might have even been working on the Intel version from the beginning, as they should have been. This delay is not much. Minor glitches always happen.
3.No, not at all. I use both suites, and have from the beginning. FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be. Don't forget that, again, Apple has been universalizing their old apps. Adobe is universalizing new versions of apps that weren't schedualed to come out for a year anyway. Adobe's timeline for the suite is 18 to 24 months normally. Considering that they just absorbed a company that was a good fraction their size, and are already incorporating many features from the apps from that company into their own, I think that Adobe is doing pretty well.
I know that you think that Adobe should spend many man hours doing this to their current software, but the effort that would take, and the time, is too much for a company like Adobe to manage. Most of us would rather see them put their efforts on the new version, than to waste it on the old one. I'm not seeing these arguments amongst professionals. They aren't happy it won't be out for a while, but they understand it.
"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "
I've heard similar sentiments from the Mac Game developers when porting some of the major games like Civ IV, Doom 3, etc. They ran in to problems with XCode because these were some of the biggest apps compiled with it and kept finding problems and working with Apple to address them. It wouldn't surprise me if Adobe, and Apple for that matter, is in the same boat.
FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be.
I don't agree with this as a blanket statement. Will you clarify what you mean by complex.
I can see CS3 being more complex in the sense that much its code is older than FCS. Adobe has to go back through really old code as it ports CS3 to Universal Binaries. While FCS is newer and doesn't have 10 to 15 years of old code.
But in features and functionality I don't see CS3 being more complicated than FCS. Displaying, editing, and manipulating video/audio is in many ways more work than working with a still image.
Quote:
This is one of those arguments that's not to the point, because the argument that's been made is that there isn't any Pro Mac available YET that would run PS in a way that does it justice either.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this statement correctly.
But what would Photoshop need from a PowerMac that is not apart of an iMac that would allow it to run better?
I don't agree with this as a blanket statement. Will you clarify what you mean by complex.
I can see CS3 being more complex in the sense that much its code is older than FCS. Adobe has to go back through really old code as it ports CS3 to Universal Binaries. While FCS is newer and doesn't have 10 to 15 years of old code.
But in features and functionality I don't see CS3 being more complicated than FCS. Displaying, editing, and manipulating video/audio is in many ways more work than working with a still image.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this statement correctly.
But what would Photoshop need from a PowerMac that is not apart of an iMac that would allow it to run better?
I'm just going by basic coding models. Most developers find that the more lines of code there are, the more difficult it is to move to another platform, or toolset. As was stated in the links I posted, which have been agreed as being a good representation of the problems by other developers, a program with twice as much code can require ten times as much work to bring over.
CS2 has more code to re-do. CS3 will have much more code. If you read those links, you will get the idea why they hadn't been brought over to XCode before now.
PS has many more commands and features than FCP. That isn't an indictment of FCP, it's the finest editing program of its type. It just reflects the different media they act upon.
That statement about the machines is simply a reply to bikertwin that a couple of people, including him, have not thought that the MBP or iMac were ideal machines for running PS, that it needs a "PowerMac". My point there, was that Shake is about in the same boat, and that as I wasn't complaining that it's not out NOW, that argument doesn't apply. That, by the time both programs are out, a "PowerMac" will be available.
That statement about the machines is simply a reply to bikertwin that a couple of people, including him, have not thought that the MBP or iMac were ideal machines for running PS, that it needs a "PowerMac". My point there, was that Shake is about in the same boat, and that as I wasn't complaining that it's not out NOW, that argument doesn't apply. That, by the time both programs are out, a "PowerMac" will be available.
While I agree 1 month ago that FCS and Adobe CS really require a PowerMac to run in a workshop, isn't the new Core Duo iMacs kinda entering that market now. I run FCS and Adobe CS on my G5 iMac 1.8 GHz 20". Yeah, FCS performance is bearable for my work but not for people who do this for a living. Adobe CS is fine but I imagine for the publishing work crowd performance would be unacceptable.
So, now we have a core Duo iMac and when Adobe goes UB, I would say the only thing holding back the pro crowd would be the HDD not being easily upgraded or adding an internal second drive (total ram may be a problem). Monitor spanning is now a feature so heck, the iMac Core Duo looks like a better deal once Adobe gets CS3 out the door.
Thoughts?
Apple is going to have a harder time keeping the pro line computers sellling to smaller shops. I would guess the smaller shops is where the money is at anyway but that is me just speculating.
While I agree 1 month ago that FCS and Adobe CS really require a PowerMac to run in a workshop, isn't the new Core Duo iMacs kinda entering that market now. I run FCS and Adobe CS on my G5 iMac 1.8 GHz 20". Yeah, FCS performance is bearable for my work but not for people who do this for a living. Adobe CS is fine but I imagine for the publishing work crowd performance would be unacceptable.
So, now we have a core Duo iMac and when Adobe goes UB, I would say the only thing holding back the pro crowd would be the HDD not being easily upgraded or adding an internal second drive (total ram may be a problem). Monitor spanning is now a feature so heck, the iMac Core Duo looks like a better deal once Adobe gets CS3 out the door.
Thoughts?
Apple is going to have a harder time keeping the pro line computers sellling to smaller shops. I would guess the smaller shops is where the money is at anyway but that is me just speculating.
Let me have it.
Once these programs go UV, there shouldn't be much of a problem with performance. For CS3, there should be no problem at all, as long as you are not running the large, over 100MByte files I used to. PS will likely be much faster on a Duo Core iMac than it was on a G5 iMac. Tests are showing that it can approach the speed of a dual 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. 2GB RAM is really enough for most people. For those who REALLY (as opposed to those who simply WANT more RAM) need more RAM, well, they will have to wait.
Shake will do ok on a 2.16GHz MBP with 2GB RAM, but it's surely not the ideal machine for that. a 2.33GHz Yonah chip, when it comes out in a couple months, or so, will help slightly. A Merom MBP, at the 2.66GHz the top chip is supposed to run at at introduction, coupled with the 20% or so increase in speed GHz for GHz to the Yonah, should provide good power for either the MBP, or the iMac, as both will go to that later this year.
For those few who really need the high end of the high end, they will just have to wait for the new "PowerMac". But, that's always the case for those who require the most performance. Most everyone else won't get those machines anyway.
As far as HD's go, I don't concern myself with the largest drive that's internal. Professionals should never retain customers work on their HD's without backing it up. After the job is complete, and the customer indicates that they either won't need it again at all (most of the time), or for a while, the work should be removed from the machine, and stored, if at all necessary, offline, on DVD's or some other non magnetic media.
The largest drive available right now for the iMac is 500MB. That's the largest drive available to ANYONE. The 20 comes with a 250 as standard. This can be found at their store.
What about the consumer line meshing with the pro line potentionally taking away pro line sales since consumer lines are becoming what the pro line currrently is?
What about the consumer line meshing with the pro line potentionally taking away pro line sales since consumer lines are becoming what the pro line currrently is?
This HAS always been the case. despite what some say, many, if not most, pros don't use, or need, high end pro machines. I would be willing to bet, going by my own experience with my own clients, that most pro's are using machines that are two to three( or more) years old. This WILL always be the case.
Very few pro's work on files that require the most power available at the time.
Machines are fast enough now, so that a two or three second delay is almost meaningless. When I started out with my 950 in the very early '90's, we waited almost 20 minutes for the unsharp mask to do its thing on a large (20MB) image. We managed.
While I'm not saying that we should go back to the old days (shudder!), I'm saying that, yes, consumer machines are pretty damn good.
While I'm also not saying that those of use who really do need, or can afford, a high end Powermac shouldn't get one, most people don't, or they buy them used.
Let's face it, in the real world, as opposed to the one sometimes argued here, people simply don't buy new machines every year, or two, or even three.
Assuming that we're only talking about UV'd apps, people who have a several year old Powermac, will find that moving to a fast iMac will be an upgrade, other than if they truely need more than 2GB RAM, which very few really do.
The 1600 video board is about as good as anything you had on a two year old PM, and much better than anything available before that. Most people, even pro's, don't upgrade their video cards.
Considering that we WILL be able to upgrade these current machines with a much faster Merom chip later on, this is actually better than the G5 PM's, as there are NO upgrades for those.
As for the replacement series of "Powermac's", who knows, as usual, Apple ain't talking.
That's absurd. you insult me constantly. You've just done it again.
Sometimes an argument is not to the point. When that's true, there's no point in arguing it.
1. This is one of those arguments that's not to the point, because the argument that's been made is that there isn't any Pro Mac available YET that would run PS in a way that does it justice either. I never said that Shake should be out NOW. Just that Apple hasn't given us any hint as to when it will. They could say that it will be out in time for the new Powermac later this year. That should satisfy you.
Since no one yet knows what performance level Shake will exhibit when it does come out on Intel, it's premature to say that there won't be a machine available for it. I'm not expecting Shake to come out next week, if you think that that's the problem here. But the new PowerMacs will, hopefully, be out sometime in the third quarter, or at the latest, the forth quarter
What has to be remembered here, is that I'm not the one complaining that certain programs are not available yet. It doesn't bother ME that Shake isn't ready. The point I was making was that while Adobe has given us a timeline for CS3, Apple has given us none for Shake. If Shake comes out after the January Macworld, I would have no problem with that at all.
I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride. I'm not blaming Apple, and I'm not blaming Adobe. They both have their problems with this.
That's simple. I'm sure that both companies, as I've said before, are doing their darndest to get these programs out as fast as they can.
Adobe will be losing sales while people are waiting for the new version as well, so they have something to gain by doing it as quickly as possible. We should all know that.
I'm not assigning blame to anyone, again, as I've said. You are. I'm simply pointing out that if YOU must feel as though you have to assign blame to one, then the other should be included as well. After all, it's Apple's tool set they all are using. And if Adobe is being blamed for not getting on the bandwagon with it, then Apple who should have been on it from the beginning, should be well ahead in development. We should be able to agree on that.
2. If you read my posts here, you will see that I've not accused Apple of anything for this minor delay. Just the opposite. You're assuming that I said that. You are wrong. But, again, Aperture is a small program. It shouldn't take too long to convert. Apple might have even been working on the Intel version from the beginning, as they should have been. This delay is not much. Minor glitches always happen.
3.No, not at all. I use both suites, and have from the beginning. FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be. Don't forget that, again, Apple has been universalizing their old apps. Adobe is universalizing new versions of apps that weren't schedualed to come out for a year anyway. Adobe's timeline for the suite is 18 to 24 months normally. Considering that they just absorbed a company that was a good fraction their size, and are already incorporating many features from the apps from that company into their own, I think that Adobe is doing pretty well.
I know that you think that Adobe should spend many man hours doing this to their current software, but the effort that would take, and the time, is too much for a company like Adobe to manage. Most of us would rather see them put their efforts on the new version, than to waste it on the old one. I'm not seeing these arguments amongst professionals. They aren't happy it won't be out for a while, but they understand it.
Here are my thoughts:
1. Your basic claim is that Apple is as guilty of not producing UBs as Adobe is, since Apple hasn't delivered Shake yet. Our basic claim (mine and some other folks here) is that Shake is really designed for a desktop machine in a way that PS isn't. I mean you could comfortably run PS on a G3 iBook (800 MHz) with 640 MB RAM*; it won't be a speed demon, and you can't edit 100 MB files, but for the average photographer, it's a workable setup. On the other hand, you can't even load Shake on a G3 iBook**!
Certainly you know, melgross, that any kind of video editing/generating/encoding is far more taxing than a typical photography/PS workflow. If anything, I would say PS should be out in UB form before Final Cut Suite, since it's typically far less demanding. I'd rather use a UB version of PS on a MacBook Pro (or iMac) than a UB version of FCSuite (or Shake) on a MacBook Pro (or iMac).
Conclusion: The lack of a UB of Shake is perfectly consistent with the lack of desktop Apple-branded Intel hardware. In fact, with FCSuite being far more processor intensive than typical PS photography workflows, Apple is way ahead of Adobe.
2. Aperture is a small program? It's 40 MB. Illustrator 10 is 50 MB, so roughly comparable. How can you say converting Aperture to UB is trivial compared to an Adobe app? And Aperture is going from version 1 to 1.1, with some signicant feature enhancements. http://www.apple.com/aperture/update.html
3. You also keep saying that FC Suite is significantly less complex than Creative Suite. You said, "FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be." Well, we're not talking about CS3, we're talking about why CS2 can't be converted.
PS CS2 is 307 MB***. InDesign CS is 200 MB. Compressor is 115 MB. LiveType is 41 MB. SoundTrack Pro is 97 MB. DVD Studio Pro is 200 MB. Motion is 331 MB. Final Cut Pro is 370 MB. They're monstrously complex apps. You simply can't say that Apple had an easier time converting to UBs because FCSuite apps are less complex than Creative Suite. They are not.
1. Your basic claim is that Apple is as guilty of not producing UBs as Adobe is, since Apple hasn't delivered Shake yet. Our basic claim (mine and some other folks here) is that Shake is really designed for a desktop machine in a way that PS isn't.
There is an assumption that none of the current intel macs would be suitable for running shake. I'm not so sure. Over in current hardware forum there is a thread on the Monty Hall benchmark. The intel iMac is competitve with the g5 quad. I know it's only one test and it's integer intensive. Still, that's pretty damn impressive, and I wonder how these programs(shake and Cs3) will end up performing on the 'consumer' macs. I wouldn't be surprised if they do pretty well.
There is an assumption that none of the current intel macs would be suitable for running shake. I'm not so sure. Over in current hardware forum there is a thread on the Monty Hall benchmark. The intel iMac is competitve with the g5 quad. I know it's only one test and it's integer intensive. Still, that's pretty damn impressive, and I wonder how these programs(shake and Cs3) will end up performing on the 'consumer' macs. I wouldn't be surprised if they do pretty well.
Sure, iMacs might run Shake well enough. That's great news as to how fast iMacs really are.
But a typical (professional) Shake user simply isn't going to buy an iMac, because of RAM and video card lock-in. A typical Shake user won't use a MacBook Pro as his primary computer, either. Occasional use? Sure. Primary computer? Not typical.
But a Photoshop user certainly could use a MacBook Pro as their primary computer. Photoshop doesn't stress the video card (the way, say, Motion and Aperture do), and 2 GB RAM is sufficient for basic PS work.
Some PS users would never use a portable anything, because they work on huge layered files. That's fine, PS scales well from laptops to monster desktops with 8 GB of RAM or more. But there is definitely a large subset of PS users who could easily and happily use a MacBook Pro. That's not true for Shake.
Heck, I gave up on laptops because DVD encoding is simply too slow (at least it was on G4 PowerBooks).
PS CS2 is 307 MB***. InDesign CS is 200 MB. Compressor is 115 MB. LiveType is 41 MB. SoundTrack Pro is 97 MB. DVD Studio Pro is 200 MB. Motion is 331 MB. Final Cut Pro is 370 MB. They're monstrously complex apps. You simply can't say that Apple had an easier time converting to UBs because FCSuite apps are less complex than Creative Suite. They are not.
What? You can't measure complexity by size. iWork Pages is about 800 MB, IIRC. That makes it, uh, what, four times as complex as InDesign? 8 times as SoundTrack Pro? Almost three times as Photoshop?
Which can easily be explained by much less "outsourcing" of code into frameworks. And yes, I'm sure you'll point me to the 39.4 MB Frameworks folder in Photoshop's bundle.
Apple's ProKit alone, however, is another 10.5 MB. Add to that the plethora of Cocoa-related frameworks Final Cut heavily benefits from, and you'll probably find a larger total binary size.
Point being: size doesn't matter. More code doesn't make a better app.
Apple is going to have a harder time keeping the pro line computers sellling to smaller shops. I would guess the smaller shops is where the money is at anyway but that is me just speculating.
In video editing if you are working with slightly compressed 8 bit standard def video/audio (DVCPro 50) through firewire then an iMac is fine. Anything above that you need a PowerMac because firewire will compress the signal.
For the accuracy and I/O of serial digital interface, RS422 control of a professional deck, the speed and security of Fiber Channel RAID, external CRT monitors. For these features you need a PowerMac.
Quote:
This HAS always been the case. despite what some say, many, if not most, pros don't use, or need, high end pro machines.
In film/video most pros don't use the newest high end pro machine.
Quote:
Let's face it, in the real world, as opposed to the one sometimes argued here, people simply don't buy new machines every year, or two, or even three.
This is true. Only on the internet have I heard people complaining about Universal Applications for Intel Macs. No one in any of the pro shops I know are yet even talking about buying Intel Macs. Most will go on for at least another year with what they have now.
The people I know who have bought MBP have done so to replace 4-5 year old PowerBooks.
1. Your basic claim is that Apple is as guilty of not producing UBs as Adobe is, since Apple hasn't delivered Shake yet. Our basic claim (mine and some other folks here) is that Shake is really designed for a desktop machine in a way that PS isn't. I mean you could comfortably run PS on a G3 iBook (800 MHz) with 640 MB RAM*; it won't be a speed demon, and you can't edit 100 MB files, but for the average photographer, it's a workable setup. On the other hand, you can't even load Shake on a G3 iBook**!
The problem with your assertions is that you make the mistake of "blaming", rather than to think about what it takes to produce the software packages.
Again, you disregard what I say, and just go on as though I've said nothing.
It can get frustrating to constantly reply, when you pretend that I've said things that I didn't say, and that I didn't say things that I did.
I will repeat this for the last time.
I NEVER said that Shake should be out now. I never said that I EXPECTED Shake to be out now.
I did say that it doesn't bother me that Shake is not out now, and that even if it came out early next year, I wouldn't be bothered.
If you can't get that, then you don't understand what I've been saying.
I'm not accusing ANYONE of being guilty of anything. YOU are. You started this entire discussion by assigning blame. Those of us who disagree with that assertion are saying that there should be NO blame ? for anyone.
What I, and others here are saying, is that if YOU are eager to blame one, then YOU should also blame the other.
In every single discussion that you have been involved in, that in any way whatsoever, could possibly involve Adobe, no matter how peripherally that might be, you have taken every opportunity to demonize the company.
No pro, and that is who you are concerned about, would use the computers you mentioned at all, unless they were at the poverty level of the business. You do realize that, of course. Your definition of "comfortably" is rather amazing. It shows that you don't use the program yourself. Without at least a G4, with Altivec, PS is UNcomfortably sluggish. You don't have to run 100MB files to see that. Just run a moderate size file of 40 to 50 MB's.
As others have already pointed out the virtues of the iMac after your post, and your agreement as to it's viability, I will consider that issue to be closed.
Quote:
Certainly you know, melgross, that any kind of video editing/generating/encoding is far more taxing than a typical photography/PS workflow. If anything, I would say PS should be out in UB form before Final Cut Suite, since it's typically far less demanding. I'd rather use a UB version of PS on a MacBook Pro (or iMac) than a UB version of FCSuite (or Shake) on a MacBook Pro (or iMac).
Again, you seem to disregard any understanding of the development process as being necessary to this discussion.
Adobe and Apple, you may have noticed, are two companies. Apple develops its software, and Adobe develops theirs. Therefore, they are on two different tracks. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Both companies are using all due speed. to suggest anything else is is irresponsible.
Quote:
Conclusion: The lack of a UB of Shake is perfectly consistent with the lack of desktop Apple-branded Intel hardware. In fact, with FCSuite being far more processor intensive than typical PS photography workflows, Apple is way ahead of Adobe.
Again, you are amazingly obtuse. Go back to the beginning of my post to see the answer to this continued incorrect assertion.
Quote:
2. Aperture is a small program? It's 40 MB. Illustrator 10 is 50 MB, so roughly comparable. How can you say converting Aperture to UB is trivial compared to an Adobe app? And Aperture is going from version 1 to 1.1, with some signicant feature enhancements. http://www.apple.com/aperture/update.html
3. You also keep saying that FC Suite is significantly less complex than Creative Suite. You said, "FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be." Well, we're not talking about CS3, we're talking about why CS2 can't be converted.
PS CS2 is 307 MB***. InDesign CS is 200 MB. Compressor is 115 MB. LiveType is 41 MB. SoundTrack Pro is 97 MB. DVD Studio Pro is 200 MB. Motion is 331 MB. Final Cut Pro is 370 MB. They're monstrously complex apps. You simply can't say that Apple had an easier time converting to UBs because FCSuite apps are less complex than Creative Suite. They are not.
But a typical (professional) Shake user simply isn't going to buy an iMac, because of RAM and video card lock-in. A typical Shake user won't use a MacBook Pro as his primary computer, either. Occasional use? Sure. Primary computer? Not typical.
How come people always say stuff like that? For some reason everyone seems to be ok with a pro user using a mbp but not an imac.
They're the same machine.
Same ram lock-in.
Same video card lock-in.
An imac is acutally better than a mbp because of the 3.5" hd.
Plenty of pros do their rough cuts on pb and finish later on something better, plenty of pros used to find pbs good enough for apeture for live capture on shoots. Plenty of pros used pbs to run logic or pro tools setups that were flexible.
Now we've got stronger machines and there is suddenly a new stigma attached to using them for anything professional because the mac pros don't exist yet.
Especially if it's an imac.
How I see it is anything people used the pb for the imac do the same. Any real set has power anyways(I never see on set pbs running off battery) so bringing in a 17" imac doesn't seem much more ridiculous, after all people lug much bigger things to sets each day.
I could edit my entire movie at a lower resolution to save my original footage and then pass it along to a post house to finish it on things much better than what I could possibly afford.
That to me seems smarter than getting a quad g5 and 23-30" cinema display, like so many people I know have splurged on. They can't even use the tools to the full exent and are trying to completely outfit themselves as if they're a post house when their primary job isn't even editing.
I know a guy that shot an independant film last year and with no prior knowledge of fcp spent 10K on a mac editing setup and when it came time to camera equipment had nothing much left so he grabbed a pd150 off ebay. He called me in eventually to help with some editing and his footage was unuseable, his directing and shot choices ridiculous and his video quality was terrible.
This type of thing is happening way to often nowadays everyone thinks that pro software is dead without the strongest pm setup, it's not a fully maxed out mbp/imac is most likely enough for anyone that doesn't make money exclusively from this.
People that do don't care because they have perfectly good hardware that doesn't need replacing. Everyone makes it sound like they need intel solutions now, if that's true what are you using to make money from right now?
Like I said a fully equiped mbp/imac is more than enough for fcp studio 5.1 in like 85% of the cases, and under those machines maxed out cs2 under rosetta is actually pretty bearable.
Unless your working with massive files or using a decklink to capture uncompressed hd you're fine, if not then you've already upgraded by now because those blackmagic cards and other stuff a lot of pro people use can't and don't even exist on the intel side.
How come people always say stuff like that? For some reason everyone seems to be ok with a pro user using a mbp but not an imac.
They're the same machine.
Same ram lock-in.
Same video card lock-in.
An imac is acutally better than a mbp because of the 3.5" hd.
Plenty of pros do their rough cuts on pb and finish later on something better, plenty of pros used to find pbs good enough for apeture for live capture on shoots. Plenty of pros used pbs to run logic or pro tools setups that were flexible.
Now we've got stronger machines and there is suddenly a new stigma attached to using them for anything professional because the mac pros don't exist yet.
Especially if it's an imac.
How I see it is anything people used the pb for the imac do the same. Any real set has power anyways(I never see on set pbs running off battery) so bringing in a 17" imac doesn't seem much more ridiculous, after all people lug much bigger things to sets each day.
I could edit my entire movie at a lower resolution to save my original footage and then pass it along to a post house to finish it on things much better than what I could possibly afford.
That to me seems smarter than getting a quad g5 and 23-30" cinema display, like so many people I know have splurged on. They can't even use the tools to the full exent and are trying to completely outfit themselves as if they're a post house when their primary job isn't even editing.
I know a guy that shot an independant film last year and with no prior knowledge of fcp spent 10K on a mac editing setup and when it came time to camera equipment had nothing much left so he grabbed a pd150 off ebay. He called me in eventually to help with some editing and his footage was unuseable, his directing and shot choices ridiculous and his video quality was terrible.
This type of thing is happening way to often nowadays everyone thinks that pro software is dead without the strongest pm setup, it's not a fully maxed out mbp/imac is most likely enough for anyone that doesn't make money exclusively from this.
People that do don't care because they have perfectly good hardware that doesn't need replacing. Everyone makes it sound like they need intel solutions now, if that's true what are you using to make money from right now?
Like I said a fully equiped mbp/imac is more than enough for fcp studio 5.1 in like 85% of the cases, and under those machines maxed out cs2 under rosetta is actually pretty bearable.
Unless your working with massive files or using a decklink to capture uncompressed hd you're fine, if not then you've already upgraded by now because those blackmagic cards and other stuff a lot of pro people use can't and don't even exist on the intel side.
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying, and trying to get across.
Insofar as FCP goes, Apple wrote a compressed format for those editors who work in the field (and there are a hell of a lot of them!), and then send the EDL's out to the studio back "home".
Which can easily be explained by much less "outsourcing" of code into frameworks. And yes, I'm sure you'll point me to the 39.4 MB Frameworks folder in Photoshop's bundle.
Apple's ProKit alone, however, is another 10.5 MB. Add to that the plethora of Cocoa-related frameworks Final Cut heavily benefits from, and you'll probably find a larger total binary size.
Point being: size doesn't matter. More code doesn't make a better app.
OK, mea culpa on the application sizes. I was just trying to give rough ideas of relative complexity, but I see now that was a poor way of doing it.
I suppose AppleScript dictionary complexity might give a hint as to relative complexity, but Apple's pro apps--other than Aperture--aren't scriptable. (See, melgross, I'm no Apple apologist.)
[I suppose AppleScript dictionary complexity might give a hint as to relative complexity, but Apple's pro apps--other than Aperture--aren't scriptable. (See, melgross, I'm no Apple apologist.) [/B]
Comments
Originally posted by bikertwin
Hmmm. Just the other day I was complaining about Apple putting all their apps together in the FCSuite. Hows does that jibe with your comment?
An intelligent debater is someone who acknowledges his rivals' good points and counters them. Someone who is completely dismissive of all his rivals' points only displays cowardice. Your last two posts in particular have been dismissive in the extreme. I don't see how they contribute to this thread.
To get back on track:
1. Do you think there is a market for running an app like Shake on any currently available, Apple-branded Intel-based hardware?
2. Do you think a two-week delay in Aperture 1.1's release is comparable to Adobe's 12-month wait for CS3?
3. Do you think that the fact that Apple can release major, complex apps like Final Cut Suite in Universal Binary format puts the lie to Adobe's claim that XCode can't handle large applications?
Thanks for your considered replies.
That's absurd. you insult me constantly. You've just done it again.
Sometimes an argument is not to the point. When that's true, there's no point in arguing it.
1. This is one of those arguments that's not to the point, because the argument that's been made is that there isn't any Pro Mac available YET that would run PS in a way that does it justice either. I never said that Shake should be out NOW. Just that Apple hasn't given us any hint as to when it will. They could say that it will be out in time for the new Powermac later this year. That should satisfy you.
Since no one yet knows what performance level Shake will exhibit when it does come out on Intel, it's premature to say that there won't be a machine available for it. I'm not expecting Shake to come out next week, if you think that that's the problem here. But the new PowerMacs will, hopefully, be out sometime in the third quarter, or at the latest, the forth quarter
What has to be remembered here, is that I'm not the one complaining that certain programs are not available yet. It doesn't bother ME that Shake isn't ready. The point I was making was that while Adobe has given us a timeline for CS3, Apple has given us none for Shake. If Shake comes out after the January Macworld, I would have no problem with that at all.
I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride. I'm not blaming Apple, and I'm not blaming Adobe. They both have their problems with this.
That's simple. I'm sure that both companies, as I've said before, are doing their darndest to get these programs out as fast as they can.
Adobe will be losing sales while people are waiting for the new version as well, so they have something to gain by doing it as quickly as possible. We should all know that.
I'm not assigning blame to anyone, again, as I've said. You are. I'm simply pointing out that if YOU must feel as though you have to assign blame to one, then the other should be included as well. After all, it's Apple's tool set they all are using. And if Adobe is being blamed for not getting on the bandwagon with it, then Apple who should have been on it from the beginning, should be well ahead in development. We should be able to agree on that.
2. If you read my posts here, you will see that I've not accused Apple of anything for this minor delay. Just the opposite. You're assuming that I said that. You are wrong. But, again, Aperture is a small program. It shouldn't take too long to convert. Apple might have even been working on the Intel version from the beginning, as they should have been. This delay is not much. Minor glitches always happen.
3.No, not at all. I use both suites, and have from the beginning. FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be. Don't forget that, again, Apple has been universalizing their old apps. Adobe is universalizing new versions of apps that weren't schedualed to come out for a year anyway. Adobe's timeline for the suite is 18 to 24 months normally. Considering that they just absorbed a company that was a good fraction their size, and are already incorporating many features from the apps from that company into their own, I think that Adobe is doing pretty well.
I know that you think that Adobe should spend many man hours doing this to their current software, but the effort that would take, and the time, is too much for a company like Adobe to manage. Most of us would rather see them put their efforts on the new version, than to waste it on the old one. I'm not seeing these arguments amongst professionals. They aren't happy it won't be out for a while, but they understand it.
Originally posted by the cool gut
"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "
I've heard similar sentiments from the Mac Game developers when porting some of the major games like Civ IV, Doom 3, etc. They ran in to problems with XCode because these were some of the biggest apps compiled with it and kept finding problems and working with Apple to address them. It wouldn't surprise me if Adobe, and Apple for that matter, is in the same boat.
FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be.
I don't agree with this as a blanket statement. Will you clarify what you mean by complex.
I can see CS3 being more complex in the sense that much its code is older than FCS. Adobe has to go back through really old code as it ports CS3 to Universal Binaries. While FCS is newer and doesn't have 10 to 15 years of old code.
But in features and functionality I don't see CS3 being more complicated than FCS. Displaying, editing, and manipulating video/audio is in many ways more work than working with a still image.
This is one of those arguments that's not to the point, because the argument that's been made is that there isn't any Pro Mac available YET that would run PS in a way that does it justice either.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this statement correctly.
But what would Photoshop need from a PowerMac that is not apart of an iMac that would allow it to run better?
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't agree with this as a blanket statement. Will you clarify what you mean by complex.
I can see CS3 being more complex in the sense that much its code is older than FCS. Adobe has to go back through really old code as it ports CS3 to Universal Binaries. While FCS is newer and doesn't have 10 to 15 years of old code.
But in features and functionality I don't see CS3 being more complicated than FCS. Displaying, editing, and manipulating video/audio is in many ways more work than working with a still image.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this statement correctly.
But what would Photoshop need from a PowerMac that is not apart of an iMac that would allow it to run better?
I'm just going by basic coding models. Most developers find that the more lines of code there are, the more difficult it is to move to another platform, or toolset. As was stated in the links I posted, which have been agreed as being a good representation of the problems by other developers, a program with twice as much code can require ten times as much work to bring over.
CS2 has more code to re-do. CS3 will have much more code. If you read those links, you will get the idea why they hadn't been brought over to XCode before now.
PS has many more commands and features than FCP. That isn't an indictment of FCP, it's the finest editing program of its type. It just reflects the different media they act upon.
That statement about the machines is simply a reply to bikertwin that a couple of people, including him, have not thought that the MBP or iMac were ideal machines for running PS, that it needs a "PowerMac". My point there, was that Shake is about in the same boat, and that as I wasn't complaining that it's not out NOW, that argument doesn't apply. That, by the time both programs are out, a "PowerMac" will be available.
Originally posted by melgross
That statement about the machines is simply a reply to bikertwin that a couple of people, including him, have not thought that the MBP or iMac were ideal machines for running PS, that it needs a "PowerMac". My point there, was that Shake is about in the same boat, and that as I wasn't complaining that it's not out NOW, that argument doesn't apply. That, by the time both programs are out, a "PowerMac" will be available.
While I agree 1 month ago that FCS and Adobe CS really require a PowerMac to run in a workshop, isn't the new Core Duo iMacs kinda entering that market now. I run FCS and Adobe CS on my G5 iMac 1.8 GHz 20". Yeah, FCS performance is bearable for my work but not for people who do this for a living. Adobe CS is fine but I imagine for the publishing work crowd performance would be unacceptable.
So, now we have a core Duo iMac and when Adobe goes UB, I would say the only thing holding back the pro crowd would be the HDD not being easily upgraded or adding an internal second drive (total ram may be a problem). Monitor spanning is now a feature so heck, the iMac Core Duo looks like a better deal once Adobe gets CS3 out the door.
Thoughts?
Apple is going to have a harder time keeping the pro line computers sellling to smaller shops. I would guess the smaller shops is where the money is at anyway but that is me just speculating.
Let me have it.
Originally posted by aplnub
While I agree 1 month ago that FCS and Adobe CS really require a PowerMac to run in a workshop, isn't the new Core Duo iMacs kinda entering that market now. I run FCS and Adobe CS on my G5 iMac 1.8 GHz 20". Yeah, FCS performance is bearable for my work but not for people who do this for a living. Adobe CS is fine but I imagine for the publishing work crowd performance would be unacceptable.
So, now we have a core Duo iMac and when Adobe goes UB, I would say the only thing holding back the pro crowd would be the HDD not being easily upgraded or adding an internal second drive (total ram may be a problem). Monitor spanning is now a feature so heck, the iMac Core Duo looks like a better deal once Adobe gets CS3 out the door.
Thoughts?
Apple is going to have a harder time keeping the pro line computers sellling to smaller shops. I would guess the smaller shops is where the money is at anyway but that is me just speculating.
Let me have it.
Once these programs go UV, there shouldn't be much of a problem with performance. For CS3, there should be no problem at all, as long as you are not running the large, over 100MByte files I used to. PS will likely be much faster on a Duo Core iMac than it was on a G5 iMac. Tests are showing that it can approach the speed of a dual 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. 2GB RAM is really enough for most people. For those who REALLY (as opposed to those who simply WANT more RAM) need more RAM, well, they will have to wait.
Shake will do ok on a 2.16GHz MBP with 2GB RAM, but it's surely not the ideal machine for that. a 2.33GHz Yonah chip, when it comes out in a couple months, or so, will help slightly. A Merom MBP, at the 2.66GHz the top chip is supposed to run at at introduction, coupled with the 20% or so increase in speed GHz for GHz to the Yonah, should provide good power for either the MBP, or the iMac, as both will go to that later this year.
For those few who really need the high end of the high end, they will just have to wait for the new "PowerMac". But, that's always the case for those who require the most performance. Most everyone else won't get those machines anyway.
As far as HD's go, I don't concern myself with the largest drive that's internal. Professionals should never retain customers work on their HD's without backing it up. After the job is complete, and the customer indicates that they either won't need it again at all (most of the time), or for a while, the work should be removed from the machine, and stored, if at all necessary, offline, on DVD's or some other non magnetic media.
The largest drive available right now for the iMac is 500MB. That's the largest drive available to ANYONE. The 20 comes with a 250 as standard. This can be found at their store.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL...JnK41GH/2.?p=0
If that isn't enough, then I really don't know what to say. Go external for more.
Originally posted by aplnub
What about the consumer line meshing with the pro line potentionally taking away pro line sales since consumer lines are becoming what the pro line currrently is?
This HAS always been the case. despite what some say, many, if not most, pros don't use, or need, high end pro machines. I would be willing to bet, going by my own experience with my own clients, that most pro's are using machines that are two to three( or more) years old. This WILL always be the case.
Very few pro's work on files that require the most power available at the time.
Machines are fast enough now, so that a two or three second delay is almost meaningless. When I started out with my 950 in the very early '90's, we waited almost 20 minutes for the unsharp mask to do its thing on a large (20MB) image. We managed.
While I'm not saying that we should go back to the old days (shudder!), I'm saying that, yes, consumer machines are pretty damn good.
While I'm also not saying that those of use who really do need, or can afford, a high end Powermac shouldn't get one, most people don't, or they buy them used.
Let's face it, in the real world, as opposed to the one sometimes argued here, people simply don't buy new machines every year, or two, or even three.
Assuming that we're only talking about UV'd apps, people who have a several year old Powermac, will find that moving to a fast iMac will be an upgrade, other than if they truely need more than 2GB RAM, which very few really do.
The 1600 video board is about as good as anything you had on a two year old PM, and much better than anything available before that. Most people, even pro's, don't upgrade their video cards.
Considering that we WILL be able to upgrade these current machines with a much faster Merom chip later on, this is actually better than the G5 PM's, as there are NO upgrades for those.
As for the replacement series of "Powermac's", who knows, as usual, Apple ain't talking.
Originally posted by melgross
That's absurd. you insult me constantly. You've just done it again.
Sometimes an argument is not to the point. When that's true, there's no point in arguing it.
1. This is one of those arguments that's not to the point, because the argument that's been made is that there isn't any Pro Mac available YET that would run PS in a way that does it justice either. I never said that Shake should be out NOW. Just that Apple hasn't given us any hint as to when it will. They could say that it will be out in time for the new Powermac later this year. That should satisfy you.
Since no one yet knows what performance level Shake will exhibit when it does come out on Intel, it's premature to say that there won't be a machine available for it. I'm not expecting Shake to come out next week, if you think that that's the problem here. But the new PowerMacs will, hopefully, be out sometime in the third quarter, or at the latest, the forth quarter
What has to be remembered here, is that I'm not the one complaining that certain programs are not available yet. It doesn't bother ME that Shake isn't ready. The point I was making was that while Adobe has given us a timeline for CS3, Apple has given us none for Shake. If Shake comes out after the January Macworld, I would have no problem with that at all.
I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride. I'm not blaming Apple, and I'm not blaming Adobe. They both have their problems with this.
That's simple. I'm sure that both companies, as I've said before, are doing their darndest to get these programs out as fast as they can.
Adobe will be losing sales while people are waiting for the new version as well, so they have something to gain by doing it as quickly as possible. We should all know that.
I'm not assigning blame to anyone, again, as I've said. You are. I'm simply pointing out that if YOU must feel as though you have to assign blame to one, then the other should be included as well. After all, it's Apple's tool set they all are using. And if Adobe is being blamed for not getting on the bandwagon with it, then Apple who should have been on it from the beginning, should be well ahead in development. We should be able to agree on that.
2. If you read my posts here, you will see that I've not accused Apple of anything for this minor delay. Just the opposite. You're assuming that I said that. You are wrong. But, again, Aperture is a small program. It shouldn't take too long to convert. Apple might have even been working on the Intel version from the beginning, as they should have been. This delay is not much. Minor glitches always happen.
3.No, not at all. I use both suites, and have from the beginning. FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be. Don't forget that, again, Apple has been universalizing their old apps. Adobe is universalizing new versions of apps that weren't schedualed to come out for a year anyway. Adobe's timeline for the suite is 18 to 24 months normally. Considering that they just absorbed a company that was a good fraction their size, and are already incorporating many features from the apps from that company into their own, I think that Adobe is doing pretty well.
I know that you think that Adobe should spend many man hours doing this to their current software, but the effort that would take, and the time, is too much for a company like Adobe to manage. Most of us would rather see them put their efforts on the new version, than to waste it on the old one. I'm not seeing these arguments amongst professionals. They aren't happy it won't be out for a while, but they understand it.
Here are my thoughts:
1. Your basic claim is that Apple is as guilty of not producing UBs as Adobe is, since Apple hasn't delivered Shake yet. Our basic claim (mine and some other folks here) is that Shake is really designed for a desktop machine in a way that PS isn't. I mean you could comfortably run PS on a G3 iBook (800 MHz) with 640 MB RAM*; it won't be a speed demon, and you can't edit 100 MB files, but for the average photographer, it's a workable setup. On the other hand, you can't even load Shake on a G3 iBook**!
* -- http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html
** -- http://www.apple.com/shake/specs.html
Certainly you know, melgross, that any kind of video editing/generating/encoding is far more taxing than a typical photography/PS workflow. If anything, I would say PS should be out in UB form before Final Cut Suite, since it's typically far less demanding. I'd rather use a UB version of PS on a MacBook Pro (or iMac) than a UB version of FCSuite (or Shake) on a MacBook Pro (or iMac).
Conclusion: The lack of a UB of Shake is perfectly consistent with the lack of desktop Apple-branded Intel hardware. In fact, with FCSuite being far more processor intensive than typical PS photography workflows, Apple is way ahead of Adobe.
2. Aperture is a small program? It's 40 MB. Illustrator 10 is 50 MB, so roughly comparable. How can you say converting Aperture to UB is trivial compared to an Adobe app? And Aperture is going from version 1 to 1.1, with some signicant feature enhancements. http://www.apple.com/aperture/update.html
3. You also keep saying that FC Suite is significantly less complex than Creative Suite. You said, "FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be." Well, we're not talking about CS3, we're talking about why CS2 can't be converted.
PS CS2 is 307 MB***. InDesign CS is 200 MB. Compressor is 115 MB. LiveType is 41 MB. SoundTrack Pro is 97 MB. DVD Studio Pro is 200 MB. Motion is 331 MB. Final Cut Pro is 370 MB. They're monstrously complex apps. You simply can't say that Apple had an easier time converting to UBs because FCSuite apps are less complex than Creative Suite. They are not.
*** -- http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp#product=39
Originally posted by bikertwin
1. Your basic claim is that Apple is as guilty of not producing UBs as Adobe is, since Apple hasn't delivered Shake yet. Our basic claim (mine and some other folks here) is that Shake is really designed for a desktop machine in a way that PS isn't.
There is an assumption that none of the current intel macs would be suitable for running shake. I'm not so sure. Over in current hardware forum there is a thread on the Monty Hall benchmark. The intel iMac is competitve with the g5 quad. I know it's only one test and it's integer intensive. Still, that's pretty damn impressive, and I wonder how these programs(shake and Cs3) will end up performing on the 'consumer' macs. I wouldn't be surprised if they do pretty well.
Originally posted by backtomac
There is an assumption that none of the current intel macs would be suitable for running shake. I'm not so sure. Over in current hardware forum there is a thread on the Monty Hall benchmark. The intel iMac is competitve with the g5 quad. I know it's only one test and it's integer intensive. Still, that's pretty damn impressive, and I wonder how these programs(shake and Cs3) will end up performing on the 'consumer' macs. I wouldn't be surprised if they do pretty well.
Sure, iMacs might run Shake well enough. That's great news as to how fast iMacs really are.
But a typical (professional) Shake user simply isn't going to buy an iMac, because of RAM and video card lock-in. A typical Shake user won't use a MacBook Pro as his primary computer, either. Occasional use? Sure. Primary computer? Not typical.
But a Photoshop user certainly could use a MacBook Pro as their primary computer. Photoshop doesn't stress the video card (the way, say, Motion and Aperture do), and 2 GB RAM is sufficient for basic PS work.
Some PS users would never use a portable anything, because they work on huge layered files. That's fine, PS scales well from laptops to monster desktops with 8 GB of RAM or more. But there is definitely a large subset of PS users who could easily and happily use a MacBook Pro. That's not true for Shake.
Heck, I gave up on laptops because DVD encoding is simply too slow (at least it was on G4 PowerBooks).
Originally posted by bikertwin
PS CS2 is 307 MB***. InDesign CS is 200 MB. Compressor is 115 MB. LiveType is 41 MB. SoundTrack Pro is 97 MB. DVD Studio Pro is 200 MB. Motion is 331 MB. Final Cut Pro is 370 MB. They're monstrously complex apps. You simply can't say that Apple had an easier time converting to UBs because FCSuite apps are less complex than Creative Suite. They are not.
What? You can't measure complexity by size. iWork Pages is about 800 MB, IIRC. That makes it, uh, what, four times as complex as InDesign? 8 times as SoundTrack Pro? Almost three times as Photoshop?
Aperture binary: 4.3 MB
Final Cut Pro HD binary: 5 MB
Photoshop CS2 binary: 20 MB
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Pages binary: 2.6 MB
Aperture binary: 4.3 MB
Final Cut Pro HD binary: 5 MB
Photoshop CS2 binary: 20 MB
Which can easily be explained by much less "outsourcing" of code into frameworks. And yes, I'm sure you'll point me to the 39.4 MB Frameworks folder in Photoshop's bundle.
Apple's ProKit alone, however, is another 10.5 MB. Add to that the plethora of Cocoa-related frameworks Final Cut heavily benefits from, and you'll probably find a larger total binary size.
Point being: size doesn't matter. More code doesn't make a better app.
Apple is going to have a harder time keeping the pro line computers sellling to smaller shops. I would guess the smaller shops is where the money is at anyway but that is me just speculating.
In video editing if you are working with slightly compressed 8 bit standard def video/audio (DVCPro 50) through firewire then an iMac is fine. Anything above that you need a PowerMac because firewire will compress the signal.
For the accuracy and I/O of serial digital interface, RS422 control of a professional deck, the speed and security of Fiber Channel RAID, external CRT monitors. For these features you need a PowerMac.
This HAS always been the case. despite what some say, many, if not most, pros don't use, or need, high end pro machines.
In film/video most pros don't use the newest high end pro machine.
Let's face it, in the real world, as opposed to the one sometimes argued here, people simply don't buy new machines every year, or two, or even three.
This is true. Only on the internet have I heard people complaining about Universal Applications for Intel Macs. No one in any of the pro shops I know are yet even talking about buying Intel Macs. Most will go on for at least another year with what they have now.
The people I know who have bought MBP have done so to replace 4-5 year old PowerBooks.
Originally posted by bikertwin
[B]Here are my thoughts:
1. Your basic claim is that Apple is as guilty of not producing UBs as Adobe is, since Apple hasn't delivered Shake yet. Our basic claim (mine and some other folks here) is that Shake is really designed for a desktop machine in a way that PS isn't. I mean you could comfortably run PS on a G3 iBook (800 MHz) with 640 MB RAM*; it won't be a speed demon, and you can't edit 100 MB files, but for the average photographer, it's a workable setup. On the other hand, you can't even load Shake on a G3 iBook**!
The problem with your assertions is that you make the mistake of "blaming", rather than to think about what it takes to produce the software packages.
Again, you disregard what I say, and just go on as though I've said nothing.
It can get frustrating to constantly reply, when you pretend that I've said things that I didn't say, and that I didn't say things that I did.
I will repeat this for the last time.
I NEVER said that Shake should be out now. I never said that I EXPECTED Shake to be out now.
I did say that it doesn't bother me that Shake is not out now, and that even if it came out early next year, I wouldn't be bothered.
If you can't get that, then you don't understand what I've been saying.
I'm not accusing ANYONE of being guilty of anything. YOU are. You started this entire discussion by assigning blame. Those of us who disagree with that assertion are saying that there should be NO blame ? for anyone.
What I, and others here are saying, is that if YOU are eager to blame one, then YOU should also blame the other.
In every single discussion that you have been involved in, that in any way whatsoever, could possibly involve Adobe, no matter how peripherally that might be, you have taken every opportunity to demonize the company.
They don't deserve that.
Now, in response to #1
No pro, and that is who you are concerned about, would use the computers you mentioned at all, unless they were at the poverty level of the business. You do realize that, of course. Your definition of "comfortably" is rather amazing. It shows that you don't use the program yourself. Without at least a G4, with Altivec, PS is UNcomfortably sluggish. You don't have to run 100MB files to see that. Just run a moderate size file of 40 to 50 MB's.
As others have already pointed out the virtues of the iMac after your post, and your agreement as to it's viability, I will consider that issue to be closed.
Certainly you know, melgross, that any kind of video editing/generating/encoding is far more taxing than a typical photography/PS workflow. If anything, I would say PS should be out in UB form before Final Cut Suite, since it's typically far less demanding. I'd rather use a UB version of PS on a MacBook Pro (or iMac) than a UB version of FCSuite (or Shake) on a MacBook Pro (or iMac).
Again, you seem to disregard any understanding of the development process as being necessary to this discussion.
Adobe and Apple, you may have noticed, are two companies. Apple develops its software, and Adobe develops theirs. Therefore, they are on two different tracks. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Both companies are using all due speed. to suggest anything else is is irresponsible.
Conclusion: The lack of a UB of Shake is perfectly consistent with the lack of desktop Apple-branded Intel hardware. In fact, with FCSuite being far more processor intensive than typical PS photography workflows, Apple is way ahead of Adobe.
Again, you are amazingly obtuse. Go back to the beginning of my post to see the answer to this continued incorrect assertion.
2. Aperture is a small program? It's 40 MB. Illustrator 10 is 50 MB, so roughly comparable. How can you say converting Aperture to UB is trivial compared to an Adobe app? And Aperture is going from version 1 to 1.1, with some signicant feature enhancements. http://www.apple.com/aperture/update.html
3. You also keep saying that FC Suite is significantly less complex than Creative Suite. You said, "FCP Suite is not as complex as Adobe's CS3 will be." Well, we're not talking about CS3, we're talking about why CS2 can't be converted.
PS CS2 is 307 MB***. InDesign CS is 200 MB. Compressor is 115 MB. LiveType is 41 MB. SoundTrack Pro is 97 MB. DVD Studio Pro is 200 MB. Motion is 331 MB. Final Cut Pro is 370 MB. They're monstrously complex apps. You simply can't say that Apple had an easier time converting to UBs because FCSuite apps are less complex than Creative Suite. They are not.
*** -- http://www.adobe.com/products/tryado...jsp#product=39
As others have already posted to correct you on this, I won't bother.
Originally posted by bikertwin
But a typical (professional) Shake user simply isn't going to buy an iMac, because of RAM and video card lock-in. A typical Shake user won't use a MacBook Pro as his primary computer, either. Occasional use? Sure. Primary computer? Not typical.
How come people always say stuff like that? For some reason everyone seems to be ok with a pro user using a mbp but not an imac.
They're the same machine.
Same ram lock-in.
Same video card lock-in.
An imac is acutally better than a mbp because of the 3.5" hd.
Plenty of pros do their rough cuts on pb and finish later on something better, plenty of pros used to find pbs good enough for apeture for live capture on shoots. Plenty of pros used pbs to run logic or pro tools setups that were flexible.
Now we've got stronger machines and there is suddenly a new stigma attached to using them for anything professional because the mac pros don't exist yet.
Especially if it's an imac.
How I see it is anything people used the pb for the imac do the same. Any real set has power anyways(I never see on set pbs running off battery) so bringing in a 17" imac doesn't seem much more ridiculous, after all people lug much bigger things to sets each day.
I could edit my entire movie at a lower resolution to save my original footage and then pass it along to a post house to finish it on things much better than what I could possibly afford.
That to me seems smarter than getting a quad g5 and 23-30" cinema display, like so many people I know have splurged on. They can't even use the tools to the full exent and are trying to completely outfit themselves as if they're a post house when their primary job isn't even editing.
I know a guy that shot an independant film last year and with no prior knowledge of fcp spent 10K on a mac editing setup and when it came time to camera equipment had nothing much left so he grabbed a pd150 off ebay. He called me in eventually to help with some editing and his footage was unuseable, his directing and shot choices ridiculous and his video quality was terrible.
This type of thing is happening way to often nowadays everyone thinks that pro software is dead without the strongest pm setup, it's not a fully maxed out mbp/imac is most likely enough for anyone that doesn't make money exclusively from this.
People that do don't care because they have perfectly good hardware that doesn't need replacing. Everyone makes it sound like they need intel solutions now, if that's true what are you using to make money from right now?
Like I said a fully equiped mbp/imac is more than enough for fcp studio 5.1 in like 85% of the cases, and under those machines maxed out cs2 under rosetta is actually pretty bearable.
Unless your working with massive files or using a decklink to capture uncompressed hd you're fine, if not then you've already upgraded by now because those blackmagic cards and other stuff a lot of pro people use can't and don't even exist on the intel side.
Originally posted by ecking
How come people always say stuff like that? For some reason everyone seems to be ok with a pro user using a mbp but not an imac.
They're the same machine.
Same ram lock-in.
Same video card lock-in.
An imac is acutally better than a mbp because of the 3.5" hd.
Plenty of pros do their rough cuts on pb and finish later on something better, plenty of pros used to find pbs good enough for apeture for live capture on shoots. Plenty of pros used pbs to run logic or pro tools setups that were flexible.
Now we've got stronger machines and there is suddenly a new stigma attached to using them for anything professional because the mac pros don't exist yet.
Especially if it's an imac.
How I see it is anything people used the pb for the imac do the same. Any real set has power anyways(I never see on set pbs running off battery) so bringing in a 17" imac doesn't seem much more ridiculous, after all people lug much bigger things to sets each day.
I could edit my entire movie at a lower resolution to save my original footage and then pass it along to a post house to finish it on things much better than what I could possibly afford.
That to me seems smarter than getting a quad g5 and 23-30" cinema display, like so many people I know have splurged on. They can't even use the tools to the full exent and are trying to completely outfit themselves as if they're a post house when their primary job isn't even editing.
I know a guy that shot an independant film last year and with no prior knowledge of fcp spent 10K on a mac editing setup and when it came time to camera equipment had nothing much left so he grabbed a pd150 off ebay. He called me in eventually to help with some editing and his footage was unuseable, his directing and shot choices ridiculous and his video quality was terrible.
This type of thing is happening way to often nowadays everyone thinks that pro software is dead without the strongest pm setup, it's not a fully maxed out mbp/imac is most likely enough for anyone that doesn't make money exclusively from this.
People that do don't care because they have perfectly good hardware that doesn't need replacing. Everyone makes it sound like they need intel solutions now, if that's true what are you using to make money from right now?
Like I said a fully equiped mbp/imac is more than enough for fcp studio 5.1 in like 85% of the cases, and under those machines maxed out cs2 under rosetta is actually pretty bearable.
Unless your working with massive files or using a decklink to capture uncompressed hd you're fine, if not then you've already upgraded by now because those blackmagic cards and other stuff a lot of pro people use can't and don't even exist on the intel side.
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying, and trying to get across.
Insofar as FCP goes, Apple wrote a compressed format for those editors who work in the field (and there are a hell of a lot of them!), and then send the EDL's out to the studio back "home".
These new machines are far better.
Originally posted by Chucker
Which can easily be explained by much less "outsourcing" of code into frameworks. And yes, I'm sure you'll point me to the 39.4 MB Frameworks folder in Photoshop's bundle.
Apple's ProKit alone, however, is another 10.5 MB. Add to that the plethora of Cocoa-related frameworks Final Cut heavily benefits from, and you'll probably find a larger total binary size.
Point being: size doesn't matter. More code doesn't make a better app.
OK, mea culpa on the application sizes. I was just trying to give rough ideas of relative complexity, but I see now that was a poor way of doing it.
I suppose AppleScript dictionary complexity might give a hint as to relative complexity, but Apple's pro apps--other than Aperture--aren't scriptable.
Originally posted by bikertwin
[I suppose AppleScript dictionary complexity might give a hint as to relative complexity, but Apple's pro apps--other than Aperture--aren't scriptable.