I hope Apple's software is improved in this regard. At the very least, for encoding or rendering, split the track into as many segments as there are free cores and stitch the segments together at the end. I can max out a Quad right now, but it takes using two or three apps to do it.
What apps are you you talking about that this is happening with - FCP?
You're right. Some idiots just read the text literally.
That's the problem, you're reading it too literally and not figuratively. It could mean what you're saying, it couuld also mean what I'm saying. Apple Marketers mis-use words every day.
That's what forums are for. This insult came all the way from England. That's what I call bad English
The poster may have exhibited POOR English, but I must agree with da Mac Man - there's a lot of time wasted here overanalyzing/overanalysing; we all know the octo-cores are coming - we just have to wait it out.
I for one am very concerned about Apple's commitment to their computer line in light of all the hype about iPod & iPhone - those are really competitive, frivolous markets compared with computers, and given Apple's tardy release of quad-core tech, and seeming dependence on Adobe for suppport, it makes me very nervous.
I for one am very concerned about Apple's commitment to their computer line in light of all the hype about iPod & iPhone - those are really competitive, frivolous markets compared with computers, and given Apple's tardy release of quad-core tech, and seeming dependence on Adobe for suppport, it makes me very nervous.
Why? Apple has done nothing to demonstrate a lack of interest in backing their computer development?in fact, these new products all rally around the Mac platform. As for immediately implementing all new Intel technologies, I think we can count on that not happening. If they follow Intel?s roadmap it will have a strong affect on their sales. They will continue to develop platforms at their own pace, and we can continue to count on higher quality products than any other hardware developer delivers.
As for Adobe, I wouldn?t say there is any cause to worry for us or Apple. Apple users are far too profitable for Adobe to even dream of dropping development, and Apple is simply focusing a great deal of attention on the CS3 release because it is a big deal for many Apple users?users who happen to be among Apple?s most profitable buyers. We are simply witnessing intelligent marketing.
Apple has done nothing to demonstrate a lack of interest in backing their computer development
Sure they have - no quad-core for 5 months. No Xserve updates in ages. No Xserve RAID updates in ages. No 4 Gb FC. No 10 GbE. No iSCSI. No decent graphics cards. Few PCIe slots or cards.
Quote:
we can continue to count on higher quality products than any other hardware developer delivers.
Sure they have - no quad-core for 5 months. No Xserve updates in ages. No Xserve RAID updates in ages. No 4 Gb FC. No 10 GbE. No iSCSI. No decent graphics cards. Few PCIe slots or cards.
Unless it's a quad-core
As has been said over and over, very few users would have been able to benefit from shipping the quad-cores released 5 months ago, and a good number would have been inconvenienced by the hotter temperatures and louder fans.
No doubt Leopard has been retooled to work well with octo-core machines, and the recent Intel tech runs much cooler than the first generation.
Apple was smart to wait and the benefits will be seen in due time.
It seems like I'm an anomaly, but I'm not even excited about the "new" Mac Pros anymore, because by the time they're released, they'll be relatively outdated. I think it's screwed up that we have to wait about 5 months longer than Dell/HP customers to get our hands on these processors. If I'm going to be paying top dollar for a cutting-edge system, then it had damn well better be cutting-edge. Of course, if they were to offer the new Mac Pro's at a lower price to compensate for the delay, then I wouldn't mind at all. But something tells me that's not going to happen.
Having said that, I'm thinking about just waiting until Penryn comes out. HOPEFULLY Apple will update the Mac Pro again as soon as that comes out, so that I can finally have my cutting-edge system. If not, I'm gonna be kinda pissed.
But that shouldn't be unlikely, right? Updating as soon as Penryn comes out, I mean. That'll probably be about 6 months down the road, or perhaps a month or two less. Hopefully Apple wouldn't consider that too soon...
It seems like I'm an anomaly, but I'm not even excited about the "new" Mac Pros anymore, because by the time they're released, they'll be relatively outdated. I think it's screwed up that we have to wait about 5 months longer than Dell/HP customers to get our hands on these processors. If I'm going to be paying top dollar for a cutting-edge system, then it had damn well better be cutting-edge. Of course, if they were to offer the new Mac Pro's at a lower price to compensate for the delay, then I wouldn't mind at all. But something tells me that's not going to happen.
Having said that, I'm thinking about just waiting until Penryn comes out. HOPEFULLY Apple will update the Mac Pro again as soon as that comes out, so that I can finally have my cutting-edge system. If not, I'm gonna be kinda pissed.
But that shouldn't be unlikely, right? Updating as soon as Penryn comes out, I mean. That'll probably be about 6 months down the road, or perhaps a month or two less. Hopefully Apple wouldn't consider that too soon...
You are an anomaly. Most people have to eventually just "bite the bullet" grab something and get to work. Quad core computers are not going to be dated anytime soon and I don't care if Dell or HP has QC yet because they don't run OS X.
The problem with waiting for Penryn is that it's only a process shrink so you're waiting for extra clock cycles but how much work did you lose in waiting? Not enough for Penryn to make the difference IMO. By the time you think you're ready for Penry who's to say you won't be enthralled with Nehalem and decide to wait for that. Now that's a core change and it's even MORE enticing. It's a cycle that is easy to fall into.
I'll hold out for Santa Rosa and Leopard for a Macbook but that's only a bit of time and I have to save up the money anywas. I'm through with waiting for the perfect computer. It doesn't exist ..it's a carrot i'll never catch. There's always something better coming down the pike.
You are an anomaly. Most people have to eventually just "bite the bullet" grab something and get to work. Quad core computers are not going to be dated anytime soon and I don't care if Dell or HP has QC yet because they don't run OS X.
The problem with waiting for Penryn is that it's only a process shrink so you're waiting for extra clock cycles but how much work did you lose in waiting? Not enough for Penryn to make the difference IMO. By the time you think you're ready for Penry who's to say you won't be enthralled with Nehalem and decide to wait for that. Now that's a core change and it's even MORE enticing. It's a cycle that is easy to fall into.
I'll hold out for Santa Rosa and Leopard for a Macbook but that's only a bit of time and I have to save up the money anywas. I'm through with waiting for the perfect computer. It doesn't exist ..it's a carrot i'll never catch. There's always something better coming down the pike.
Curiously I'm wondering which version, if not Penryn, and wolfdale are the CPUs that are supposed to be actual quad CPUs, not 2 and 2 together on one die that has the ODMC? I remember a while back that was kind of what I was waiting on.
[edit] JUst looked it up, and it looks like intel will not have an ODMC until 2009. Keep pushing that back why don't we. As if.
The problem with waiting for Penryn is that it's only a process shrink
Umm...no. SSE4. May make quite a difference for video encode/decode, once the coders get at it. However, I agree, not much point waiting for it unless you're the coder, as by the time there are products using SSE4, there'll be new generations, probably Nehalem.
What about the benefits of a dual quad-core Mac Pro to Apple's FCP-anchored Production Suite apps? It seems to me they chase that market much harder than the static graphic artist, possibly because graphic designers used to Macs aren't likely to switch. It's quite possible the future Mac Pro performance is being tuned and developed primarily as an Apple video production platform rather than an Adobe Photoshop platform. It's the only scenario that compounds the profit for Apple: higher-margin workstation hardware and the software well-heeled producers/editors want to run on it. Can one of the more knowledgeable techies in the forum speculate about how Intel-native versions of Apple Production Suite might benefit from a dual quad-core Mac Pro with gobs of RAM?
Adobe has market locked up with Photoshop, and really doesn't have to worry about whether the product performs as good as the customers would like -- we're all going to buy new or upgrade it sooner or later. (For that matter, what if Photoshop runs better on a quad-core Mac Pro running Vista than on Mac OS X? THAT would be a bitter pill to swallow, but we Mac owners would probably buy it and set it up that way if it truly provided increased productivity. Can't imagine it would be worth the support effort involved, even if it flat-out screamed.)
As for myself, I'm going to upgrade my dual 1.8 G5 to an octo-core with 8gb RAM when MS releases Office for Intel Mac -- I'm positive I'll need it to scroll a multi-page Word doc in reasonable fashion.
I believe Photoshop recognizes up to 3GB of RAM before it uses the hard disk(s) for virtual memory. To use the full 3GB of RAM Photoshop can address, you'd have to have more than 3GB of RAM installed. If you had 16GB of RAM, Photoshop is still going to use just 3GB and then use the hard disk(s).
This is true for Photoshop CS2, and I believe it also applies to CS3, though I could be mistaken.
Hi, stupid question for the pot,
Does this mean you'd be running short if you only had 2 GB of RAM? Even if you were going to do little, if any, 3D/video work? (Or could I add more RAM later?)
Does this mean you'd be running short if you only had 2 GB of RAM? Even if you were going to do little, if any, 3D/video work? (Or could I add more RAM later?)
I use a mac pro with 2Gb RAM for illustration work, commonly keeping Photoshop CS3 and Painter X running at the same time swapping the file between programs. I only use small files and avoid a lot of layering.
Recently I noticed highly rendered brushes at huge size were dragging more than I thought they would. The processors were maxed out but the RAM was only about 3/4 used up.
I guess you need enough RAM to handle whatever file sizes you're using but if I understand this all correctly no matter how big your file and no matter how much RAM you have in your machine Photoshop can never use more than 3Gb of it, so 3Gb for Photoshop and another half to run the OS and you're at your maximum. If it's a Mac Pro then you'll get the best performance out of your RAM if it's evenly distributed among all eight slots, making 1/2Gb in each slot the best option, for a total of 4Gb altogether.
Quad core computers are not going to be dated anytime soon
While I can't argue with your logic in the rest of your post, I must beg to differ here. Technology is constantly moving, and as it moves, older hardware and software is left to die.
Like all industries, the computer industry is all about money. I guarantee that within 3 years, even the Penryn Mac Pro that I want so badly will look like crap compared to newer models, and a couple of years after that, software will only support 30-core processors, so I'll won't even be able to use my Mac Pro for the most basic editing-related stuff. Didn't Intel say that they were going to be making consumer-grade 30-core CPU's within 3 years? I know they said something like that...
So while I did, in a sense, prove your argument about the carrot to be correct, I'd like to at least buy my hardware as soon as it's released to the market, so that it takes that much longer for it to go obsolete.
I use a mac pro with 2Gb RAM for illustration work, commonly keeping Photoshop CS3 and Painter X running at the same time swapping the file between programs. I only use small files and avoid a lot of layering.
Recently I noticed highly rendered brushes at huge size were dragging more than I thought they would. The processors were maxed out but the RAM was only about 3/4 used up.
I guess you need enough RAM to handle whatever file sizes you're using but if I understand this all correctly no matter how big your file and no matter how much RAM you have in your machine Photoshop can never use more than 3Gb of it, so 3Gb for Photoshop and another half to run the OS and you're at your maximum. If it's a Mac Pro then you'll get the best performance out of your RAM if it's evenly distributed among all eight slots, making 1/2Gb in each slot the best option, for a total of 4Gb altogether.
Ta for the optimisation link.
Ah! Okay. I think that makes sense. Mine's (going to be) a MB Pro and I'm thinking I'll start with 2GB of RAM because that's about as far as I want to stretch my budget right now...and I could always max it out later, at least that's what I understand.
Comments
I hope Apple's software is improved in this regard. At the very least, for encoding or rendering, split the track into as many segments as there are free cores and stitch the segments together at the end. I can max out a Quad right now, but it takes using two or three apps to do it.
What apps are you you talking about that this is happening with - FCP?
You're right. Some idiots just read the text literally.
That's the problem, you're reading it too literally and not figuratively. It could mean what you're saying, it couuld also mean what I'm saying. Apple Marketers mis-use words every day.
That's what forums are for. This insult came all the way from England. That's what I call bad English
The poster may have exhibited POOR English, but I must agree with da Mac Man - there's a lot of time wasted here overanalyzing/overanalysing; we all know the octo-cores are coming - we just have to wait it out.
I for one am very concerned about Apple's commitment to their computer line in light of all the hype about iPod & iPhone - those are really competitive, frivolous markets compared with computers, and given Apple's tardy release of quad-core tech, and seeming dependence on Adobe for suppport, it makes me very nervous.
I for one am very concerned about Apple's commitment to their computer line in light of all the hype about iPod & iPhone - those are really competitive, frivolous markets compared with computers, and given Apple's tardy release of quad-core tech, and seeming dependence on Adobe for suppport, it makes me very nervous.
Why? Apple has done nothing to demonstrate a lack of interest in backing their computer development?in fact, these new products all rally around the Mac platform. As for immediately implementing all new Intel technologies, I think we can count on that not happening. If they follow Intel?s roadmap it will have a strong affect on their sales. They will continue to develop platforms at their own pace, and we can continue to count on higher quality products than any other hardware developer delivers.
As for Adobe, I wouldn?t say there is any cause to worry for us or Apple. Apple users are far too profitable for Adobe to even dream of dropping development, and Apple is simply focusing a great deal of attention on the CS3 release because it is a big deal for many Apple users?users who happen to be among Apple?s most profitable buyers. We are simply witnessing intelligent marketing.
Apple has done nothing to demonstrate a lack of interest in backing their computer development
Sure they have - no quad-core for 5 months. No Xserve updates in ages. No Xserve RAID updates in ages. No 4 Gb FC. No 10 GbE. No iSCSI. No decent graphics cards. Few PCIe slots or cards.
we can continue to count on higher quality products than any other hardware developer delivers.
Unless it's a quad-core
Sure they have - no quad-core for 5 months. No Xserve updates in ages. No Xserve RAID updates in ages. No 4 Gb FC. No 10 GbE. No iSCSI. No decent graphics cards. Few PCIe slots or cards.
Unless it's a quad-core
As has been said over and over, very few users would have been able to benefit from shipping the quad-cores released 5 months ago, and a good number would have been inconvenienced by the hotter temperatures and louder fans.
No doubt Leopard has been retooled to work well with octo-core machines, and the recent Intel tech runs much cooler than the first generation.
Apple was smart to wait and the benefits will be seen in due time.
Having said that, I'm thinking about just waiting until Penryn comes out. HOPEFULLY Apple will update the Mac Pro again as soon as that comes out, so that I can finally have my cutting-edge system. If not, I'm gonna be kinda pissed.
But that shouldn't be unlikely, right? Updating as soon as Penryn comes out, I mean. That'll probably be about 6 months down the road, or perhaps a month or two less. Hopefully Apple wouldn't consider that too soon...
No doubt Leopard has been retooled to work well with octo-core machines, and the recent Intel tech runs much cooler than the first generation.
Hmm... perhaps the HW refreshes will coincide with the Leopard release (likely June)?
.
It seems like I'm an anomaly, but I'm not even excited about the "new" Mac Pros anymore, because by the time they're released, they'll be relatively outdated. I think it's screwed up that we have to wait about 5 months longer than Dell/HP customers to get our hands on these processors. If I'm going to be paying top dollar for a cutting-edge system, then it had damn well better be cutting-edge. Of course, if they were to offer the new Mac Pro's at a lower price to compensate for the delay, then I wouldn't mind at all. But something tells me that's not going to happen.
Having said that, I'm thinking about just waiting until Penryn comes out. HOPEFULLY Apple will update the Mac Pro again as soon as that comes out, so that I can finally have my cutting-edge system. If not, I'm gonna be kinda pissed.
But that shouldn't be unlikely, right? Updating as soon as Penryn comes out, I mean. That'll probably be about 6 months down the road, or perhaps a month or two less. Hopefully Apple wouldn't consider that too soon...
You are an anomaly. Most people have to eventually just "bite the bullet" grab something and get to work. Quad core computers are not going to be dated anytime soon and I don't care if Dell or HP has QC yet because they don't run OS X.
The problem with waiting for Penryn is that it's only a process shrink so you're waiting for extra clock cycles but how much work did you lose in waiting? Not enough for Penryn to make the difference IMO. By the time you think you're ready for Penry who's to say you won't be enthralled with Nehalem and decide to wait for that. Now that's a core change and it's even MORE enticing. It's a cycle that is easy to fall into.
I'll hold out for Santa Rosa and Leopard for a Macbook but that's only a bit of time and I have to save up the money anywas. I'm through with waiting for the perfect computer. It doesn't exist ..it's a carrot i'll never catch. There's always something better coming down the pike.
You are an anomaly. Most people have to eventually just "bite the bullet" grab something and get to work. Quad core computers are not going to be dated anytime soon and I don't care if Dell or HP has QC yet because they don't run OS X.
The problem with waiting for Penryn is that it's only a process shrink so you're waiting for extra clock cycles but how much work did you lose in waiting? Not enough for Penryn to make the difference IMO. By the time you think you're ready for Penry who's to say you won't be enthralled with Nehalem and decide to wait for that. Now that's a core change and it's even MORE enticing. It's a cycle that is easy to fall into.
I'll hold out for Santa Rosa and Leopard for a Macbook but that's only a bit of time and I have to save up the money anywas. I'm through with waiting for the perfect computer. It doesn't exist ..it's a carrot i'll never catch. There's always something better coming down the pike.
Curiously I'm wondering which version, if not Penryn, and wolfdale are the CPUs that are supposed to be actual quad CPUs, not 2 and 2 together on one die that has the ODMC? I remember a while back that was kind of what I was waiting on.
[edit] JUst looked it up, and it looks like intel will not have an ODMC until 2009. Keep pushing that back why don't we. As if.
The problem with waiting for Penryn is that it's only a process shrink
Umm...no. SSE4. May make quite a difference for video encode/decode, once the coders get at it. However, I agree, not much point waiting for it unless you're the coder, as by the time there are products using SSE4, there'll be new generations, probably Nehalem.
Adobe has market locked up with Photoshop, and really doesn't have to worry about whether the product performs as good as the customers would like -- we're all going to buy new or upgrade it sooner or later. (For that matter, what if Photoshop runs better on a quad-core Mac Pro running Vista than on Mac OS X? THAT would be a bitter pill to swallow, but we Mac owners would probably buy it and set it up that way if it truly provided increased productivity. Can't imagine it would be worth the support effort involved, even if it flat-out screamed.)
As for myself, I'm going to upgrade my dual 1.8 G5 to an octo-core with 8gb RAM when MS releases Office for Intel Mac -- I'm positive I'll need it to scroll a multi-page Word doc in reasonable fashion.
I believe Photoshop recognizes up to 3GB of RAM before it uses the hard disk(s) for virtual memory. To use the full 3GB of RAM Photoshop can address, you'd have to have more than 3GB of RAM installed. If you had 16GB of RAM, Photoshop is still going to use just 3GB and then use the hard disk(s).
This is true for Photoshop CS2, and I believe it also applies to CS3, though I could be mistaken.
Hi, stupid question for the pot,
Does this mean you'd be running short if you only had 2 GB of RAM? Even if you were going to do little, if any, 3D/video work? (Or could I add more RAM later?)
And what if you optimized Ps a little, like shown here: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36714486/ ?
Hi, stupid question for the pot,
Does this mean you'd be running short if you only had 2 GB of RAM? Even if you were going to do little, if any, 3D/video work? (Or could I add more RAM later?)
And what if you optimized Ps a little, like shown here: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36714486/ ?
Hi Jeremiah,
Hope this ain't a stupit answer:
I use a mac pro with 2Gb RAM for illustration work, commonly keeping Photoshop CS3 and Painter X running at the same time swapping the file between programs. I only use small files and avoid a lot of layering.
Recently I noticed highly rendered brushes at huge size were dragging more than I thought they would. The processors were maxed out but the RAM was only about 3/4 used up.
I guess you need enough RAM to handle whatever file sizes you're using but if I understand this all correctly no matter how big your file and no matter how much RAM you have in your machine Photoshop can never use more than 3Gb of it, so 3Gb for Photoshop and another half to run the OS and you're at your maximum. If it's a Mac Pro then you'll get the best performance out of your RAM if it's evenly distributed among all eight slots, making 1/2Gb in each slot the best option, for a total of 4Gb altogether.
Ta for the optimisation link.
Where????
Here is 1999 http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObje...13&family=iMac
Here EagerDragon::
Quad core computers are not going to be dated anytime soon
While I can't argue with your logic in the rest of your post, I must beg to differ here. Technology is constantly moving, and as it moves, older hardware and software is left to die.
Like all industries, the computer industry is all about money. I guarantee that within 3 years, even the Penryn Mac Pro that I want so badly will look like crap compared to newer models, and a couple of years after that, software will only support 30-core processors, so I'll won't even be able to use my Mac Pro for the most basic editing-related stuff. Didn't Intel say that they were going to be making consumer-grade 30-core CPU's within 3 years? I know they said something like that...
So while I did, in a sense, prove your argument about the carrot to be correct, I'd like to at least buy my hardware as soon as it's released to the market, so that it takes that much longer for it to go obsolete.
Hi Jeremiah,
Hope this ain't a stupit answer:
I use a mac pro with 2Gb RAM for illustration work, commonly keeping Photoshop CS3 and Painter X running at the same time swapping the file between programs. I only use small files and avoid a lot of layering.
Recently I noticed highly rendered brushes at huge size were dragging more than I thought they would. The processors were maxed out but the RAM was only about 3/4 used up.
I guess you need enough RAM to handle whatever file sizes you're using but if I understand this all correctly no matter how big your file and no matter how much RAM you have in your machine Photoshop can never use more than 3Gb of it, so 3Gb for Photoshop and another half to run the OS and you're at your maximum. If it's a Mac Pro then you'll get the best performance out of your RAM if it's evenly distributed among all eight slots, making 1/2Gb in each slot the best option, for a total of 4Gb altogether.
Ta for the optimisation link.
Ah! Okay. I think that makes sense. Mine's (going to be) a MB Pro and I'm thinking I'll start with 2GB of RAM because that's about as far as I want to stretch my budget right now...and I could always max it out later, at least that's what I understand.
Thanks!
YOU GUYS ARE ALL RETARDS AND APPLEINSIDER IS TOO!!!!
When apple means quad-core as in they taking about 4 cores in TOTAL, this has NO indication of quad-core processors.
Idiots stop trying to over analysis every single thing Apple does.
BRAVO!!! I'm with you Chris.
ok so what will we see in terms of the upgrade for the macbook pro? and when do u think this will come out?
IMHO, quad-core processors in a MBP would be able to double as a hot-plate.