Because Video Editors NEVER use Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects.
I don't care if Apple has to buy Adobe to do it, but they need to figure out some way to have those three programs out for intel macs before 2007. Otherwise Apple is going to be shooting themselves in the foot.
Apple has no control over Adobe's development cycle, aside from buying them there's not much they can do.
So really Adobe is shooting Apple in the foot.
At least they're using smaller caliber bullets than IBM and Moto were when they went Apple foot hunting. At least now Apple can sell a bunch of boxes to consumers and people who don't use third party apps much in the meantime.
I was trying to develope a good reply and you beat me to it...agreed
Refresh my memory, how exactly do you run a 30 inch display, a video monitor/output/input IO (like an AJA card), 4 GB ram, and fiber channel into an iMac again?
Fourthed.
Anyway, if FC Studio has now gone "gold" and is shipping, then that must mean they've finalized 10.4.6, which means it should be out today or tomorrow?? *crosses fingers* That's what we'll need for Aperture 1.1, presumably.
Anyway, if FC Studio has now gone "gold" and is shipping, then that must mean they've finalized 10.4.6, which means it should be out today or tomorrow?? *crosses fingers* That's what we'll need for Aperture 1.1, presumably.
Aperature isn't part of this suite. Do the FCS apps need 10.4.6?
Because Video Editors NEVER use Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects.
I don't care if Apple has to buy Adobe to do it, but they need to figure out some way to have those three programs out for intel macs before 2007. Otherwise Apple is going to be shooting themselves in the foot.
If they expect Motion to fill in the gaps they are out of their mind.
I'd imagine running those on a PowerMac more than fills the gap just now being as it's much much faster than anything from Intel just now.
I think people here need to realize that you don't need a $6,000 system to be a video editor. A 20" Dual Core iMac would do very, very well as an editing system, especially for someone who's upgrading from an old Powermac G4. The need for PCI cards has lessoned greatly over the past few years, especially with break-out boxes like the AJA Io. Hell, the iMac can even run dual monitors now. Granted, if you've got the budget for a $3,300 Quad Powermac G5 and a $2,500 30" Cinema Display by all means go for it, but that's' overkill for a lot of today's small-shop editors.
I think people here need to realize that you don't need a $6,000 system to be a video editor. A 20" Dual Core iMac would do very, very well as an editing system, especially for someone who's upgrading from an old Powermac G4. The need for PCI cards has lessoned greatly over the past few years, especially with break-out boxes like the AJA Io. Hell, the iMac can even run dual monitors now. Granted, if you've got the budget for a $3,300 Quad Powermac G5 and a $2,500 30" Cinema Display by all means go for it, but that's' overkill for a lot of today's small-shop editors.
Hell, it probably runs fine on a duo mini. I'll probably get around to upgrading and trying it out one of these days.
Aperature isn't part of this suite. Do the FCS apps need 10.4.6?
Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was.
But the fact that both FC Suite and Aperture were both due at the end of the month--presumably the same timeframe as 10.4.6--suggests that they all need 10.4.6.
I don't care if Apple has to buy Adobe to do it, but they need to figure out some way to have those three programs out for intel macs before 2007. Otherwise Apple is going to be shooting themselves in the foot.
This isn't necessarily true.
I gave a pretty long diatribe in the thread about Universal CS3.
But basically most professional video/film post houses will be in no big rush to run out and buy new hardware and software.
When you run a business you don't buy new equipment just because it exists. You want to get the most out of your investment in your current hardware and software. You buy new equipment when its proven the new workflow will be more productive and worth the investment.
Wow, an Apple company software update thread turns into an argument about Adobe. Where did that come from again?
I know After Effects can be CPU intensive, but what proportion of Photoshop and Illustrator users use them to the extent such that they really stress the system, especially to the point that they are desperate for a faster one?
It'll be interesting to see comparisons since we can run the Pro apps on both PowerPC and Intel. Think a Core Duo MacBook Pro will hold up against a dual processor / dual core G5 PowerMac?
Wow, an Apple company software release turns into an argument about Adobe. Where did that come from again? I know After Effects can be CPU intensive, but what proportion of Photoshop and Illustrator users use them to the extent such that they really stress the system?
Every little helps and if I'm not having to sit there twiddling my thumbs watching the progress bar in Photoshop as it reprocesses a RAW 80MB image then it's good for me.
In design work though, you still also need fast workflows.
I know when we went from producing PDF's of 100 page mags with a G4-450 PowerMac to an iMac 1.25Ghz G4 we gained a day in post processing taking the Quark files, flight checking, RIP, distilling them and producing output. It's less of an issue today because frankly anything past about 2Ghz G5 is as fast as you need for most print/photo work. Still, if I could do 6 hours work in 30 minutes when needed it'd mean I've 5.5 more hours before deadline. ;-)
It'd be nice to take a mag PDF of about 600MB and create a web version in a few minutes instead of hours too.
And that's why we need Intel native CS3. Of course, it's not really needed until there's Intel computers faster than the PowerMacs so it's a strictly academic argument for serious deadline work. Where it would be useful now is in normal everyday design where an iMac is just perfect for most work, web design in particular.
I'd add that many Photoshop users rely on quite a few plugins too so until AlienSkin et al are on board too, it's still worth a wait.
As far as Aperture goes, this is an important app for Apple and I think they want to make it right.
There was quite a bit of complaining about various shortcomings in the original version, I would assume if Aperture takes a bit longer to go UB is might have to do with actually improving things under the hood and adding features. Hoping, anyway.
"The Universal version of Final Cut Studio requires Mac OS X Tiger version 10.4.4 or later."
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was.
But the fact that both FC Suite and Aperture were both due at the end of the month--presumably the same timeframe as 10.4.6--suggests that they all need 10.4.6.
But if they're shipping the universal version, shouldn't their main site reflect that in their system requirements? And shouldn't they update "Available in March 2006"? And shouldn't their universal upgrade page (which the store sends you to if you have individual apps) say "shipping now"?
It's nice that the store has been updated. But I would think they'd want to update the outdated info on their main page as well, wouldn't you?
It's not whether they should. They probably should. It's just that it's extremely rare that they do.
It'll be interesting to see comparisons since we can run the Pro apps on both PowerPC and Intel. Think a Core Duo MacBook Pro will hold up against a dual processor / dual core G5 PowerMac?
Comments
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Because Video Editors NEVER use Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects.
I don't care if Apple has to buy Adobe to do it, but they need to figure out some way to have those three programs out for intel macs before 2007. Otherwise Apple is going to be shooting themselves in the foot.
Apple has no control over Adobe's development cycle, aside from buying them there's not much they can do.
So really Adobe is shooting Apple in the foot.
At least they're using smaller caliber bullets than IBM and Moto were when they went Apple foot hunting. At least now Apple can sell a bunch of boxes to consumers and people who don't use third party apps much in the meantime.
Originally posted by a_greer
I was trying to develope a good reply and you beat me to it...agreed
Refresh my memory, how exactly do you run a 30 inch display, a video monitor/output/input IO (like an AJA card), 4 GB ram, and fiber channel into an iMac again?
Fourthed.
Anyway, if FC Studio has now gone "gold" and is shipping, then that must mean they've finalized 10.4.6, which means it should be out today or tomorrow?? *crosses fingers* That's what we'll need for Aperture 1.1, presumably.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Fourthed.
Anyway, if FC Studio has now gone "gold" and is shipping, then that must mean they've finalized 10.4.6, which means it should be out today or tomorrow?? *crosses fingers* That's what we'll need for Aperture 1.1, presumably.
Aperature isn't part of this suite. Do the FCS apps need 10.4.6?
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
Because Video Editors NEVER use Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects.
I don't care if Apple has to buy Adobe to do it, but they need to figure out some way to have those three programs out for intel macs before 2007. Otherwise Apple is going to be shooting themselves in the foot.
If they expect Motion to fill in the gaps they are out of their mind.
I'd imagine running those on a PowerMac more than fills the gap just now being as it's much much faster than anything from Intel just now.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
I think people here need to realize that you don't need a $6,000 system to be a video editor. A 20" Dual Core iMac would do very, very well as an editing system, especially for someone who's upgrading from an old Powermac G4. The need for PCI cards has lessoned greatly over the past few years, especially with break-out boxes like the AJA Io. Hell, the iMac can even run dual monitors now. Granted, if you've got the budget for a $3,300 Quad Powermac G5 and a $2,500 30" Cinema Display by all means go for it, but that's' overkill for a lot of today's small-shop editors.
Hell, it probably runs fine on a duo mini. I'll probably get around to upgrading and trying it out one of these days.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Aperature isn't part of this suite. Do the FCS apps need 10.4.6?
Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was.
But the fact that both FC Suite and Aperture were both due at the end of the month--presumably the same timeframe as 10.4.6--suggests that they all need 10.4.6.
I don't care if Apple has to buy Adobe to do it, but they need to figure out some way to have those three programs out for intel macs before 2007. Otherwise Apple is going to be shooting themselves in the foot.
This isn't necessarily true.
I gave a pretty long diatribe in the thread about Universal CS3.
But basically most professional video/film post houses will be in no big rush to run out and buy new hardware and software.
When you run a business you don't buy new equipment just because it exists. You want to get the most out of your investment in your current hardware and software. You buy new equipment when its proven the new workflow will be more productive and worth the investment.
I know After Effects can be CPU intensive, but what proportion of Photoshop and Illustrator users use them to the extent such that they really stress the system, especially to the point that they are desperate for a faster one?
It'll be interesting to see comparisons since we can run the Pro apps on both PowerPC and Intel. Think a Core Duo MacBook Pro will hold up against a dual processor / dual core G5 PowerMac?
Originally posted by JeffDM
Wow, an Apple company software release turns into an argument about Adobe. Where did that come from again? I know After Effects can be CPU intensive, but what proportion of Photoshop and Illustrator users use them to the extent such that they really stress the system?
Every little helps and if I'm not having to sit there twiddling my thumbs watching the progress bar in Photoshop as it reprocesses a RAW 80MB image then it's good for me.
In design work though, you still also need fast workflows.
I know when we went from producing PDF's of 100 page mags with a G4-450 PowerMac to an iMac 1.25Ghz G4 we gained a day in post processing taking the Quark files, flight checking, RIP, distilling them and producing output. It's less of an issue today because frankly anything past about 2Ghz G5 is as fast as you need for most print/photo work. Still, if I could do 6 hours work in 30 minutes when needed it'd mean I've 5.5 more hours before deadline. ;-)
It'd be nice to take a mag PDF of about 600MB and create a web version in a few minutes instead of hours too.
And that's why we need Intel native CS3. Of course, it's not really needed until there's Intel computers faster than the PowerMacs so it's a strictly academic argument for serious deadline work. Where it would be useful now is in normal everyday design where an iMac is just perfect for most work, web design in particular.
I'd add that many Photoshop users rely on quite a few plugins too so until AlienSkin et al are on board too, it's still worth a wait.
There was quite a bit of complaining about various shortcomings in the original version, I would assume if Aperture takes a bit longer to go UB is might have to do with actually improving things under the hood and adding features. Hoping, anyway.
"The Universal version of Final Cut Studio requires Mac OS X Tiger version 10.4.4 or later."
Originally posted by bikertwin
Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was.
But the fact that both FC Suite and Aperture were both due at the end of the month--presumably the same timeframe as 10.4.6--suggests that they all need 10.4.6.
Originally posted by godrifle
From the Apple web page at http://www.apple.com/universal/crossgrade/
"The Universal version of Final Cut Studio requires Mac OS X Tiger version 10.4.4 or later."
Ow. That hurt.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Ow. That hurt.
Originally posted by minderbinder
But if they're shipping the universal version, shouldn't their main site reflect that in their system requirements? And shouldn't they update "Available in March 2006"? And shouldn't their universal upgrade page (which the store sends you to if you have individual apps) say "shipping now"?
It's nice that the store has been updated. But I would think they'd want to update the outdated info on their main page as well, wouldn't you?
It's not whether they should. They probably should. It's just that it's extremely rare that they do.
Originally posted by Xool
Now I just have to pick up a MacIntel.
It'll be interesting to see comparisons since we can run the Pro apps on both PowerPC and Intel. Think a Core Duo MacBook Pro will hold up against a dual processor / dual core G5 PowerMac?
It sure does when you're in the field!