I am not a happy iMac owner anymore [Archive]

Willy S

Jan 20, 2006, 01:28 PM

My rev A isn´t even a year old, but nevertheless it doesn´t even meet the bare minimum requirements of Aperture! :mad:

I would understand that a Mini would not be fast enough or a few year old iMac, but this is just too outrageous. Aperture needs a Radeon 9600 at least but the rev A only has Nvidia 9200.

Well, I´m not going to make the same mistake twice and spend a fortune on a computer that is too obsolete and cannot be upgraded. :mad:

Macaddicttt

Jan 20, 2006, 01:44 PM

TBi

Jan 20, 2006, 01:46 PM

Macaddicttt

Jan 20, 2006, 01:55 PM

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.

This is a hardware issue, not a software issue. Aperture is an app that uses the latest and greatest technology, therefore, you need the latest and the greatest computer (well, basically).

TBi

Jan 20, 2006, 01:57 PM

It should still have a fall back to run on older hardware by emulating features. Although the problem is Apple make money from hardware sales too, so why jeopardise these by making the program work on older hardware...

MBHockey

Jan 20, 2006, 01:58 PM

Absolutely not. Pro Apps are designed for Pro users using Pro machines.

the iMac is a consumer machine. There's no reason to cry foul when you can't run the latest and greatest apps when you didn't pay much for the hardware in the first place.

This is just how technology is.

EricNau

Jan 20, 2006, 02:06 PM

Let me ask... Would you be upset if the newer iMacs couldn't run it also? Probably Not.

yoda13

Jan 20, 2006, 02:10 PM

Yeah, the iMac is a consumer level machine. Aperture is a pro-app. This is to be expected. I understand your frustration. This is why I haven't jumped on the new Intel iMac. I want to be able to upgrade it some in the next few years and that is a no go on the iMac. My current PowerMac is from 2001, a Quicksilver model, and it is finally starting to feel dated to me. There are apps that I can only run on my fairly new 1.5ghz Powerbook. But because it is upgradeable, my PowerMac has lasted me 4+ years, and is still running well, albeit a little slow on some things.

MBHockey

Jan 20, 2006, 02:10 PM

Me? I would be surprised and impressed if the new iMacs could run Aperture, since it is meant for a Pro machine.

I would not be disappointed.

CanadaRAM

Jan 20, 2006, 02:15 PM

Well, I´m not going to make the same mistake twice and spend a fortune on a computer that is too obsolete and cannot be upgraded. :mad:
You go... You can spend your money on a computer that can have its CPU and video card changed as often as you like, (except if it is a Dell, or a Compaq, or an Emachine or any other that uses proprietary parts). Oh wait: The new Pentium 4's use a different socket than last months, which are different than last years, and the motherboard you bought last year because you upgraded doesn't support the new CPU, so you need a new one. Which uses different RAM. And the video card that supports the new game you want is $700 because it doesn't run on last year's midrange card. Wait, the new video card requires its own power connector, and your power supply doesn't have enough watts. Which is OK though, because you've already spent the money renewing the Norton subscription again.

pcmeissner

Jan 20, 2006, 02:19 PM

Try Adobe's Lightroom BETA. http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/

Here are the system requirements:
Power PC G4 processor
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger)
768 MB memory
1024 x 768 resolution screen

MBHockey

Jan 20, 2006, 02:21 PM

I might have to print that out, CanadaRam.

This is why i hate when people say that you can't upgrade Macs, and that PCs are infinitely upgradeable. These people think they know everything...but they don't. And that's the worst kind of people...those with a little bit of knowledge to make the crap they spew sound believable.

Mord

Jan 20, 2006, 02:22 PM

you can install aperture, right click on the installer click show package contents go to the resources and delete installationchecker then it'll install on anything.

McScooby

Jan 20, 2006, 02:28 PM

Me? I would be surprised and impressed if the new iMacs could run Aperture, since it is meant for a Pro machine.

I would not be disappointed.

No need to be suprised or impressed, of course they're going to be able to run Aperture - the imacs are the basically the same specs as the new macbooks.

MBHockey

Jan 20, 2006, 02:33 PM

I know that. What i meant, and should have said, was if in a year Apple releases a new Pro App, i'd be surprised and impressed if the intel imac of today can run it, where as i would expect a Power Mac to run it.

I thought it was clear given the actual situation the original poster is in.

kwajaln

Jan 20, 2006, 02:34 PM

My rev A isn´t even a year old, but nevertheless it doesn´t even meet the bare minimum requirements of Aperture!
Your iMac is just as good as it was before Aperture was released. Here's your solution: buy a PowerMac!!

Willy S

Jan 20, 2006, 02:37 PM

you can install aperture, right click on the installer click show package contents go to the resources and delete installationchecker then it'll install on anything.
Thanks for the tip!

I will try it and see if it works. The performance of Radeon 9600 is not far away from my graphics card.

Ps. if this doesn´t work, I will try Lightroom. Unfortunately, it does not support the white balance settings from my Nikon, but it will be worth the try.

geese

Jan 20, 2006, 02:53 PM

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.

Which industry would that be? The creative industry? dont think so!

Surely it would be more accurate to say that Windows became the dominant OS by being the cheapest option (particularly in the business world) and by aggressive marketing. XP wasnt great in its legacy support, yet it didnt do the platform any harm.

decksnap

Jan 20, 2006, 02:58 PM

Dark

Jan 20, 2006, 03:14 PM

I have a revision B iMac that I bought just a month before the iSight versions came out. Sure I wish I could get a PowerMac but I make do with what I have, no use complaining to the world about it. I still run Photoshop CS and Adobe Lightroom on my computer.

zap2

Jan 20, 2006, 03:23 PM

its a ''i"Mac its a ''Pro'' App consumer Mac were not made to run it plain and simple

TBi

Jan 20, 2006, 03:33 PM

its a ''i"Mac its a ''Pro'' App consumer Mac were not made to run it plain and simple

I don't get why people so easily accept this limitation. On the windows side of things photo shop and 3d studio max are both pro applications but will run on a $500 Dell. Is windows better than OSX or something... or did apple artificially limit how many computers aperture could run on. All the effects apperture does can be done in software, albeit slower than hardware, so why doesn't it have a software path?

rt_brained

Jan 20, 2006, 04:34 PM

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.Yeah, with all the money and R&D Microsoft has put into Windows all these years, isn't it nice to fire up a brand new top-of-the-line PC and see those first couple lines of DOS load up underneath Windows? Microsoft is all about backwards compatibility...Hell, "Backwards" is practically Microsoft's middle name.

EricNau

Jan 20, 2006, 05:31 PM

I don't get why people so easily accept this limitation. On the windows side of things photo shop and 3d studio max are both pro applications but will run on a $500 Dell. Is windows better than OSX or something... or did apple artificially limit how many computers aperture could run on. All the effects apperture does can be done in software, albeit slower than hardware, so why doesn't it have a software path?
Windows is not better than OS X. "On the Mac side of things," Photoshop can run on a $500 Mac Mini (just as good as a dell).

Did it occur to you that Aperture might be more demanding software than Photoshop?

Mord

Jan 20, 2006, 05:40 PM

photoshop CS2 is sitting in the dock of my 600MHz ibook g3, and it runs just fine, as does ilife 06, iwork 06, allong with a bunch of other cool apps.

now, stop your bitching and use your damn imac. apple brought something to the table in no way does that take anything away from you.

and besides i gave you a way to install it

theBB

Jan 20, 2006, 07:08 PM

I don't think this has anything to do with backwards compatibility. Have you ever tried to run Adone Premiere Pro on an old Windows XP machine? It'll start up, but it won't be much use for anyone. However, if you question Apple's software design effciency based on Aperture's hardware requirements compared to other similar programs, well, that's another matter.

Willy S

Jan 20, 2006, 09:48 PM

I installed this Aperture, tried it and removed it. It is simply not worth it. The Lightroom is so much simpler and it does what I need it to do. I´m more interested in photography than photographic apps so Lightroom is my choice over Aperture, hands down, regardless of hardware requirements....that are far less anyway.

Thanks for all your help! I won´t be upgrading either of my iMacs...they run every good programme I need pretty well.

technicolor

Jan 20, 2006, 09:51 PM

technicolor

Jan 20, 2006, 09:52 PM

I don't get why people so easily accept this limitation. On the windows side of things photo shop and 3d studio max are both pro applications but will run on a $500 Dell. Is windows better than OSX or something... or did apple artificially limit how many computers aperture could run on. All the effects apperture does can be done in software, albeit slower than hardware, so why doesn't it have a software path?
Actually I wish windows would. It would limit all the fake hacks out here posing as graphic designers with pirated copies of photoshops on their 500 dells.

technicolor

Jan 20, 2006, 09:58 PM

According to Apple imacs are supported, probably just not the rev As, so all this talk about pro app and consumer machine is hogwash.

One of the following Macintosh computers:

* Power Mac G5 with a 1.8 gigahertz (GHz) or faster PowerPC G5 processor
* 15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
* 17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
* Not supported on Intel-based Mac computers with Rosetta; a Universal version to be available before the end of March 2006
# Mac OS X version 10.4.3 “Tiger” or later
# 1GB of RAM
# One of the following graphics cards:

* ATI Radeon x600 Pro or x600 XT
* ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
* ATI Radeon X850 XT
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
* ATI Radeon 9600, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
* ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
* NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500

# 5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
# DVD drive for installati

ReanimationLP

Jan 20, 2006, 10:04 PM

If I remember correctly with FCP4, there is Program flags that tell the program what kind of requirements to check for. You can just change those. I changed on my G4 the requirement of AGP to PCI and it ran perfectly then.

2nyRiggz

Jan 20, 2006, 10:18 PM

I'll take your imac from you if you do not want it. i got a great home for it right next to my ibook and ipods.

Bless

ibook30

Jan 20, 2006, 10:22 PM

If you seriously want to run Aperture- the bright side is your machine has strong resale value and while it's not fun spending money (when you begrudge the cause) you have options. Sell the iMac and upgrade if you have pro needs.
No matter who the manufacture is Apple or Dell or Sony- the rule of the market place is buyer beware, and research those big purchases. If one needs pro apps - get a pro machine. If the consuler line is ones choice- then teh apps available will bein that line. Wether it is computers, cars, or toys- a buyer has to think it through.

To play devil's advocate- it's good to expect a lot out of a manufacturer and let your voice be heard. So it's not unreasonable to be frusterated- and lord knows Apple has a lot to offer- so it's easy to expect a lot!

Good luck with your decision!

.Joel

Jan 21, 2006, 03:47 AM

so does this all mean my mac book pro should run it ? :D

bousozoku

Jan 21, 2006, 04:37 AM

I am amazed that you could be upset about this. It's not like they used to support the iMac with Aperture and now they don't. Aperture is an odd duck- brand new, and with the highest requirements I've ever seen. Seriously, (and a quick look a the price tells you this) this is a serious pro app, not a consumer oriented one. It is designed for pros to run on their pro hardware. Building it to be useable on lesser systems would likely be to the detriment of the software.

Indeed. I'm sad that I can't run it on my PowerMac because the machine is behind the times. Even if I remove the programme that checks if the minimum requirements are met, the application isn't going to run at decent speed anyway.

It's possible that Apple could have made Aperture leaner but it would have required changing the visual metaphor to something less dramatic--more like Lightroom. Still, a bit more synergy would have been useful.

shrimpdesign

Jan 21, 2006, 05:09 AM

People are talking in this thread like Aperture is really abundant and cheap. It's like $400! Just to sort and catalouge photos! That's not a program you'd get for a $1200 computer ... that's almost a quarter of the iMac's price.

Aperture was made for a fairly small market of professional photographers. Those photographers have Pro machines anyways, so Apple made the program powerful to utilize the muscle of their Pro machines.

As people have said: it's not a consumer application. Use Lightroom or iPhoto 6.

.Joel

Jan 21, 2006, 05:35 AM

Marvy

Jan 21, 2006, 06:12 AM

i'm starting to wonder how many of the people complaining actually downloaded the program instead of buying it... Thus really no reason to complain as u didn't pay for it in the first place.

/waits on the "i didn't download it i paid for it" flood of abusive posts.

My thoughts exactly. I mean all the talk of "installed Aperture, not really worth it." Is there a demo, did they buy it and send it back? This is what I'd also like to ask the creator of this thread: Did you actually buy Aperture? Then I could imagine being a bit upset, because of all the hassle. But if not, there really is no reason to complain.

Now let the abusive posts begin! :p

mojohanna

Jan 21, 2006, 07:07 AM

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.
This is exactly why there are so many problems with windows. There are so many layers and complexities associated with the backwards compatability it becomes very difficult to plug security holes. It also takes a long time to create a new version (ie delay in Vista) because of all of the backwards testing they have to do. THis is also why it is difficult to get peripherial devices to work sometimes.

amin

Jan 21, 2006, 07:14 AM

On a basic level, I agree that Apple's minimum requirements for aperture are screwy. My 1.5GHz G4 Powerbook meets the specs, but a 1.6GHz G5 Powermac maxed out on RAM does not. Where's the sense in that?

Mitthrawnuruodo

Jan 21, 2006, 07:25 AM

so does this all mean my mac book pro should run it ? :DYes, but not for a couple of months (;)): * Not supported on Intel-based Mac computers with Rosetta; a Universal version to be available before the end of March 2006

Mitthrawnuruodo

Jan 21, 2006, 07:29 AM

According to Apple imacs are supported, probably just not the rev As, so all this talk about pro app and consumer machine is hogwash. That the newest consumer Macs will run it is just a bonus. If you want a machine that probably can run also the next pro app to be released you're much better off with a PowerMac then an iMac, even if the current iMac (G4, that is, for now ;)) can run all Por apps today... :)

ezekielrage_99

Jan 21, 2006, 08:20 AM

This is up there with "Why wont MAYA run on my G4 Mac Mini Debate", honestly Apple evens states "Aperture. Designed for professional photographers" the magic word being "Professional".

If Aperture is a professional application, it stand to reason it needs the newest professional machine to run it. The only thing that I do agree with that the Universal Binary version should have been ready in the start of January.

iGary

Jan 21, 2006, 09:06 AM

I want to run Shake on my iBook.

Fracking Apple suxxors.

janstett

Jan 21, 2006, 04:06 PM

Absolutely not. Pro Apps are designed for Pro users using Pro machines.

So then what you are saying is that there are two lines of Apple computers and applications, and never the twain shall meet.

Bogus!

MBHockey

Jan 21, 2006, 04:09 PM

So then what you are saying is that there are two lines of Apple computers and applications, and never the twain shall meet.

Bogus!

Not quite. It makes sense. What would Apple or its consumers get out of merging the two lines, as you seem to think should/will happen.

You'll get a machine that is more expensive than a consumer needs/wants and a machine lacking the horsepower a professional would need.

nightdweller25

Jan 21, 2006, 04:14 PM

I don't get why people so easily accept this limitation. On the windows side of things photo shop and 3d studio max are both pro applications but will run on a $500 Dell. Is windows better than OSX or something... or did apple artificially limit how many computers aperture could run on. All the effects apperture does can be done in software, albeit slower than hardware, so why doesn't it have a software path?
And I thought ignorance was bliss. All that ignorance brings this guy is misplaced anger...

zap2

Jan 21, 2006, 04:22 PM

I don't get why people so easily accept this limitation. On the windows side of things photo shop and 3d studio max are both pro applications but will run on a $500 Dell.

Well this piece of software is a high end App, i doubt a 549 dell
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspxc=us&cs=19&l=en&oc=DB110C&s=dhs

can handle this much of a high end App

You iMac can still handle PhotoShop and lots of other 'Pro' Apps so stop crying

oingoboingo

Jan 21, 2006, 04:29 PM

Yeah, with all the money and R&D Microsoft has put into Windows all these years, isn't it nice to fire up a brand new top-of-the-line PC and see those first couple lines of DOS load up underneath Windows? Microsoft is all about backwards compatibility...Hell, "Backwards" is practically Microsoft's middle name.

Ever run Windows NT? Windows 2000? Windows XP? None of them are based on DOS. A 'brand new top-of-the-line PC' hasn't run a DOS-based version of Windows for years.

howesey

Jan 21, 2006, 06:54 PM

iGary

Jan 21, 2006, 06:56 PM

Aperture, if you havn't got it your not missing much. It has very poor RAW support, and from what I have heard it is very buggy.

Want to dish out, get Photoshop. You get Bridge which is far better than Aperture, and you also get Photoshop with it.

Bridge is a POS. I could sort through twice as many images in Aperture that Bridge.

Now when I have to edit the photos, that is an entirely different matter. :rolleyes:

janstett

Jan 22, 2006, 07:17 PM

Yeah, with all the money and R&D Microsoft has put into Windows all these years, isn't it nice to fire up a brand new top-of-the-line PC and see those first couple lines of DOS load up underneath Windows? Microsoft is all about backwards compatibility...Hell, "Backwards" is practically Microsoft's middle name.

Hmm, the last Microsoft OS that had DOS underneath it was Windows ME, which was released in 1999. Seven years ago. When is the last time you fired up brand new top-of-the-line PC, and was Bill Clinton president?

Should I start making comparisons to OS9?

maya

Jan 22, 2006, 07:24 PM

Aperture is a pro app. An iMac isn't a pro machine. I understand your frustration, but if you plan on using pro apps, you should get a pro machine (i.e. a Power Mac). iMacs were made for iMovie and iDVD and iPhoto, not for Final Cut Studio Pro or DVD Studio Pro or Aperture.

Where do you get your information from? :confused:

Final Cut Pro will work with almost all Apple Hardware including the iMac G5.

DVD Studio Pro will work with the iMac G5 also, there are some processor speed that you have to meet due to encoding. That is expected.

LogicPro will also work with the iMac G5.

Soundtrack will also work with the iMac G5.

Motion will also work with the iMac G5.

The only reason Aperture will not work is due to its RAW processing on the fly. When they coded this application the Nvidia 9200 was not set to handle its tasks, considering the Nvidia 9200 is history in terms of GPU performance. ;) :)

EricNau

Jan 22, 2006, 07:26 PM

Hmm, the last Microsoft OS that had DOS underneath it was Windows ME, which was released in 1999. Seven years ago. When is the last time you fired up brand new top-of-the-line PC, and was Bill Clinton president?

Should I start making comparisons to OS9?
Windows ME was released on Sept 14, 2000 which is a little over 5 years ago. So, the last time you fired up a top-of-the-line PC, was George W Bush president? (doesn't sound as good, does it?)

And I'll feel free to compare Mac OS X Cheetah to Windows ME, which were released about 6 months apart.

xPismo

Jan 22, 2006, 07:49 PM

...now, stop your bitching and use your damn imac. apple brought something to the table in no way does that take anything away from you...

Bingo.

I honestly had to re-read this post as I thought there was a joke hidden somewhere. :confused: How dare apple release software that is on the cutting edge. :rolleyes:

I guess this "me too" post is just as silly really, but I feel better now. :p

nitynate

Jan 22, 2006, 09:25 PM

you can install aperture, right click on the installer click show package contents go to the resources and delete installationchecker then it'll install on anything.
Yeah, and it will be as slow as molasis on a cold winter morning.

MacAficionado

Jan 22, 2006, 09:38 PM

Not to mention this is a v1.0 release. I think they'll probable add support to other machines in the future.

jrk07

Jan 22, 2006, 09:40 PM

My revA iMac G5 can run the entire Final Cut Studio, but I knew when I got it that it would not be able to utilize all of the real-time transition and other great features of FCP 5 and Motion. I love my iMac, despite how loud it gets when I try and run resource heavy apps. I also wouldn't mind getting a pro system soon, and by soon I mean in about a year when the new Intel PowerMac (or whatever they will end up calling them) is in a later revision. So in conclusion, love your iMac for what it was built for, a consumer machine that really isn't too shabby as far as performance goes :D

bookofjames

Jan 22, 2006, 10:20 PM

Not quite. It makes sense. What would Apple or its consumers get out of merging the two lines, as you seem to think should/will happen.

You'll get a machine that is more expensive than a consumer needs/wants and a machine lacking the horsepower a professional would need.
I believe they call this segment the Pro-sumer.

Not as big a segment as the consumer or pro, but definitely seeing some growth with all the budding photo/video/audio/graphic enthusiasts.

Actually if you look at the product lines, you will see that the lower end Pro Macs actually fall into the prosumer category - e.g. the 12" Powerbook (when it came out).

Mechcozmo

Jan 23, 2006, 02:09 AM

I want to run Shake on my iBook.

Fracking Apple suxxors.

No no no! Sarcasm in the Internet needs to be much more in-your-face so that it is noticeable. A better way to say that would be:

i wanna run t3h 1337 haxxored SHAKE on my IBOOK.

frac|<ing 4PP7E SUKX0R3Z!!!111oneoneoneleventyone!!!

See how much easier it is to tell that you didn't meant what you said?
Internet culture isn't refined enough to use subtle tones. Reach for into Counter-Strike fried brains; there you shall find your audience.

:) :rolleyes: ;)