Aperture on a Powerbook

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by vgoklani, Dec 1, 2005.

  1. vgoklani macrumors regular

    vgoklani

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    #1
    Hi,

    Have any of you guys tried running Aperture on a 1.33GHZ (or something similar) Powerbook? I know it will run, but is it worthwhile - rather, is it usable? I have 2Gs of ram, and 64M on my ATI 9700....let's see what this baby can do! I have a Nikon D200 coming in too (hopefully soon)....
     
  2. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #2
    It's doubtful. The minimum specs call for a G5 1.8 Ghz CPU. You may be able to launch, but working inside it might prove too painful.


    Here's to the Crazy Ones [​IMG]
     
  3. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #3
    Actually a PowerBook is supported.

    The specs say
    "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"

    I would expect the experience on a PowerBook to be quite frustrating though. It will run but it will be slow.
     
  4. Sic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Location:
    Southampton UK
    #4
    i downloaded the checker wotsit and it said that it can be installed...not exactly a conclusive test - thought it'd be more of a stress test. i'm going to chance it anyway because i can always pass it on to someone if needs be :)
     
  5. vgoklani thread starter macrumors regular

    vgoklani

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    #5
    The powerbooks are supported - but i was curious as to how Aperture actually runs on such a machine (ie: is it responsive?)
     
  6. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    You might be able to tolerate it with a 1.67 ghz model with 128 megs of VRAM, 2 gigs of RAM, and the 7200 rpm drive...ideally working off of external drives, but it still wouldn't compare at all to running it on a DP g5.
     
  7. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #7
    We've been playing with Aperture to see if it's possible to integrate it into a bigger workflow. For grins, I tried it on the business boxes (mini and iMac) using the installer hack that bypasses the hardware check.

    1 GHz seems to be about the bottom end of being able to use the program tolerably (for certain definitions of tolerable). Importing and organization is slow but reasonable, about on par with Bridge for most operations. The UI generally keeps chugging along even if the hardware isn't up to doing fast imports, beachballs are rare.

    It turns out that Core Image hardware is not even required for everything to work, and all the filter controls are still responsive -- the UI is good enough to allow user input even if operation aren't complete -- but obviously, image updates aren't happening in anything resembling real time without a supported GPU. One could, in a pinch, still get actual work done. Not-so-interactive operations, such as the lift and stamp stuff, ought to be fine since you can wander away while they work.

    The patch tool really hates living with an anemic graphics card, but a PB is much better off than the junk I'm talking about here. You will get a lot better response from the other filters as well.

    Bottom line: it might be a useful tool if want raw image support and aren't going to be too demanding, just tweaking a few things here and there and not trying to process a bazillion photos an hour. It would be nice to have if the idea is simply to have the same software running on a notebook and a bigger machine back at the ranch. You may not feel like you got $500 worth of software running it on less than a G5, though.
     
  8. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #8
    That's not surprising. Very few people ever seem to remember that CoreImage is designed to automatically use the CPU(s) when appropriate. This can happen even when the system has a very fast GPU. I'd imagine that on the Quad-G5s the CPUs get used quite a lot for CoreImage operations as they are more likely to be unused than the single GPU core as CoreImage will automatically distribute the image processing across all available cores.
     
  9. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #9
    The happy part, for people who will inevitably insist on running Aperture for real on under-spec hardware, is that Apple didn't bypass any Core Image functions here. There was a lot of concern voiced in the forums that following the fabled Dashboard ripple effect, Apple might start crippling programs based on video feature tests. The cool part is that it appears they aren't going to make a habit of doing that.
     
  10. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #10
    I think that Apple are choosing when to "cripple" things based on a simple test: If it's an eye-candy effect that has no functional effect then it's OK to not show it when the CPU will have to deal with the effect. If it's a required effect for app/system functionality then it will the CPU will be used if required. Note that this decision is made in the App, CoreImage does not know which effects are for eye-candy.

    To me this seems fair. On a slower system I'd rather not have the CPU bogged down with eye-candy but I would like apps to work as advertised.
     
  11. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #11
    I have Aperture running on a Powermac and Powerbook. Both run fine - the key is the RAM and to some extent, the graphics card -- the CPU is less important. A gig of RAM is the least I would use.

    We're talking about still images vs. video (ie. much smaller files.) I think Apple went a little high on the threshold for good performance. Maybe to encourage pro machine sales....

    It will work very well, go for it.
     
  12. icloud macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    #12
    Its possible to get aperture running on a 12' Powerbook with 512 RAM and a inadequate graphics card ;)

    [​IMG]
     
  13. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #13
    Now try exporting 100 RAW images as JPEGS.

    Took my dual 2.7 nearly 20-minutes. :rolleyes:

    I'm getting less and less impressed, honestly.
     
  14. icloud macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    #14
    Oh god no...I have aperture on my iMac G5 2.1GHz...thats were most of my intense photography goes on...the one on my 12" powerbook is mosty as An "Aperture on the go", using the basic applications of the program until i can get my photos onto the iMac
     
  15. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #15
    Right now I am publishing a 100-image web gallery to my .Mac account and it has taken 20 minutes just to generate half the thumbnails so far. :rolleyes:

    Pro app.

    Heh.
     
  16. DanielNTX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 2, 2005
    #16
    I have no problem running it on the latest 12" ibook. So you should have no problem running it on a Powerbook. You do need at least 1 gig of ram.
     
  17. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #17
    WHAT?! <--- my first reaction

    1/5 of a minute for each picture... thats 12 seconds each. Not bad for my 1Ghz G4 Powerbook using Photoshop, but for a Dual 2.7, not good at all.
     
  18. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #18
    Yeah, that is kind of dissapointing, but the web galleries look very nice. I measn working in RAW is great, but I am not giving my online fulfillment center RAW images - I give them jpegs. so this conversion time is bothersome. I mean I literally walk away for 25 minutes while the fans blast away and do whatever.

    Anyway, I'm heavily invested in it at this point, so I'll ride out version 1.
     
  19. ziutek macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    CA
    #19
    How did you get it to work on your computer? When I ran it on my 12" powerbook, it gave me an error and stated my computer's graphics card is inadequate...
     
  20. parkds macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    #20
    installer hack?

    I have been running aperture on my supported powerbook but would much prefer to run it on my MDD G4 that has 128MB vram. How is it possible to force the program to install and run on an unsupported machine? I have read several posts on the net referring to an installer hack. Can someone point me to more info about this? Thanks
     
  21. Simon H macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    #21
    Gary,

    that time you quoted - is that simply to do the raw conversion or convert and create a gallery ? Also, what sort of raw files are they ?

    Speed is important to me as my raw files are pretty big (avg around 20meg) and conversions are one of the reasons I am looking at Aperture (still not available in Australia yet...)

    Lastly, what is the conversion qualirt like ? I use C1 so would be very interested to see thoughts on Aperture vs C1 or ACR.

    cheers

    Simon
     
  22. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #22
    You can bet that version 1.0.2 will bring performance enhancements and bug fixes to make it quite a nice experience.

    As interested as I am, I think that I would still work with JPEGs and TIFFs, for the most part. I'm certainly not going to throw 100 photos at a time at it, but if the web galleries are great, it might be worth the delays since Portfolio is so inadequate.
     
  23. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #23
    So how does it run on that iMac? I'd love to get Aperture, but my PB (sig) wouldn't make for a fun experience for me, if I could hack install it at all. I'm very very very close to buying an iMac 20", but part of me wants to double what I spend and get a Powermac/Cinema Display combo. Any beachballs on the iMac?

    I'm not a super hardcore photographer, yet. I shoot with a 20D and just play around right now, but soon enough I'd like to get into the business aspect of photography.
     
  24. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #24
    :eek: How can u run Aperture on 10x7??? I installed Aperture today and started wishing to have a bigger screen!

    http://usera.imagecave.com/eXanPro/Aperture_iMac.jpg

    As for performance, its pretty slow, really. Scrolling in the Browser is sluggish, transition between full-screen and normal modes is very slow. I imagine what would be on a PowerBook :p
     
  25. icloud macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    #25
    How does it run on a 10 * 7 ...all i can say is...not super well...like i said..."Aperture to Go" mostly for looking at closer details when im on the go with my photos.

    as for the 20" iMac...it is the "lowest base configuration aperture recommends...but for the most part...its nothing i can complain about. There is no way i could have afforded a Powermac with Display (we can dream though) so for me its more then adequate, it gets the job done with NOT TOO much lag...there is no hiding it does show up in more intensive operations

    As for how i got it running on a 12" Powerbook with 512 Ram...thats umm...
    PM Me
     

Share This Page