Aperture 2

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Dan Lorth, Aug 7, 2008.

  1. Dan Lorth macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    #1
    Couldnt find this one in the search function so here it goes:

    I went to the local apple store today and tried to have a discussion with someone who worked there about the merits of working on a Macbook or Macbook Pro strictly with Aperture 2. She simply said that the Macbook Pro is "designed" for that kind of work whereas the Macbook is not. I realize that the MB and the MBP have differences in GPUs but other than that, would there really be a huge difference between getting a 2.2 Ghz Macbook and a 2.4 Ghz Macbook Pro? Please assume that I need this notebook tommorow, so I cant wait for updates. Also please note that I intend to put 4gb of RAM into either laptop. Thanks to anyone who replies and doesnt flame me, seeing as this would make sense to be a very well worn topic. I swear I used the search button.
     
  2. Mangaroo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #2
    I'm not sure about the gpu aspect (of how much aperture 2 uses it) but the only reasons i can think off, for her to say it's "designed for it" are:

    Macbook screen size will be smaller then the Pro, might be important for you, editing photos and what not

    Im assuming that since the macbook pro has a bigger case and 2 fans as opposed to the macbook's single fan you will get a cooler/quieter notebook doing editing work. I know in photoshop my macbook is always spinning up.

    (Or that she has no idea what she is talking about and just sees photographers get the MBP/she's under instructions to say so). From my experience tbh the sales people at the Apple store know nothing! especially those that i've talked to in london

    Sorry for the amateur comment, I wouldn't have posted if it was not for your urgency and lack of comments. Hope it somewhat helps! :)

    -also note about the macbook pro being cooler - that would be logical but usually it's not the case, everyone i know with a macbook pro say it boils even idle/light usage (but of course increasing the fans with fan control applications can help with that considerably, so after doing that im not so sure how quiet it would be vs the macbook since its two fans vs one, im but since they (theoretically) can be set at a lower rpm, maybe the MBP is still quieter, sorry i dont really have much experience with using the MBP in photo applications).
     
  3. Dan Lorth thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    #3
    Dont worry about the comment, I think there are good and bad examples of sales people everywhere (I am from California). Regardless I am interested to know how well your Macbook can go through PS? Im not so much worried about temperature as I am just being able to do things efficiently with little downtime.
     
  4. bigandy macrumors G3

    bigandy

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Location:
    Murka
    #4
    Photoshop is fine on a MacBook if you can accept the tiny screen resolution.

    Aperture is GPU heavy, and doesn't perform nearly as well as on a MacBook Pro, in my experience.
     
  5. Mangaroo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #5
    as bigandy said, photoshop runs fine on my MB (although i've only had to use it for short amounts recently and with small files). I would prefer something a bit more high-calibur if i was to use it for the long haul, especially if i was considering dual monitors (macbook's screen" + external just doesnt really cut it). But I have no experience with editing regularly with large files. That being said i did edit quite a few raw files a short while ago but actually can't remember much about the experience! which i guess must be a good thing?

    The only frustration i have is the noise, im not too bothered about the heat as it is never on my lap.
     
  6. rdp5008 macrumors regular

    rdp5008

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Location:
    Florida
    #6
    If Aperture is GPU heavy, would you notice a big increase in performance if you actually upgraded the video card? A bigger increase in performance than increased RAM?

    fyi original poster: I am running Aperture 2.0 on a single 1.6 ghz G5 with 2 gb ram and GeForce FX 5200 AND on a 12" PB 1.5 ghz with 1.25 gb ram. While Aperture is not a speed demon on either of these machines, it runs fine. I imagine it will run great on both the machines you are considering.
     
  7. winninganthem macrumors 6502a

    winninganthem

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    #7
    Photoshop CS3 currently only uses CPU power, so performance on a Macbook is similar to that on a Macbook Pro.

    Aperture however is GPU accelerated, so using it on a MBP will be faster than using it on a normal Macbook.

    A Macbook will be able to run it adequately, but if you want the most performance, get the Pro for the dedicated graphics.
     

Share This Page