Since the product is now selling for 199, tell the manager to give you the 30% or 40% based on the new 199 price and not the old price.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Aperture 2.0
- Thread starter jemo07
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since the product is now selling for 199, tell the manager to give you the 30% or 40% based on the new 199 price and not the old price.
There is a program you can download from Apple's Aperture web site. It says "Run this to see if you can upgrade, before you place your order". It would seen that running this program would once and for all answer this question. Try it and see if your academic version is upgradeable. No need to guess.
To answer my own question--It appears that in the trial version, you will not be able to import your 1.x libraries en masse into Aperture 2. You will have to pull individual projects out of your old library and import them into the trial library. You need the full version to actually update your library to version 2.0. Kind of stupid, IMHO, as I have a full backup of my 1.x library. But whatever, my full version will be in the mail soon...
I ordered it an hour ago for $69 from our institutional store. It does show as $199 in the education individual store.
Apple choose a feature set different from Adobe's. For example in Aperture I can display 16 raw images at once on two large 30" monitors and then move a slider and adjust something about how all 16 images are converted and see then all change in real time. That is hundreds of megabytes of data being updated at what? 30 to 15 times per second. They did this by leveraging the processing power inside the GPU.
Apple made the call to allow features like this knowing full well that they'd cut out users with low end equipment. Apple does want to sell you new computers.
Adobe does not sell computers and wanted the larges possible target customers base and had nothing to gain be cutting out potential customers.
runs "fine" is very subjective. I have a 2.16ghz iMac touted with 3GB of ram. I find it "ok" to use. Lightroom is faster for me. I could not imagine aperture on the laptop w/o a dedicated video card. that's why I was wondering if Aperture 2 got any faster. I like the management of Aperture, but w/ Apple not getting into the normal headless mac market, I may be switching back to a Windows platform with my next computer, and hence jumping to Lightroom.
But if they proved they actually make it run faster on the same hardware, I'd be more willing to stick my neck out on it. Altho, I'm not too fond of this forcing to upgrade just to support newer raw files.. I hope this was just an oversight.
Looks like the required specs don't include my MacBook laptop. Integrated graphics are not supported!
Apple Website said:
Are Apple just being optimistic then?
Looks like the required specs don't include my MacBook laptop. Integrated graphics are not supported!
Why are so many people under the impression you need a graphics card to run aperture. It is simply not true. Apple recommends a graphics card, but the minimum system requirements clearly state you can run it on a Macbook, which as you know, has no dedicated graphics card. Now, how 'well' it will run on a non-graphics card system is up for debate, but it will run. I run it on my Macbook and it runs fine.
Anyone confirm yet if you can upgrade a V1 Academic version for $99? Apple's website doesn't say anything about not being able to.
Upgrade Requirements
To upgrade to Aperture 2, you'll need a Mac with Aperture 1.5 installed and a valid serial number. You should download and run the Aperture 2 Compatibility Checker before ordering the upgrade to make sure your Mac meets the minimum system requirements for Aperture 2.
Upgrade Requirements
To upgrade to Aperture 2, you'll need a Mac with Aperture 1.5 installed and a valid serial number. You should download and run the Aperture 2 Compatibility Checker before ordering the upgrade to make sure your Mac meets the minimum system requirements for Aperture 2.
In the past, Academic version and NFR copies were not upgradable...I'm sure it's the same now...but I don't KNOW that.
That is because the link on the homepage isn't updated to take you to the new Aperture 2 page for the Academic Store.
Just do a search for Aperture 2 and it will take you to the correct page. It's $179 BTW. Not that great of a discount IMO
What I am curious about is if I currently have an academic version if I can pay the $99 upgrade price to get Aperture 2 instead of having to buy a whole new version Academic or Standard ( or Pro I guess
Apple very clearly states that Academic versions are NOT upgradeable. Since the current discount is only $21 compared to $150 discount for the previous version buying the Academic version is rather stupid unless you never plan to upgrade in the future. In other words saving $21 now will cost you $100 in the future because you will have to buy the full version for $200 instead of upgrading for $99
It seems like a good update, but why didn't they announce it a couple weeks back during that photo conference?
For the upgrade it just needs a valid serial number for aperture 1 right? And its the same as the full app right? Or do I need to install aperture 1 and then upgrade?
Under "tech specs" Apple lists "Macbook Air" as a supported. All current Apple notebooks are on the list. However Intel GMA graphic chips are listed under "minimum requirements" but do not appear in the "recommended requirements".
Maybe they did not know until yesterday when Aperture 2.0 would be ready?
I'm working on software right now. I may finish today or maybe tomorrow. I won't know untill later. The art that is broke will either be triveal to fix or will take about a day to re-write. This is common in software. Already I've talked to two people on the phone saying I'll have a half fixed version out by lunch time.
I bet the MBA SSD will run Aperture better than the MacBook. Just a guess, but most of the lag for Aperture on my computer is from loading my 8MP RAWs from the hard drive.
Not that it matters too much, though, since you can only hold a handful of RAW images on a 64 GB SSD... my own library is trim at 10 GB, and I would hate to devote that much space to photos on the MBA.
Although, If you can afford a nice big external USB drive, I would expect that the MBA with SSD will be awesome for aperture, really. I mean, you can keep the masters you are currently working on as well as all the previews for your Library on the SSD, and then as it gets bigger, you can relocate old masters to a spare library on an external drive. Apple makes that fairly easy.
If a workstation is what you're looking for absolutely nothing. That being said, its massive overkill for consumer apps which aren't multi-processor aware. You guys are within the scope of needs for it. The rest of us who just want a desktop, not so much.
epson RD-1
I just found that aperture 2 supports DNG files made from the epson RD-1 *.erf files, which is worth the price of admission for me.
woohoo!
I just found that aperture 2 supports DNG files made from the epson RD-1 *.erf files, which is worth the price of admission for me.
woohoo!
Guess you never used Photoshop. Or never use it for large files. Or don't mind spending 3-4x as long to do things. Fact is even at home my Mac Pro takes longer to do some things than I'd like. My friends iMac (new 20") is frustratingly slow at times to do things that are nearly instant on the Mac Pro.
Perhaps the most naive signature I've ever seen. Sounds more like envy than anything else.
....But it's a workstation. How often does Joe Schmo edit 50-200MB photoshop files? That's right, never. I think that an iMac with 4 GB of RAM is going to be quite the contender for awesome home machine. The Mac Pro is ultimate because it's a workstation and it is overkill.
And I do own photoshop, and I do have a 160 MB photoshop file. That I made in high school for fun, that I never need. My MBP handles the 10-20 MB photoshop files I play with fine, probably on par with a Mac Pro... I sure don't notice any delays anywhere.
If my Hobby were racing cars, I wouldn't buy an Accord V6, or even a BMW 330. I want the 350Z, the BMW M3/M5, or whatever fancy-pants sports car. It's overkill for driving to work. It's not overkill if you take it to the track on weekends.
Same with the Mac Pro. It's overkill unless your hobby is doing Workstation-grade stuff.
Oh please.
You can never have too much SPEED, money or happiness.
When the mac pro can encode a ripped movie in less than a second it STILL won't be overkill. When it rips a movie in negative time, like before I decide to click the button, then its overkill.
I take it you own a $10 million house, a $2 million car, and you're too busy to visit forums like this.
oh wait... hmmm, dang, I never thought about this, but real people actually take into account their needs and the cost of the things that provide those needs. Yeah, funny that, huh? and from that perspective, If i can get a 24" computer with 4 GB of RAM, a 256 MB video card, and a 2.4 GHz dual processor chip in it, I don't see why I need to spend another 2 grand on a cinema display and 6 more cores.
the cost/benefit ratio drops dramatically. Hence, it is called overkill for the home user--not for the hardcore home movie/photo/graphics enthusiast.
and even if that weren't the case, who made you the god that decides that a machine pre-empting you is too fast? That sounds like a useful convenience to me. Not anymore overkill than having a machine that can do everything I never do in 0 seconds.
Dumb question?
OK, please excuse my ignorance as this is probably too basic a question and may have been answered already elsewhere, but what are the main differences between Aperture 2.0 and iPhoto '08 that would make it worth the extra $200 to buy? Thanks.
OK, please excuse my ignorance as this is probably too basic a question and may have been answered already elsewhere, but what are the main differences between Aperture 2.0 and iPhoto '08 that would make it worth the extra $200 to buy? Thanks.