Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Originally posted by F/reW/re
My iBook G3 500MHz with 8MB ATI runs slow in Photoshop. I'm gonna buy a PC!
I hope your kidding...


AMD 1800+, 512 RAM, 32x CDRW, Geforce2, 40GB HD - 6000,- NOK

PowerMac starting at 18000,- NOK can't afford it :(

Did you factor in the cost of buying windows versions of photoshop and other programs you use regularly???

Why don't you buy an emac there cheaper than an imac or powermac.
 
Re: The timing of all this is terrible [RANT]

Originally posted by phillymjs
My love affair with Macs began 11 years ago when I got my first one, an LC. I've had a few others over the years, and since 1996 I've been running a 7600 as my primary machine at home. I've added in a couple G3 upgrades as faster chips were released, and USB, and IDE, and a better video card, but the last couple years I've really been nursing it along, holding out as long as I could for a new Mac that would have equal longevity.

I was using a PowerCenter 132 with G3 upgrade that I had since 1996 also. I knew I would need a new machine to run OS X when it came out, and after a while I realized that even with the USB card and the G3 card, it was still not as fast as a low end G4, due to slower FSB and RAM.

So I picked up a refurb G4/466 Digital Audio early 2001. It's by no means the fastest Mac, but this can hold me over for another year or two (and I might pop in a new CPU upgrade) while I wait for the real killer machines.

But my point is you would be doing much better even with a two year old G4 than with a souped up 7600!


My intent was to buy the killer G5 (with goodies like FireWire 2, USB 2, BlueTooth, etc built in) that everyone expected to be released at MWNY2002... and I don't want to lay out big bucks on a machine and then have to buy a PCI card or USB dongle to add stuff that should've been there in the first place.

I don't think anyone was seriously expecting a G5. I expected something like the Xserve, and that's what we got. I think we put too much importance in having the latest technology. USB 2? Who cares! There aren't even any USB 2 peripherals out, or not many if there are. For what I need USB for, USB 1.1 does its job, i.e., my printer, mouse, keyboard, digital camera... that's all I use it for. USB stinks for audio, I wouldn't even go that route. I haven't even used Firewire yet so...

Bluetooth? Sounds cool, but once again where are the devices? I don't see a problem with hanging a dongle off my USB hub when the time comes.

BTW anyone who hasn't tried a new G4 needs to check one out. I tried the Dual 1 GHz model, and it was pretty quick! Don't get hung up on numbers, try the new machines out.


The terrible timing comes in because for the last 10 years I've made a career out of supporting Macs, and my clients are starting to get antsy about upgrading to OS X. I've maintained that the best way for them to go about it is to stick with OS 9.x until all their must-have apps are X-native or at least carbonized, so they won't have to deal with the kludge that is Classic....
One of my clients chose to ignore my 'wait as long as you can' advice, made me roll out 10.1.x, and they've paid the price in lost productivity. To make matters worse, they are still using older versions of apps that have carbonized/native versions, and those older versions don't always play nice in Classic.

That's not very smart of them... if they are a business why haven't they upgraded their apps? I work in graphics, and we are still running OS 9.1, but we have the latest versions of everything... you have to!

At home I run Jag, and everything except Quark runs native. And Quark 5 works fine in classic, but Quark 4 was kind of iffy.

The last thing I'm waiting for is Cubase SX (and Quark 6) and then I don't need OS 9 for anything!


So come on, Apple-- get on the damned stick and put out a machine worthy of the money I'm dying to give you for it.

I'm sure they want to! Be patient. :D
 
Originally posted by Thirteenva

I hope your kidding...



Did you factor in the cost of buying windows versions of photoshop and other programs you use regularly???

Why don't you buy an emac there cheaper than an imac or powermac.
eMac is 11000 so its almost dobble the price of the PC and I would have to buy more RAM so it would be more than dobble the price.

Photoshop runs superslow! Lagg, lagg, lagg. Takes time just to move layers or enter txt fields. Even changing tools takes time.
 
Originally posted by F/reW/re

eMac is 11000 so its almost dobble the price of the PC and I would have to buy more RAM so it would be more than dobble the price.

Photoshop runs superslow! Lagg, lagg, lagg. Takes time just to move layers or enter txt fields. Even changing tools takes time.

i've used photoshop on a G3 ibook(500mhz, 256mb ram) its slow but its not that bad. Rendering filters takes some time. And the ibook i used was running PS 6 on OS X in classic mode. We worked on a couple of posters on it, 30mb files with no problem. Of course thats with no other programs open.
 
Originally posted by Thirteenva


i've used photoshop on a G3 ibook(500mhz, 256mb ram) its slow but its not that bad. Rendering filters takes some time. And the ibook i used was running PS 6 on OS X in classic mode. We worked on a couple of posters on it, 30mb files with no problem. Of course thats with no other programs open.
Theres a huge different between 6 and 7. 7 is a carbon app and you sure can tell. The file I'm working on now is 2,42 / 59,9 MB.

I wish Apple could make a GUI for pro users ass well as iApp users. All the Aqua interface takes up too much space on the screen!
 
Originally posted by F/reW/re
My iBook G3 500MHz with 8MB ATI runs slow in Photoshop. I'm gonna buy a PC!

First I have to say that anyone who buys an iBook and expects Photoshop to run great on it is foolish. This is true of laptops in general.

Why? Let's look at the machine.

It's got a G3, not a G4. Photoshop uses Altivec for some things, and G4s are faster in general.

Laptops have slower hard drives, and that impacts Photoshop's performance, because of scratch disk access and opening and saving files.

8MB VRAM. Even the low end G4s had 16MB Rage 128 cards (like mine).

I'd also imagine you don't have enough RAM. Photoshop is happy when it has at least 256MB to its self, and more is better. Even in OS X, Photoshop 7 has a memory setting to control what percentage of available RAM it uses.

I'm using a fairly "slow" G4, 466 MHz, but I do have 1 GB of RAM. Photoshop's default setting is 50%, so it's using 449 MB of the available 849 MB of RAM.

I do work for a friend with an 800 MHz PIII running Photoshop 6, and my Mac is much faster, even as far as opening and saving files. Her PC sits and grinds a lot with every little thing you do. She has 512 MB installed, but I'm never working on big files either. Go buy a PC and see how poorly PS runs on it compared to a Mac with OS X.

One last thing,


AMD 1800+, 512 RAM, 32x CDRW, Geforce2, 40GB HD - 6000,- NOK

PowerMac starting at 18000,- NOK can't afford it :(

I swear people don't have a clue...

18000??? 18000 what?? try $1,600.

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 1MB L3 cache/processor
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
56K internal modem
$1,699.00
 
Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


First I have to say that anyone who buys an iBook and expects Photoshop to run great on it is foolish. This is true of laptops in general.

Why? Let's look at the machine.

It's got a G3, not a G4. Photoshop uses Altivec for some things, and G4s are faster in general.

Laptops have slower hard drives, and that impacts Photoshop's performance, because of scratch disk access and opening and saving files.

8MB VRAM. Even the low end G4s had 16MB Rage 128 cards (like mine).

I'd also imagine you don't have enough RAM. Photoshop is happy when it has at least 256MB to its self, and more is better. Even in OS X, Photoshop 7 has a memory setting to control what percentage of available RAM it uses.

I'm using a fairly "slow" G4, 466 MHz, but I do have 1 GB of RAM. Photoshop's default setting is 50%, so it's using 449 MB of the available 849 MB of RAM.

I do work for a friend with an 800 MHz PIII running Photoshop 6, and my Mac is much faster, even as far as opening and saving files. Her PC sits and grinds a lot with every little thing you do. She has 512 MB installed, but I'm never working on big files either. Go buy a PC and see how poorly PS runs on it compared to a Mac with OS X.

One last thing,



I swear people don't have a clue...

18000??? 18000 what?? try $1,600.

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 1MB L3 cache/processor
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
56K internal modem
$1,699.00
On my machine Photoshop runs much faster using OS9, but OS9 using Carbon apps is unstable!
My Photoshop is using 300 MB and that should be more than enough!

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 = 18000,- NOK (norwegian kroner) / 2250 USD (USdollar)
PC = 6000, NOK / 750,- USD

Why dont I buy a G4, because I cant afford it!! Apple doesent seem to care about ordinary people in no other place than USA. Thats why I hope for OSX on wintels!

We all dont live in USA!

btw. I know how PS works on a PC, and I get a AMD 1800+ for 750,- USD! Its gonna blow my iBook away :) even tought its gonna crash some times :(
But I'll still have my Ibook to play my mp3s :) No divx though :(
 
Originally posted by Jima
Jaguar is good and not even close to being able to deliver the intuitiveness the Mac is (was) known for. Plus, still, the lack of totally complete software and drivers (09/02). Jaguar looks good on paper, until you make the switch, and the tears just run on. This is not good, and Jaguar at the moment is not successful enough of a distraction. (I am a user, not a tech head, using a wonderful eMac, a G4-450 (9.2), and a revB iMac, in two locations. The eMac was an inexpensive temporary Apple FIX.)
...
Or am I dreaming? If I am, I am afraid it is closer to PC time.:confused:

I have to disagree here. I've been using Macs since System 7, and I think Jaguar is the best OS I've used. I've also used Windows, Linux, IRIX, and Solarus quite a bit.

Jaguar is so easy to use that my 10 year old son had no problems figuring it out after a few minutes.

The problem people have with OS X in general is they try to use it like OS 9, and they don't even know how to use OS 9 properly!

For example, I read things such as where a user complains that it's hard to switch between running apps on OS X because when you click a window only that window comes forward. The problem here is that person was doing it wrong in OS 9, and they are still wrong in OS X.

You switch applications using the Dock, than all your windows come to the front.

I cant think of a single feature on OS 9 that I miss. Popup folders were nice, but I can put a folder in the Dock, or on the Finder toolbar.

I missed the Apple Menu and Windowshade, but that was easy to fix.

The Application menu was God awful in OS 9, and I'm happy to see it go!

I've been using OS X as my main OS since March 2001. OS 9 was nice for a 17 year old OS that was patched and hacked together to try and make it modern, but OS X also has its roots in NeXT STEP, which has been around almost as long.

And it's sure nice to never have an errant application take the whole OS down. I love not having to reboot... :)
 
bye bye f/rew/re

Geeee... photoshop runs slow on a iBook.... duh.
good reason to go PC. Bonehead.
 
Re: bye bye f/rew/re

Originally posted by chubakka
Geeee... photoshop runs slow on a iBook.... duh.
good reason to go PC. Bonehead.
The reason I'm gonna buy a new computer is because PS runs slow on Mac.
The reason I buy PC is because a Mac costs 3 times what a PC does!
 
Originally posted by F/reW/re

On my machine Photoshop runs much faster using OS9, but OS9 using Carbon apps is unstable!

I never have problems with it at work in OS 9.1.


My Photoshop is using 300 MB and that should be more than enough!

it's never enough! ;) The more RAM the more stable it runs.


Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 = 18000,- NOK (norwegian kroner) / 2250 USD (USdollar)
PC = 6000, NOK / 750,- USD

You really can't compare the price of a retail computer (PC or Mac) to a "white box" PC. Computers are one of those rare commodities that are cheaper to make than to buy.
 
uhg...

No... Photoshop runs slow on an iBook...
the ATI card on it isn't pwerful enough.
and 300 mb of ram isn't nearly enough.

runs great on a Powerbook or PowerMac...

are you running Photoshop in classic in OS X 10.2?
Try upgrading to 10.2 and getting photoshop 7.

Enjoy your CHEAP PC.
 
Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


I never have problems with it at work in OS 9.1.



it's never enough! ;) The more RAM the more stable it runs.



You really can't compare the price of a retail computer (PC or Mac) to a "white box" PC. Computers are one of those rare commodities that are cheaper to make than to buy.
Making my own PC and build it my self is a great possibility. I can use my money on what I want and what I need.

OS9 worked fine untill the Carbon apps came. (exept with internet explorer)
Photoshop 7, Dreamweaver MX on OS9 is the worst thing I've ever worked with. Worse than Win98. Just pressing F12 in dreamweaver made my computer crash almost every time. Flash MX runs smooth, better than Flash 5!

More RAM the better, but I cant afford 1.5 GB
 
oh man... you're dangerous

maybe it's the SOFTWARE!

buggy RAM hungry software that's burdening the system...

bet your were trying to run both at the same time too.
 
Re: uhg...

Originally posted by chubakka
No... Photoshop runs slow on an iBook...
the ATI card on it isn't pwerful enough.
and 300 mb of ram isn't nearly enough.

runs great on a Powerbook or PowerMac...

are you running Photoshop in classic in OS X 10.2?
Try upgrading to 10.2 and getting photoshop 7.

Enjoy your CHEAP PC.
I am using 10.2 and PS 7.
YES, I am going to enjoy my cheap PC. Now I can even watch DivXmovies :)
 
Re: oh man... you're dangerous

Originally posted by chubakka
maybe it's the SOFTWARE!

buggy RAM hungry software that's burdening the system...

bet your were trying to run both at the same time too.
Nope. its just the iBook and OSX that makes it slow. The new iBook works much better because of QE support!
 
Re: bye bye f/rew/re

Originally posted by chubakka
Geeee... photoshop runs slow on a iBook.... duh.
good reason to go PC. Bonehead.

i do ok with photoshop on ibook, but then again i don't have any kind of g4 and that would be fun to see how fast that would be

the few times i ran photoshop on p3 and p4s, they seemd a little slow to me, but i know the g4 is the way to go with adobe and macromedia software

i hope i am not a boner, too:p
 
Can we please STOP talking about G5s. This topic is way past dead. Here is an idea, lets talk about them when they hit the stores. I am sooooooo tired of hearing G5 this and G5 that. I am all for power, but come on folks this is getting super very old. Thanks and have a great day.:)
 
Originally posted by digitalgiant
Can we please STOP talking about G5s. This topic is way past dead. Here is an idea, lets talk about them when they hit the stores. I am sooooooo tired of hearing G5 this and G5 that. I am all for power, but come on folks this is getting super very old. Thanks and have a great day.:)

certainly the g5 has been a rumor longer than anything else i can remember on macrumors, except for the lcd imac or a 17" inch screen imac, both of which came in one model recently:D
 
If you want fast, full-featured image editing and don't want to pay a cent for it, download X Free 86 and install MacGIMP. I only have the occasional need to do any still image editing; certainly not enough to justify the price of Photoshop. MacGIMP does indeed run MUCH faster than PS7 on OS X, undoubtedly because you're bypassing Aqua when using it. I'm sure the fact that GIMP carries far less bloat than PS is a huge factor also.

Tip: PS7 on old imacs and ibooks running OS X is one big frustrating waste of time and money, no matter how much RAM you have installed. The GIMP will blaze on these machines, however. Plus it opens .PSD files. And the cost is 0 cents. What more could you want?
 
I have a Dual 867 G4. The bottom line is its fast. REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. The iBook thats so pathetically slow has a G3, in addition to a measly 66MHz bus. the new dual G4s aren't a filler upgrade, this machine smokes so much its unbelievable, ripping MP3's at 15x with 5 other apps open! 5 apps open would overload my old G3 PB 400. I've even gotten 80 FPS in UT, which is not known as a high FPS game. the bottom line is: this isn't just a bump, these Macs seriously come to play.
 
Originally posted by Jimong5
I have a Dual 867 G4. The bottom line is its fast. REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. The iBook thats so pathetically slow has a G3, in addition to a measly 66MHz bus. the new dual G4s aren't a filler upgrade, this machine smokes so much its unbelievable, ripping MP3's at 15x with 5 other apps open! 5 apps open would overload my old G3 PB 400. I've even gotten 80 FPS in UT, which is not known as a high FPS game. the bottom line is: this isn't just a bump, these Macs seriously come to play.

This sort of performance issue is something that hasn't really been looked at with the obession with MHz and MB/S. My suspicion, although somewhat unfounded at present, is that the PMG4 will be good at not slowing down when additional load is given to them. In other words, they may not excel at a single task (performance wise) compared to "some other systems", but the combination of hw and sw will mean that you can keep throwing more work at them without it having such a slowing-down effect as you might initially expect. Benchmarking this sort of thing is considerably more difficult than some of the simplistic benchmarks that have been cited here, so this may stay as a guess for a while...
 
Originally posted by Jimong5
I have a Dual 867 G4. The bottom line is its fast. REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. The iBook thats so pathetically slow has a G3, in addition to a measly 66MHz bus. the new dual G4s aren't a filler upgrade, this machine smokes so much its unbelievable, ripping MP3's at 15x with 5 other apps open! 5 apps open would overload my old G3 PB 400. I've even gotten 80 FPS in UT, which is not known as a high FPS game. the bottom line is: this isn't just a bump, these Macs seriously come to play.


I have a Dual Ghz/DDR and I agree wholely you can't do enough at one time to slow this thing down it is always fast. The CD ripping thing I have seen in excess of 20x nearing the end of a cd. This all while playing unreal and doing email and everything else you can imagine. Also it never crashes. Totally amazing.
 
Originally posted by F/reW/re

On my machine Photoshop runs much faster using OS9, but OS9 using Carbon apps is unstable!
My Photoshop is using 300 MB and that should be more than enough!

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 = 18000,- NOK (norwegian kroner) / 2250 USD (USdollar)
PC = 6000, NOK / 750,- USD

Why dont I buy a G4, because I cant afford it!! Apple doesent seem to care about ordinary people in no other place than USA. Thats why I hope for OSX on wintels!

We all dont live in USA!

btw. I know how PS works on a PC, and I get a AMD 1800+ for 750,- USD! Its gonna blow my iBook away :) even tought its gonna crash some times :(
But I'll still have my Ibook to play my mp3s :) No divx though :(

I have some suggestions.

Firstly if you just buy a PC and go away we will all be the happier. Except you.

However if your goal is to actually purchase a superior computer and your problem is overpriced local suppliers, do what Americans do. Mail order your computer. You can buy it from outpost.com and get the norweigan localized version of the OS. You can buy from a used computer company like powermax.com or whoever that ADVERTISES HERE. and get it for far cheaper but also an older model. Any of which would run photoshop faster than a G3 or a PC.

And as far as Aqua, there are already alternatives from xdarwin and other places with xwindows which is a unix thing.

Rocketman
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.