Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Ellis Vener on February 17, 2012, 12:08:08 pm
-
Have all general photo problems people were encountering earlier been resolved for Lion? Has anyone tried the developer preview of Mountain Lion with Adobe, Epson, Canon, Nikon, Capture One, etc. applications?
-
Have all general photo problems people were encountering earlier been resolved for Lion? Has anyone tried the developer preview of Mountain Lion with Adobe, Epson, Canon, Nikon, Capture One, etc. applications?
Ellis
I had printer problems (Epson 3880) when I first installed Lion. However I have resolved those issues after Epson released newer print drivers. Also have an Canon IOF5000 that I had no real issues. I think most issues (printers) as far as I can tell have been resolved with Lion. Unable to speak on Mountain Lion as I will wait until Apple releases the upgrade. Of course I may wait to see if there are any printer problems before I do upgrade.
Best,
Stu
-
I find the fast pace of OSX releases together with the remarkable ability of Apple to generate issues in terms of application compatibility to be a real pain.
It seems that my 8 core Mac Pro, only 4 years old will not be supported by 10.8 according to this source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5544/apple-releases-os-x-108-mountain-lion-preview
Frankly, if more compatibility issues are found between 10.7 and 10.8 on key applications like Adobe CS I will probably give up on OSX and move back to Windows for good. By the time the issues have been ironed out on the previous OS iteration we are only a few months away from the release of the next version.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Frankly, if more compatibility issues are found between 10.7 and 10.8 on key applications like Adobe CS I will probably give up on OSX and move back to Windows for good. By the time the issues have been ironed out on the previous OS iteration we are only a few months away from the release of the next version.
Actually, you may want to seriously consider doing this...the chances of "Big Iron" being updated and staying current at Apple is diminishing...a recent problem with the EU regarding energy star ratings (I may have this slightly wrong, but it had to do with some sort of change with EU laws and power consumption) seems to have bitten Apples towers. Which would be the perfect excuse for Apple to drop the tower line up entirely.
Personally, I'm worried...and so is Chris Sanderson (and some Apple employees I know). People who need big iron are a diminishing group and Apple tends to drop diminishing groups from their lineups. Even though they have $90 billion in the bank, it's due largely to iPhone/iPad sales. Real computers is a diminishing %. Big iron is falling even faster.
If you need 4+ drives and 32-64GB of ram and really fast I/O and multiple PCI slots, then you should be worried. I'm worried...
HD+ video and large format digital imaging (really big files) are not gonna be in Apple wheelhouse in the near future.
The upside is Windows 7 64-bit doesn't suck nearly as much as anything named Vista...
-
If you need 4+ drives and 32-64GB of ram and really fast I/O and multiple PCI slots, then you should be worried. I'm worried...
Same and +1.
I have no desire to move away from OSX, but at the same time I need my Mac Pro with 32 gig RAM, RAID and lots of room for hard drives. The lack of an update to the mac pro has me quite concerned; not because I need to update my machine at the moment (I don't) - but because I will want to upgrade it at some stage in the future. If Apple drop it, then I am going to be forced to move back to win blows...
It looks like OSX Mountain Lion requires your computer to be using 64-bit Kernel. An easy way to check if your mac will be supported by OSX LION is to:
How do I tell if I'm using the 64-bit kernel?
Use the System Profiler to determine if you're running a 64-bit kernel.
From the Apple () menu, choose About this Mac, then click More Info.
In the Contents pane, select Software.
If 64-bit Kernel and Extensions is set to Yes, you are running a 64-bit kernel.
Note: A 64-bit kernel is not the same thing as a 64-bit processor.
In my case, I am ok as my mac pro is late 2008 is using the 64 bit kernal. Which is fine for this upcoming update.. who knows about the next.....
-
Personally, I'm worried...and so is Chris Sanderson (and some Apple employees I know). People who need big iron are a diminishing group and Apple tends to drop diminishing groups from their lineups. Even though they have $90 billion in the bank, it's due largely to iPhone/iPad sales. Real computers is a diminishing %. Big iron is falling even faster.
Apple sold more iOS devices in 2011 than total Macs in 28 years (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/17/apple_sold_more_ios_devices_in_2011_than_total_macs_in_28_years.html)
-
Yep...the opening line is telling A new breakdown of Apple's blockbuster 2011 notes that the company sold more iPhones, iPads and iPod touches in the 12-month span than it has sold Mac computers in the company's history.
So, I'm keeping my ears open–and resigned to running a top end Win 7/8 machine for the main apps I need; Photoshop & Lightroom...for other stuff I figure I can hold out for a while on 10.6.8 or 10.7.X before I need to switch to 10.8+ (on my main machine I'm still at 10.6.8 and looking at 10.7.X).
-
But with thunderbolt raids and such, why do we "need" 4 built in drives?(or is it just what we want or are use to) Yes thinderbolt has been slow but seems to be slowly picking up. To me the big tower seems so outdated. I would love a mini tower that is more mobile and keeps all the drives externally.
-
The upside is Windows 7 64-bit doesn't suck nearly as much as anything named Vista...
I'm in agreement with your points - curiously i'm building higher end machines that when idle are running nearly stone cold - not even the CPU fan runs.... surely Apple can accomplish that
I'm also worried in that Intel (since Apple has gone x86) has let Apple introduce major new workstation platforms ahead of others - now I'm not so sure....
I make a living at supporting Enterprise Windows, Active Directory, Exchange, Managed Desktops... but have really enjoyed the approach OS X has taken toward basic tasks - it's made a difference in my approach.
I hope that over the next 2 years we still have a choice.....
-
Regarding Thunderbolt...yes, looks promising...let me know when there's a hub that can surpass 8 daisy chained devices. I run currently with 3 external displays and two external eSata drives via port multipliers and an external FW 800 RAID) which I think takes me out of the discussion regarding iMacs or Minis–regardless of the attractiveness of those solutions...
Some of us still need Big Iron and that's what Apple is close to killing, I think...
-
It's a pity that Apple isn't prepared to release OS X without the hardware requirement in the EULA - even on a "no support" basis. That would allow Hackintosh to become legitimate and let people who need "big iron" as Schewe puts it continue on their OS of choice (albeit without direct support, but then the community could likely keep it going quite well and Apple would still make software sales).
Competition is always good, and less isn't really going to help anyone.
-
Apple sold more iOS devices in 2011 than total Macs in 28 years (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/17/apple_sold_more_ios_devices_in_2011_than_total_macs_in_28_years.html)
I can understand Apple's attention to iOS hardware, and the chart in this article makes things pretty clear where the profits are for Apple. In addition, many of my friends who use computers in their work and/or play agree that a custom-built, "big iron" Windows box can provide better performance benchmarks than a Mac Pro for about the same amount of money.
In 1995 I chose to stay with Apple products (my flavor du jour being the Power Mac 8500) for the simple reason that ColorSync provided me with color accuracy in my workflow. Microsoft was not remotely interested in a color-accurate workflow at that time, and I have no idea where they stand on this issue today.
-
Microsoft was not remotely interested in a color-accurate workflow at that time, and I have no idea where they stand on this issue today.
That was then and this is now. It might be argued that the lack of Colorsync on Windows is a good thing. Win CM doesn't get in the way like CS does on Mac.
I actually saw Colorsync running on a Windows box at Apple mid 1990's–just after Steve came back to Apple. Steve "Steve'ed" it and it never shipped. Steve thought Colorsync was a critical Mac only tech. But as time has gone by, Win OS's since Vista really have no color management issues other than the obscure places where x32 and x64 keep the darn profiles...
No, there's no platform advantage to color management on Macs now and as we saw, Snow Leopard was a Colorsync disaster...
No, really, at this point the biggest drawback to Windows is really hardware standardization...there's just so many different potential components out there that configuring a Win box is daunting...compared to the relative ease of the Mac. Oh, yeah, the other thing that drives me nutz are the keyboard shortcuts for Window; ok, option is alt, command is control so what the heck is control from Mac to Win? Other than the rather drab environment of Win 7, that's my biggest problem switching between OS X and Win 7.
-
There is this - http://www.apple.com/macpro/
Seems plenty enough to carry one well into the next decade. They've also been making noises about the next Pro, so this all may be a continuation of these stories that have dogged Apple from almost the beginning. One thing to remember is their stuff just keeps on chugging along. I've got a Cube that I picked up cheap to practice repair and upgrading on, as well as having wanted one due to being interested in industrial design. I use it for referencing manuals on the bench and occasionally watching tutorials. It's had the CPU upgraded, as well as the vid card, ram, and HDD, and is running 10.4 and QT despite being 'unsupported'. How many PCs from 1984 are still in actual use? The design of the MacPro not only lends itself to easy user friendly upgrading, but also longevity.
Myself, I've no plans in turning a computer into a giant iPad, nor turning my data over to the cloud. Have had no problems with 10.6.8 and will stay with it until forced to by hardware, which I don't see happening in the foreseeable future.
-
No, really, at this point the biggest drawback to Windows is really hardware standardization...there's just so many different potential components out there that configuring a Win box is daunting...compared to the relative ease of the Mac. Oh, yeah, the other thing that drives me nutz are the keyboard shortcuts for Window; ok, option is alt, command is control so what the heck is control from Mac to Win? Other than the rather drab environment of Win 7, that's my biggest problem switching between OS X and Win 7.
Stick with a brand name manufacturer and you can avoid any real configuration issues. You can still have a lot more options than Mac, but it doesn't need to be and certainly doesn't need to be confusing. Sure enough you'd be limiting yourself to a degree, but just as with Mac, you gain the advantage of known hardware configurations, drivers and so forth.
And for keyboard shortcuts, try this in reverse:
http://www.myfirstmac.com/index.php/mac/articles/ultimate-switcher-guide-windows-pc-to-mac-keyboard-shortcuts
or look here:
http://xahlee.org/emacs/apple_pc_kb_diff.html
The pages seem a little dated, so perhaps there are some changes, but should give you the general gist of it. Oh, and your mouse will have two actual buttons (or more if you like) and a scroll wheel that's actually a wheel most of the time rather than a microscopic ball ;-)
-
Oh, and your mouse will have two actual buttons (or more if you like) and a scroll wheel that's actually a wheel most of the time rather than a microscopic ball ;-)
Oh, I've been using multi-button mice for almost 2 decades...the first thing I do with a new Mac is buy a Logitech. Current is a 5 button mouse with scroll and tilt scroll. I've always hated Mac mice...
-
Oh, I've been using multi-button mice for almost 2 decades...the first thing I do with a new Mac is buy a Logitech. Current is a 5 button mouse with scroll and tilt scroll. I've always hated Mac mice...
There's hope for you yet in the Windows world, Schewe ;p
-
There's hope for you yet in the Windows world, Schewe ;p
Yeah...Win 7 doesn't suck too much...like I said, the main issue in use is keys...but for my main apps-Word, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop & Lightroom, Win vs Mac is really 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other...would I prefer Mac? Yes...am I worried about Mac Big Iron? Yes...can I get the work done that I need to do with Win 7/8? Yes.
Time will tell, but it's not looking great for Mac power users...
-
Schewe:
I'm similarly challenged getting around quickly on OS X.... ;)
A lot of things in Windows are buried behind hidden folders, a quick way to access is via the shell command;
http://www.osattack.com/windows-7/huge-list-of-windows-7-shell-commands/
For color profiles
[Windows Key]+[R] shell:system, spool\drivers\color
As far as named brand systems, my experience is that most systems are seriously compromised by marketing agreements with various software vendors, including AV, and Media players, along with re-packaged "alternatives" to built in O/S capabilities such as wireless or even DVD players (DVD playback is native in Win7). Many systems seem to ship with some form of "mac dock" utility which is senseless on windows......
Microsoft is actually taking a select few systems and reloading the O/S with only the necessary drivers at their Retail Locations. If you plan on name brand, budget an extra hour or two of a professional's time to get you to a clean system. Or you can spend that extra with a qualified custom builder, and get precisely what you want....
-
With keys, there are also apps that let you remap them - I found this on a quick Google:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/map-any-key-to-any-key-on-windows-xp-vista/
Or, you can really take advantage of keyboard shortcuts by using a gaming keyboard. I like the Logitech G15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logitech_G15) (original, but the version 2 is also good). Any number of functions for PS or LR in a single key, without having to do any finger gymanstics. You also get keyboard control of your volume, MP3s playing in the background, etc etc. And, it's a good quality Logitech keyboard - mine has had years of use and abuse and is still working perfectly.
-
Actually, the rev 2 G15 doesn't look nearly as good with far fewer keys. The G19http://www.logitech.com/en-au/keyboards/keyboard/devices/4956 (http://www.logitech.com/en-au/keyboards/keyboard/devices/4956) looks like the best bet now - it even has onboard memory so it remembers your shortcuts if you take it to another computer...
I may need a keyboard upgrade!
-
Yeah...Win 7 doesn't suck too much...like I said, the main issue in use is keys...but for my main apps-Word, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop & Lightroom, Win vs Mac is really 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other...would I prefer Mac? Yes...am I worried about Mac Big Iron? Yes...can I get the work done that I need to do with Win 7/8? Yes.
Actually Win7 is pretty good. I have been using it at work for one year and a half in parallel with 10.6 at home. The one OSX feature I miss is expose, for the rest I may actually prefer Win7 or at least is it probably a draw.
This is sad because if I end up replacing my Mac Pro by a Win machine, so will the Mac book pro and Mac mini.
The real tiring thing is the swap of apps from OSX to Win, but that will be a one time pain.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think we are to expect some rather big development this year in relation to hardware and software. Wether that is a touch screen iOS kind of thing I'm not sure. Basically Apple are looking to roll out entire new line of Macbook Pro's, iMacs and Mac Pros this year.
Something on the horizon and I think it's big.
-
It's a pity that Apple isn't prepared to release OS X without the hardware requirement in the EULA - even on a "no support" basis. That would allow Hackintosh to become legitimate and let people who need "big iron" as Schewe puts it continue on their OS of choice (albeit without direct support, but then the community could likely keep it going quite well and Apple would still make software sales).
Competition is always good, and less isn't really going to help anyone.
One small problem with that logic:
(http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Screen-Shot-2011-09-29-at-9-29-3.32.10-PM.png)
http://www.asymco.com/2011/09/29/comparing-revenues-apple-and-microsoft/
-
That's not really a problem. If it's offered for sale without support on non-Apple hardware (but legal), then there's potential extra revenue for something that already developed and being used to support existing hardware. It might be a small component, but for so long as they're still making OS X why not open the licence up? (There are actually a number of reasons, like increased support costs even though it's offered at no support and, probably more importantly for Apple, it exposes the OS to potential crashes or security issues that may not present on Apple hardware and this will reflect on the OS even though it's offered without support).
It won't happen, and that's a shame.
For some good news, those Logitech G19 keyboards are Mac compatible!
-
Actually, you may want to seriously consider doing this...the chances of "Big Iron" being updated and staying current at Apple is diminishing...a recent problem with the EU regarding energy star ratings (I may have this slightly wrong, but it had to do with some sort of change with EU laws and power consumption) seems to have bitten Apples towers. Which would be the perfect excuse for Apple to drop the tower line up entirely.
...
Well, I have no idea what the future of the Mac Pro is (I own one and like it -- late 2010 model with 3.3GHz 6-core CPU), but I am curious about your comment regarding the energy star ratings. The EU apparently did adopt new regulations in 2009 (don't know if there are more recent changes) and I had the impression that Apple's desktops (including the Mac Pro) were OK with this. Here is a link to an Apple analysis of the Mac Pro's environmental footprint:
http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/MacPro_Product_Environmental_Report.pdf
If there are energy efficiency problems with Apple's high end, I suspect this might be true of anything you might be considering as a replacement. I could be completely wrong, though. Haven't researched it much.
-
That's not really a problem. If it's offered for sale without support on non-Apple hardware (but legal), then there's potential extra revenue for something that already developed and being used to support existing hardware. It might be a small component, but for so long as they're still making OS X why not open the licence up? (There are actually a number of reasons, like increased support costs even though it's offered at no support and, probably more importantly for Apple, it exposes the OS to potential crashes or security issues that may not present on Apple hardware and this will reflect on the OS even though it's offered without support).
It won't happen, and that's a shame.
For some good news, those Logitech G19 keyboards are Mac compatible!
The point of that chart is that Apple is in the business of selling hardware, and at high margins. Licensing their OS would be the fasted way for them to destroy their cash cow. It would also ruin their brand, something Apple is obviously very concerned with. And, it would cause a ton of technical problems for the because OS X is integrated with the iCloud services, so "no support" isn't really an option... I frankly don't see any reason to do it other than to please a handful of geeks who can just as easily use Windows anyway.
-
Personally, I'm worried...and so is Chris Sanderson (and some Apple employees I know). People who need big iron are a diminishing group and Apple tends to drop diminishing groups from their lineups. Even though they have $90 billion in the bank, it's due largely to iPhone/iPad sales. Real computers is a diminishing %. Big iron is falling even faster.
I would be surprised if Apple abandons big iron. The cachet of having so many major players in the graphic arts industry is still important to the company for a number of reasons (not least that it helps in recruiting top software developers). I've been told that Apple's management is already anxious about the migration of institutional customers to MS-Windows.
I'm more concerned that Apple engineering will be forced for economic reasons to strip some features that aren't of interest to the consumer market from the OS X bundle. This is already happening with the 10.8 release next summer: X11 functionality, which until now was part of the product, is being migrated to the open source community.
I hasten to add that this isn't necessarily bad. If Apple continues to support the X11 community developers, those of us who prefer OS X as a runtime environment but need access to standard UNIX tools -- and that includes every insitutional system administrator of Macintoshen I am aware of -- might actually be better off because Apple hasn't always been keeping current with the evolution of the mainstream UNIX environment, which mostly takes place on Linux these days.
I believe the published reports that there will be a new Mac Pro before by the end of the summer that will run Intel's "Ivy Bridge" processors and NVIDIA's "Kepler" graphics devices -- I suspect its launch will coincide with the 10.8 "Mountain Lion" release (do these public development code names really serve any useful purpose?) -- and that it will provide a lot of parallel CPU cycles for a price-point at or lower than the current Mac Pro product. I'm looking forward to buying one.
I'm more inclined to worry that Apple's management may be inclined to edge away from the complete control and coordination of hardware and software that has characterized the product line until now. I have long been a proponent of open source software, but OS X already is less stable that the big-three commercial UNIX operating systems from HP, IBM and Oracle, and increasing dependence on the open source community for what may seem to be peripheral functions to the end-user may be of critical importance to the institutional market.
Chris
-
A reader's email suggested that I say explicitly something that was only implicit in my earlier post.
I don't think Apple's management will deliberately walk away the institutional desktop market. However, it is possible that certain decisions regarding software support could inadvertently drive institutional customers away by making large populations of Mac desktops difficult to administer efficiently. If that were to happen, I suspect a business decision to abandon the Mac Pro product line would not be far behind.
Chris
-
The point of that chart is that Apple is in the business of selling hardware, and at high margins. Licensing their OS would be the fasted way for them to destroy their cash cow. It would also ruin their brand, something Apple is obviously very concerned with. And, it would cause a ton of technical problems for the because OS X is integrated with the iCloud services, so "no support" isn't really an option... I frankly don't see any reason to do it other than to please a handful of geeks who can just as easily use Windows anyway.
I agree. As I said, it's not going to happen, and there are good reason for it to not happen, but it would be good for those who use big macs. That's all :-)
-
I would be surprised if Apple abandons big iron. The cachet of having so many major players in the graphic arts industry is still important to the company for a number of reasons (not least that it helps in recruiting top software developers).
Look, I sat in a meeting where Phil Schiller explained that the 50K "pro users" couldn't "save Apple". Then he explained why Steve killed the 6 PCI slot Mac and then rolled in the Bondi Blue iMac and said it was the savior of Apple.
To a certain extent, history has proven Phil (and Steve) correct.
But...Apple is not throwing it's considerable assets at being the top line CPU suppliers anymore.
Apple had a deal with Intel at one time that Apple would have a period of time in which Apple got the fastest motherboards/CPUs in an exclusive time period. That is no long active. The Mac Pro Towers are no longer the top end. And that really sucks.
Also note that certain Apple employees (who obviously I can't name or else their ass would be grass) have expressed a real concern that the guys who have been working on big iron are either gone or working on consumers sorts of hardware. That's a real concern.
Yes, it's entirely possible that Apple will pull out a game changer when it comes to big iron–what Steve Jobs referred to as "trucks" last year. I can only hope...but the drumbeat says otherwise. And that's what has me worried.
If you have any friends at Apple...tell them that you need big iron...make your voices heard. Help the cause. But be prepared to seek alternatives.
-
"Apple had a deal with Intel at one time that Apple would have a period of time in which Apple got the fastest motherboards/CPUs in an exclusive time period. That is no long active. The Mac Pro Towers are no longer the top end. And that really sucks."
How would that even have been possible? And when? Apple started using Intel based systems in 2005-2006? I have never taken a MAC apart that had the most cutting edge parts in it, they never have. How stupid would Intel have to be to tell all their much larger customers, hey we're giving all the best stuff to Apple for an exclusive period of time, you'll have to wait. it just doesn't make sense.
I've taken my fair share of Apple products apart (IMacs and Minis are the worst), they use mid-grade parts and in some cases, garbage, they just stick a higher price tag on it, that's called marketing 101, when you can get a lot more money for the same product.
Intel motherboards aren't the crème de la crème anyhow...
-
How would that even have been possible? And when?
As I recall from what I read at the time, in order to really seal the deal with Macs going to Intel, Intel gave Apple first access to it's latest developments. I don't remember though how long that deal was in effect.
Jim
-
As I recall from what I read at the time, in order to really seal the deal with Macs going to Intel, Intel gave Apple first access to it's latest developments. I don't remember though how long that deal was in effect.
Yep...for a period of time, Apple got a time based exclusive on the fastest new Intel processors...not any more though. I'm also not sure how long that deal lasted. But when the first Intel based Mac Pro tower came out (and for at least 2 or 3 after that) the Mac Pro were the fastest upon launch. It was always some months afterward that other hardware makers got the same chips.
-
I don't believe Intel "needed" Apple, Apple cleary needed Intel, as a matter of fact I'm positive. Granted, it adds something to Intel's bottom line, but I doubt it's much. And the dates don't mesh, the Intel CPUs were launched and then many months after an Apple Mac Pro was launched. Apple still doesn't launch their Macs and IMacs in accordance with Intel's latest CPUs, they have always lagged behind every other manufacturer, IOW, they have never been bleeding edge. Why would you "screw over" 99% of your clients to attract one insignificant player? The first Intel Mac Pro was "Woodcrest" August 2006, the reviews on PCs was already happening in June-July 2006. I've been building PCs since 1998 and for awhile was shipping them all over the world, Apple never had the bleeding edge products, possibly the first were close, but since that time they really lag behind and they never are at the front of the pack in anything, phones included. I suppose anything is possible, but the dates just don't support the theory they were the first to have the fastest Intel CPUs and personally I think they are making the same mistake that they did in the beginning, which almost lead to them going bankrupt, if not for Bill Gates and Co. you would have never heard of an IPhone or IPad...
It's all a moot point now, Apple will eventually quit "making" "computers" and will concentrate on music, videos and IOS devices and who knows what will happen once WinTablets hit the street (I'll buy one then) and other phone makers continue their onslaught of superior products....We shall see.
-
I find the fast pace of OSX releases together with the remarkable ability of Apple to generate issues in terms of application compatibility to be a real pain.
It seems that my 8 core Mac Pro, only 4 years old will not be supported by 10.8 according to this source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5544/apple-releases-os-x-108-mountain-lion-preview
My solution to that is not to upgrade the OS until I have a need to, and often that need is when software updates that I want need a newer verso of the OS that I have. This tends to correlate with Apple's ending official support for the version I am running. On that basis 10.6 (Snow Leopard) is my target, and might still be after 10.8 arrives. So from that point of view, the main question is how would your 4 year old Mac Pro suffer by staying at 10.7 for the rest of it service life? I count that Apl ewil end 10.7 support until at least the arrival of 10.9, going by past practice.
Does anyone know if the release of 10.8 will mean the end of official support for 10.6?
-
For me, there are 3 factors that determine how long I hang onto hardware:
1. Will the Apple OS support it?
2. Will Adobe support it (which is why I got a 2009 Intel - Adobe dropped G5)?
3. Will Photoshop or Lightroom require better hardware to run well.
I really hope Apple doesn't kill off towers because the thought of buying new hardware and learning a new OS to replace something that works isn't thrilling...
Jim
-
I really hope Apple doesn't kill off towers because the thought of buying new hardware and learning a new OS to replace something that works isn't thrilling...
Yep, but since the tower is a critical piece of equipment for me I have started to look at replacement options. My Mac Pro is not doing too well at 4.5 years old and I will have no choice but to buy a replacement quickly the day it dies. I would for sure not invest in the current Mac Pro without visibility on the future or the line up.
OSX has served me well and I am really not looking forward to the switch back to Windows... but it seems that the Dell Precision T5500 is a close equivalent to the Mac Pro: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=bw1s1422&c=us&l=en&s=soho&cs=ussoho1&model_id=precision-t5500
3,800 US$ for a dual 6 core Xeon machine (12 cores), 12 GB RAM and Quadro 4000 2GB graphic card, Firewire and USB 3.0 support. We use these at work for high end applications and they are rock solid and very silent in operation.
The additional problem is that I don't want to work in a mixed Win/Mac environment, so I'll regretfully start to look next week also for potential replacement options for the Mac mini and Mac book pro as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
OSX has served me well and I am really not looking forward to the switch back to Windows... but it seems that the Dell Precision T5500 is a close equivalent to the Mac Pro: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=bw1s1422&c=us&l=en&s=soho&cs=ussoho1&model_id=precision-t5500
Yes I agree .... IT IS UGLY (and still uses old techno like 3g harddisks)
and if i am correct Dell is part of Apple..? So thats the trucks company from now on...
-
Dell is not a part of Apple...
What's a 3g hard disk?
-
IT IS UGLY
You can always go with something like this (http://www.digitalstormonline.com/compblackops.asp). :D
These kinds of machines are built for lowest fan noise, fastest graphics rendering and fastest internal bus speeds.
-
and if i am correct Dell is part of Apple..?
Couldn't be further than the truth...Michael Dell truly pissed on Steve Jobs when he said Apple should just be liquidated and the remainder given to Apple shareholders. Apple didn't follow Dell's advice and as of the close recently, it seem Dell ain't all that good at predicting the future. I think they made amends before Steve passed away.
-
Bernard: That Dell is basically identical to Dual CPU entry level servers I build, in fact that CPU is a killer deal considering the price.
Comparing this with a non ECC socket 2011, show a noticeable increase in memory bandwidth and overall performance - mainly due to the on-die quad-interleaved memory access. Intel will be rolling out E5 Socket 2011 Xeon CPU's this spring (last word I heard is mid april). The EVGA-SRX will support Dual-CPU configurations.....
-
Yes I agree .... IT IS UGLY (and still uses old techno like 3g harddisks)
and if i am correct Dell is part of Apple..? So thats the trucks company from now on...
What?
-
Yes, I love the Blue Screen of Death and the frequent crashes of Win 7. Each version of Windows gets worse. Maybe because my $5k dell workstation with 16GB Ram just isn't powerful enough.
Actually Win7 is pretty good. I have been using it at work for one year and a half in parallel with 10.6 at home. The one OSX feature I miss is expose, for the rest I may actually prefer Win7 or at least is it probably a draw.
This is sad because if I end up replacing my Mac Pro by a Win machine, so will the Mac book pro and Mac mini.
The real tiring thing is the swap of apps from OSX to Win, but that will be a one time pain.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually, you may want to seriously consider doing this...the chances of "Big Iron" being updated and staying current at Apple is diminishing...a recent problem with the EU regarding energy star ratings (I may have this slightly wrong, but it had to do with some sort of change with EU laws and power consumption) seems to have bitten Apples towers. Which would be the perfect excuse for Apple to drop the tower line up entirely.
Personally, I'm worried...and so is Chris Sanderson (and some Apple employees I know). People who need big iron are a diminishing group and Apple tends to drop diminishing groups from their lineups. Even though they have $90 billion in the bank, it's due largely to iPhone/iPad sales. Real computers is a diminishing %. Big iron is falling even faster.
If you need 4+ drives and 32-64GB of ram and really fast I/O and multiple PCI slots, then you should be worried. I'm worried...
HD+ video and large format digital imaging (really big files) are not gonna be in Apple wheelhouse in the near future.
The upside is Windows 7 64-bit doesn't suck nearly as much as anything named Vista...
So what's a guy to do? My Dell Precision 490 with 16GB of ram crashes frequently. Every time I downgrade to the newer windows version it gets less stable. XP worked fine, but CS5 made me go to Vista, which I switched (with no improvement) to Win 7 because of crashes.
I was waiting for the new Mac Pro with a 6GB/sec buss, hoping that would be better, but have seen the color management problems with the Macs.
So, given my files from the IQ180 are huge, I need the following:
1. Ability to handle files over 1 GB quickly probably means SSD's with a 6GB/S bus
2. Quiet (the Dell fan is LOUD)
3. Doesn't heat up the whole room (Kilowatt power supplies tend to do that)
4. Probably 64-128GB RAM
I really don't want to get into building my own machine, as I don't have time to deal with the details. Would like to get a machine that works well from the start, can handle at least 64GB RAM, and is cool and quiet.
Switching to the MAC platform is a major investment in learning and a smaller investment in software. Dell service is good if you buy the expensive service package where people speak your language and have actual seen a computer, the their workstations are already obsolete. Your thoughts are welcome.
Thanks.
Paul
-
Yes, I love the Blue Screen of Death and the frequent crashes of Win 7. Each version of Windows gets worse. Maybe because my $5k dell workstation with 16GB Ram just isn't powerful enough.
Well, I am not sure what the problem is with your setup, but I must have experienced one BSOD in win7 in 2 years of usage, that is significantly less than the amount of issues I have been experiencing on my Mac Pro.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I love the Blue Screen of Death and the frequent crashes of Win 7. Each version of Windows gets worse. Maybe because my $5k dell workstation with 16GB Ram just isn't powerful enough.
Well I get complete system crashes on my MacPro and the beachball of doom is my constant companion. And it generally runs like a crappy 12year old home made PC running 98. Though I just discovered that if I reboot every hour or so, LR is actually usable.
My ancient laptop running XP hasn't been restarted for months. I just close lid, it goes to sleep, open lid and it works. Not sure I've ever had BSOD on that machine.
-
So what's a guy to do? My Dell Precision 490 with 16GB of ram crashes frequently. Every time I downgrade to the newer windows version it gets less stable. XP worked fine, but CS5 made me go to Vista, which I switched (with no improvement) to Win 7 because of crashes.
I really don't want to get into building my own machine, as I don't have time to deal with the details. Would like to get a machine that works well from the start, can handle at least 64GB RAM, and is cool and quiet.
I had a PC that was a bit like that. Problem was caused by a dodgy hard drive connector.
Switching to the MAC platform is a major investment in learning and a smaller investment in software. Dell service is good if you buy the expensive service package where people speak your language and have actual seen a computer, the their workstations are already obsolete. Your thoughts are welcome.
I've used Macs and PCs for quite some time now and on the whole my Macs are less reliable and way more expensive.
Mac Pro Issues
Crappy DVD writer, very noisy from start and then died.
Front FW port has died
Mouse - scroll ball has the same clagging up issue as all mouse balls used to in the 90s, before being replaced with lasers.
Keyboard - left shift key randomly stops working on top row of letters and right shift key doesn't then work with all keys on number row.
General slug like performance.
MacBook Pro issues
Power management problems - which leads to a black screen and a forced reboot.
Mag safe connectors have been recalled due to fraying on some models. Mine seems fine so far.
DVD writer is playing up and struggles to read or write anything.
iPhone issues
Dropped calls.
Dreadful sound quality at other end - some people now call me on landline instead.
Voice mail takes up to a week to arrive.
[I didn't have these problems with my HTC on same network]
Nano works fine though.
-
If your Precision 490 is BSODing all the time, you have a hardware problem. Win 7 is a hugely stable OS.
-
Don't want to hijack the thread, but the BSOD is rare. Mostly freezes. Fresh install of Win 7 64-bit didn't help.
So... any Windows workstations with a 6GB/S bus and onboard USB-3 ports, or will I need to wait?
Thanks.
-
Yes, I love the Blue Screen of Death and the frequent crashes of Win 7. Each version of Windows gets worse.
I don't think I've had a blue screen on Win 7 64, ever. And I think each version of Windows gets better.
As regards Apple getting out of the workstation market, that's bad, but HP are getting ready to quit the hardware market too, meaning we'll lose their workstations such as the Z800. This is a pain, I don't like Dells and I've had a few of them. I've had workstations built by small suppliers too and that didn't go well either.
Ultimately we will have to look at who will step up to supply workstations to the Digital Film biz users, they're still going to need big boxes. Will it be Lenovo?
-
Back to the original topic. I stalled Lion several days ago and all of my photo applications are running just fine (Adobe Creative Suite 5 Extended, Lightroom 3 & 4, CaptureOne Pro, PTGui Pro, Xrite products, Helicon Focus, ColorThink 2.3, Wacom, PhotoKit Sharpener, PocketWizard Utility, Eizo Color Navigator, Canon print drivers and Epson print drivers.
In fact with Lion's 64-bit kernal implementation things have definitely speeded up over SnowLeopard's 32-bit kernal on the same machine - a late 2009 27" 2.66GHZ iMac with 16GB RAM (from OWC) and two 8TB Drobo v2 boxes hanging off of it.
This may not be as fast as Jeff's "Big Iron" or other's similarly configured Windows 7 boxes, but it works well, and paid for itself pretty quickly. The slowest aspect of my system is the user who interfaces with it.
I'm not inteested in switching computer platforms. If I have to in a year or two I'll deal with that then.
In the meantime OS X 10.7 appears stable, my machine is stable and I am getting the real photographic and other creative and marketing work that pays the bills done and I am very happy to not have to also play the part of apprentice-without-a-master amateur IT guy in a self-inflicted digital S&M game.
As someone who (unfortunately still) owns a little Dell stock left over from the late 1990s tech bubble, and as the husband of a wife who has gone through three Dell computers in four years, their hardware and service suck.
-
Why does everybody blame MS-Windows? They are asked to support 1000s of motherboards, ram, hard drives, video cards, optical drives, raid cards, 1 billion pieces of software etc. and it does a great job. My IPhone crashes a lot more frequently than any PC I have. I have machines running Windows 7 that haven't crashed yet and a WinXP machine that's been running since XP came out, I reboot it every couple months just for the heck of it. My MAC OS crashes every bit as much if not more than my PCs, yes I just love the colorful spinning wheel :-) It's not just the OS that causes the machine to crash, bad hardware (Dell PCs are one of the worst) causes a lot of problems.
-
Lion is buggy. On snow leopard with my dual Raid 0 SSD boot disk the computer booted in 3 or 4 seconds. It takes over a minute now.
Mail is buggy as hell. If you're emailing pics and want to use the resize feature which I do a lot then its buggy. If you drag photos between messages it randomly fails and makes them odd sizes and screws the formatting up. There are other annoying issues like this.
Wifi constantly drops out. I'm constantly turning Wifi on then off again to get a connection.
Safari is buggy and crashes. Simply adding a bookmark to the toolbar locks the app up and takes a minute to finish.
Aperture is buggy and crashes.
Sometimes when I restart and it boots up it takes 5 minutes before I can actually do anything with the mouse or keyboard.
In general the computer freezes momentarily more often. I never had this problem with Snow Leopard.
Lion would be great. Should be great. I really like the new features but it's finicky and buggy and frustrating. You should be able to UPgrade and have just that. Not a downgrade in performance.
Apple used to be rock solid and never had issues. The last year things have been slipping and it seems to be getting worse. When I upgraded my iPad to iOS 5 it wiped the iPad AND the Backups in iTunes. All Apple said was - oh yeah, that has happened to quite a few people. Sorry.
They are the most profitable company in the world. Issues like this should not be occurring.
-
I reboot it every couple months just for the heck of it.
If you're not rebooting Windows once a month (after 2nd Tues of each month when MS rolls out updates), then you're not current on security
Just saying.....
-
Why does everybody blame MS-Windows? They are asked to support 1000s of motherboards, ram, hard drives, video cards, optical drives, raid cards, 1 billion pieces of software etc. and it does a great job. My IPhone crashes a lot more frequently than any PC I have. I have machines running Windows 7 that haven't crashed yet and a WinXP machine that's been running since XP came out, I reboot it every couple months just for the heck of it. My MAC OS crashes every bit as much if not more than my PCs, yes I just love the colorful spinning wheel :-)
THIS. /\
Apple computers should not only be better than PC's because on the whole they are high end premium kit, but because Apple design the OS and choose the hardware to go with it, so they should be much much better. Yet in reality there's no real difference. So I'd say MS were doing a much better job on the whole.
-
Apple computers should not only be better than PC's because on the whole they are high end premium kit, but because Apple design the OS and choose the hardware to go with it, so they should be much much better. Yet in reality there's no real difference. So I'd say MS were doing a much better job on the whole.
I don't see how you can tell one way or the other if apples are better worse than pc's for crashes without a volume of data. On the net we tend to see a lot of anecdotes about poor / good performance but a series of self-selected anecdotes does not give one something that one can generalize from reliably.
It may very well be that OS X crashes more than win7 (or vice versa) but given that crash rates are so low, you'd need a huge population to tell.
-
I don't see how you can tell one way or the other if apples are better worse than pc's for crashes without a volume of data. On the net we tend to see a lot of anecdotes about poor / good performance but a series of self-selected anecdotes does not give one something that one can generalize from reliably.
It may very well be that OS X crashes more than win7 (or vice versa) but given that crash rates are so low, you'd need a huge population to tell.
That may be the case to gauge absolute accuracy, but misses the point I was making. Apple should be much, much, much better than PCs [or rival phones] for reasons mentioned above. Yet the reality seems otherwise.
Just a few week's back recently Apple managed to screw up two OSX updates, one to Lion and one to Snow Leopard, whilst at the same time making a pig's ear out of iTune Match.
-
I don't see how you can tell one way or the other if apples are better worse than pc's for crashes without a volume of data. On the net we tend to see a lot of anecdotes...
You can't draw an informed conclusion for the extremely limited data posted here. I think most realize that.
I'm running LION on a current iMac, a 2 year old MPB and a Pro that's a couple years old. It's stable and reliable on all of them and the 20 other similar Macs I support. I also support a few dozen 7 Pro machines and they've been trouble free except for hardware issues.
Based on my experience, 29+ years in IT and every generation of OS6/7/8/9/10 and W3.31 to 7, both current OSs are very stable until you introduce hardware issues, then they both can be a pain.
-
Based on my experience, 29+ years in IT and every generation of OS6/7/8/9/10 and W3.31 to 7, both current OSs are very stable until you introduce hardware issues, then they both can be a pain.
Depends on your definition of stable or good. OSX has had numerous problems, some fixed by updates, some caused by updates and all with no hardware changes. For example I had graphics problems with Leopard. They vanished with the 10.5.4 update and never reappeared again.
Bear in mind that if OSX was genuinely stable and bug free there would not be seven or eight service patches per version of OSX. I avoid the first three as a rule and was even told by one of the geniuses in my local Apple store [who probably sees more Macs that just about anyone else] that he doesn't use a new OSX version until v4 or v5. Which is similar to PC people avoiding Windows until SP1 arrived.
-
I agree with you and as somebody who repairs both I can tell you that Apple products break down more often than PCs costing the same amount of money (naturally the PCs have much better parts). Before I bought my first MAC I thought they had higher end parts than the Dells, Gateways, HPs, Lenovo, etc. Not true...
-
I agree with you and as somebody who repairs both I can tell you that Apple products break down more often than PCs costing the same amount of money (naturally the PCs have much better parts). Before I bought my first MAC I thought they had higher end parts than the Dells, Gateways, HPs, Lenovo, etc. Not true...
-
I agree with you and as somebody who repairs both I can tell you that Apple products break down more often than PCs costing the same amount of money (naturally the PCs have much better parts). Before I bought my first MAC I thought they had higher end parts than the Dells, Gateways, HPs, Lenovo, etc. Not true...
And this is why Apple are by far the most profitable company in the business. Put cheap parts in a pretty case and charge a lot of money. Also giving no or very reduced options also reduces costs. This is why a 17" laptop has the same functionally reduced keyboard as an 11" laptop. Whereas every Sony laptop keyboard is bespoke for that form factor.
Apple's profit margins are close to 50%, which is astonishingly high compared to everyone else.
-
What are the chances of high-quality photo applications for Linux? Perhaps Adobe shipping its wide-spanning media applications with a dedicated Linux image that lets them do their thing optimally?
It would seem that a professional setup could be well-served by a tailor-made Linux distribution, where e.g. color management is open and documented, where superflous stuff is removed etc.
-h
-
Who would support such a Linux distribution?
Software vendors like Adobe want to deal with a single point (Apple, Microsoft) and this is true of most businesses.
Linux is a great idea until you have to support it, because in supporting it you don't have control of it.
-
What are the chances of high-quality photo applications for Linux?
From Adobe? Somewhere just north of zero. Adobe did do a 3rd flavor of Photoshop back in the 3.0 days for UNIX. It lasted for one version and was dropped for lack of sales and support difficulties. The way Adobe does code, they can compile for Mac or Windows from the same basic code structure. I think it very unlikely that Linux could be easily whipped up as a 3rd compile....
-
Apple should be much, much, much better than PCs [or rival phones] for reasons mentioned above.
Apart from the irrelevance of those factors in the bottom line comparison of how the reliability actually compares (and I agree with the observation that overall, both systems are now quite reliable overall, anecdotes and anachronistic BSOD memories aside), your terms of comparison ignore the fact that Windows generates vastly more revenue than OS X, allowing MS to spend maybe 10-20 times as much on its impressive efforts to support a far wider range of hardware. The advantages and disadvantages on both sides make it very hard to judge who "should" be able to do a better job.
Though for reliability, neither matches the Sun workstations I used to run. Rebooting was almost only ever for OS upgrades. Way expensive though.
-
What are the chances of high-quality photo applications for Linux? Perhaps Adobe shipping its wide-spanning media applications with a dedicated Linux image that lets them do their thing optimally?
Adobe has just ended development of Air for Linux, citing its persistently low share of the desktop market, around 1%. That and the fact that Linux users tend to the side of using free or DIY software, and I would say that Adobe sees little reason to expand its Linux offerings.
-
Apart from the irrelevance of those factors in the bottom line comparison of how the reliability actually compares (and I agree with the observation that overall, both systems are now quite reliable overall, anecdotes and anachronistic BSOD memories aside), your terms of comparison ignore the fact that Windows generates vastly more revenue than OS X, allowing MS to spend maybe 10-20 times as much on its impressive efforts to support a far wider range of hardware. The advantages and disadvantages on both sides make it very hard to judge who "should" be able to do a better job.
Being able to spec just a very few specific items of hardware to run on makes for a much easier job of stable running. As does quickly dropping support for older kit and software. Certainly not irrelevant factors either as iffy hardware drivers and older software causes all sorts of grief. Apple has silly amounts of money to spend and is far more profitable than MS and they would still be if they gave OSX away. They are a hardware company after all.
-
Being able to spec just a very few specific items of hardware to run on makes for a much easier job of stable running. As does quickly dropping support for older kit and software. Certainly not irrelevant factors either as iffy hardware drivers and older software causes all sorts of grief. Apple has silly amounts of money to spend and is far more profitable than MS and they would still be if they gave OSX away. They are a hardware company after all.
I already agreed to the relevance of those factors, but as I said this has to be weighed against the compensating fact that Microsoft has good reasons to spend ten to twenty times as much on Windows development than Apple does on Mac OS X development. The ROI on that particular part of the business is the main factor, not the total assets of the company, and Mac OS X is by now a small fraction of the total, always greatly outweighed by Mac hardware, which in turn is dwarfed by iOS products. With Windows plus Office the main lifeline for Microsoft, clearly it can and will spend far more on that part of its business than Apple does on Mac OS X.
-
I already agreed to the relevance of those factors, but as I said this has to be weighed against the compensating fact that Microsoft has good reasons to spend ten to twenty times as much on Windows development than Apple does on Mac OS X development. The ROI on that particular part of the business is the main factor, not the total assets of the company, and Mac OS X is by now a small fraction of the total, always greatly outweighed by Mac hardware, which in turn is dwarfed by iOS products. With Windows plus Office the main lifeline for Microsoft, clearly it can and will spend far more on that part of its business than Apple does on Mac OS X.
Not necessarily. Besides simply throwing more money at a more complex problem is not necessarily the most effective solution. Reducing the complexity of the main problem by many orders of magnitude [as Apple has done] is much easier. Just consider how many different potential components and combinations thereof there will be for Windows to run on. Which would be impossible to test on (Unlike the handful of variations with Macs) and would cost far more than a mere 10-20 times more.
-
The entire discussion regarding which OS has the easier job, that's a no brainer, Apple keeps tight control over the hardware and software to keep it simple, they keep ALL of their products simple so that the "Sheepole" can use them. There are some pros with this approach (fragmentation of Android comes to mind) but for the most part I like some control over my device, Apple simply tells you what is right for you. It has to be exponentially easier to deal with the Mac OS than Windows, as I stated before Apple worries about maybe 4 motherboards, let's say 20, how many motherboards does Windows have to worry about supporting? True, a lot of them are using the same chipsets and the like, but still they all add their own idiosyncrasies to the mix. I won't regurgitate what I already said, but the simple fact that the Windows OS is every bit (pun) as stable if not more so than Mac OS says a lot about how much smarter the engineers are at MS than at Apple. It takes me about 5 minutes to change a hard drive in one of my computers and white gloves and about 1.5 hours to change one in an IMac, yet Jonathan Ive is considered a design genius :-( form over function is idiotic when both phenomenal ergonomics and aesthetics can be equally achieved and live in perfect harmony.
-
Thank you everyone's input.
As I said earlier OS X Lion is working very smoothly for me. As a working photographer, as a businessman, as some who enjoys photography more than mucking about in the guts if a computer that is all I want from a computer: smoothness and reliability. Look down your nose at me all you like, I don't care. If Apple products start failing me in my little world I have no qualms about switching to a more reliable solution with a different company's logo on it.
As this has now devolved into an Apple vs Windows attack zone I am exercising my prerogative as the initiator of the thread and locking it.