Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: BobShaw on December 06, 2019, 06:30:12 pm
-
I have been exclusively Apple for photography for a long time now. When I was working full time I was forced to use a PC, but thankfully those days are gone.
One of the great things about Apple was that if a machine failed, you bought a new one, plugged in the last TimeMachine backup and about 4 hours later you were back in business exactly how you were, with the same apps, users, passwords etc.
Now you buy a new machine and the operating system does not support my DAM, my accounting system, my Office programmes, my lighting system and a whole pile of other things.
The ports do not connect to my camera or my drives and it doesn't have a card slot. So instead of just putting the laptop in the camera bag I would need a stack of those little dongles.
I have bought two new computers in the last year and both of them were the previous years model for this reason. They were also half the price.
So I am just wondering what price will Apple pay to drag us along to the 64 bit, one plug tech that they apparently think that we need?
-
So I am just wondering what price will Apple pay to drag us along to the 64 bit, one plug tech that they apparently think that we need?
If you look at the history from Apple, the answer is no. Apple went from PowerPC to Intel as an example. Sure, I've got old software that can't run Intel. Ditto going OS9 to OS X. Nothing new here.
-
If you look at the history from Apple, the answer is no. Apple went from PowerPC to Intel as an example. Sure, I've got old software that can't run Intel. Ditto going OS9 to OS X. Nothing new here.
True. With PowerPC and OS9 though they supported these until about OS 10.4 from memory. Now they seem to be relying solely on third parties to provide backward support, as you can't downgrade the OS to even the last one. I have OS10.6 as well as Mojave now running on Vmware under another Mojave. Seems to run OK, but slow.
-
I have OS10.6 as well as Mojave now running on Vmware under another Mojave. Seems to run OK, but slow.
I may have to go that route. How does one go about this? Is this a better solution than ParallelsDesktop?
-
I may have to go that route. How does one go about this? Is this a better solution than ParallelsDesktop?
Actually doing it was quite easy. Once you have VMware installed you just need an Apple installer of some sort on a USB. I already had Sierra installed. Once you have any OS installed then you just go to Apple.com and search for the Mojave installer. The normal instal process takes you there in about an hour.
I don't have Parallels so I can't comment on that. I only installed Mojave last night so I will try it over the next week and get back. I have been using the 10.6 for several years now without issue.
-
I may have to go that route. How does one go about this? Is this a better solution than ParallelsDesktop?
There's an informative discussion on the general topic at TidBITS talk (https://tidbits.com/2019/09/18/moving-to-catalina-keep-your-32-bit-mac-apps-running-with-parallels/).
General consensus seems to be that there's little to choose between Parallels and VMWare Fusion. One beats the other for some things and loses to it for others. I think Fusion is less restrictive on installations.
I've never used Parallels. I used Fusion in the rather distant past and was very happy with it. There's something vaguely surreal about seeing Windows windows and Mac windows on the same screen at the same time.
Jeremy
-
Thanks for the info. Not sure when I'll upgrade to Catalina and my current MPB can boot older OS. But I did go ahead with that deal to get ParallesDesktop since there were other items in the bundle that looked useful.
-
If you look at the history from Apple, the answer is no. Apple went from PowerPC to Intel as an example.
And from Motorola 68xxx to PowerPc before that. And from 6502 to 68000 before that.
OTOH:
-
ZORK!! OMG!!
-
ZORK!! OMG!!
Yep. Running under Win 10 (with a little help).
-
It's all in how you look at it. Apple has given us historically great, reliable hardware that lasts much longer than the other brands. Anything that speaks SATA, or PATA for that matter can be upgraded to a SSD and will run as is for quite a while. Will it last forever, no, but you can find plenty of G5 or early x86 hardware at great prices. If you have a specific platform you really need to work, spend a few hundred dollars now and grab a Mac Mini of that era. It'll be fine just sitting around waiting for when you need it.
As to the current hardware, I have a love/hate relationship with the current Mac's & TB3. But it's by far the fastest connection method available, so it's all a trade off. Yes, there are many abandonware programs that work and you love. Unfortunately the time will come when you have to upgrade. Until then, start saving the dollars you'll need to spend to get current some day down the road. It doesn't get any cheaper, and spreading out the costs over multiple years will make it easier.
-
It's all in how you look at it. Apple has given us historically great, reliable hardware that lasts much longer than the other brands.
Is there any evidence of much greater longevity? I've had Windows and Unix servers in continuous operation for more than 10 years with no failures. They were removed from service because the newer machines were so much more efficient, not because the old machines had anything wrong with them.
-
Is there any evidence of much greater longevity? I've had Windows and Unix servers in continuous operation for more than 10 years with no failures. They were removed from service because the newer machines were so much more efficient, not because the old machines had anything wrong with them.
Well servers are a vastly quality to desktop machines, and the OS seldom changes. My current Mac is a 2013 and it replaced a machine that was 2008. Both are still going strong. The 2008 will only run OS10.11 but the 2013 will run 10.15 (eventually).
-
Well servers are a vastly quality to desktop machines, and the OS seldom changes. .
My servers and workstations are built with much the same parts. Xeon CPUs, registered ECC RAM, 7200 rpm disks, the same SSDs. My server OS's are updated every month or so, and Windows major server releases have historically been locked to the desktop releases. Even the GUIs are the same.
Jim
-
Exactly. There is zero evidence that Apple is using higher grade parts in comparison to Asus, Nvidia, various RAM suppliers, etc. (‘my Macpro 2013 died last week’ from another thread).
However, there is a direct link between operational life time and temperature. Insufficient and/or unreliable cooling, i.e. under worst case conditions (PC required to throttle down; sounds familiar?) degrades operational life time.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Exactly. There is zero evidence that Apple is using higher grade parts in comparison to Asus, Nvidia, various RAM suppliers, etc. (‘my Macpro 2013 died last week’ from another thread).
However, there is a direct link between operational life time and temperature. Insufficient and/or unreliable cooling, i.e. under worst case conditions (PC required to throttle down; sounds familiar?) degrades operational life time.
My workstations appear to have better thermal management than my servers, because the designs are not constrained by the requirements for rack mounting.
Added later: I've thought more about this, and consider the plight of the designer of the thermal management system for a 1U server, of which I have several. All the air has to exit at the back. It's all got to come in from the front. But both of those panels are less than 1 3/4 inches high. The server can't be more than 17 inches wide, and is 24-30 inches deep. The front panel is obstructed by hot-swap disk drives, so there's not much room for air inlets. You can't get conductive cooling from the top and bottom panels, because they're going to be pressed up against more servers. You can't use big fans with slow-moving blades; so you have to use tiny ones, and spin the blades so fast the server sound like a jet engine on start up. You've got air paths that are at least 24 inches long, and often much longer, and they can't be very high, so there's pumping loss. You need so many fans that their reliability is a concern; luckily, if one dies, it's no biggie because of all the others, but even designing for that limits your options. You are limited in your use of thermal conductivity by the snap-together designs that your customers expect in a modern server.
-
I’m a user, not a techie. My MBPs have outlasted any off-the-shelf Windows laptops my friends have had and my MBPs tend to run regular photo-like operations faster. They have also travelled in a backpack and on-board with me all over the world. Off-the-shelf, screens seem brighter, with truer colour, bodies and hinges last longer (no plastic!); and yes the innards seem to last longer. I recognize and live with the dongle problem, but Apple also tends to be an early adopter of new (thinner, lighter, faster) technologies like USB (back in the day, but now USB-C) and SSDs as well as ditching optical drives - remember the kerfuffle over that?
So, there is a price to pay, but it also just seems to work without some damn MacAfee or other app getting in the way. Again, I’m not a techie, I’m a user. I almost jumped to PC with my latest upgrade due perceived cost savings, but in the end a I stayed with a MBP, bought the plug-in hub and know that Time Machine will continue to be my friend and, hopefully, I’ll get 5, 6, 7, maybe 8 years out of this machine.
I’m not looking to nit-pick about this. I’m just offering my observations of being one of a few Mac users in a sea of PC users. I know I pay more upfront (part of which is, no doubt a brand premium, like those who drive Mercs and Beemers and Jags – all of which are too rich for my blood) but, in comparison, I seem to have a more pleasant and longer ride.
-
I have been exclusively Apple for photography for a long time now. When I was working full time I was forced to use a PC, but thankfully those days are gone.
One of the great things about Apple was that if a machine failed, you bought a new one, plugged in the last TimeMachine backup and about 4 hours later you were back in business exactly how you were, with the same apps, users, passwords etc.
Now you buy a new machine and the operating system does not support my DAM, my accounting system, my Office programmes, my lighting system and a whole pile of other things.
The ports do not connect to my camera or my drives and it doesn't have a card slot. So instead of just putting the laptop in the camera bag I would need a stack of those little dongles.
I have bought two new computers in the last year and both of them were the previous years model for this reason. They were also half the price.
So I am just wondering what price will Apple pay to drag us along to the 64 bit, one plug tech that they apparently think that we need?
Apple doesn't pat any price, you do.
-
Is there any evidence of much greater longevity? I've had Windows and Unix servers in continuous operation for more than 10 years with no failures. They were removed from service because the newer machines were so much more efficient, not because the old machines had anything wrong with them.
I think you're highlighting the difference it makes when you carefully select which parts to use, most average people I assume if not buying a Mac would be getting a pre-built PC where the original complaint is probably more relevant.
-
I think you're highlighting the difference it makes when you carefully select which parts to use, most average people I assume if not buying a Mac would be getting a pre-built PC where the original complaint is probably more relevant.
These days, I do buy pre-built workstations and servers, from Dell. They let you specify the components from, in the case of the high-end workstations, a long list. I haven't noticed any tendency for them to cut corners when populating that list.
Jim
-
This is a tough topic. I've been a Mac tech in higher ed IT for 21 years, having first learned on Windows machines in the early '80s and Macs in the early '90s. As a visual person (photographer since 1974) I ended up gravitating toward the Mac and prefer it to this day.
I guess you can summarize by saying those of us who love the macOS are frustrated with the current hardware, and if we like the hardware, we are frustrated with the price. With Apple products you do indeed get a premier experience (except for the occasional keyboard issue and such, and maybe the OS itself it getting rushed and sloppy), but you pay the Apple Tax to participate.
Also, Apple does push the envelope in terms of moving forward with technology (tough love?). At this point none of us miss the floppy disk or CD/DVD drive, right? But the disappearance of everyday connection ports is a bit much, as is the obsoleting of still viable Apple hardware by new OS restrictions.
What to do? Many people say Apple's current offerings are underpowered and overpriced. The new Mac Pro (for Pro's only, it $eems) is certainly powerful, but $5-50+K, really? I suspect very few of us here will ever own one. So unless we are dealing with business write-offs, our realistic choices are more limited. The new Mac Mini (I have tested one with Maya and it seems to perform well) still gets poor reviews for its price/performance ratio. Otherwise it might be our go-to sweet spot.
Option 1:
Some of you mentioned preferring older Macs for onboard access to ports and perhaps better used pricing. BTW, you can run Mojave (and Catalina if you dare) on 2008 and newer Macs (Google "dosdude unsupported macs"). Just last evening I updated a Mojave installation with the latest Security/Safari update on a spare 2008 17" MacBook Pro. Even with only 4 gigs of RAM and an older small SSD installed, you'd think you were surfing the web on a current computer! Imaging apps are usable as well, though of course there will be speed issues there. So don't write off your older Macs yet.
Option 2:
Buy a used recent-model Mac (let someone else pay the Apple Tax). Enjoy that reliable Mac for the rest of its useful life.
Option 3:
Some of you mentioned using VMs above. I have a Snow Leopard VM on hand should the need arise, and routinely run Windows and Linux from my Mac this way (just because I can). If you dare you can run macOS from within Windows. So there is no need to lose all your 32-bit software, even on a newer mac with Catalina.
Option 4:
Build your own. This is common in the PC world. Mac users can take the Hackintosh route (for the near future at least) and get twice the performance for half the price, so long as you don't mind getting a bit geeky. I also have a triple-boot 2011 build Hackintosh for fun (Mojave, Win10 and Deepin Linux) that I actually end up needing to use for the odd task (recovering files from Linux-formatted NAS drives, etc.).
At this point, looking ahead to when I don't get toys at work and need something of my own better than the 2013 MacBook Air I use at home, I think I would choose the Hackintosh route. That way Win10 is there, Linux is there and macOS is there – on the upgradable hardware of my choice. Second option would be a used (current model) Mac Mini for the true "Apple experience" ;-)
-
I recently acquired an older version of Imageprint that needed 10.6 snow leopard to run it on my iMac (currently Mojave) and couldn't find a way to dual boot it with an older OS.
In the end I tried parallels running Windows which installed but seemed to have problems each time you attached the dongle or printer, getting confused if they wanted to talk to the Mac or the windows installation
So looks like I am going to have to run a separate PC to get it to work
Apple have opened the door to allow Windows back in !
-
Have you seen this?
https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/IMAGEPRINT%20FAQ%20for%20Catalina%20Update.shtml
Some cost is involved but it seems you have a way forward.
-
Have you seen this?
https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/IMAGEPRINT%20FAQ%20for%20Catalina%20Update.shtml
Some cost is involved but it seems you have a way forward.
I have seen this yes, unfortunately being based in the UK I would need to post the dongle to them and then back again, all costing USD 150. I also think that as my version of Imageprint is 8 then there's no upgrade path to the current ! Now this isnt really Apple's fault, however the version of the s/w does exactly what I want. I am struggling to get Colorbyte to tell me how much the upgrade will cost. If I was to buy from scratch I think I may have to pay UK duty on import and more shipping.
But Apple's policy means I cant run the older s/w on my machine.
The solution is to run a windows machine as well. Imageprint 8 is pretty efficient on memory and processor so thats the route it seems.
There is an opportunity for colorbyte to upgrade me and get the cash thats otherwise going to pay for the windows machine, but I am not sure they see it that way
-
Here's how my SL Server VM looks while running from a Mojave computer. Of course you will need to find the SL installer and a VM host (you said you tried Parallels; VirtualBox is free) to set this up.
How are you running a Mac app under Windows? Maybe you have both versions of Imageprint?
-
For me it is Windows for workstation and Mac for laptop. I haven't any any purpose built servers, but they would be Linux. I build my own workstation and can put together exactly what I want in performance for much less than a mac workstation - I have complete control. In the laptop space I think apple is on top albiet a bit expensive (but you get what you pay for I think - can't say that for Apple workstation or Windows laptop IMO).
One thing I really like about MacOS is that it is Unix based, for which I am fluent, and I can script a lot in Unix shells. Microsoft is catching up, though their Linux subsystem isn't as well integrated yet.