Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 267
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 267
New PowerBooks.

New PowerMacs.

And some really, really cool looking Pro Photography tool.

So my real question is, will a dual 2.5 Ghz, Dual Core PowerMac run MacMAME any faster than the older dual 2.7 Ghz?

I'm guessing not, but I just thought I'd ask.

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 16,679
Likes: 4
R
Very Senior Member
Online Content
Very Senior Member
R
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 16,679
Likes: 4
Huh. I thought the rumor was always that Apple wouldn't drop the Aperture bomb unless Adobe abandonded OSX.

As far as the quad 2.5 vs. the dual 2.7, all things being equal the old 2.7 will be faster. But the newer machines have better memory and video card bandwidth so that could make up the difference. It's really too close to call smile

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 105
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally posted by R. Belmont:
Huh. I thought the rumor was always that Apple wouldn't drop the Aperture bomb unless Adobe abandonded OSX.
Why should that matter? From what I can tell Aperture looks like a souped up iPhoto with specialized image editing aimed at digital photography. The closest thing Adobe has AFAIK is Adobe Bridge. And I believe Bridge is just an add-on image browser that's part of the CS2 suite. I think Photoshop would still be a necessity.

Adobe may make some real bloated junk these days (compared to a few years ago) but Photoshop is still king. If Apple has any plans to replace this they had better think long and hard about that. I could almost guarantee whatever new Mac users they got with the iPod "halo effect" they'd lose 3x that amount to PCs if Photoshop ever jumped the OSX ship.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 693
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 693
I think the focus of Aperture is different than Photoshop (pun not intended). It seems geared specifically towards professional photographers. Photoshop is a much more diverse application than that, and has become a graphics and illustration program as much as anything. So I suspect Aperture won't have an effect on Photoshop, any more than Motion did on After Effects. Motion is a very specific application that does what it does very well, but it's not a replacement or direct competitor for After Effects - it's more of an additional app that fills in a few gaps. Aperture seems to be the same type of thing.

Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, was meant as a competitor to Avid, and by extension Premiere (but without its many flaws), so it pretty much killed Premiere on the Mac. Premiere (unlike Photoshop and After Effects) was a weak, buggy app. It may be better now on the PC side, but Mac users don't miss it. We'd miss Photoshop and After Effects, and so would Apple. People buy a lot of Macs to run them.


AtariAge Blog
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 267
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 267
I don't think Apple has jeopardized it's relationship with Adobe at all, by releasing Aperture. PhotoShop is still the King of photo editing, and it looks like Aperture and PhotoShop could work quite nicely together.

BTW, I highly recommend checking out all of the Aperture video tours. Pretty impressive program... but somehow I think it will only look as good as it does in those demos on a shiny new G5 PowerMac with a 30" Cinema Display.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 693
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 693
Mmmmm... shiny.

And those 30" displays are cheaper now, too.


AtariAge Blog
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 49
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 49
Damn... I missed the display change... well, cut another $500 off of my 30" value... but I'll tell you... I for one can NEVER go back to a smaller screen....

It's the difference of seeing a movie in a theater or at home... in the theater you have to turn your head to see different parts of the screen... but at home you can see the whole picture at once... (well... in most cases..)

Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 907
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 907
Ditto. My 30" was a major extravagance, and arguably a waste of money, but I definitely get the use of it, and like MAMEDave I couldn't go back to something smaller.

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 231
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 231
When I bought he 23" it was too much... but well worth it.


-Mahuti

-------------------------------
localarcade.com
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 267
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally posted by mahuti:
When I bought he 23" it was too much... but well worth it.
Same here. I keep trying to justify getting a new 30" at work... but my ol' trusty 23" still looks pretty good.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 42 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Forum Statistics
Forums9
Topics8,879
Posts116,781
Members4,959
Most Online890
Jan 17th, 2020
Forum Host
These forums are hosted by www.retrogamesformac.com
Forum hosted by www.retrogamesformac.com