Apple Unveils New Pro Products

porcupine8 writes "As many had speculated, today Apple unveiled upgrades to their PowerBook and Power Mac lines (although no PowerBook G5). They also introduced a new professional photography application known as Aperture, rounding out their software lineup for creative professionals. Can't wait to find out what they announce next week!"

Comments

my take on the new PowerMacs

[Tumbleweed]

So the dual-core G5 finally arrived (with the top end machine having 2 of them), plus PCIe and 533MHz DDR2. I expected PCIe, but didn't expect DDR2. This is a very nice transition machine to wait for the Intel Macs.

Things to note:

All nVidia videocards, now -- one of which is a Quadro FX 4500 for $1650. Nice knowin' ya, ATI, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.

"In addition to the 16-lane graphics slot, the Power Mac G5 features three PCI Express expansion slots: two four-lane slots and one eight-lane slot. Each slot uses a standard connector that can accommodate a card of any size."

This mobo has better PCIe support than any other mobo I've heard about, by _far_. Crazy. 2 x4 slots and an x8? The new Fibre Channel Card seems to be an x4 PCIe, which is the first x4 card I've heard of. There are hardly any x1 cards, yet, either, and PCIe has been out quite a while.

Dual gigabit ethernet now, too, instead of just single. (they were just single before, right?)

The optional modem is now an external USB dongle style model, instead of an internal card. The end of an era. Good riddance.

I guess Apple finally stepped into the 'future.' :)

The bad:

Only SATA '1', no 'SATA2' (no such thing, really, but...).

Still only 2 internal HDs? C'mon - these are supposed to be workstations, Apple. Get with it.
I wants my internal RAID 10!

I'm definitely waiting for the Intel Macs, but for those who are opposed to the idea of an Intel Mac, these machines are about as sweet as one could ask for. The low-end PowerMac is now a 2gHz dual-core G5, which is pretty nice (and meets the recommended specs for their new application, Aperture, as long as you upgrade the hell out of the RAM).

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

Dual gigabit ethernet now, too, instead of just single. (they were just single before, right?)

  Yes.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Pfhor]

My one take away issue is the fact that a lot of audio card makers are having trouble getting high quality audio out of their PCIe cards. as mentioned here. Everybody else will start cranking out the 8 port SATA 2 cards soon (I don't think they have settled on that standard yet, have they?), looking around i've seen x1 firewire cards, but x4 multiport fw800s cards are sure to be in the works also.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the current PowerMacs DO NOT meet the minimum specs for Aperture. The graphics card included will all new PowerMacs (NVidia 6600, with either 128MB for the low/mid and 256MB for the high) is not listed as meeting the minimum requirements. The "lowest" NVidia card listed is the 9800.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[daveschroeder]

All nVidia videocards, now -- one of which is a Quadro FX 4500 for $1650. Nice knowin' ya, ATI, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.

...except that the new iMac, introduced just a week ago, uses ATI Radeon X600 and X600 XT PCI Express graphics.

They're not all the way out of the door yet. ;-)

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Tumbleweed]

Hmm, sort of true. The 9800 is an ATI, not nVidia, but you're right about the base videocards not meeting the recommended spec. I'd be willing to bet the requirements having the most affect on Aperture are memory and CPU speed (in that order), though who knows.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Also now avalable: ECC memory.

No self-respecting workstation went without it (same with the graphics cards), and finally, Apple has true workstations available, not just high end desktops priced like workstations.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I also noticed that the prices of 23" and 30" displays dropped, to $1299 from $1499 on the 23", to $2499 from $2999 on the 30".

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

"All nVidia videocards, now -- one of which is a Quadro FX 4500 for $1650. Nice knowin' ya, ATI, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out."

Yeah, at $1650 a pop I'm sure ATI is really worried it will steal all their business. Idiot...

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[hunterx11]

The nVidia 6600 is more comparable to an ATI X600, both of which are a generation beyond the ATI 9800 (and the nVidia 5900).

The nVidia 9800 does not exist.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[cei]

Have we reached the point where Creative Labs is now "a lot of audio card makers?" Because I thought they were only one. And not necessarily one that is the first that comes to mind when adding audio cards to a Mac...

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Tumbleweed]

The point was that _all_ the videocards on the PowerMacs are nVidia, now - not an ATI to be found.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Drakino]

All nVidia videocards, now -- one of which is a Quadro FX 4500 for $1650. Nice knowin' ya, ATI, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.

Woo. NVidia is making all the cards in the PowerMacs. ATI is still making the graphics chip in the iMacs, the Mac Mini, and all the laptops except the 12 inch Powerbook.

Apple has used products from both sides and continues to do so. Nothing changed here. NVidia lost the iMac, and ATI lost the PowerMac.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Pfhor]

very true. However, from my initial searches for pcie audio cards, I kept coming back to that article, through forum posts, etc.. Apparently everyone is waiting on PCIe audio cards, and creative so far has been the only company to provide an answer. Or atleast, has been in the 15 minutes of searching I have done.

m-Audio has nothing about PCIe on their sites from what i've found, unless you have other information you would like to offer.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[gnu-sucks]

I think this is an isolated incident. M-Audio had versions of the Delta-series cards immediately after it was announced Apple was going in this direction.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares, NVidia can take their stupid proprietary shit and shove it up their ass.

A FreeBSD/amd64 user.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

They require 2 GHz for Aperture??! You're kidding me! This is getting stupid. Apple needs to lighten the requirements of their software until they can release the new, cheaper Intel Macs. I can't afford to buy new hardware from them every 2 years! Oh, wait.... it's Apple.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[DurendalMac]

I think it was more a goof on Apple's part that it didn't make the list. The 9600 Pro is on there, yet the X600 and 6600 (both faster cards) are missing. It's an omission, nothing more.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[klui]

This mobo has better PCIe support than any other mobo I've heard about, by _far_.

I think Apple can do better by creating a space for the graphics card's fan. I still don't understand why mobo manufacturers continue to include a slot where in most cases people have video card fans that render that slot useless.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[MojoStan]

The nVidia 6600 is more comparable to an ATI X600, both of which are a generation beyond the ATI 9800 (and the nVidia 5900).

Actually, the Radeon X600's architecture is from the same generation as the Radeon 9600. The X600 is the PCIe version of the 9600. The generation beyond the 9600/X600 architecture is the X700.

I freakin' hate these inconsistent naming schemes. The Radeon 9200's architecture is the same as the Radeon 8500 (DirectX 8 for Windows users). The NVIDIA GeForce 4 MX uses the GeForce 2 architecure (no pixel/vertex shaders).

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[MojoStan]

Define "workstation."

That's not a challenge or insult. I've never been sure what to call the PowerMac G5 (desktop or workstation?) until today. Now I'd call it a workstation because they added support for ECC memory, workstation graphics cards (NVIDIA Quadro), and 4x/8x non-graphics PCIe slots.

Before today's updates, the PowerMac G5's could be called a "workstations" because they supported dual processors and PCI-X slots. Or maybe they were "desktops" because they didn't support ECC memory or workstation graphics cards (e.g. Quadro and ATI FireGL).

Of course, when Apple claimed the PowerMac G5 was the "world's fastest personal computer" and "world's first 64-bit desktop," they defined it as a "desktop" because dual-processor AMD Opteron workstations existed and were faster.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[ArbitraryConstant]

A G5's bus is 2x 32-bit unidirectional so they can't saturate the DDR2 bus, while two processors each with their own bus could have, so you take the latency hit without a bandwidth advantage.

Dual-core gives you most of the performance for a fraction of the price. Therefore, the performance hit relative to dual-single-core is usually worth it. However, Apple hasn't made the machines any cheaper. I'm sure their margins are much bigger, but it's not any better for us.

The only machine that's worth it is the dual-dual-core, but for anyone who doesn't need/doesn't want to pay for that, it's a really sad update.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[pohl]

...high quality audio...

That is not a phrase that comes to mind when thinking about Creative Labs, anyway. If you want quality audio, don't you really want a firewire audio-capture device instead?

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[pohl]

Good call. Do the new video cards have fans? The previous models came with fanless cards. Has that changed?

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[harlows_monkeys]

Also now avalable: ECC memory.

No self-respecting workstation went without it

As an experiment, for the last couple of months, I've left a process running at home, and one at work, that simply has a 128 MB buffer, filled with a simple data pattern. Every 60 seconds, it checks the buffer, to see if any of the data has changed. Because it is accessing it like this, it stays resident.

Result: no errors.

Based on the expected RAM error rates I was able to find by Googling, I expected to see several errors by now. However, all the published data I could find was a few years old, and presumably RAM has been made more resistant to error. Whatever the reason, experiment seems to say that ECC is not as necessary as some think.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Pfhor]

The delta series cards are PCI-X not PCI-Express, two different standards. I have yet to see any announcement about PCI-Express cards.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[pohl]

I called the apple store to ask about whether the new video cards have cooling fans or just passive heat-sinks...the answer is that all of the video cards offered have cooling fans. The technical representative that I spoke to was not able to comment on how much noise these new machines make compared to the previous line. He said that they've only known about the new machines for a few hours, and it usually takes a few days for the developer notes to get to the techies that answer the phones.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[sunwolf]

No, but they're not getting the dog or the kids either.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has to design the bridge chips for their PPC machines and that costs lots of money. (Just the mask set alone for a big chip is real expensive.) As this is a new generation of chips, they have to "pay off" that R&D over the life of the product. Workstation class machines don't sell in particularly huge numbers either. I suspect the margins aren't much different than the previous generation of G5 towers.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Goldfinger7400]

I'd be willing to bet aperture is heavily dependant upon video card performance, since it looks like it plays the heck out of Core Image and Quartz Extreme, something I was kind of expecting considering the massive improvements in the graphics framework with 10.4. It doesn't really seem like Aperture is a photoshop replacement, more like a Final Cut Pro for pictures as compared to linear editing setups. A very interesting idea actually.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[statusbar]

Although what you say may be true, your test is flawed with regard to SDRAM refresh. Try make it verify the memory once every day instead.

Jeff

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Qwerpafw]

Most high quality audio cards are extrenal, and use FW400 or FW800. The Digi002 is a great example of this--the 001 used a PCI card, but the 002 is Firewire.

Firewire carries all the bandwidth you need, and lets you put your audio interface in a rack or console where it belongs.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting the SDRAM refresh is different when the memory value is read more frequently than once a day? If failures would be expected when testing once a day why not when testing multiple times a day, only with greater successes between failures?

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Noehre]

None of the Delta cards are PCI-X.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

The better test is to run Prime95 (www.mersenne.org) in the background. See if you get errors while running that, because it's an extremely sensitive program with regards to finding marginal issues. (I don't remember if they have a Mac version.)

If you can run Prime95 for a month without getting an error, you're doing very well. I've used it to uncover timing errors that MemTest86(+) was not able to find.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[wulfhound]

Firewire is fine for bandwidth, but PCI and presumably PCIe beat it somewhat for latency.

There's a lot of PCI cards still in use for pro-audio work -- all the "big" Pro Tools systems run off PCI, for a start -- not to mention accelerators like UAD-1, Powercore etc.. if Magma (or somebody) don't come out with a PCIe-to-PCI bridge and external enclosure, these things won't fly for pro audio.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Anonymous Coward]

PCI-X-compatible PCI (notched for 3.3v operation). The sum total of the hardware modification involved a dremel or similar as far as I could tell.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[Golias]

If you want quality audio, don't you really want a firewire audio-capture device instead?

Bingo. I'm a big believer in keeping unshielded analog signals as far away from the inside of a computer as possible. External D/A break-out boxes are the way to go. My personal choice is the Mark of the Unicorn rackmount unit, which does a fine job for the price.

MOTU was aggravatingly slow about catching up with the OS X release as far as their drivers are concerned, but I'm not the type to hold a grudge.

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[statusbar]

Are you suggesting the SDRAM refresh is different when the memory value is read more frequently than once a day? If failures would be expected when testing once a day why not when testing multiple times a day, only with greater successes between failures?

YES. Reading a word in an sdram row triggers a refresh.
If the refresh mechanism is not operating properly you will not know it until you do not read the memory for quite a while.
--jeffk++

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[xouumalperxe]

add to that the iBooks and PowerBook models 15" and 17", and the Mac mini. Actually, it boils down to mostly ATi, except for the PowerMac!

Re:my take on the new PowerMacs

[ErikZ]

Dual-core gives you most of the performance for a fraction of the price.

Ah yes. Fractions like 2/1 and 3/1.

Details

[daveschroeder]

As usual, the submission leaves out critical details.

The new Power Mac G5 highlights include dual core G5 processors (IBM PowerPC 970MP), PCI Express, DDR2 RAM, and dual gigabit ethernet on all models:

Single 2.0, single 2.3, or dual 2.5 GHz dual-core IBM PowerPC 970MP (G5) processor
1.0, 1.15, or 1.25 GHz frontside bus per processor
512MB PC2-4200 DDR2 RAM, expandable to 16GB
160GB or 250GB Serial ATA drive
16x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive
Three open PCI Express expansion slots: two four-lane slots and one eight-lane slot
NVIDIA GeForce 6600, 6600 LE, 7800 GT, or Quadro FX 4500 video
Dual gigabit ethernet
USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394), FireWire 800 (IEEE-1394b)
AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Analog and optical digital audio in and out
Mighty Mouse (Two button scroll mouse)

The new PowerBook highlights include higher resolution screens, longer battery life, and standard SuperDrives:

1.67 GHz Freescale PowerPC 7458[1] (G4) processor, 512MB PC2700 DDR RAM, expandable to 2GB, 80GB or 120GB Ultra ATA/100 drive
8x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive
1440x960 (15") or 1680x1050 (17") resolution screen
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 with 128MB DDR SDRAM and dual-link DVI (supports 30" display)
Gigabit ethernet, 56K V.92 modem, PC Card slot
USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394), FireWire 800 (IEEE-1394b)
AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Illuminated keyboard
Analog and optical digital audio in and out
DVI/VGA/composite/S-Video out

Also new is the amazing pro photography software Aperture, as well as new lower pricing on Apple Displays.

I might as well send my writeup on last week's announcements as well, since the submission (and discussion) there were really light on info too...

---

iMac G5

A new, even thinner, iMac G5 with an integrated 640x480 iSight camera and integrated media center software called Front Row.

1.9 or 2.1 GHz IBM PowerPC 970fx (G5) processor
512MB PC2-4200 RAM, expandable to 2.5GB
160GB or 250GB Serial ATA drive
8x dual layer CD-RW/DVD+/-RW SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X600 Pro or XT PCI-Express video
Gigabit ethernet, USB 2.0, FireWire 400 (IEEE-1394)
AirPort Extreme (802.11g), Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
1/8" stereo audio or optical out, 1/8" line in
VGA/composite/S-Video out
Mighty Mouse (Two button scroll mouse)

The inclusion of PCI-Express and PC2-4200 RAM in the new iMac bodes well for the upcoming updates to the Power Macs and PowerBooks.

---

Front Row

Media center software currently only included with the iMac G5. Allows for seamless interface with music, movies, movie trailers, pictures, TV shows, and so on via either the iMac's screen or an external screen such as a projector or TV. Includes an infrared remote control. A demonstration of Front Row is available here.

It is likely that Front Row will make its way to other products in the near future, such as the Mac mini. It is only available for the iMac G5 "at this time", according to Apple.

The one feature of typical media centers that Front Row does not support is TV recording. But Apple seems to have a different idea for TV shows, as will be seen below. (However, TV recording can be accomplished with a wide variety of third party tuners.)

---

iPod (iPod video)

Apple introduced two new iPods to completely replace the existing "larger" iPods. The same height and width as the older i

Re:Details

[Thalagyrt]

I don't see the 7800 GT in their store at all, I wonder why they'd mention it in a press release but not make it an option? :|

Re:Details

[timeOday]

The new PowerBook highlights include higher resolution screens, longer battery life, and standard SuperDrives

I can't help but notice the omission of "faster processor" there, is there really no boost in speed? Yikes!

Re:Details

[Strider-BG]

Sons a Bitches! I just paid $1,499 for a 23" Cinema Display 2 weeks ago. Argh!

Does look sweet on my PD though - Running a 6800GT on my AMD box - LCD's are finally quick enough to not blur when playing FPS's and they're a lot easier on your eyes. not to mention it took my old 21" Trinitron about 10 minutes to warm up ;)

Re:Details

[daveschroeder]

If you're still within the return period on that display (wherever you bought it from, which you hopefully should be if it's only 2 weeks), I'd either:

1.) Get a price adjustment, or

2.) "Return" it, after all it's still within the return period, right? (assuming it is); then, re-buy it

Re:Details

[ek_adam]

I can't help but notice the omission of "faster processor" there, is there really no boost in speed? Yikes!

No, the Yikes PowerMac was the original 400MHz G4 Powermac revealed in August 1999.

;)

Re:Details

[timeOday]

400 MHZ back in 1999 to 1600 MHZ now in 2005, that's only a 32% speedup per year... whoda thunk?

Re:Details

[daviddennis]

You are, in fact, correct. There is no boost in speed. 1.67ghz yesterday, 1.67ghz today.

As someone who's quite likely to buy the 17" model, I can say that the increase in resolution was more important to me than the 0.2ghz increase in speed some people had anticipated. And the price decrease was certainly welcome.

Aperture looks fantastic, but I think they'd sell a lot more copies at $299 than $499. Ouch! I think it's comparable in complexity and sophistication to Motion, which also sells for $299, so I'm really disappointed by the price. Also, it lacks layers, although it does support non-destructive editing, so it can't serve as a substitute for Photoshop, although I'm quite sure that I'll prefer it to Photoshop for the things it can do. Since I work for an educational institution, I can and most likely will buy it at the $249 educational price, but as a hobby photographer I couldn't just ify $499, while I was able to justify $299 for Motion just fine.

D

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the laptop's fan still whine loud when hooked up a 23" CD?

Re:Details

[glynor]

NVIDIA GeForce 6600, 6600 LE, 7800 GT, or Quadro FX 4500 video The only video card options listed on the Apple Store currently are the 6600 and the Quadro FX 4500, which leaves quite a gap between low-end and high-end. Hopefully they will offer 7800-series cards, but they don't appear to be available currently.

Re:Details

[mindstrm]

Agreed. The sub-standard display has been the only thing keeping me from buying a powerbook.. though the fact that (if I read this right) optical audio out and dual-link DVI /128mb video are now standard on the 15" are also a bonus.

now as soon as they are in stock here, i'll walk out the door with one.
Thanks Apple.

Re:Details

[Bake]

Right, .... sort of.

As of yesterday, Apple offered two versions of the PowerBook series (at least the 15" and 12" or 17" too IIRC). The cheaper versions were at 1.5Ghz while the more expensive version was at 1.67Ghz.

In other words, they simply dropped the cheaper, only-barely slower versions.

Re:Details

[CRC'99]

This is all nice about upgrading the PowerBook specs, but have they fixed the problems with the damn SuperDrives!

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

The powermacs are also available with 500GB drives.

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know the difference between the Non ECC SDRAM and ECC? I'm looking at configuring my new PowerMac and not sure if I should go with the ECC. More expensive means good right? ;)

Re:Details

[Saeger]

Even the new lower $1,300 price for a 23" LCD is too damn much.

I'd recommend returning it ASAP and getting the Dell 24" (2405FPW), which beats the Apple Cinemas in many reviews. It can be had for under $800 after the recurring rebates. A $500 premium is hardly worth it just for Apple's stylish aluminum bezel.

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

It's error correcting. It's more of use to the scientific community than to Film/Photo/Music people.

Re:Details

[1010011010]

I have a $750 24" Dell Widescreen that's simply beautiful. I have my 1GHz powerbook connected via DVI, my Athlon/XP machine connected via D-SUB, my XBox connected via component in, and my DirecTV receiver connected via S-Video. That leaves a composite input unused. It also has a USB hub and card reader built in, and a nice stand that lets is mive up, down and all around (tilt, rotate, rise, fall). Also has PIP.

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, that is pretty funny. I paid just over $400 6 months ago for my Dell 2001FP.

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Aperture looks fantastic, but I think they'd sell a lot more copies at $299 than $499.

Well then, why don't you write your own knock off photo software and sell it for $299?

Re:Details

[jcr]

it can't serve as a substitute for Photoshop

That's not what it's for. Think more along the lines of "iPhoto Pro".

If Apple were to build a Photoshop competitor, I'd expect it to be based on Shake.

-jcr

Re:Details

[toddestan]

ECC is error correcting. If you don't know what it is, then you probably don't need it :)

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Are MACs that unreliable that they need memory that corrects it's own errors??

Re:Details

[suzerain]

I know, I know...fact-checking a joke is lame. But I had a Yikes! It was 350 Mhz. :)

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

I HAVE a Yikes! that's 400Mhz - if you remember, Apple release a few 400s before speed bumping all three machines down by 50Mhz - it was a real farrago.

Re:Details

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you so unreliable you can't capitalise Macs correctly?

Also, you wrote "it's" which means it is. Perhaps you need an error correcting browser.

Aperture info

[dogmatixpsych]

Aperture is geared toward professional photographers. It allows you to work directly with RAW files (as well as many other file types). It is similar to Googles Picassa but on steroids. It doesnt look like it will compete with Photoshop though at this stage. It is more of a basic organization and editing program. It looks pretty slick but has some fairly hefty system requirements.

Re:Aperture info

[Jsutton1027w]

If this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto?

Re:Aperture info

[Mikey-San]

It is similar to Googles Picassa but on steroids.

More accurately:

Aperture : Google's Picasa :: Final Cut Pro : iMovie

Re:Aperture info

[Omnieiunium]

From what I've read, Aperture is different from Photoshop.

Apple downplayed the competitive threat that Aperture potentially poses to Adobe's popular Photoshop software, describing it as "complementary" to Photoshop. "This is to do a whole different set of things," Schiller said in an interview. "There's been no software that does what aperture does."
From CNET

Re:Aperture info

[archdetector]

Aperture's feature set is different from Photoshop's, yes, but where they overlap is significant from a photographer's point of view. I'd say that 95% of what I do to photos is now covered by Aperture. I'll still need PS, but as of today it's been relegated to secondary importance, and will be much more easily replaced if something simpler/cheaper/better comes along. For people like graphic designers and digital artists, Aperture may only be a nice accompaniment to PS, but for photographers, this is huge. It's actually quite perfect.

Re:Aperture info

[mozumder]

It looks to use CoreImage for it's image processing, which would be cool, as that would mean it uses the GPU for image processing. The demo shows some very responsive image processing. My goddammed photoshop CS1 RAW import may take a day just to generate thumbnails from RAW files. I am so upgrading.

Re:Aperture info

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and it's complemntary in price too. Eeesh.

Well, I guess the pocket-heavy amateurs and some new pros will buy it.

Re:Aperture info

[rob_squared]

Yes, but if you take the finalized pictures to a printing lab, will they refuse to print because they look "too professional?"

Re:Aperture info

[shotfeel]

Looks to me like Apple showing what can be done with Core Image.

Re:Aperture info

[badasscat]

If this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto?

RAW workflow. Apple is calling this "the first of its kind" in that it can work directly on RAW images, but that's not true. I'm not sure if the parent poster really knew what he was talking about or not, but from looking through the features this has on Apple's web site, it does seem that Picasa 2.1 does pretty much the exact same things, and Picasa is free.

(There are probably things that Apple doesn't mention that people like me would consider pretty important, but I can only go by what's on their web site right now. I'm interested to learn more, as a real Photoshop-level app that can work straight on RAW files might be enough to get me to finally switch to Mac.)

It is highly desirable to work directly on RAW files, which as Apple says is "non-destructive", i.e. all of your original sensor data is still there. This is not the case when working with RAW files in Photoshop, which have to be rasterized even before they're actually opened. You can make basic adjustments in Adobe Camera RAW before the file is opened but to do real retouching, you have to rasterize and open in Photoshop itself.

Picasa will let you do editing and retouching on the RAW file, then export it after you've edited. But Picasa's tools are pretty basic. Apple might offer more, but under their "all the tools you need" sidebar on the web site, they just list the same stuff Picasa does and that even Adobe Camera RAW will mostly do. The real questions for me are:

a) does Aperture support layers?
b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching.
c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)

If the answers to all of these questions are "yes", I'm tempted. If the answers to any one out of the three are "no", then it's really a worthless app if you've got Picasa, and especially if you've already got a combination of Picasa and Photoshop. (So you can use Picasa for images that need only light retouching, and Photoshop for the heavy stuff that Aperture wouldn't be suited for either.)

Of course, both Apple and Adobe will probably improve their products to compete with each other as time goes on. I would love to see true RAW support in Photoshop itself and I would love to see more features in Aperture. Adobe has had no real serious competition in pro image editing for a good while up to now.

Re:Aperture info

[Anonymous Writer]

this is just an organization and editing program, then how is this any different than iPhoto?

I thought it would be an Apple version of Photoshop, until I read the details. Adobe dropped Premiere for OS X because of Final Cut Pro, so I thought that it was all that all over again. But it does seem like a fancier "Pro" version of iPhoto.

Re:Aperture info

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't answer your other questions, but it does have a heal tool. It's demonstrated in one of the (really well done) quick tours.

What do you need layers for? It's not an image manipulation tool like photoshop, it's complimentary though.

Re:Aperture info

[XMetal2001]

I'm usually not too intrigued by Apple's offerings, but I like the looks of this.

Re:Aperture info

[b17bmbr]

what, is this some SAT joke? Why don't we just say linux:desktop :: windows:servers

</humor>

Re:Aperture info

[MilSF1]

a. Doesn't look like it - it supports flattened PSD files. I think Apple is wanting you to use this before you get it into Photoshop, or if you don't need to touch up an image THAT much.

b. "With its Spot tool, Aperture provides one-click, nondestructive removal of spots, dust, and blemishes. For more serious anomalies, Aperture packs a Patch tool. It can easily clone pixels from one area to another, and it offers precise controls (for softness, radius, opacity, and angle), letting you create perfect, seamless blends." (http://www.apple.com/aperture/process/)

c. Couldn't find it either

Look at the default metadata categories that it offers - EXIF, IPTC, Photo Specs, Photojournalism, Stock Metadata, Wedding. It looks like Apple is aiming at the photographer who goes back to the hotel after a day of shooting, chooses his 80-90 shots he wants, does quick touch-ups on a dozen or so and sends them off to an editor or wire service to pick which one to run. It can be Photoshopped later if it needs to be.

Re:Aperture info

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in that free country called America :D

Re:Aperture info

[samkass]

I'm not clear on whether you've already reviewed Apple Aperture site at:
Tech specs: http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs.html
Quicktime tours: http://www.apple.com/aperture/quicktours/
Screenshots: http://www.apple.com/aperture/gallery/

It looks like the answers might be:
a) no (I don't see any evidence of overlays. For experimenting, instead of working on a layer it just keeps every version you've created, like a version-control system)
b) yes (Dust, spot, blemish, red-eye, patch tools, and Lift and Stamp tool to copy and paste adjustments)
c) Doesn't say, but they definitely are pushing the RAW support hard, so probably yes

It looks like the real power of this app is workflow, not necessarily per-image features. The "stacking", tools, loupe, "lightboard" UI, integration with Automator (MacOS X's system-wide scripting), and similar attention to workflow issues. The Automator support seems like it could be especially interesting, since you can control many applications and integrate them with a Aperture workflow, and create a single script for photo operations, file, network transfer, searches, etc.

It seems more like an iPhoto-on-steroids, and something you'd want to add to a Photoshop-like app, rather than something that could replace the creative content creation apps.

Re:Aperture info

[modecx]

Once you've set your exposure, adjusted curves and stuff, then have exported or rasterized from the RAW file, is this really different than having all of your operations work directly on RAW? I mean, that's the purpose of the digital negative, right? Once you've extracted the information in a way that you find aesthetically and technically pleasing, then you can go on and do your stuff like you normally would. I don't see a real benefit to operating directly on the raw file, except to move step one to the end of all your steps. Super high resolution drum scans are good enough to import as a 24 bit TIFF, I hardly see operating on a few megapixel files in this manner as a groundbreaking improvement.

Re:Aperture info

[dr.badass]

is similar to Googles Picassa but on steroids.

I think maybe Apple's own iPhoto might be a better comparison. It blows both right out of the water, though.

It doesnt look like it will compete with Photoshop though at this stage. It is more of a basic organization and editing program.

I am not a professional photographer, but I think it's more than competitive with Photoshop for that market already. Dispite the name, Photoshop isn't especially tailored for photographer's workflows. Aperture is, and I can definitely see people who don't need Photoshop's other editing capabilities making the switch. Just as they did with their last new pro product, Motion, they've created something that doesn't quite resemble anything else out there.

It looks pretty slick but has some fairly hefty system requirements.

I find the reason why to be really interesting. Instead of making duplicate copies for your edited photos (as you would with most tools), Aperture just stores the CoreImage filter settings for each version, and re-applies them to the original when you view them. It just saves "the diffs". But instead of having to actively re-render the filters each time you want to make a change, as you would with Photoshop, you can just adjust the filter's settings in realtime (or close enough to realtime). In other words, CoreImage is the shit, and it requires some decent hardware to run at a respectable rate.

Re:Aperture info

[Anonymous Coward]

if you have a real digital camera you dont worry about RAW format.

mine records into RGB TIFF files. uncompressed standard photo format. none of that RAW crap that is useless because the camera maker is too selfish to use a standard.

and yes kids, it's a PRO digital SLR.

Re:Aperture info

[Cyclon]

So go to a professional printing lab instead of the local Mega-Mart.

Re:Aperture info

[arloguthrie]

Uh, no. If you have a real digital camera and you want REAL control over your images, you use RAW. That TIFF file has been processed by the camera already. The RAW file is unprocessed -- working with RAW is the digital equivalent of working in a darkroom with a negative -- you have lots of choices in how to process the image. Though I do agree with you that there needs to be a RAW standard. Check out OpenRAW. I should point out that one piece of software that's incredibly similar to the Aperture is Bibble, which is also a non-distructive RAW workflow application. I find the interface to be kind of clunky, but Bibble works well. MUCH cheaper than Aperture, and also available for Windows and Linux in addition to Mac. (Full disclosure: the creator of Bibble is my girlfriend's brother-in-law.)

Re:Aperture info

[Moofie]

"creative content creation apps"

Wow, like you get from the Department of Redundancy Department?

Snark snark...

Re:Aperture info

[mr_zorg]

It doesnt look like it will compete with Photoshop though at this stage.

Nor is it meant to. As you yourself said, it's geared towards professional photographers, not graphics artists. A professional photographer, in all likelyhood, is going to do little more to their photos than crop, color correct, and perhaps apply some filters. Now, the graphics artist they give it to to compose that magazine cover, on the other hand, will of course use photoshop...

Re:Aperture info

[joranbelar]

</humor>

The mods will be the judge of that, thanks ;)

Re:Aperture info

[b17bmbr]

alright then:

<humor attempt="yes">

Re:Aperture info

[CatOne]

I don't believe Aperture *HAS* to support layers. Because it keeps a record of the manipulations that you do, and CoreImage dynamically does them on the fly, and shows you the file with the updates applied. CoreImage uses the GPU so it's fast enough that you don't actually have to save the effects, as layers.

The huge bonus there would be in this for me is... a 10 MB RAW file ends up being a 150-500 MB .PSD document with 10 layers and sharpening applied. Which is freaking ridiculous, and absolutely KILLS the machine. CoreImage should give you about 90% more disk space for your RAW files... as it seems Aperture keeps 2 files (one is the original RAW, and one's the updated one with data about the effects).

The answers to your other two questions are a definite yes.

Re:Aperture info

[Zane Edwards]

I was talking about this with a photographer friend of mine and yes, photoshop is not made for people who just need to get the prints to their clients. Aperture will. But the question is, and this was not answered yet, but years of using photoshop and knowing the key commands and being able to do things without even looking at the keyboard will be the reason people stay with PS.

Re:Aperture info

[milkman_matt]

More accurately:

Aperture : Google's Picasa :: Final Cut Pro : iMovie

Or maybe..

Aperture : iPhoto :: Final Cut Pro : iMovie ....?

Re:Aperture info

[dogmatixpsych]

Aperture works with Tiff files too. Apple just hypes the RAW format because there are not as many programs that manipulate RAW files as there are that manipulate TIFF. TIFF has been around for a long time. I used to use Photoshop back in the early 90s and work with TIFFs. RAW is just a newer format that is only becoming big with the boom of prosumer digital cameras (although RAW is finding its way into purely consumer cameras). I just brought it up mainly because Apple makes a big deal of it.

Re:Aperture info

[bay43270]

But instead of having to actively re-render the filters each time you want to make a change, as you would with Photoshop, you can just adjust the filter's settings in realtime (or close enough to realtime)

This doesn't really contradict your post, but I thought I'd clarify: Photoshop does have adjustment layers which act similarly to Aperture's non-destructive editing. But since they were 5 or 6 versions into their product before they thought of non-destructive editing, they still use destructive editing for the bulk of their processing (filters are a good example). Also, Photoshop rasterizes the RAW image on import (via camera raw), so using an adjustment at that point is just non-destructivly editing the rasterized copy of the RAW image.

Apple has the huge advantage of hindsight over Adobe. Microsoft has used that same advantage to create a tool that supports both rasters and vectors (both the simple Illustrator kind and the complicated Painter kind). It will be interesting to see how the market shakes out over the next couple years.

Re:Aperture info

[jcr]

a) does Aperture support layers?

It will preserve the layers in PSD files, but its own editing doesn't really fit that description. Aperture keeps a list of operations to apply to the original image.

b) does Aperture have a clone tool/healing brush/patch tool? These are the tools I use most often for actual retouching.

Yes.

c) does Aperture support 16 bit images? (My guess is it would pretty much have to in order to truly support RAW, but I don't think they specifically say it does anywhere.)

Even better: Aperture uses Core Image, so it works in floating point.

-jcr

Re:Aperture info

[mblase]

It looks to use CoreImage for it's image processing, which would be cool

If I read their website correctly, the best thing about using CoreImage for processing is that they can store multiple versions of edits to photos without actually saving a copy of the photo--just a datafile of the changes made.

Of course, you can only do limited editing this way, but Aperture isn't supposed to do Photoshop's job and probably never will.

Re:Aperture info

[stripes]

So go to a professional printing lab instead of the local Mega-Mart

Yeah, but if you have already done all the color tweaking and left nothing for a pro lab to do why would you want to pay pro lab prices?

What you really want is something in between, like a ritz camera or other mass-market photo place that is still a real photo place. Then you can say "you have a fuji frontier 370 right? I've balanced the color for that, so print it as is please" and not have to worry about them undoing your hard work by pressing "auto balance" without even looking at the picture first!

Re:Aperture info

[samkass]

Not all creations are created equally creatively.

Re:Aperture info

[moosesocks]

what, is this some SAT joke? Why don't we just say linux:desktop :: windows:servers

Not anymore.

Analogies have been removed from the SAT

Re:Aperture info

[moosesocks]

No, no, no. You've got it all wrong.

First off, comparing it to picasa is heresy. The target audiences are COMPLETELY different, and Picasa lacks many of the features geared twoard pro photographers. The tools for comparing several shots at once is definitely a boon to pro photographers as is the speed at which the program operates.

This program is not meant to replace photoshop by any means. Apple openly acknowledges that PS is the king of image post-processing. aperture is inttended to work alongside photoshop as a means of processing RAW images. The type of manipulations that are performed while in RAW are completely different than those that you'd normally use in a program like photoshop or picasa. Cloning/healing/patch are distinctly post-processing operations that modify the content of the image itself. What aperture does is modify the manner in which the image is diasplayed (ie. it changes how it interprets sensor data to boost saturation, exposure, reduce noise, etc.).

It can be compared most easily to Adobe Bridge or Camera RAW. Camera RAW works fairly nicely with photoshop for processing small batches of images, but is cumbersome for processing large jobs. Bridge is a complement to camera RAW in that it provides an interface for organizing photos ala. iPhoto. What aperture aims to do is to intergrate the two into one seamless program. Many pro photographers use iPhoto and the likes to organize photos, simply because it's very easy to use despite lacking some major features.

By non-destructive, I'm pretty sure apple means that they save a set of 'instructions' as to how you've modified the photo, instead of modifying the photo itself.

I'm not saying the proram is any good. I've never used it, and I don't think anyone else here has. All I'm saying is that it looks fairly unique thus far. There's really nothing quite like it on the market (save for some of the super-high-end tools from extensis and the like)

I predict that apple's next move will be to expand aperture or add another program to compete directly with photoshop. You can tell apple's nervious of adobe's loyalty to their platform. As much as I love Photoshop, I'd love to see some real competition.

Re:Aperture info

[shmlco]

Yeah, but if you have already done all the color tweaking ... then why go to a consumer lab that's bound to mess up all your hard work?

Re:Aperture info

[shmlco]

A major difference, however, lies in the fact that PS has to read the file, then you add the adjustment layer, and THEN you get to save the file as a PSD (assuming you want to stay non-destructive). And if we're talking RAW, we're talking some LARGE files here. Especailly if we're batch processing a set of images.

Aperture, OTOH, keeps the RAW image, and seems to store (somewhere) the adjustments to it. No large copies of large files hanging around.

Re:Aperture info

[shmlco]

One should watch assumptions. The Canon 1Ds, for example, saves its RAW data in a .TIF file format, split into meta data, a thumbnail, and the raw data.

Re:Aperture info

[lucas teh geek]

pass on this feedback to your gfs brother in law about the osx version of his software. it:
a: doesnt need an installer
b: doesnt need an installer that requires admin password
c: doesnt need to be installed in its own folder in the root partition. whats wrong with just draging the .app into the applications folder like everything else

Re:Aperture info

[geoffspear]

I'd imagine that the only reason any of them would do so is fear that they're helping you violate some professional photographer's copyright, not because they're worried that professionals are taking advantage of their cheap printing.

If so, just include an equally profesional looking shot of yourself in the mirror taking the picture on each roll.

I don't suppose you're using a 1.1 megapixel camera because you're afraid your photos will look too good to get them printed otherwise, are you?

Re:Aperture info

[b17bmbr]

holy is to shit as , hell, nevermind...

No PowerBook G5

[Mikey-San]

"Although, no PowerBook G5."

Were you asleep during the Intel announcement?

Everyone who actually thinks there will be G5 PowerBooks at this point, please stand up.

Crickets?

Re:No PowerBook G5

[s4ck]

Everyone who actually thinks there will be G5 PowerBooks at this point, please stand up.

*not standing up*

still.
Just would like to point out that not many people actually thought apple would released the ipod/itune video feature last week.

i'm not saying.. it's just that apple has treated us with some golden suprises this year.

who knows? really...

Re:No PowerBook G5

[kitzilla]

Everyone who actually thinks there will be G5 PowerBooks at this point, please stand up.

Crickets?

No, even the crickets are sitting this one out.

I'm ready for a new laptop, and these are very nice machines. But I'll nurse my iBook alsong until Intel. Those PowerMacs, though: wow. Well worth buying TODAY. If this is a peek at the next generation of Macs, they're going to be both muscular and modern.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[nuggetman]

Just would like to point out that not many people actually thought apple would released the ipod/itune video feature last week.

The two scenarios are completely different
The iPod is a continuing product line that isn't going away soon, massive upgrades are expected
the PowerPC line is nearing its end starting middle of next year - they wouldn't launch a completely new PowerBook line to kill it in under a year

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I'm amazed anyone is actually planning on buying ANY Apple hardware based on the obsolete PowerPC architecture. I know I'm kind of pissed I got stuck with a 1.67 GHz G4 Powerbook that I bought at the end of May before I knew they were switching to Intel.. otherwise I would've just waited an extra year for a shiny new Intel-based Powerbook. Hopefully I'll get at least 2 years of service out of this laptop before I have to junk it though... you never know when software vendors will just up and decide to drop PPC support completely. Could be next summer, could be a year after that, but they will do it.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Nuclear Elephant]

The Powerbooks didn't get a whole lot of anything this time around. Better resolution and a dual layer dvd appear to be the only real changes. The processor speed is the same. The max ram is the same. The hard drive is 20MB larger, but it's also slower (5400rpm vs. the 7200rpm drive in my Rev-D 17"). Certainly not worth upgrading. I suspect they did this only to push inventory.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[busman]

Hell, I'm amazed anyone is actually planning on buying ANY Apple hardware based on the obsolete PowerPC architecture.

Hell no! My bet is that you have this the wrong way round, tell me any mac head who would not sell his mother to get his hands on a G5^4@2.5!! That a few 100,s worth of sales at least!

Don't forget that the G5 desktop is for the PRo market. My guess is that sales to this sector will be significant.
Many may feel that this is the time to upgrade there work machines to maybe the ultimate PowerPC Mac ever!

Don't forget that the move to intel will not be without issues. I think that people will be slow to make the switch and are more likely to invest serious money now.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[WMD_88]

Apple has never, until today, offered a 7200rpm hard drive in a PowerBook. You are either mistaken or you put the drive in yourself.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us actually use our computers for WORK, rather than just wanking over. My new dual core PM G5 will have paid for itself long before the Intel PMs arrive.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Nuclear Elephant]

On second glance, you are right. This has a 5400rpm. So at least it's not a downgrade, but it's certainlly not much of an upgrade either.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[aliensporebomb]

Not to mention: I needed to upgrade in June. My G4 400 was literally
starting to fall apart. Years of 24x7 use had taken its toll, the power
supply was failing, the DVD-ROM drive had died and the ability to do
serious work was crippled by the fact that the CPU had stayed the same
yet six years had passed and newer versions of applications I used for
audio work were having increasing cpu demands.

The fact remains - with the cross platform capability of the Xcode
compiler there will be PowerPC apps for years to come.

I'll eventually upgrade but I'm good for at least another five to six
years if I really want to hold out.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[samkass]

My guess is the last generation of G5 PowerMacs will hold a price premium for awhile as people prefer the "best of a generation" rather than the 1.0 version of something new. And professionals really can justify the ROI on the G5's rather than wait a year for something whose specs are unclear.

As for the PowerBook, I suspect the Intel-switchover will hit them hardest since Apple no longer offers any high-end laptops, but fortunately they're widely expected to be among the first to switch to Intel.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Mr. Underbridge]

The Powerbooks didn't get a whole lot of anything this time around. Better resolution and a dual layer dvd appear to be the only real changes. The processor speed is the same. The max ram is the same. The hard drive is 20MB larger, but it's also slower (5400rpm vs. the 7200rpm drive in my Rev-D 17"). Certainly not worth upgrading. I suspect they did this only to push inventory.

I bought my powerbook a year and a half ago, and on a clock speed comparison it's 75% as fast as these new ones (1.25 vs 1.67). That's really not very impressive as far as improvement goes. I must say I have some buyer's remorse after getting my iPod mini in early August (Doh!), but I'm smiling a lot more than the people who've been waiting for G5 Powerbooks all this time.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[admactanium]

Hell, I'm amazed anyone is actually planning on buying ANY Apple hardware based on the obsolete PowerPC architecture.

you're looking at it from the wrong way. i'm a professional art director/graphic designer and i ordered a quad core this morning when i woke up. a lot of small studios and pro who aren't on a strict purchasing schedule have been waiting a very long time for this machine. the reason being, we all know the intel transition is coming. i would be one of the first early adopters of it IF i knew that my needed graphics apps were going to be ported quickly and the bugs of the processor transition were squashed. but since we don't know really when the all the apps will be ready, we need a machine that is future-proofed for a couple of years.

i'm looking for a machine to last me for probably two to three years. it's likely i won't switch to the intel platform until the second generation and i bet a lot of other pros are waiting it out as well. ppc is a known quantity and familiarity and predicability are very important when you rely on your computer and third party apps to make a living. so i'll stick on ppc until i KNOW that all the issues are worked out on intel. a quad 2.5 machine is the perfect machine to tide me over until macintel gen 2.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[jellomizer]

Well there is no real reason not to buy PowerPC Systems now. Sure Apple is coming with Intel systems in a few more months. But software will probably stay as a Fat binary for 5 to 8 more years (Plenty of time to let your G4 or G5 get really out of date) and much of the existing products now are for PowerPC anyways and it will take 2 to 3 years before almost any software you get will be Fat Binary or Intel Only.
While myself I am waiting for the Intel Powerbook, but I have a 667mhz Powerbook with a Gig of RAM (A lot of RAM for a Notebook Computer in early 2002) while it is starting to show signs of its age it still runs almost anything I give to it (Minus the latest and greatest games). if I was on a 333mhz powerbook with like 256 megs of RAM I may have go for a nice 17" model right now. I am not even planning on Jumping on the first intel Powerbook Ill probably wait for generation 2 or so.
But it is not a bad decision to get a Shiny new G4 Powerbook now if you want a new computer go for it. No matter when you buy a computer the next month it will be out of date.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not much of a professional if you can't be bothered to use capital letters appropriately. You write like a thirteen-year-old illiterate punk. Please fuck off.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[nunchux]

Hell, I'm amazed anyone is actually planning on buying ANY Apple hardware based on the obsolete PowerPC architecture.

Let's count the reasons why I'm planning on staying with PowerPC...

- I have thousands of dollars worth of PowerPC software. It does exactly what I need it to do and will continue to do so. I am not looking forward to upgrading to a dozen new versions, especially if the only major improvement will be that it runs on the new processor.

- It's never the best idea to buy the first version of Apple anything. I'm not going to pay a premium to be Apple's guinea pig. Let someone else work out the kinks, I'm stick with the rock-solid last generation.

- This is just a guess, but I have the feeling Intel Macs may have embedded DRM that will prevent certain grey-area activities (ahem, DVD ripping or running cRaCkEd ApPz)... In a couple years we could be lamenting the freedom we had with the PowerPC. We also don't know if they will be more susceptible to viruses and malware.

- Most likely, when the Intel Macs are released you'll be able to pick up refurb or leftover PowerPC systems with full warranty at a deep discount. This $3,299 Quad G5 is going to cost 1/2 to 2/3 as much, or possibly even less on the day the announce the Intel Powermac.

Bottom line, I'm waiting to make the switch until I have to-- like when a new version of Final Cut comes out with a feature I desperately need.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[jcr]

I have thousands of dollars worth of PowerPC software. It does exactly what I need it to do and will continue to do so.

It will do so on an Intel Mac, as well. Rosetta is really fast.

-jcr

Re:No PowerBook G5

[IntlHarvester]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Why would you shell out for an upgraded machine if your plan is to run your main production software in emulation? Rosetta may be "really fast (for MS Word)", but I would be floored if it could run Photoshop faster than any G5 or even the late model G4s.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm a professional art director/graphic designer and i ordered a quad core this morning when i woke up

Apple announced their products at 1 PM.

You're a professional art director and you wake up at 1 PM?

Re:No PowerBook G5

[barzok]

He didn't specify what timezone he lives in. He could very well have woken up at a "reasonable" hour when it was 1 PM where the announcement was made.

Or, he could work a late/night shift and sleeps till Noon because he's at work till 3 AM.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Professor_UNIX]

Hell no! My bet is that you have this the wrong way round, tell me any mac head who would not sell his mother to get his hands on a G5^4@2.5!! That a few 100,s worth of sales at least!

I was very excited to get a Dual 2GHz G5 Powermac at work.. until I powered it on and played around with it for a few minutes. Then I started wondering WTF it was making these weird chirping noises whenever there was a lot of video on screen or the processor was working extra hard (Virtual PC, etc.). Turns out quite a bit of people had this same problem with strange noises emanating from their "Pro" equipment. Don't get me wrong, I love it to death, but I could certainly do without these strange high frequency noises it makes when the screen savers come on or I'm moving windows around.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[Macgrrl]

the 15" and 17" have a BTO option to install a 120Gb 7200 rpm HDA

Re:No PowerBook G5

[falconwolf]

I'm ready for a new laptop, and these are very nice machines. But I'll nurse my iBook alsong until Intel.

I'd prefer to get a new laptop now, and am planning on getting a 17" Powerbook around New Years, rather than wait several more months to get an Intel Powerbook. Now if Intel Powerbooks were to come out by say February then I'd wait so I could compare then to G4 laptops. I'd like to wait but I can use a laptop now. If I had a usable laptop less than say two years old then I would wait but the last one I had I got a few years ago. At it didn't last long before the LCD cracked.

Falcon

Re:No PowerBook G5

[falconwolf]

Apple has never, until today, offered a 7200rpm hard drive in a PowerBook. You are either mistaken or you put the drive in yourself.

As I've been planning on getting a Powerbook I've been checking Apple's website to check on prices and they've listed hd for Powerbooks at 7200 rpm for a long tyme.

Falcon

Re:No PowerBook G5

[WMD_88]

Eh? I've never seen that. They were 4200/5400 on the 2004 models, and "5400rpm drives standard" on the just-discontinued ones. I never saw 7200 even as an option. Until today.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[xjerky]

Holy Crap! I only just started noticing that happening to my dual 1.8 G5 workstation at work! I was wondering what the hell that was! I particularly heard it while I dragged windows around. So I'm not going crazy!

Re:No PowerBook G5

[admactanium]

Apple announced their products at 1 PM. You're a professional art director and you wake up at 1 PM?

i'm a freelancer and i work from home or from a client's office depending on the situation. i'm not booked this week and am just working on a personal project. i woke up at 9am PST today and ordered a machine. would you like to know what i had for breakfast? if you want to see my experience, i have a hyperlink right there next to my name. thanks for caring though.

Re:No PowerBook G5

[SteeldrivingJon]

" you never know when software vendors will just up and decide to drop PPC support completely"

Why would they do that, when most of their hardware is PowerPC, and supporting both platforms is pretty easy?

Powerbook Resolution

[rjstanford]

Finally Apple has upped the resolution on their powerbooks to something more reasonable (at least, reasonable to me - other people have different requirements). Whoops, no, I tell a lie, its only on their 15" and 17" models. The 12" i^HpowerBook is still at 1024x768. If this had been equally increased, I'd be very happy. As it is, the form factor is perfect but the resolution just too limiting for it to be my standard road machine.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

As it is, the form factor is perfect but the resolution just too limiting for it to be my standard road machine.

I guess Apple didn't get your TPS report. Did you include the cover sheet?

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Thu25245]

The 12" i^HpowerBook is still at 1024x768

And it's hard enough to read at that resolution. Trust me, I have one, and I use an external monitor to take some of the burden of of my eyes. Remember, a Mac has traditionally rendered 1point=1pixel.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[tang]

"And it's hard enough to read at that resolution. Trust me, I have one"
Amazingly, different people have different needs, and evidently different levels of eyesight. I have a 12" powerbook, and the only issue I have with it is the 1024x768 resolution just isn't high enough. I have no problems reading it. I currently have "text size" in safari as low as it will go, and I can read everything just fine.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Drakino]

Mac monitors haven't been 1 printed point = 1 display pixel for a long time. It was a big deal back when the first Mac came out with a 72 dpi screen that you could hold a ruler up to and have it match documents. However, things have greatly changed past 1984,

Recently, most Apple screens hovered around 100 dpi except for the 14 inch iBook. dpi on monitors continues to increase, and operating systems are having a hard time keeping up. Windows XP and OS X Tiger don't scale overly well currently. Both have the underpinnings to do it, and show signs that Vista/Leopard will do a much better job.

Printers are also widly varried, though a direct dpi compairson can't be made since a computer monitor can display many colors with one pixel, where as a printer is limited to usually 4 or so colors per pixel. More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpi

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[X_Caffeine]

I've been waiting for better Powerbook screens for years, and was initially pretty relieved too. But wait -- Dell still pwns them with 1680x1050 15" screens... oh well.

word to those with poor eyesight: stop whining. Tiger shipped with support for resolution-independent UIs, Apple is just waiting for application developers to update their apps to support it before "turning it on" in 10.5.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[libra-dragon]

I noticed that Apple has added mention of "lid-closed operation" of the Powerbook when an external monitor is connected.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[fafaforza]

You can't run OSX on a Dell, and Windows stinks so much, I am thinking of dumping my ThinkPad for this PowerBook, as good as it is hardware wise.

As far as the resolution, I've always hoped they'd bump up the resolution. It isn't just about font size. The screens made movies and images look great, but text always looked a little blurry. Text on my Thinkpad's 1400 resolution looks much better than the old PowerBooks, and for me, the improved screen could be a good enough reason to jump the sinking Windows ship. I will miss the ThinkPad though -- it is a solid machine. If only IBM had an OS to support it.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[rjstanford]

1440x960 is good enough for me on a 15" - close enough to what I'm used to on my old Dell laptop (14" 1400x1050). If I could just jump to, say, 1280x1024 on the 12"... Of course, there's absolutely no reason why they couldn't offer two different screens as a BTO option and satisfy both the 100dpi and 120dpi camps, which would get the vast majority of people out there.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Thu25245]

Mac monitors have always rendered one point = one pixel. Always. To this day, in Tiger, 1px=1pt.

Let's get some terminology straight beforehand
pixel = smallest uniquely controllable element on a screen
point = unit for font measurement
dot = smallest uniquely controllable visual element of anything (printer, screen, etc.)
inch = unit for linear measurement; equal to 2.54cm

The original Mac was designed so that 1pixel=1dot=1point=1/72 of an inch. Software, displays, and printers all agreed to this. Worked well in '84.

Today, on, say, a 12" PowerBook, 1pixel=1point=1/106 of an inch on the screen.
  But in the software, 1pixel=1point=1/72". Still. To this day.

The difference between 1/106 and 1/72 is exactly the problem that the resolution-independent UIs in Leopard/Vista are attempting to solve.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[WMD_88]

They've had that for a while. Definately with the previous generation, and probably further back than that.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[mmkkbb]

I wonder why. That's not a new thing, although my current pbg4 does require me to wiggle my external mouse to come back from sleep.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Thu25245]

Amazingly, different people have different needs, and evidently different levels of eyesight.

What's even more amazing is that nobody at Apple realizes this. I'm just glad that they're not under the impression that everyone is as sharp-eyed as you.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[austad]

Yesterday I was thinking about this. What if you could find a 12" screen that was higher resolution and would fit in a 12" powerbook? Would the card support the higher resolution?

Does anyone know what maker/model of lcd is in it? I'll pony up the cash to try it out if they have one the same size but better resolution.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[AugstWest]

I like the 12", it's eminently portable, it's very nice for wandering around and working wherever I go, but when I sit down at my desk I just do dual-head out to a 21" LCD. I leave Thunderbird running on the 1024 screen, and occcasionally drop other things over onto it, but most of the apps sit on the 1280x1024 LCD.

I've always been a big real estate freak, and if I couldn't go dual-head when it counted, I'd be singing a different tune, but for a portable, 1024 is fine.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[AugstWest]

Why not use both?

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[argent]

I definitely agree. They still don't have as good a keyboard as the Thinkpad, and the Ultrabay is still a killer capability (though I'd happily give up the 1/10" advantage in thickness the new slim Ultrabay gives you in exchange for continued compatibility with older devices). Plus the 1-button mouse and the stupid illuminated keyboard (IBM has a grain-of-rice LED in the lid that illuminates the WHOLE keyboard instead of just outlining the keys).

Apple and IBM *did* get together on one of their early laptops. Maybe they can partner with Lenovo when they go Intel?

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Try 1920x1200. The Inspiron 6000 (15.4") supports up that resolution, well. There's no reason for me to get a laptop if the display is restricted to 1997 resolution (as Apple has been doing for a long time).

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[libra-dragon]

Ahh... According to Apple you need to have it running on AC.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[fafaforza]

I ran OSx86 on my thinkpad, but apps would crash, and some installation programs (for Hogwasher, for example) would refuse to start. Some graphics were also glitchy, probably due to the high resolution I was running. I did see that there are patches available for the image, so I'll be trying out those soon. Hopefully it will run smoother this time around.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[wrenkin]

If the keys are outlined, and the symbols on the keys are illuminated (because they are translucent,) then what information are you missing that is provided by an overhead light?

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[mblase]

The 12" i^HpowerBook is still at 1024x768. If this had been equally increased, I'd be very happy.

If that had been increased, you'd be squinting. 12" means "small and cheap" (relatively speaking), and if you want more resolution you're better off getting a bigger screen too. Be sensible.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[argent]

My hands aren't luminous, the touchpad isn't illuminated, and there's a lot more to go wrong with Apple's keyboard than IBM's. It's a technically good implementation of the wrong design.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[netwiz]

The lighting's uneven on the Powerbook, and it's a bit dim, even in darker rooms. The Thinkpad does a much better job of both illuminating the keyboard and throwing the light. Better still, it's cheaper and simpler to do than the Apple's optical pipe system!
 
/still likes the Apple, it's just cooler looking

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

A PowerBook's keyboard is lit by a single white LED.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[rjstanford]

Funny, I find that enjoy using screens around 125dpi on laptops. Somewhat less is fine for my desktop LCDs, simply because they're further away from my eyes (in general). I have several years of practice travelling with a ~125dpi screen (14" 1400x1050). I'd like a smaller form-factor machine, that's the main interest I have in the 12" box in fact, so jumping up to the 15" isn't really a useful suggestion. And I'm not wanting the same number of pixels as my old laptop, just a comparable dot pitch. But thanks for telling me what I do and do not like, I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[jcr]

Tiger shipped with support for resolution-independent UIs, Apple is just waiting for application developers to update their apps to support it before "turning it on" in 10.5.

Actually, you can turn it on right now if you want. If you install the developer tools, you can use Quartz Debug to enable it.

-jcr

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Smurf]

People interested in seeing how this resolution independent UI business works in Tiger, may want to take a look at John Siracusa's Tiger review.

The scalable user interface still has some rough edges in Tiger, and that's why Apple still doesn't talk about it openly. Nevertheless, it shows that it is plainly reasonable to expect a very usable version for Leopard.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

A point isn't a "unit for font measurement" - it is a unit of length. It is exactly 1/72nd of an inch, always. If one pixel is 1/106th of an inch on a 12" powerbook, then 1px!=1pt on that system.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac monitors have always rendered one point = one pixel. Always. To this day, in Tiger, 1px=1pt.

Really? That's interesting, since Windows has had variable mapping since, IIRC, Windows 95. It would cause display problems in some programs because programmers often didn't account for it, but you can change pixels/point to any arbitrary value. (really pixels per inch, but points/inch is a constant)

Anyway, I just find it odd that Windows would have such a feature and MacOS wouldn't.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

A point is a "unit of length," but it's a unit of length that was developed for typography to measure fonts. And no, it is not "exactly 1/72nd of and inch, always." It is approxiametly 1/72.27 of an inch. 1/72nd of an inch is what the developers of postscipt rounded points to in order to simplify things.

Re:Powerbook Resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he was being polite. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU

Aperture prerequisites

[Lord Satri]

An interesting surprise is the prerequisites. Based on http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs.html , Aperture requires a state-of-the-art mac:

Recommended System
        * Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster
        * 2GB of RAM
        * One of the following graphics cards:
                    o ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
                    o ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
                    o NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
                    o NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
                    o NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
        * 5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
        * DVD drive for installation

Probably they'll eventually offer a "light" version of Aperture, like they did with Final Cut and Logic Audio, other "Pro" software.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Wesley Felter]

Probably they'll eventually offer a "light" version of Aperture

Isn't that iPhoto? Is there really room for a third product in between iPhoto and Aperture?

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Tumbleweed]

There's a big difference between 'recommended' and 'required,' which you didn't catch. Check again - the required is only a single 1.8gHz system with (only) 1GB of RAM, a far cry from the recommended setup.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[FidelCatsro]

Well they are missing a Semi-pro option

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Lord Satri]

Isn't that iPhoto? Is there really room for a third product in between iPhoto and Aperture?

Well, for Logic Audio:
Logic Pro / Logic Express / GarageBand
For Final Cut:
Final Cut Pro / Final Cut Express / iMovie

So I guess they could create an Aperture Express!

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you need to check again as well.

The last system they list under the Minimum System Requirements is:
"15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor"

I agree the OP was wrong, but so were you.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[moosesocks]

Eghm. It sounds like this thing's really going to drag on the powerbooks, not to mention the profound lack of support for the 12" model which is VERY popular among pro photographers.

I love you apple, but I you can do better than this.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[mozumder]

My guess is that it all comes from needing a programmable graphics card to do image processing with the GPU.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Tumbleweed]

Not quite - I was saying (incorrectly) that the new systems meet the recommended requirements, but he caught me on the videocard business. You're listing the minimum requirements. So, you're wrong. So there! Victory is mine! (until someone spots some other error I made *sigh*)

Either way, I think we're all agreed that Aperture _really_ wants some hefty hardware to do it's thang, which shouldn't be surprising considering how much data it needs to move around to do what it does. Can't wait to try it out at an Apple store when it's released -- the Apple store says shipping in 6-8 weeks.

I'd not want to run this thing on the minimum specs, but I bet one could squeak by pretty easily without the hefty videocard as long as you have the memory and something near the CPU power required (dual 1.8s would likely be more than fine, especially if you have 2GB RAM).

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[aliensporebomb]

I could run it.

But I prefer not to.

At the moment.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[NatasRevol]

While your name follows logically, a better name would be Pinhole.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[ted_rust]

Read that page more carefully. You posted the "Recommended" not the "Required". Supports all G5s (with enough RAM) and the Aluminum PowerBooks >1.25GHz. Still hefty, but trying to say it requires the latest G5s is just misleading.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[AlysseumWarrior]

Well Aperture is in the $500 range... And the FCP is in the $1000 range, Logic is much more... DVD Studio Pro is in the $500 range and there isnt a Light version of it, there is just iDVD. So it is more likely that they will not have a Aperature Light, but that iPhoto is the Aperature Light.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[toddestan]

Check again - the required is only a single 1.8gHz system with (only) 1GB of RAM, a far cry from the recommended setup.

1GB of ram is pretty steep, especially considering that the top of the line Apple PowerMac still only ships with 512MB in its standard configuration, and hence doesn't even meet the minimum requirements for Aperture. Why does Apple always skimp on RAM anyway on their systems?

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that it all comes from needing a programmable graphics card to do image processing with the GPU.

One neat thing about CoreImage is that you don't actually need a proper GPU for it to run. Without it, the performance drops far below realtime, but it still runs. That said, it's probable that Aperture, like Motion, is unusably slow without it.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Tumbleweed]

Well, keep in mind this application is targeted towards pro photographers. The cost of upgrading from 512Meg to 1Gig is pretty miniscule to the costs of pro photo equipment, even if you're dumb enough to buy the memory upgrade from Apple. At least Apple is now making 512Meg the default; that didn't used to be the case, even earlier this year.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is absolutely right.

Re:Aperture prerequisites

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I don't think they will offer a light version. What would be the point? It doesn't seem to have a feature set as big as Final Cut or Logic Audio. If you had to cut a chunk out, you'd end up with something like iPhoto.

Hmmm,

[temojen]

A product in the same price-class as Photoshop CS, but not the same feature-class... I wonder how that'll fair in the market...

Re:Hmmm,

[idobi]

It's a totally different product. Photoshop doesn't have anywhere near the workflow that Aperature provides. Non destructive RAW processing, applying exposure processing to multiple files, and desktop organization is a godsend for professional photographers.

Re:Hmmm,

[Mikey-San]

Aperture isn't competing with Photoshop, it's competing with things like this:

PhaseOne's Capture One

Re:Hmmm,

[jedrek]

It's a different piece of software. The most similar thing I can find is Capture One which is in exactly the same price category with a much shorter feature list. This is pro software for photo professionals. If its organizational tools (and that really is a possibility) save a pro 5 hours (at $100/h) of work or a single reshoot, it'll be worth it.

Re:Hmmm,

[Kaa]

A product in the same price-class as Photoshop CS, but not the same feature-class... I wonder how that'll fair in the market...

I'd say, badly (and you probably meant "fare", not "fair"). Cut the price to under $100 and things may change.

God knows, Photoshop needs competition, but this isn't it (at least yet). Aperture is in the Photoshop Elements class for photo editing purposes, but it also seems to have useful database/organisation features.

It may turn out to be a decent tool for "serious amateurs" :-) but it won't replace Photoshop for professionals.

Re:Hmmm,

[neonstz]

Adobe Camera Raw, which is included in Photoshop, can do non-destructive RAW processing (crop, white balance, brightness, exposure, saturation etc), use the same settings for multiple raw files etc. Combined with Adobe Bridge it is quite powerful.

Re:Hmmm,

[temojen]

Oh yeah, that'd be handy if it could interface with my scanner rather than RAW files. (I shoot big film then scan later)

Re:Hmmm,

[idobi]

You obviously haven't used Camera Raw and Bridge. It's a pain in the ass. If you're familiar with the product, take a look at Apple's demo and see if it isn't a leap in usability and interface.

Re:Hmmm,

[BabyPanther]

It'll die just like the iPod.

Re:Hmmm,

[gsfprez]

It doesn't claim to replace Photoshop. It just means that you don't have to use that sucktastic horrble Photosop file browser any more, nor do YOU need to do all the organizing of your photos by hand any longer.

Apple's software - iPhoto, iTunes, and now, Aperture, do what computers should have done all along - organize your shit FOR you, not you have to do it for the computer. That's ass backwards.

I can now organize every single photo in one location, and have them all together, yet organized so it will be easy to separate...

Work, with sub-categories of each program i work on
Family, with sub-cats by people, events, etc
church, with sub-cats for groups, events,
etc., for shots i could use for backgrounds, for stock photography - any of which i could use in any other project

now, i can find photos that will match various criteria from across all those major categories, including offline drives if i've got something backed up to another drive.

the basic color balancing, leveling, etc - that is old hat - you don't really need photoshop to do that any more... and what this does that Photoshop does pooooooorly is across multiple pictures... including across mulitple groups if necessary. also - there's no versioning in photoshop - you have to keep multiple files if you use them for multiple uses - that blows. And Aperture takes care of it.

If you want to do major retouching, cloning, do a lot of heavy masking and photo combining - that is NOT what Aperture is for at all - that's what Photoshop is for. But Photoshop does little to nothing to help a pro with hundreds of thousands of pictures get organized... we have to do all of that manually.. or poorly with the software out there.

now - with a RAID on my desk - i can deal with absolutely hundreds of thousands of pictures no problem. Aperture and Photoshop are a absolutely great combination

Re:Hmmm,

[mosb1000]

He may be a troll, but he is still right.

Re:Hmmm,

[Overly Critical Guy]

It's not trying to replace Photoshop. Although, I guarantee it will be used by photo professionals. Photoshop, designed before the true era of digital photography, can be quite cumbersome.

I take Apple product predictions on Slashdot with lots of salt, considering how the original iPod was received, the iPod mini, the Mac mini, etc....

Re:Hmmm,

[Kaa]

It just means that you don't have to use that sucktastic horrble Photosop file browser any more, nor do YOU need to do all the organizing of your photos by hand any longer.

I don't use the PS file browser right now. Yes, it's a horrible piece of crap that needs to die. Fortunately, it can be ignored pretty easily.

As to organizing photos, you still have to do it by hand. Assigning the tags/categories is the most time-consuming task and no software can do it (yet).

that Photoshop does pooooooorly is across multiple pictures...

Learn a little bit of scripting and such problems will go away completely.

But Photoshop does little to nothing to help a pro with hundreds of thousands of pictures get organized...

Agree, but that's not what Photoshop is for. I use iMatch for organizing photos and it works pretty well for my purposes (and doesn't cost $500). Apple clearly wants Aperture to be a be-all-end-all photo application, not a database backend to Photoshop :-)

Re:Hmmm,

[neonstz]

I'm using ACR and Bridge almost every day. It works quite fine for me, but of course I'm as thrilled as anyone else about Aperture. I'm really looking forward to try it. Except for the graphics card, my machine exceeds the recommended specs too! :)

Re:Hmmm,

[podperson]

If you looked at the Aperture demos and came to that conclusion ... you're not in the target market.

Hint: one of the demos featured round-trip-Photoshop integration.

Re:Hmmm,

[mozumder]

Actually, it is competing with photoshop.

I am giving up photoshop for this, since I only use photoshop for photo retouching and don't need the complexities of a layered graphic design tool. In addition, it seems to be a fast, responsive product, something photoshop isn't.

I'd imagine are other photoshop users that are also going to drop it for Aperture.

Re:Hmmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

that just means you've been using the wrong tool the whole time. from the looks of PhaseOne's app, what you should've been using THAT in the first place, not Photoshop.

a program that doesn't have the type of editing tool suite that Photoshop has does NOT compete with Photoshop. GIMP? that competes with Photoshop.

The time to buy is now for PowerMac G5

[rizzo320]

These are some of the most expandible workstations Apple has ever released. 16GB of RAM and a TB of storage makes a killer multimedia editing workstation all around. If you are weary of the Intel switchover, the time to buy is now. The workstations should hold you over well into the second and third revisions of Apple Intel hardware at least.

Re:The time to buy is now for PowerMac G5

[Anonymous Coward]

it's 'wary', not 'weary'. weary means tired of.

Re:The time to buy is now for PowerMac G5

[blamanj]

The workstations should hold you over well into the second and third revisions of Apple Intel hardware at least.

Not only that, but buying PPC Macs will save you money in software upgrade costs. Yes, the Intel hardware will run your software in emulation mode, but if there's anything you really need to use at full speed, you'll have to pay for an upgrade.

Re:The time to buy is now for PowerMac G5

[seabasstin]

I had a friend who used to correct my usage of "Wary vs Weary".
now we are not friends anymore cause I grew weary of being corrected.
oh well...

Re:The time to buy is now for PowerMac G5

[Lumpy]

Um, we are editing on G4's here. editing broadcast quality video commercials and 30 minute infomercials. if the hardware holds out it will be able to do that job for another 10 years at least. Just because new hardware and software is released does not mean you have to upgrade to it. The older stuff still does the job just fine.

Granted we are using pro editing AVID suites and not the current Apple offering. but it works well and boris FX is working just fine on those old slow mac's. (512 meg of ram works great for pro video editing no matter what the "experts" tell you.)

Re:The time to buy is now for PowerMac G5

[rizzo320]

Very good point. I haven't used AVID's products, but if you are using software that was released around the same time as your hardware was, then your theory will hold true. Unfortunately, I manage a lab at an university, and the faculty request that the software versions be updated regularly to keep with the times. Although AVID might fly on a G4, Final Cut Studio is a dog on anything older than a 1.25 GHz G4, and Motion won't even allow itself to be installed if you don't have an up-to-date video card. Regardless, the prospects of getting a few of these "quad" G5 makes me droooooole...

Re:The time to buy is now for PowerMac G5

[rizzo320]

You are definitely on to something. Apple recently reported some excellent desktop/laptop sales numbers. I think everyone is now pushing to get the final revisions of all of the PowerPC hardware available from Apple before the switch. Many are concerned about how reliable initial versions of the Intel architecture will be in terms of hardware, as well as the performance of "emulated" software. It looks like there are enough people concerned about this that it will drive Mac hardware and software sales 'till the new hardware is introduced. I don't believe the Intel based Power Macs will be big sellers until support for PPC from software vendors begins to wind down- however, it will be the opposite for Powerbooks and iBooks.

Price?

[jshaped]

Great... but why don't they also decrease the price of entry?
- they could easily sell the older models at a decrease price.
I would love to try a Mac, but they still don't have any try-me prices.
(yes, I know there's the mac mini, but from what I've read, I don't consider it to be fully representative of what apple and OSX can offer.)

Re:Price?

[temojen]

Mac Mini, eMac, and iBook are their low-end models. No, they're not everything a Mac can be. The reason is obvious. They are low-end models.

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

$1299 for the new iMac with 1.9GHz G5 and 17 inch LCD monitor is not a terrible entry price point. Much better than historically for Apple.

And while Apple doesn't sell their old models direct after a rollout, many others (macmall, etc) do.

Re:Price?

[BandwidthHog]

I know there's the mac mini, but from what I've read, I don't consider it to be fully representative of what apple and OSX can offer.

It is. I’ve used one. It’s just like a larger Mac, only not as large. And with a slower hard drive. In fact, it’s essentially an iBook with no LCD or battery.

Yes, G5/Quad would be much faster, can take more RAM, has a better video card, etc. But it works just the same.

Re:Price?

[CrawlingEvil]

Go to the Apple Store and look on the opening page. Near the bottom on the right hand side you'll see a red "Sale" tag. Click that and then scroll down about 2/5 the way down the page.

In general, this is where Apple sells over stock and refurbished machines. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell the difference, but whether refurbished or old stock, they come with the same warrantees. No, they don't really advertise these in proud, bold print accross the front page of the store, as they want to sell new machines, but they're there for the buying, if you know where to look.

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're wrong. It is fully representitive. Get one and love it.

Re:Price?

[jshaped]

thanks!!!
those are some substantial savings...

Re:Price?

[aliensporebomb]

Those refurbs and demo models make for great deals.

I ended up getting a G5 2.5 dual processor machine for $700 less than
the original asking price plus three years of service free.

You can get some great deals. If you have an apple store near
your home, peruse what they call the refresh bin.

I saw some dual 2.3s in there for well under the original asking price.

It's still expensive but you can't expect a dual processor high-er end
machine for "louie's stolen computer emporium off the back of a truck"
prices.

Re:Price?

[snuf23]

The iMac isn't a bad little machine and it does come at a decent cost point. In fact we just picked up one for a web developer at the office. There are some issues - with an Apple low end computer, you are stuck with what you get. For example, the iMac G5 doesn't support a second display. You can mirror the internal monitor but you can't expand your desktop to a second display. This is a shame because for things like web development or video work a second monitor can be extremely useful. I assume Apple deliberately does this to push professionals towards to the PowerMac line. Small businesses then have to make a choice, between the upgrade potential (RAM, video etc.) of the PowerMac or getting boxed in to lower end computer.
I realize this makes good business sense for Apple, but it annoys me that for the lack of a slightly better video card, the iMac could be a much more useful computer.

Re:Price?

[Ineffable 27]

Did you not know about the screen spanning hack?? Check it out!

Re:Price?

[cayenne8]

"Go to the Apple Store and look on the opening page. Near the bottom on the right hand side you'll see a red "Sale" tag."

Not bad. Unfortunately, if you order from the Apple Store online...they charge you sales tax.

I'd rather buy from other sites that don't add that on. If your local sales tax rate is 9%..that's a BIG bump in the total cost.

Re:Price?

[wickedsteve]

Fortunately, there IS a way to tell the difference! Apple Certified = Refurbished: "Apple Certified Refurbished Products Listed below are great deals on Apple Certified Refurbished products." Sale = Overstock: "Apple Products on Sale All Apple products on Sale are temporarily out of stock. Please check back frequently for new savings opportunities from Apple."

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL dude come on. What is this 2000? Enough with the same old song and dance. Why don't you go configure a PC with equivalent specs and see how much it costs. These are their flagship, high-end pro models. Dell has high end expensive PCs too you know.

Re:Price?

[snuf23]

No I didn't. Thanks for the information. It is pretty retarded that this has to be done with a hack! Even the new iMac G5 which come with 128MB ATI X600s built in, it only list screen mirroring!
This is the type of crap that pisses me off about Apple. Even though the hardware will support a feature, they deliberately castrate it in order to preserve their stratified line of products.
It's the exact same methodology that gave us wonders like the Color Classic featuring a 32bit processor wedded to a 16bit data bus. /end rant

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple deliberately does this to push professionals towards to the PowerMac line."

Your right. Keep in mind iMac = Internet Macintosh.

Re:Price?

[snuf23]

My point is that they do it through deliberate castration. Even though the hardware can do it, they cripple it to preserve the levels they market their computers at. From looking at that screen extending hack, evey iBook from 2002 onward has a video card capable of supporting an additional monitor. But no! That's a PowerBook feature, so it gets castrated.
Sure it's good marketing, but it's a disservice to the consumer to remove capabilities that are in the hardware they pay for.

Re:Price?

[porcupine8]

The OS on a mini is the exact same OS as on a powermac. I'm not sure what you'd be missing, unless you're doing something that takes a lot of power. But if you just want to get the Mac Experience(tm) I can't imagine why a mini wouldn't meet your needs. I've got a 3-year-old eMac that's much slower than the mini, and I certainly feel I'm still getting the full Mac Experience(tm).

Re:Price?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to get stuck with a G4, you aren't getting a Mini or an eMac. You can forget about laptops. To get a G5, you need to buy atleast the 17" iMac, which costs $1299. And don't forget to add the cost of another 512MB of memory to bring it up to spec. Of course, you are getting a nice 17" LCD in the deal, but I already have a screen. A nice thought would be to use the screen I already have as an additional monitor in a dual head setup, but it seems that you need to buy a PowerMac if you want to do that since Apple intentionally cripples the iMac.

On the other hand, I can build a nice 64 bit AMD system with a dual head video card for $1000 easy. It will have more memory, better video, a faster processor, and more harddrive space. Sorry Apple.

Re:Price?

[xouumalperxe]

Obviously flamebait, but I'll bite, if only for informational purposes. the mac mini definitely has the "try-me" price you speak of. A tight little computer that has everything (if in small amounts). the iBook is probably the best bang-for-buck I've seen for 12" laptops. I've only seen one or two cheaper models elsewhere, and those were celerons (urgh). The fact that it has a dedicated video memory also means that you don't have to deal with a "super w00t graphics up to 128 MB (shared) videocard". Shared my arse, the things monopolize whatever amount of RAM you'll let them, effectively eating away at your baseline RAM. they do sell old products at a discount: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/71902/wo/hZGIfXyuIrAp3pW3gtU1NkYqMj5 /5.0.15.1.0.8.63.0.0.0.0.0.0.3.1.1.0?35,72 granted, the discount isn't all that big, but it serves its purpose. What say you of a G5 iMac 17" (2GHz, DVD+/-RW) for $949?

It should be noted that.....

[8127972]

.... With all of these updates, the 12" PowerBook Specs are exactly the same as before this announcement (that is it uses DDR333 RAM, has NVIDIA Go5200 64MB video, etc.) with the exception of the DVD-RW drive being standard.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[CrazyWingman]

The hard drive also got bumped up 20GB (from 60 to 80). RAM is also cheaper now - 1GB is down to $250 from $475.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[tktk]

Well, not exactly...the price got lowered. $1499 used to be the price of a 12" with only the combo drive. Now for $1499 you get the Superdrive. I think it's a $200 price drop.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[Empty Yo]

And that it now has a digital audio out according to the website. My 12" has analog only.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[bloodstains]

I'm suprised they're still soldering on 256M of RAM as well. That means I can upgrade my new iBook(1.5G) beyond what the new Powerbook is capable of(1.25G).

Re:It should be noted that.....

[JemalCole]

But they lowered the price on the 12".

So quitcherbitchin.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[mrcdeckard]

i understand that apple can't release computers that are all things to all people, but i for one like to see higher performance in a smaller package. i.e. i'd love to see the features of the 17" in a 12" version. i like the portability of the 12", and don't feel the need to lug around a 17" powerbook -- if i want a big screen, i'll just plug it into the bazillion-inch lcd screen at home/office/studio.

once again, i appreciate the simplicity in their pricing/options. i'm pretty happy with my 12" powerbook, but FW800 and gigabit would be nice . . .

mr c

Re:It should be noted that.....

[MyDixieWrecked]

the 12" powerbook is ~500$ cheaper than before.

I priced out a maxed out 12" last week and it was around $2400 (iirc), now it's down to $1850.

I'm looking for a cheaper, smaller powerbook, actually. I wanna trade in my 1ghz Titanium for something smaller and lighter. The 12" has more power, too, so yay.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[Lord Maud'Dib]

My powerbook 17" has no soldered ram. It came with a 512mb stick and I added another. The new ones support up to 2gb.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[iphayd]

Actually, it is the exact same specs as the $1699 machine that I bought yesterday (80 GB hard drive instead of 60, superdrive instead of combo). Fortunately, Apple has a 15 day price protection, so they credited me $200 today.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[lucas teh geek]

dude, take it back and get the new model

Re:It should be noted that.....

[iphayd]

They didn't change the internals of the 12", except for the modular portions (Hard drive and SuperDrive). The $1499 computer, which is the price I paid after price protection, is exactly the same computer as what I paid $1699 for two days ago.

Re:It should be noted that.....

[Anonymous Coward]

ah, so you picked those upgrade options anyhow? huzzah for you then! :)

Re:It should be noted that.....

[bloodstains]

The case is the same with the 15" Powerbook. Looks like just the lowly 12" Powerbook that was shortchanged.

Powerbook Screen

[Tiberius_Fel]

The powerbook screen upgrade is a really nice thing. It was one thing that always made me not feel so good about the apple laptops. But now they've got great screens. If only they had a touchpad equivalent of the mighty mouse...

Re:Powerbook Screen

[mosb1000]

Well, they do have two-dimensional scrolling (just touch both fingers to the track-pad, and it scrolls instead of pointing). The don't have multiple button functionality, though.

Re:Powerbook Screen

[bizard]

Its funny that a lot of people are bashing the 'low res' powerbook screens. I want to know in comparison to what? Yes, they have always had fewer pixels than similar sized PC notebooks, but in general the quality difference has made the PC notebooks look 5 years out of date. My neighbor with brand new Dell can't work in his dining room during the day because there is too much light to see the screen, I frequently work outside on my 2 year old powerbook.

The coolest thing that I saw was that the screens are even brighter, secondarily is the expanded real-estate.

Re:Powerbook Screen

[argent]

If only they had a touchpad equivalent of the mighty mouse...

What, a fake two-button touchpad that doesn't work right unless you take your finger off the touchpad before clicking the right side of the button?

I want a second button on the touchpad. Screw the cute effects.

Re:Powerbook Screen

[argent]

Its funny that a lot of people are bashing the 'low res' powerbook screens. I want to know in comparison to what?

Thinkpads.

My 3-4 year old Thinkpad has more pixels on its 14" screen than the old 17" powerbook did on it 17" screen. It's still got a higher resolution screen than the 15", and I use it outside with no problems.

And it's got the best keyboard on any laptop currently made, bar none, while the Powerbooks (let alone the ibooks) have horrible flat soggy things that feel like I'm typing on a decomposing alligator.

Your neighbor with a "brand new Dell" screwed up. He bought a Dell. If you're buying a PC laptop, your choices are Toshiba, IBM^WLenovo, or Sony. And, really, unless you want an ultralight your best choice is still a Thinkpad. But after these three... anything else is cattle-class.

Re:Powerbook Screen

[KylePflug]

That's really not enough, though. My four-year-old 10.5-inch Toshiba has vertical scroll, horizontal scroll, and the capacity for quicklaunch from hotspots on the touchpad if you so desire, none of which interferes with regular use. It's also got two buttons, takes up less space, and is more sensitive and more accurate. I absolutely can't stand the touchpads on the Apples, which is a shame, becasue they are great computers. But I would never buy an apple laptop, at least not until they release their tablet.

I know Jobs said they aren't making a tablet, but they've patented a tablet design, and frankly, Jobs saying they won't do it pretty much means they will.

Re:Powerbook Screen

[bizard]

Using a 17" powerbook right now, I don't really want things much smaller. Sure, I probably wouldn't care if my menubar got a little smaller, but the 9pt type I use in my editor is about the limit of what I can comfortably work with.

As for the keyboard, I disagree...I think the action on mine is next to ideal. It has been a couple of years since I used a thinkpad so I don't remember the keyboard, only the fact that it cutting off the circulation in my legs. I think that keyboard feel is going to be about as personal as text-editors.

And I agree with you on the dell, but it seems that that is all I see these days regardless of what the good choices might be. It always amazes me to see people ooohing and aahing over the cheap looking piece of plastic with dictionary attached that is the dell 17".

Re:Powerbook Screen

[rjstanford]

Using a 17" powerbook right now, I don't really want things much smaller. Sure, I probably wouldn't care if my menubar got a little smaller, but the 9pt type I use in my editor is about the limit of what I can comfortably work with.

So use a 12pt font, keep the same number of letters-per-inch, and get text that's that much smoother than you're used to - with the added bonus of being able to drop down if you need more space and still keep legible text. Works for me...

Re:Powerbook Screen

[argent]

I probably wouldn't care if my menubar got a little smaller, but the 9pt type I use in my editor is about the limit of what I can comfortably work with.

Even on a CRT, where I get fake antialiasing from the analog nature of the pixels, 9pt text is uncomfortably jaggy. Even on OSX with antialiased characters. On an LCD anything less than 11pt makes me feel like I'm working on a Commodore-64 that's been hit with a shrink ray.

I don't want a higher resolution to cram more 9pt text on the screen.

I want a higher resolution so I don't need to cram 9pt text on the screen in the first place.

Re:Powerbook Screen

[WuphonsReach]

I would guess that your Thinkpad is running at 1400x1050 (seemed to be a semi-common resolution for a while)? I have a Toshiba Tecra which is 1400x1050 (roughly 126ppi).

To be honest, there are a lot of days now where I'm considering switching back to a 96ppi display. Every graphical image on the web is ~25% smaller with the 126ppi display. Every website designer thinks it's a bright idea to specify font sizes in pixels rather then points. (Thank goodness for Mozilla's ability to specify minimum font size.)

After a while, it gets tiring to constantly swim upstream, fighting the idiots who don't know how to layout web pages for multiple browsers. Plus software writers who don't know how to deal with "large fonts" in Windows (which screws up spacing on user dialogs).

If I didn't have to deal with the web designers who are hacks, it would be a much more enjoyable experience to run at 126ppi. The extra dot density makes reading properly sized text a real pleasure. I wish there were commercially available 150ppi or that the 200ppi displays were more mainstream.

Re:Powerbook Screen

[argent]

To be honest, there are a lot of days now where I'm considering switching back to a 96ppi display. Every graphical image on the web is ~25% smaller with the 126ppi display. Every website designer thinks it's a bright idea to specify font sizes in pixels rather then points. (Thank goodness for Mozilla's ability to specify minimum font size.)

Even on a 96 ppi display this is hateful... and if you set a minimum font size then things often overflow places the developer didn't expect them to overflow and you lose text under layers.

On the Mac this whole problem is less of a problem, because you can always cmd-opt-+ to zoom in.

Apple and Adobe

[JymBrittain]

Aperture...one more slap in the face of Adobe. I'm waiting for Adobe to wake up and give Apple the big ..|.,

Re:Apple and Adobe

[CountBrass]

Some time ago Adobe announced they would no longer target the Mac first. I think you'll find this is Apple responding to a slap in the face from Adobe.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[idobi]

Not to mention that it can also be a warning to Adobe that Apple is ready to fill the void should Adobe drag their feet on OS X support.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[JymBrittain]

That's what the world needs...a computer by Apple that runs only software written by Apple. Oh wait...we pretty much have that now.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm waiting for Adobe to wake up and give Apple the big...

That happened quite a while ago, with Adobe no longer supporting many really cool features of Apple's OS because Windows does not have an equivalent feature (see no services, no spotlight plugins, etc.) and by designing end user applications that require administrative privileges and start their own CVS-like services that suck huge amounts of resources and crash regularly. Also, by buying products and mothballing them and canceling development for the mac entirely, when 70% of their customers for that product are running it on a mac. Adobe has been saying "screw you" to Apple for quite a while and would love to dump them if half their customers were not wedded to the mac environment as much as to adobe products. Several times now they have mothballed projects, then cancelled the mac version when sales drop (because their is nothing new to buy and because some of them were never even updated to work on OS X natively). Basically, from what insiders have told me most of the big players at Adobe are pretty anti-mac and would like to minimize mac development. There is not much more they can do to Apple without losing huge chunks of revenue, it's already a gloves off, drag-out fight. This is just a nice, "Go ahead and drop photoshop we dare you" message with a product ready to be expanded to take up that role and maybe do it better. We'll see who blinks.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[Billly Gates]

That was years ago when macs were dieing and adobe didn't want to port photoshop to macosx from classic due to support and upgrade costs.

They tried switching to windows to lower costs, but mac users rioted and Apple paid Adobe to port photoshop for MacOSX by purchasing %10-15 stock since they refused.

I could be wrong but this is what I remember hearing back in 2000.

Apple could be in big trouble over this and I personally would not develop such an app if I were Steve Jobs for obvious reasons. Its risky and could kill the macintosh in their core market if Adobe gives them the finger again.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[drScott2]

I don't think that Aperture is targeting Photoshop - Aperture appears to be "iPhoto pro", for lack of a better description. Its really targeted above Photoshop Elements 4 (not available on Mac) and Photoshop Album (not available on the Mac). Personally, I think it's filling a nice little spot, and Adobe has little to be worried about.

After all, pros will still know that Photoshop is for editing. The only change will be that Aperture is for everything else.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[santiago]

Apple could be in big trouble over this and I personally would not develop such an app if I were Steve Jobs for obvious reasons. Its risky and could kill the macintosh in their core market if Adobe gives them the finger again.

I really doubt it. Apple released Final Cut Pro and destroyed Premiere. If Adobe threatens to pull Photoshop, Aperture 2.0 will be a Photoshop replacement, which will end very badly for Adobe.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[The Lynxpro]

"They tried switching to windows to lower costs, but mac users rioted and Apple paid Adobe to port photoshop for MacOSX by purchasing %10-15 stock since they refused."

If Apple is willing to do this, why don't they pull the same thing to get AutoCAD on OS X? Or, to increase the company's consumer base, start buying up shares in Activision, Atari/Infogrames, EA, and UbiSoft in order to "encourage" those companies into porting their titles over to OS X instead of having to rely upon contract companies to do those ports that sometimes takes a full year after the initial Windows release before it can be played on OSX?

I realize that such time frames will probably shorten once Macintoshes begin the transition over to Intel chips in 2006, but still, nothing like direct influence.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[mcdesign]

Premiere deserved to be killed. Anyone who remembers when DV was just starting will also remember that you had to use version 5.1c (which was still rather beta) just to hook up your DV camera to Premiere. I know I tried using it and well it wasn't that good. Premiere was an ok editor but I remember thinking at the time that there must be a better way. Turns out that there was and it was called Final Cut Pro. Version 1 of FCP suppored DV straight up and Premiere is just a distant memory for me.

  Adobe arrived at the DV party late (they should have seen that one coming) with a video editing program that dreams of making wedding movies while Apple arrived early with a program that dreams of making cinema.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[IntlHarvester]

> If Apple is willing to do this, why don't they pull the same thing to get AutoCAD on OS X?

IBM tried this sort of thing with OS/2 and it was a total disaster. They paid companies to port their software, and usually ended up with a half-assed port that was discontinued as soon as the checks stopped coming.

I kind of doubt that Apple paid off Adobe (perhaps), but at the very least, Adobe products and customers had a strong base on the Mac. It wasn't a "If you build it they will come" proposition like CAD.

Re:Apple and Adobe

[Anonymous Coward]

um, you are wrong. apple invested in adobe way back in the postscript days but sold all its shares in the late 80s for a signficant profit.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&News ID=11340

perhaps you're thinking of microsoft's investment in apple:

http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Ap ple/2100-1001_3-202143.html

Re:fp

[FosterKanig]

Which one are you again?

Next Week

[jessebs]

I hope next week they finally add something to itunes to monitor changes to a directory. thats all I really need at this point

Re:Next Week

[clf8]

Like, to see when you've added a music file to the directory, then it automatically get's added to iTunes? Write a Folder Action Applescript, or use the Automator. Not that I know how to do either of these, but it can be done. Or check out Doug's Applescripts, one might already exist.

Re:Next Week

[Anonymous Coward]

You can script the file being added to iTunes. No checking folders neccesary.

Re:Next Week

[cmj]

You want it to watch for MP3s you copy into a directory (ostensibly as you download them)? You could easily write a script to do that, import them into iTunes and then move or delete them. That's why there's COM (on Windows) and AppleScript interfaces.

Re:Next Week

[RTMFD]

Use a Folder Action Script to automagically add and delete stuff from iTunes if you want "watched folders". Go here for some documentation.

Apple displays

[totallygeek]

Also new is the amazing pro photography software Aperture, as well as new lower pricing on Apple Displays.

I am completely ignorant when it comes to the this, and no place in town sells Macs retail. What is the connector on the back of the Apple monitors? I am interested in a nice display for my computer, but cannot go Mac for compatibility reasons (hardware). Can I hook up my Intel workstation to one of those sweet monitors, or is there another display I should be looking into?

Re:Apple displays

[Wesley Felter]

Apple monitors use DVI. But be careful; the 30" is only compatible with a handful of video cards.

Re:Apple displays

[dave1212]

DVI. Just make sure that your video card can handle the resolution needed.

Re:Apple displays

[HaloZero]

As far as I can tell, the adaptor on the Apple Cinema displays is a standard-issue DVI connector. However, the two larger models require you drive that connection with an nVidia GeForce 6800 or better adaptor. I tried it with my 5950 FX Ultra, and the display quality was... decent, but not as good as I'd expect from a DVI adaptor. And yes, you can plug the Apple Cinema display into a Linux/Windows/Intel/IBM-Compatible PC.

Re:Apple displays

[daveschroeder]

It's DVI. And yes, you can hook it up to any video card that has DVI.

(The 30-inch requires "dual-link DVI", which some PC video cards also support.)

But the general answer is, yes, you can hook them up to PCs.

I'd however recommend looking at Dell's flat panel displays, which are amazingly priced and also feature DVI, VGA, composite, and S-Video inputs, with some models even having built-in media readers for memory cards (e.g., from digital cameras). Apple's displays only have DVI. But if you're going for the 30", it can't be beat.

You'll probably be able to go Mac once the Intel transition is made, as they'll essentially be high-end conventional PCs, and will (very, very likely) be able to natively boot Windows, or run Windows at full speed in a virtual machine type environment while still booted into OS X.

(On another note, where do you live? Nowhere near any Apple Retail store or any CompUSA?)

Re:Apple displays

[dogfriend]

All of the new displays use DVI. They haven't used ADC connections for awhile now. http://www.apple.com/displays/digital.html

Re:Apple displays

[johndierks]

Apple displays use DVI, and are fully compatible with your windows/linux workstation/laptop.

http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html

Re:Apple displays

[Keith Mickunas]

Look at the Dells. Dell sells widescreen LCDs also, using the same Samsung panels as some of the Apples, and if you search for the deals you can get them for close to half the price of Apple. Plus they got a wide array of connectors on the back. I have a Dell 2005FPW and it's beautiful, it's a 20" 16x9 monitor with resolution of 1680x1050. Early ones supposedly had a backlight problem, but the one I bought a few months back is wonderful. And I got it for a bit over $400 delivered.

Re:Apple displays

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't spoil it for the Apple freaks. They love paying the Apple Tax.

Re:Apple displays

[SnapShot]

I'm able to get my Windows boot to work with a GeForce 6600 AGP at full resolution for the 23" Apple Cinema Display (1940x1200) but as of yet I have been unable to tweak my SuSe 9.3 to display any higher than 1600x1200.

YMMV and I'm no expert at configuring the necessary config files, but as of yet it doesn't appear that this particular combination (6600 + SuSe 9.3 + 23" Cinema Display) works to its full potential "out of the box".

Still, for development work at home 1600x1200 is pretty nice and, under windows, it's beautiful IMHO.

Re:Apple displays

[mindstrm]

No, only the 30" requires dual-link DVI. The 23" works fine on a regular DVI card.

Re:Apple displays

[Sponge Bath]

Look at the Dells. Dell sells widescreen LCDs also...

Before considering the Dell 2405FPW (24" 1920x1200), do a search for '2405FPW and high pitched squeal'. I bought one for $799 and after it warms up it emits a loud, high pitched squeal. This is a common problem for this model (which I returned).

Re:Apple displays

[Fareq]

As others have said, that is a DVI connector.

You ought to be able to get a PC videocard with a DVI connector without too much difficulty.

If you go the 30" route, you'll need a special videocard... specifically one with "Dual-Link DVI" which basically means a newish nVidia Quadro, any ATi X1x00 series, or any newish FireGL. Check the specific model to be sure. This limitation applies to any monitor that gets above about 2048x1536 (I think that's the number)... it's a bandwidth issue.

If you're going 20" or 23" might I recommend at least considering the Dell 2005FPW (20") and 2405FPW (24").

As best I can tell, the panels are equivalent. They both have the same resolutions 20" = 1680x1050, 23 or 24" = 1920x1200. I can't tell if one has a better image than the other -- they look the same to me. Others will surely disagree.

But the Dells are cheaper. They start at $699 and $1199 instead of $799 and $1299. But, you can usually (such as right now) get nice discounts on the Dell...

DealMeIn.net has the 20" at $394 after a bunch of coupons right now. Until yesterday they had coupons to make the 24" $774, but that seems to have expired... it'll be back at some point.

Of course, Apple's pretty silver frame and stand is cooler than Dell's black one. But then, the power button on the Dell monitor turns off the monitor, whereas the power button on the Apple monitor confusingly turns off the computer it's connected to without turning off the monitor. (That may or may not happen on a PC... but it sure does on our powermac!)

Up to you, but these days I think the Dell is just as good for much less... anyway, hope I was helpful.

Re:Apple displays

[Zane Edwards]

But, but, but, it wont match my new $20,000 (with everything) Power Mac!

Re:Apple displays

[displaced80]

Indeed. Despite holding Apple products generally in high regard (OS X is my current desktop OS), I've often wondered quite what Apple are thinking with their display prices. I think they're gorgeous bits of design, but I can't justify coughing up for one when the cost is simply going towards a neat bit of design around a commodity component (the panel). Especially when that commodity component is the raison d'etre of the whole device (you don't spend 9 hours a day staring at the bevel :))

Having said that, Apple displays are often 'first of a kind'. I believe Apple were the first to use this particular Samsung panel in the consumer market -- albeit with Dell a close second.

A quick bit of OT: I'm looking to get the exact same model as you've got for my machines (a Mac Mini and a homebrew Wintendo PC ('Wintendo' isn't meant to be derogatory -- it's my gaming system and it works like a charm). Hopefully I'll be getting myself a 2005FPW around Christmas-time, along with a DVI-capable KVM. It sounds like you're very pleased with it, which is reassuring! Quick question which I'd appreciate an honest answer to: how's the refresh on it, especially for games? Also, have you had a chance to hook up something like a digital satellite/cable/whatever receiver to it via the S-Video input? Any comments about the quality? (not expecting miracles from S-Video, but is it watchable?).

Looks like a lovely display. Prices have dropped considerably, even over here in the UK. Not to mention that my company's supply agreement with Dell gives me a 7% discount for personal purchases!

Oh, and it's even wider than 16:9... it's 16:10 :-) ... which leads me to another question -- that thing looks like an absolute monster when rotated to portrait! I've checked that both my Mac Mini and PC can handle rotation, so I'm looking forward to that... have you tried a little web browsing with it in portrait? Is it as cool as I imagine? :-)

Thanks (and sorry to /. for my ramblings)

Re:Apple displays

[Keith Mickunas]

I don't play any FPS, in fact I think the only game I've played on this so far is Neverwinter Nights. That looks just fine on it. From what I've read on it, others have been pretty satisfied with it when gaming. Search the forums on fatwallet and you'll find a lot of comments on this monitor.

I haven't tried the other video inputs, other than VGA on my laptop. One thing I do think is cool is that you can do PIP via those other inputs, so you could have a small corner of your screen dedicated to TV or something similar.

The rotation is nifty. I've used it to view some large images, but that's about it. The height I set it at, plus the monitor I have next to it, makes rotating it a bit cumbersome, so I don't do it often.

It's a great package. The stand is versatile, and the USB hub built in is a nice feature. The 24" version also adds a 9 in 1 media card reader and component inputs. I'm thinking of purchasing one of those, and either that or the 20" I'll use at work. The high pitched squeal is apparent only on some of the 24", and from what I've read you can exchange it with Dell within the first few weeks at no cost to you.

Re:Apple displays

[jcr]

What in the world would cause an LCD to emit any sound at all? Did they botch the power supply design somehow?

-jcr

Re:Apple displays

[mdarksbane]

Dell wasn't a "close second." I think they were on the order of 1-2 years behind apple, at least, with these.

I haven't seen the Dell's in person. I know I was considering paying the apple tax on their LCD's because they look really darn nice. I don't know if no one in pc retail can set up a monitor to be calibrated correctly, whereas the mac people can, or what, but looking at them side by side with all the 21" inch panels I could find and they just looked stunningly better. There was no comparison. Everything was just much cleaner, much easier to look at.

I've also heard Jobs mention that their selection process on the panels is ridiculously rigorous - he claims that companies buy the ones that fail their inspections. Dunno if Dell does that or not, but I'm curious.

Not saying that the Dell panels aren't a great deal, either. But there was at one point a very good reason to pay the extra for an apple monitor, even if now the quality of the competition has risen.

Re:Apple displays

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a configuration option for that in system preferences. :D

Re:Apple displays

[be-fan]

Define "loud". I've got one, and the only way I can hear a squeal is if I put my ear right against the vent slits on top. Even a couple of inches away, its inaudible over my computer (which uses a couple of 20db fans and a fanless graphics card). Actually, the loudest thing in the room is the overhead fluorescent light!

Re:Apple displays

[cmdrbuzz]

the power button on the Apple monitor confusingly turns off the computer it's connected to

Open the Display preferences (Under System Preferences) and select the options, you can have it just turn off the monitor if you want.

Re:Apple displays

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there are quite a few Mac users who are telling each other to save a few bucks and get the Dell displays instead.

Re:Apple displays

[coleridge78]

Dell does not do the same QA that Apple does with the displays, so though some may be from the same manufacturer the consistency is far different. Spend an hour digging around forums and consumer reports for repair records and the like, this becomes rather evident.

Also: the perks on the Dell displays, particularly the USB ports and the like are notoriously faulty. At one ~500-machine Dell installation with which I'm intimately familiar, far less than half of the Dell flat-panel monitors (don't know model #s offhand, unfortunately) have USB ports and media readers which work as advertised. Far less. They're just trash.

That said, I bought a Samsung display rather than an Apple. Lower cost, but far better quality than the Dells.

Re:Apple displays

[Steffan]

Do any other manufacturers produce an equivalent to the 30" display?

If they're using commodity panels, you'd think someone would have come out with a competing model by now. I'm not aware of anything in that size (with that resolution).

I'd love to find a cheaper 2560x1600 display...

Re:Apple displays

[andygrace]

Here is a link to the display used. The grandparent poster I believe indicated it was a Samsung panel; in actual fact an LG-Philips panel is used.

Re:Apple displays

[Steffan]

Cool! Thanks.

Re:Apple displays

[John Harrison]

I got mine for $396 delivered. It showed up today and is hooked up to my Mac mini. It is a beautiful display. I'm happy with it so far.

Re:Apple displays

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators are too sensitive and lack a sense of humor. Please mod the above as unfair.

Re:Apple displays

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, Apple's pretty silver frame and stand is cooler than Dell's black one. But then, the power button on the Dell monitor turns off the monitor, whereas the power button on the Apple monitor confusingly turns off the computer it's connected to without turning off the monitor. (That may or may not happen on a PC... but it sure does on our powermac!)"

System Preferences --> Displays --> Options lets you change that behavior.

It's in the online docs.

Re:Apple displays

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought a Dell 2005FPW a couple months ago for right around $425 and have been loving it so far.

I really like the multiple inputs and Picture in Picture options. I'm able to plug in 2 PCs, XBox , and PS2 (consoles at 720p, yay!) at the same time and prety quickly switch between them. It's got a very bright backlight and practically no latency that I've been able to notice. Off axis visibilty is pretty good as well.

My only real complaint so far is that the diference between the VGA and DVI inputs is quite noticable, most of this could just be my video card however (GF 5900 Ultra), but I don't have another DVI monitor to test this out with yet...

Re:Apple displays

[bill_mcgonigle]

As best I can tell, the panels are equivalent. They both have the same resolutions 20" = 1680x1050, 23 or 24" = 1920x1200. I can't tell if one has a better image than the other -- they look the same to me. Others will surely disagree.

They're definitely different. Here's a side-by-side, Apple/Dell.

Re:Apple displays

[Fareq]

Very interesting, but... two questions:

1: Which is which?

2: The one on the left needs to be set warmer, the one on the right needs to be set cooler.

Re:Apple displays

[Fareq]

From the article:

As unique as Apple's Cinema display might be in the world of 19" to 21" flat panel displays, it shares the same LG.Philips panel as the Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW. There happens to be only a single panel manufacturer capable/willing to mass produce wide screen, high resolution flat panel displays for the PC market. Since these two displays are so similar, we thought it only necessary to review both side by side.

So, to a certain extent, I was right -- the panel itself is identical. They use different frames (obviously), different firmware, and different backlights, and possibly other different components, but the actual panel is identical.

Re:Apple displays

[bill_mcgonigle]

Apple (left) / Dell (right)

Re:Apple displays

[cosmo7]

Well, unexpected noises are usually caused by resonance, so I'd expect the culprit to be a cheap capacitor.

Funny that a multi-thousand dollar item should get trashed by cutting a few cents on a part.

G5s

[dogmatixpsych]

Some more random info:
You can also add up to 16 Gb of RAM!
In addition, you could add 4 graphics cards (1 16x, 1 8x, 2 4x) and connect 8 digital montiors to your Mac.
You can add a Quadro FX 4500 card and have dual 30" displays hooked up to your G5.
They also come with dual independent gigabit ethernet.

These look like pretty cool computers. I'll still wait for the Intel-based macs, but Apple keeps innovating.

Re:G5s

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Apple does something, its innovative.

I get it now

Even though pc gamers have been doing things like this for years

If it wasnt for some artificial windows xp limit (of 9 btw), I could run 17 monitors with my crapass motherboard and a few 30 dollar video cards.

Yawn...move along.

Re:G5s

[mattyohe]

With this upgrade you can actually now have 4(FOUR) 30" Apple Cinema Displays by installing 2 Quadro FX 4500s.

Re:G5s

[mattyohe]

You really have 8 I/O slots available on your motherboard for these monitors?

We aren't talking about 1280x1024 here... we are talking 4.1 Million pixels per screen. or 16.4 million pixels staring at you.

Re:G5s

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL:

1280x1024x17 = 22.3 million pixels (even more for 1600x1200)

Yeah, you'd probably have to buy a crazy server board to get enough PCIe slots. But, whatever, I can't afford it either way.

Re:G5s

[mattyohe]

My point was.. 16.4 Million pixels out of 4 monitors.

Re:G5s

[Anonymous Coward]

these systems can drive eight monitors. They have four PCIe slots and each slot can drive two monitors.

Loving the Dual Core Hype

[intmainvoid]

Apple must really be loving the hype over dual core cpus - looks like they're getting away with "upgrading" the two lower dual cpu Powermacs to a single dual core cpu. Isn't that going to be, uh, slower?

Only the 2 x dual core top of the line model is an improvement over the mac it's replacing, the dual 2.7GHz.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[Jeff DeMaagd]

isn't that going to be, uh, slower?

Depends, and less likely than you think. A lot more Mac software seems to be multi processor aware than Windows software. H.264 is dog-slow to encode but the Apple H.264 encoder used by the Quicktime encoder is MP-aware, with this, the speed will nearly double.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[sootman]

Quick question: will a dual-core CPU perform worse than, as well as, or better than two independent CPUs of the same speed?

If "worse than," do the other improvements (memory, etc.) make the current $2,000 dual-core 2 GHz base model G5 better than yesterday's $2,000 dual-CPU 2 GHz base model?

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[Wesley Felter]

Quick question: will a dual-core CPU perform worse than, as well as, or better than two independent CPUs of the same speed?

About the same.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[NatasRevol]

In a word, no.

http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[be-fan]

The new dual core will perform better, given the larger caches, on-chip cache-to-cache bus, and faster memory. If it was an Athlon 64, it could have performed worse, because you'd be going from dual independent memory controllers to a shared memory controller, but the G5's have a shared memory bus anyway, even when there are two seperate physical processors.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot more Mac software seems to be multi processor aware than Windows software

I can asure you there are more multiprocessor aware windows programs (Anything using more than one thread) than there are mac apps in total.

H.264 is dog-slow to encode but the Apple H.264 encoder used by the Quicktime encoder is MP-aware, with this, the speed will nearly double.

The opensource H.264 encoder is also multithreaded (Or MP-aware in macslang). Multithreading isn't rocketscience anymore.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[Paradox]

A lot more Mac software seems to be multi processor aware than Windows software. H.264 is dog-slow to encode but the Apple H.264 encoder used by the Quicktime encoder is MP-aware, with this, the speed will nearly double.

Just a developer's aside to your comment. This kind of performance is typically very hard to get. Apple actually makes it surprisingly easy to tap into this kind of performance.

It's not particularly hard as an Apple developer to take advantage of highly optimized and MP-aware code. Apple provides a very cool framework on every mac called "Accelerate.framework" (you can find it in /System/Library/Frameworks). This framework is very easy to use (from a C standpoint) compared to competitors and offers MP-aware, Altivec-Aware code. What's even wilder is that on the intel macs, apple can bind Accelerate.framework in the same way. Using this framework, you can make fast code and reduce migration woes.

Far from being a weird apple invention, Apple basically optimized BLAS and LINPACK very tightly to the Mac OS X platform and then exposed via C-apis. They also built some higher level manipulations (as well as part of CoreImage and CoreAudio, from my understanding) on top of these basis, along with other heavily-optimized-and-profiled utilities.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I can asure you there are more multiprocessor aware windows programs (Anything using more than one thread) than there are mac apps in total.

I suppose that is true, but the likelyhood of any given Mac program being able to take advantage of more processors seems to be higher than with any given Windows program.

(Or MP-aware in macslang).

Is it macslang? I really don't know where it came from, but I don't think Apple uses it. I simply short-handed multiprocessor-aware, that's all.

Multithreading isn't rocketscience anymore.

No, not really, but developers sometimes need a justification to do so.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[ArbitraryConstant]

"The new dual core will perform better, given the larger caches, on-chip cache-to-cache bus, and faster memory. If it was an Athlon 64, it could have performed worse, because you'd be going from dual independent memory controllers to a shared memory controller, but the G5's have a shared memory bus anyway, even when there are two seperate physical processors."

The G5's bus is actually 2x 32-bit unidirectional busses, so the single-dual-core chip can't saturate the DDR2 memory bus while a dual-single-core chips could have because they have independant busses to the chipset. Also, DDR2-533 memory is higher latency. You take a bandwidth hit, a latency hit, it costs Apple a lot less to make the machine and they're charging the same amount.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[heli0]

Windows media encoder is MP aware as well.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=9

Windows Media Encoder
A64 2.4GHz: 2.21 fps
A64 2x2.2GHz: 3.93 fps (+78%)

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[be-fan]

It's not quite so simple as that. With balanced reads and writes (the common case), the 2.3 and the 2.5 can saturate the DDR2 bus. So for balanced code, you're looking at a non-trivial 30% bandwidth increase. There is a latency increase for DDR2, but there is also an (alleged) latency decrease in the new G5 chipset. The previous G5 chipset had pretty bad latency compared to other chipsets, so improvements in the chipset likely offsets some of the latency increase. The cache is the biggie --- for workstation apps, its going to help quite a bit.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the new machines don't cost Apple appreciably less than the old ones. The new motherboard has 32 PCI-E lanes, something you only find in expensive NForce4 Pro boards with the extra PCI-E bridge chip. The new machines also have a substantially better graphics card with more RAM. It's still probably a cost savings for Apple, but not as much as you might think.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[pastafazou]

I think a bit of clarification on your statement is necessary. The high-end G5 has two front side busses, one for each processor. This was always the case, even on the first dual 2GHz G5. The latest model features two front side busses, one per dual-core processor, at 1.25GHz each. This gives a maximum throughput to each dual-core processor of 10GBps, and 20GBps total between the CPUs and the system controller. The memory has a maximum throughput to the system controller of 8.5GBps, the video has 4GBps, and the PCI-x has 4GBps. The I/O subsystem (dual gigabit ethernet, dual SATA, USB, Firewire, Superdrive) has 1.6GBps. So all combined, 18.1GBps to the system controller, which can talk to the processors at 20GBps. While it would be nice to have dual memory busses, that would only leave 3GBps of bandwidth available for the rest of the system devices to share. In terms of the Athlon dual-core, I'm not positive on this, but I think it's integrated memory controller maxes throughput at 6.4GBps, and the I/O at 8GBps. Another point to note when comparing the architecture of the two processors is the design of Apple's front side bus. It has a 64-bit bus divided into two 32-bit busses, one travelling into the processor, one travelling out. Thus, 5GBps in, and 5GBps out. The Athlon has a 128-bit memory bus and a 16-bit system bus, both of which are unidirectional (either in or out, not simultaneous). The Apple bus architecture eliminates the latency associated with flipping the direction of the bus as well as the latency associated with the processor and system controller negotiating who will be using the bus next.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[ArbitraryConstant]

"It's not quite so simple as that. With balanced reads and writes (the common case), the 2.3 and the 2.5 can saturate the DDR2 bus. So for balanced code, you're looking at a non-trivial 30% bandwidth increase."

In my experience, code that does balanced reads and writes tends to be more latency sensitive than anything else.

"The previous G5 chipset had pretty bad latency compared to other chipsets, so improvements in the chipset likely offsets some of the latency increase."

Even if true, the bandwidth limitations prevent using DDR2 memory from being a good tradeoff. Similar optimizations with dual-DDR would have had lower latency.

"The cache is the biggie --- for workstation apps, its going to help quite a bit."

True... but if they can get a dual-core chip with 2 mb of cache, why couldn't they get a single-core chip with 1-2 mb of cache? Cache is forgiving of defects so yields and prices stay good. These aren't just up against the old competition, and if it turns out that they beat the old competition that's not that impressive. They're up against some very inexpensive PCs, and dual-core PCs that will leave these in the dust are available for a little more than half as much.

"Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the new machines don't cost Apple appreciably less than the old ones."

I would be shocked if that were the case, given the lower complexity of a system with only one CPU.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[be-fan]

the video has 4GBps, and the PCI-x has 4GBps.

Video is 8GB/sec.

In terms of the Athlon dual-core, I'm not positive on this, but I think it's integrated memory controller maxes throughput at 6.4GBps, and the I/O at 8GBps.

Yep. The dual-core G5s have an edge on balanced read-write bandwidth, while the Athlon has an edge on total bandwidth.

The Athlon has a 128-bit memory bus and a 16-bit system bus, both of which are unidirectional (either in or out, not simultaneous).

The Hypertransport bus is 2 16-bit unidirectional links running at 2 GHz (hence the 8GB/sec of I/O bandwidth).

The Apple bus architecture eliminates the latency associated with flipping the direction of the bus as well as the latency associated with the processor and system controller negotiating who will be using the bus next.

Yep.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[darkwhite]

If it was an Athlon 64, it could have performed worse, because you'd be going from dual independent memory controllers to a shared memory controller

Regardless of memory controller architecture, Athlon 64 dual cores significantly outperform Intel ones, primarily because they have a better inter-core bus (and maybe better cache architecture?).

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[be-fan]

I don't see how your comment relates to mine? Where did Intel come into play? My point was that a dual-processor Athlon 64 system has an advantage over a dual-core Athlon 64 system because of the dual memory busses. On processors like the G5 and P4, which use a shared memory bus, dual-processor systems don't really have an advantage over dual-core ones.

Re:Loving the Dual Core Hype

[darkwhite]

Oh, I see. I misread the context and thought you were comparing future Intel dual-core chips for Apple to AMD ones.

On the other hand I would guess that tasks which must communicate frequently have an advantage on dual-core chips due to the lower latency between the two chips' caches.

Does the software keep the ...

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

old darkroom paradigm? I loved working in darkrooms and there were things that one could do with an enlarger for effects - lightening/darkening some areas of a photo, increasing contrast, masks & filters, tectures, etc... use your imagination.

Or are they using their own terms for prcedures and effects? I ask this because I used to work in darkrooms with film and I'm wondering how would I transition to digital.

On another note, I really miss using the chemicals, film, and paper. Digital still hasn't achieved the image quality of film - but it's getting there real quick! Sigh....

Re:Does the software keep the ...

[Lumpy]

you havent worked with a real digital camera have you.

I have an old Fuji finepix S1 3 megapixel pro SLR and I produce 8X10's that knock socks off. I get a higher resolution than a ISO400 35mm film will easily. and at a 1600 iso setting with a 1 second exposure I produce images that make most 35mm cameras with a high speed film can not compare to at the same ISO.

I have what is considered a low resolution camera and produce wedding photos that people are overjoyed with. ($600.00+ worth of glass on the front of it might make a tiny difference)

go rent a 20D from canon or other pro level digital. you will be very suprised.

Re:Does the software keep the ...

[djbentle]

With photoshop at least, many of the operations you can perform have the same names, but unfortunately they don't usually seem to work as well as they did in the darkroom. By that I mean, while there is a tool for dodging and burning for example, the effect doesn't seem to match what you would expect in the darkroom. However, this isn't to say you can't get better results than you can in the darkroom, just that you need to use a workflow designed to accomplish the same effect, using the new tools the digital darkroom provides, rather than attempting to emulate how you would have done it in a wet darkroom. There is power and flexibility way beyond what you could have ever done in a wet darkroom, and it's much easier to experiment. Just don't expect to carry your workflow over unchanged, or even without a significant learning curve. Unfortunately the best tools in the digital workflow don't have analogues in the darkroom, so they have to use their own names and techniques.

Re:Does the software keep the ...

[cailyoung]

35mm is nominally around 33 megapixels... That's quite a DSLR you have there...

Re:Does the software keep the ...

[Lumpy]

35mm is NOT 33megapixels. maybe the slowest ISO in slide film is but normal film like 400, 800 and 1600 are drastically lower. Film grain get's massively annoying in the 1600 speed films and a 400 speed is barely useable for anothing larger than an 8X10.

I know what the supposed experts in popular photography say, but from my own experience in a darkroom and with a digital, what I see with my own eyes is very different.

really go rent something and take some photos side by side with a comperable 35mm and compare, you will be suprised.

Needs this

[Anonymous Coward]

What Apple needs to do is to release a PowerMac with a much snappier user interface (even the fastest Mac is not snappy when it comes to handling the user interface). That will make a significant difference to desktop users like me, rather than more CPU power for "certain applications."

One can hope this wish will be satisfied, at least to some extent, in the upcoming x86 Macs.

-srr

Not Bad, Not Spectacular

[dave1212]

New Power Macs can take up to 16 GB DDR2 RAM, have PCI Express, and can power up to four 30" displays or eight 23" or 20" ones.

The thing that caught my eye was the addition of a second gigabit ethernet port. Dual gigabit ethernet ports means instant network rendering for Logic Node, XGrid, or any app that supports it. No expensive (given, these Macs are costly enough as is) gigabit router needed.

Aperture looks interesting, although it requires a more powerful machine than mine, just like Motion. Working with RAW data from start to finish sounds wicked. Not sure about US$499 wicked, but cool nonetheless.

For some reason, Apple offers an upgrade price on the product page, that links to the Motion 2 upgrade. Not really sure what's going on with that.

Re:Not Bad, Not Spectacular

[dogmatixpsych]

I think they can only do 2 30" displays max. Still cool nonetheless.

Re:Not Bad, Not Spectacular

[jammyd]

| The thing that caught my eye was the addition of a second gigabit ethernet port. Dual gigabit ethernet ports
| means instant network rendering for Logic Node, XGrid, or any app that supports it. No expensive (given, these
| Macs are costly enough as is) gigabit router needed.

I'm not sure what you're on?

I don't know anything about Logic Node or XGrid, but I know enough for your use of Dual-gigE + routers that you're not clued up.

If Dual-GigE solves your problems, then you're not talking about routers; You're talking switches. GigE switches arn't expensive now. The first URL I hit on Google: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000E5SE S/026-9812224-0738810

Re:Not Bad, Not Spectacular

[skingers6894]

Actually he might be more clued up than you think.

TWO GigE ports means that you could assign two IP addresses on each PowerMac, one for the "real" network and one for the "grid" network. Assuming these are separate layer-3 networks. Your Mac Will then be able to talk to both networks simultaneously. If the Mac had one GigE port only then you would in-fact need a router between the two networks to do that.

So the original poster is quite right. The two GigE ports allow you to set up a second "grid" network for cheap, without the need for a router.

A good observation and a good feature.

Operator Overloading

[Tackhead]

> no PowerBook G5). They also introduced a new professional photography application known as Aperture, rounding out their software lineup for creative professionals.

...but when they do, they'll guarantee that the living hell is confused out of of camera buffs, Macheads, Photoshop users, and, well, just about every search engine on the planet.

"Your problem is that you didn't correctly set the aperture on your G5, which accounts for the bad results in Aperture on your G5. That's because aperture data isn't recorded in the Aperture suite, so creative professionals should use Creative Suite, and don't even think of swapping your iPod Photo for a G5 and the Zen player made by these guys, and be thankful that Creative doesn't make a sound card for the G5 either.

Who the hell hired Bjarne Stroustroup as a product marketing specialist, and why, dear, God, why, did he accept? :)

Re:Operator Overloading

[ek_adam]

"Your problem is that you didn't correctly set the aperture on your G5, which accounts for the bad results in Aperture on your G5. That's because aperture data isn't recorded in the Aperture suite...

Ah, you haven't looked at the EXIF information. Aperture does capture the aperture.

Re:Operator Overloading

[Tumbleweed]

Yes, but remember, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

Re:Operator Overloading

[bedouin]

You don't know how on point you are with the search engine comment. The other day I was trying to find some help with Apple's Pages on Google and gave up in frustration after about 20 minutes. I'd imagine similar frustration would occur trying to find help on Google for Keynote (i.e. searching for Apple, Keynote, and whatever else).

Re:Operator Overloading

[iluvcapra]

I thought it was the flagon with the dragon had the brew that was true. The vessle with the pestle has the pellet with the poison.

Re:Operator Overloading

[Tumbleweed]

I thought the chalice from the palace had the pellet with the poison, and the flagon with the dragon originally had the brew that was true. But someone dropped the flagon with the dragon, so that had to be substituted.

More like a PowerCrook

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought my 15" PB in November 2003 - I'll mark it down in the annuals that this was the best time is history to buy a powerbook. With the upcoming intel chips, now it is the worst.

Is this really newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really need to frontpage it every time apple announces a new release? Especially one that's relatively trivial (oooh, higher resolutions on powerbooks and an application 95% of us will never use)? I wonder if the Slashdot wankery over Apple has finally gone overboard.

Re:Is this really newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't read digg. If the flag flying over Apple's headquarters changes direction someone posts about it on digg.com.

Re:EDU pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out their Educational discounts on their home page.

Oh my!

[dhoughal]

My actual computer is a Centrino ThinkPad, but after the buy-out of the ThinkPad line I'm sure that my next laptop will surely be a 15" Powerbook. What a neat machine!

Aperature is not Photoshop

[Anonymous Coward]

It's competition is CaptureOne from PhaseOne. And a little bit of Extensis Portfolio.

Why make this release now? A tiny Apple error...

[andyatkinson]

I think Apple should have "released" their refreshed Powerbook and G5 models in a few weeks, and let the new iPods and iMacs "settle in" a bit. It seems like they are rushing their release milestones a bit. Is piracy to blame? Also, I noticed a small image error on their Apple page, check my blog for details.
http://andyatkinson.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-power books-g5s-aperturebut-why.html

Please Apple, save us from Finale

[radicalskeptic]

In the past couple years, Apple has been releasing really great pro-level apps for music, video, and now photography. This is good, but what *I* really want is a competitor for MakeMusic's Finale, which is a professional-grade program for music notation (like Microsoft Word, but for musical scores).

Finale is actually really powerful (and expensive). It can do pretty much anything most people need for their notation. Unfortunately, it is the worst UI trainwreck I have ever encountered. It is lacking in a clear, simple, unified interface or an intuitive organization. Seemingly simple and basic options are buried deep in the mess. And the help files are almost worthless.

For example, instead of clicking notes in, you can use your keyboard to enter notes.

But I don't know what key does what.
So I go into the key map options, but I still can't find the default key map. It just allows me to create a custom key map.
I'm like 'okay the help files will learn me where the default or current key map is--or maybe even tell me WHAT it is!'
Nope. No search results for "key map" in the really outdated help software that comes with it (it looks like it is a port from OS 9).

This kind of stuff happens to me all the time. Apple, please release "Notes" or something! You could make a killing!

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[cascino]

Finale's a piece of crap. On either Win or a Mac. My composition professor is a beta tester for them, and they routinely ignore his common-sense-oriented advice. If Office has as many flaws as does Finale, the corporate world would be up in arms. And that's from someone who hates Office.

The problem with Apple developing an alternative (and I'm sure they could) is that music notation software is very specialized. Something like Garageband appeals to a much wider userbase than does Finale.

Sibelius, which is a legitimate competitor to Finale, is used in some circles though IMHO it has enough flaws to make it a bad situation either way.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[evilskull]

My fiance absolutely loves Sibelius, and loathes Finale. She has actually thrown out every single version of it she was "mandated" to buy with a book for coursework at school. Not knowing enough about musical notation to judge, I have to nod and smile, but she says that it's worth every penny and exceptionally difficult to replace. Subsequently, this doesn't strike me as an immediate market for Apple to jump into.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[Roguelazer]

I like LilyPond even more than Finale, actually. It's obviously not much in terms of a UI, but I find that if you're a good typist, it can be even faster. Plus it has a plethora of features. Fun.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[Blakey Rat]

Ok, first of all:

Please God, Apple, DO NOT RELEASE NOTES: http://lotus.com/products/product4.nsf/wdocs/notes homepage

However, an app like, I dunno, "Bass Clef" or something might be useful. ;)

But I want more is a replacement for Excel to go along with Pages and Keynote. With, uh, "Numbers", I could do everything on my Mac without giving a dime to Microsoft.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[prockcore]

This is good, but what *I* really want is a competitor for MakeMusic's Finale, which is a professional-grade program for music notation

I haven't used Finale since Finale98, so I don't know how far it has come in the past 7 years or so. However, I've been really happy with RoseGarden lately. Notation is very well done.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[TheRaven64]

Have you tried Lilypond? The output is quite stunning - better than most sheet music I've bought. The down side is that the input file format is horrendous (and this coming from a LaTeX user) - I gave up trying to work out how to typeset multiple verses of lyrics for something in four-part harmony. There is a GUI front-end for it, but this uses GTK+ and so doesn't work[1] on OS X yet, and I therefore haven't tried it.

Note: Using X11 does not count as working.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[vonFinkelstien]

If you are not afraid of coding, give Lilypond a try.

c4 d e f g a b c

There's the code for a quarter note C major scale. Super fast input.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale

[Qwerpafw]

Apple makes a competitor to Finale. It's called Logic.

Re:Aperture Screen shots..

[acomj]

http://www.apple.com/aperture/gallery/

Some interesting screenshots (on a big screen) You have to click the next button to see all of them

Much more robust than iphoto. Seems to allow more adjustments, and organization and albums, and raw conversion. It seems more photographer oriented than photoshop

Re:Lame

[FidelCatsro]

Parent is a joke I think .. Apple are now shipping them with the new Mighty mouse

30" display price drop

[happyemoticon]

This is the first I heard of it, but when I was going to play around with the new pricing options, I noticed that the 30" display was $2499 instead of 3 grand. I'm pretty sure it was 3 grand a week ago.

Re:30" display price drop

[rworne]

It was $3000 just yesterday. Technically it was $2499 two weeks ago, because that's how far back Apple's price protection goes.

Re: 30" display price drop

[KURAAKU Deibiddo]

They did. From AppleInsider:

Apple reduces Cinema Display pricing

Oct 19 - 3:00 pm EST Along with the introduction of new PowerBooks and Power Macs on Wednesday, Apple reduced pricing on its Cinema Display line, lowering the cost of the 23-inch model by $200 and the 30-inch version by $500. The 23-inch model now costs $1300 and sports a native resolution of 1920 x 1200. The 30-inch display -- which requires an ATI Radeon 9650, Radeon X850 XT or NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT DDL Card -- now sells for $2500. The 30-inch model has a resolution of 2560 x 1600. No changes were made to the company's 20-inch display, which sells for $800 and offers a 1680 x 1050 optimal resolution. All three displays are VESA mount compatible and feature 2 USB ports and 2 FireWire 400 ports.

Re:30" display price drop

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, if you are a student or teacher, you can get a 30" for $2199.

Re:30" display price drop

[happyemoticon]

Holy shit. I guess it's time to go back to school.

photoshop is dead

[same_old_story]

Photoshop was created a long time ago, when no professional photographers were using digital cameras. It's feature set / interface is actually very cumbersome for people shooting large number of pictures on a professional basis.

With Aperture, Apple has spent a long time analyzing photographer's workflow, and design the app on top of it. It has just what is needed for pros, a clean workflow that includes:
- easy import of raw images
- easy way to see / search metadata
- non destructive editing
- project management
- easy backup of negatives (raw files)
- differentiation between masters (raw) and versions (treated images)
- easy export and soft color spoofing
- easy backup on masters and collections

I can't wait o get my hands on this one...

p.s.: Aperture is to iPhoto somewhat like Solaris is to windows 95...

Re:photoshop is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. Except Aperture doesn't include any tools for retouching or masking. It's not meant to be a replacement for Photoshop. It's a different kind of tool altogether.

Re:photoshop is dead

[jsgates]

It's a replacement for Bridge and Adobe Raw Converter, not photoshop itself.

Re:photoshop is dead

[sakusha]

Uh.. no.

Perhaps you mean Adobe Bridge is dead. That's more like it. Aperture is for importing and sorting files, and doing basic adjustments to RAW files. There are already pro products doing well in that niche, like Capture One Pro. But these are just front-ends to Photoshop, which will always be the tool of choice for serious photo editing.

I can't wait for this Aperture, as the Canon File Viewer software is a real piece of crap, and so is their "Pro" version Canon Photo Pro. They are clumsy Windows ports that perform incredibly poorly and have the worst GUI I've ever seen. Most astonishingly, Canon Photo Pro doesn't support my Canon S50 camera! Aperture does.

Re:photoshop is dead

[Aquatic]

"It's a different kind of tool."

/ducks //Airplane references, mmmm.

Nikon Capture

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't find much actual information on that Apple site about Aperture because of all the white blocks where the stupid plugins would go, but anyone able to give a good guestimate of how it'd compare to Nikon Capture? (Other than supporting all kinds of raw files?)

I tried switching to that a year ago, but it just never happened. Far too much of my workflow is in Photoshop, and all the little user interface details that I never really consciously noticed before were missing in Capture.

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been?

iPod

[certel]

I'm glad to see the Apple is being so created in developing things, but I want a larger Nano and I might go ahead and fork out some cash.

Taking a semester off on Personal Leave...

[tapitout]

A maxed-out PowerMac is now equivalent in cost to a semester of tuition at this particular private college.

Re:Taking a semester off on Personal Leave...

[Anonymous Coward]

pfft, you should compute the cost per day in number of ipod shuffles.

Re:Lame

[waif69]

Oh, the mighty mouse is a wonder indeed! To those you pay little to no attention to details, it is a one button mouse. http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/

...it's called Sibelius

[lxt]

Finale does have a competitor. It's called Sibelius. It's the standard in Europe - it's designed by *musicians*, not software engineers, and the UI is a godsend compared to Finale. Having just moved to states and been forced to use Finale, I have one piece of advice - get Sibelius. The simple reason Apple won't release a Finale competitor is that Sibelius always does a pretty good job.

Re:...it's called Sibelius

[lowid (24) _________]

While sibelius is a bit easier to use and learn, it really lacks the feature set of finale. If you're a college student turning in assignments or giving parts to musicians who aren't really that concerned about appearance, it's fine, but for a complicated, professional-looking score, or something publishing-ready, it's really much easier (and much more possible) to do in finale. This is, in a nutshell, the trade-off that you get with these two products.

With that being said, I agree that finale is a mess sometimes. I really just wish they wouldn't push themselves for a yearly release. 2005b was in my experience the most stable finale release in some time, and another bug fix upgrade this year would have made it even better. Instead, they send out finale 2006 disks that erase your application support folder. Goodbye, address book! Plus heaps of bugs - it's faster overall, but until they come out with 2006a I'm back to using 2k5.

P.

Re:...it's called Sibelius

[jcr]

The simple reason Apple won't release a Finale competitor is that Sibelius always does a pretty good job.

It's even simpler than that. There aren't enough people who need a music notation app to make it worth Apple's time to enter that market. There may be money in it, but not nearly enough. For Apple, music notation is a feature of Logic Pro, not an app unto itself.

Remember, we're talking about a company that typically sells consumer products by the millions, and pro products by tens of thousands. Each copy of FCP that Apple sells is typically accompanied by around $25K worth of hardware, and that's the low end. An FCP sale can easily reach into six figures, when people buy the Xserves, the RAIDs, and the cinema displays for three or four users.

-jcr

Re:...it's called Sibelius

[hanwen]

There aren't enough people who need a music notation app to make it worth Apple's time to enter that market. There may be money in it, but not nearly enough. For Apple, music notation is a feature of Logic Pro, not an app unto itself.

There's another factor: consider how much time has been spent in making Sibelius and Finale (or LilyPond , as I can personally assure you). Music notation lacks straightforward data structures like video streams or bitmaps. Writing a notation application is an enormous amount work: there are zillions of little details, and almost every rule has obscure exceptions.

aperture....

[PureCreditor]

judging from its 499 price, i don't think Apple knows how to position itself against Photoshop CS2, which is currently priced at CS2.

Let's see....Adobe has YEARS of experience and patents that made Photoshop what it is today. Apperture is a brand new product with a weak website description.

So is Aperture an overpriced Photoshop Elements, or a low-cost alternative to Photoshop?

Apple's website heavily touts its RAW capabilities. Maybe that's the one-point that it beats PS ?

Re:aperture....

[Stanistani]

Has anyone else noticed that there is a software company called Aperture which makes a product called Aperture?

Didn't they have enough hassles with Apple Records?

Re:aperture....

[FunkDaddy]

Their website explained to me exactly what it does... did you watch the videos? It's a RAW workflow, library and post-production application. It's not a photoshop competitor by any means, besides color correction. Pretty spanky if you ask me.

Re:aperture....

[wootest]

From the looks of it, Aperture is far more thought-out than Elements is. (Which, I guess, could also mean that half of the features are useless for those of us who are not professional photographers - it's a very niche product, and it's almost by definition not a direct Photoshop competitor.)

Automatic backup to a secondary drive, good metadata handling - which goes hand in hand with things like the "Smart Web Gallery" feature to automatically rebuild the pages where new photos come in that fit a special criteria, automatic stacking of batches of images (taken within x minutes of each other). However, I think that the biggest thing here is that Apple gets to use Core Image to do some fun stuff - you can make several versions of the same image by adding effects and doing things like cloning and patching, which all just adds up to an incremental 'recipe' of the changes and a lot of saved hard drive space (which I guess would add up if you were to make a lot of toy alternate RAW images).

Obviously I haven't tried it, and I'm not a professional photographer, but from having watched the tours, there seems to be an awful lot of "extra miles" that Apple have taken in a lot of the features, which I think will be what sets it apart from Elements more than the stereotypical "artists buy Apple" factor.

Re:aperture....

[Anonymous Coward]

please stop.

you are just blabbering verbal pollution. did you read anything?

its not at all a competitor to any adobe product. it is a competitor to this product.

Why bother participating in a discussion if you cant be bothered to inform yourself in the slightest.

Re:aperture....

[Anonymous Coward]

That Aperture is a trademark in a different category. It's a different story from Apple Record lawsuit.

Trademark disputes happens in similar categories such as Rendezvous and The Software formerly known as Rendezvous (i.e. Bon Jour)

Re:aperture....

[Anonymous Coward]

This Aperture company also produces a product called "Vista" so maybe they won't be around long enough to cause problems for Apple.

Re:aperture....

[commodoresloat]

Didn't they have enough hassles with Apple Records?

Of course not.

What, you want Apple's legal staff to starve?

Re:aperture....

[10Ghz]

Apple's Aperture is a tool for photography-professionals. The thing you linked to is (and I quote): "Aperture VISTA(TM) is an enterprise software solution which reduces operational risk and improves efficiency through the visual management of the data center by improving Learn Moreplanning, design, provisioning, troubleshooting and reporting.". Yeah, I can see how someone could mix those two up... And it's named VISTA, maybe Microsoft should be worried?

P.S. After reading the descripiton of Aperture VISTA, I still have no idea what it actually does. Hooray for buzzwords!

Re:aperture....

[Stanistani]

I was an Aperture user for a number of years.
The product had a CAD front-end and a proprietary database linked to objects in the drawings.

We used it to manage configuration changes in a datacenter.
If you clicked on a server, you could see the vendor, model, added components, software and maintenance contracts, and all sorts of other useful information. All of this resided in tables that were linked together. You could run reports and make global or specific changes. Very expensive and useful software.

Admittedly this is very different from Apple's Aperture, but I'm sure Aperture Technologies will still be unhappy - one of their early partners was Apple, and this product was first developed for - the Macintosh.

Re:aperture....

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

For Fs sake, mode the parent down! It has several replies pointing out the blinding obvious, yet it still sits at 5 why they others are almost hidden.

Re:Lame

[waif69]

I can't blame the keyboard for the last post. I hit the submit before reviewing. Pay no attention to the typos, they are only for the viewing of those who know that Apple now ships a multi-button mouse.

Isnt Aperture going to piss off Adobe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didnt Adobe get Apple through some lean and difficult times? Especially the transition from OS 9 to OS X. Seems like they are really stepping on toes now.

Aperture is to Photoshop what FC is to AE

[gsfprez]

Aperture is NOT a photoshop killer - if anything, its going to make Photoshop get back to what its good at - editing photos - and let it NOT be a photo organizer.

Aperture is built for the prosumer to professional photographer that laughs at 25,000 photos. I can easily shoot 3000 (and want to keep 500) in a single week at work, but there has never been a good way to DO that.

Aperture helps guys like me because when i shoot, say, 20 shots of a single moment at an event (a la, a football tackle, a guy hoisting a flag, etc) i really don't NEED 20 shots - i just want to get as many as possible so i can look thru the 20, find the best, and then (for some unknown reason) never want to delete the 19 others. iPhoto is a joke for this, of course, because i often could have row after row of pictures that were all pretty identical. I was about to go layout some cache on something to replace my iPhotoBuddy multi-library self organization setup i'm using now.

Instead of manually organizing thousands of photos in dozens of groups, Aperture does it all for me. It also helps out with batch processing that iPhoto+Photoshop couldn't do (because iPhoto does all its organizing in a bunch of weird subfolders) without making mass exports, then deleting the non-edited photos, etc.

Photoshop is still The premiere photo editing tool, but for making my livelihood livable and organized, to be able to grade, select, and throw out pictures (without deleting), to help make simple and fast output for customers to view online or to build USEFUL contact sheets, Aperture will save me untold hours of my life. Photoshop has has some sad organization tools - and the built in browser is just this side of Finder or XP's thumbnail view...

there's no multi-image review with simultaneous panning, no UI benefits from dual screens, no loop zooms on both open images and previews... none of that.

this is serious software - this is probably even a larger, more important jump from iPhoto than Final Cut is from iMovie...

Re:Aperture is to Photoshop what FC is to AE

[courtarro]

Aperture is NOT a photoshop killer

While it may not replace Photoshop in terms of some specific features and purpose, the very things you've listed in your excellent analysis are the things that will make this a Photoshop "injurer". Right now, PS serves two crowds: digital artists and digital photographers. Adobe is going to find themselves losing market share if they don't pick up the pace on PS real quick, thanks to Aperture. Since Canon released Digital Photo Pro, I've been using PS less and less, though DPP falls short in many areas. Aperture sounds like the best combination of Picasa, DPP (or Phase One C1), and Photoshop's digital photography features.

If the two programs continue as they are now, there will always be a place for both Aperture and PS, but PS won't be the king of all digital imagery, only digital art. It will lose the photography world to Apple.

Re:Aperture is to Photoshop what FC is to AE

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to go layout some cache on something [...]

This is why speech recognition software doesn't work.

Re:Aperture is to Photoshop what FC is to AE

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have been right. Maybe he has a cache of cash.

Re:Aperture is to Photoshop what FC is to AE

[s.fontinalis]

I take it you haven't migrated to CS2, or you just don't use Adobe Bridge? Photoshop doesn't have a browser anymore - that's Adobe Bridge. Bridge does a decent bit of what you want. And based on the thinksecret rumours, CS3 will kick Aperture's butt. Better raw, better tracking, better everything.

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a CmdrTaco parody.

Yeah... lame

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least it has more space than a Nomad!

This explains it

[Tibor the Hun]

Well, this explains how they manage to compress a full episode of Lost overnight to H.264.

Re:This explains it

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they get it a few days before it airs.

no thanks, I'll wait...

[BobWeiner]

The new Powerbooks offer no real advantage to their predecessors, besides a wider screen. I suspect many people will hold off their purchases on these laptops until Powerbooks ship with Intel processors (and a faster system bus). The PowerMac G5 dual core model has some great potential though. I'd get one if I could afford it. I also think Aperture has the makings of a solid pro app.

Re:no thanks, I'll wait...

[argent]

The new Powerbooks offer no real advantage to their predecessors, besides a wider screen.

The new powerbooks offer no advantage over their predecessors, other than fixing the biggest problem that Apple's laptops suffer from... the lousy resolution. Now how about a 1280x960 refresh for the 15" iBook, Apple? Oh, and get together with Lenovo and make some keyboards that don't suck.

Aperture...

[jpellino]

...Looks great - the tour is stunning, and the metaphor is a breath of fresh air. A loupe - a light table - the ability to see thumbnails and versions on the table while you work. Heads up displays that give you back your window. They've obviously talked to a lot pf photographers, many of whom are likely sick of the tunnel vision interface of just about every app, PS included - that makes them stop acting like a photographer. I'm in the same boat. I've recently gone back to my professional 35mm SLR outfit that cost me a whopping $600 back in the day, and does what I want, and can make archival 11x14 prints that blow you away.

Most affordable digital cameras a great for taking a picture of something that is rock solid and in no danger of moving and is under optimal lighting conditions. After two weddings as a guest just trying to shoot candids, I realize that there's very little art in using a current digital camera, that it mostly involves holding this small brick between you and something and trusting it to make a series of decisions you might not agree with all while making sure you just heard the right beep, saw the right LED and heard the right little ticky thingy. And I'm a geek.

I've decided to retire my series of cameras (3, 4, 5 MP - they were all supposed to be so much better than the last one...) or donate them or something, and hunker down until something on the order of the EOS and this level of image handling gets reasonable. By hunker down I mean shoot with real film and a flash that goes more than 10 feet and something like decent response time. All of which I have in a 20 year old Pentax outfit. yes, I know it's ten times the volume and weight when outfitted with a TTL flash and zoom and winder. Yes, I know that if I pay thru the nose now for the EOS and a G5 and Aperture I'll save all that money on film - but film is a dribbling expense. And yes I know the COLA on a $600 camera from the 1980s is probably on the order of an EOS today, but I can still get a comparable new 35mm setup for the same $600 today.

And honest to god - as with cell phones - it's not like I was wasting away and spent every hour before digital cameras wanting to take a picture and every five minutes wishing I could be making a phone call back in the era "BC" (before cellphones). (Ooooh! Then there's taking pictures with my phone! Or should I be calling people on my camera?! Wait, wait - if I could only email from my toaster...!)

For many instances, digital cameras are quick, cheap, and OK. Honestly, 99% of them should be compared to compact point and click cameras for actual performance - but the hype of their early days has failed to solidify

Re:Aperture...

[protohiro1]

Get a digital rebel. I've been shooting mostly velvia/provia on 35mm and the digital rebel really is great for me (hobbyist). I got mine for $500 used and I can use all my old EOS lenses. When I get desperate for really high quality I have a 4x5 view camera as well.

Re:Aperture...

[dgerman]

Film will make you a better photographer than shooting digital, specially if you are always evaluating your results. Yes, you might miss that photo opportunity, but in return you have huge resolution that can only be matched with cameras more than US$5k. You will think twice before pressing the shutter, and you will kick yourself for every wasted frame.
These concepts are never an issue in the digital world.

When the day comes and you finally buy that desired SLR digital body, you will realise that the ability to shoot hundreds of photos is not what is important. Good photographers "capture the decisive moment", they don't "random sample" it.

Re:Aperture...

[Anonymous Coward]

" Film will make you a better photographer than shooting digital"

I disagree. Digital camera, especially the dSLR's, provide instant feedback. So instead of taking one shot, waiting a few hours/days to get it developed, and learning from the results, i can now take a shot, examine it, adjust aperture, shutter, iso and a number of other settings, and take another shot.

The feedback loop in the digital world is orders of magnitude faster than in the analog world. Learning is proportional to the amount and velocity of feedback.

Digital cameras speed up the learning curve trememdously, IMHO.

Re:Aperture...

[sobiloff]

Wow, I can't believe the comments I'm reading here. Film is dead, digital is riding rough-shod over everything 35mm and smaller, and it is even encroaching on some of the larger formats as well. You don't see many pros shooting film anymore, even in the outdoor market. The tools and techniques available in digital allow a photographer to extract the maximum impact from each and every shot, and to shoot orders of magnitude more to practice and hone their craft.

Contrary to the assertion of dgerman, film does not necessarily make you a better photographer. My experience has been exactly the opposite: I'm no longer afraid to try some interesting shots just to see if they turn out. I enjoy taking 30 shots of the same composition, but with different settings, to really bring home the differences in aperture, shutter speed, focal length, filters, etc. If they're a waste, big whoop--I haven't spent any more money and I've learned something about my compositional technique or the bounds of my equipment. I didn't have the same attitude with film because each shot cost me money and it was at least hours, if not days, before I could see the results of my efforts.

johnny_cashed, most lenses that are worth your time cost more than the camera back. :-) The image factor that limits your wide angle shots enhances your zooms, and I've yet to see a fisheye cost near what a 600 w/ image stabilization goes for. For me, the image factor works to my advantage for the photography I do the most.

Re:Aperture...

[TinyManCan]

I guess I do not see positive in "think twice before pressing the shutter, and you will kick yourself for every wasted frame."

In todays digital world, there is no downside to taking a less than perfect shot. Sure, you use up a bit of memory, but you can immediately delete it if desired.

You may be missing the 'decisive moment' because you are thinking about whether to pull the trigger or not. With digital you can grab everything. The power of Aperture is that you can now quickly and easily sort through these hundreds of shots to get your 'decisive moments'. And you can compare to the many other shots you have.

All of this is an improvement over the shoot now, look later, maybe regret it, model of film photography. I don't think that it is anything to be afraid of.

Re:Aperture...

[jcr]

They've obviously talked to a lot pf photographers

As it happens, the lead developer of the app is very talented photographer himself. I gather that he made a living as a pro photographer some years ago.

-jcr

Re:Aperture...

[johnny cashed]

Well, I did say that I am not a professional photographer. I agree with the expense of glass. I was just saying that there are niches that the digital format has yet to cover. My 15mm superwide is not a fisheye, and was quite expensive, even used. I will agree that the longer telephoto lenses cost even more. I like to take pictures in cramped interiors, often with available light. I have a 15 because an 18 or 20 wasn't wide enough. So far, a digital SLR will not meet my desires at a cost that I can afford, so I still use film. I am glad that image factor works to your advantage. For me, it is a disadvantage. Of course, I'm sure that my desires are a small minority in the larger photography market. Therefore, I won't be using digital for my niche photography. I will be using digital, but mostly for snapshots and the like. Like I said, digital has its place, it just isn't all things to all photographers -yet. And in honing my skills, I have burned through a lot of film, but back in my learning days, digital was not an option. I do believe that digital photography is the future, but it hasn't encroached on all needs yet. I do like the ability to keep all your photos on a hard drive, just back it up.

Re:Aperture...

[mei_mei_mei]

It is true that digital lets more people try out risky shots and therefore democratizes photography. With film there were few people who could afford to shoot enough to learn certain skills. On the other hand it does seem that digital encourage people to shoot away randomly and just choose whichever happens to come out best, rather than actually understanding what they're doing.

Re:Aperture...

[mrsteele]

hunker down until something on the order of the EOS and this level of image handling gets reasonable.

Um, digital cameras along those lines exist, and are reasonably priced. I really don't understand what you're looking for. Do you want a little pocket-cam that is the quality of an SLR? The Digital Rebel and the new Rebel XT are wonderful entry-level digital SLRs, and they'll do everything your 35mm rig will do.

Re:Aperture...

[jpellino]

I want a digital that will take pictures with no-lag, "B" shutter, a TTL flash as deep and adaptable as my Series 1 (e-TTL needs a pre-flash), for a price in the neighborhood of the trusty SLR (no, I won't pay extra because I'll never buy film again - that has nothing to do with the equipment cost anymore)
Right now that's $1000 for the package.
AND
processing that can do what my trusty enlarger can do.
Right now that's $2100 - G5 iMac 2.1 + Aperture or Photoshop CS

Nice but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how will it run World of Warcraft?

Re:Nice but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh.

Pretty well probably. My previous-gen G5's fine with it.

priced at CS2?

[fideli]

What currency is that in?

Re:Price? 14% savings?

[bobalu]

That's not exactly lighting a fire under my credit card. :-)

970MP has twice the cache

[Thu25245]

Well, with twice the cache per core, plus DDR533 memory, they could actually be faster than the previous dual-chip models at the same clock speed. Not to mention cheaper for Apple to manufacture (At the same great Apple retail prices!)

All options pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, pick every good option on the dual core/dual processor and the price ends up at roughly $23,000. I didn't need that new car anyway...

Re:All options pricing

[Ilgaz]

Well creative professionals will buy these machines and will add like $20.000 software.

They will earn more money as result of faster work cycle, higher quality animations, more layers etc. Machines pay their prices.

You would commit suicide if you hear the price list of AVID 4K line. :)

Re:Needs this ("Teh Snappy" (tm))

[aliensporebomb]

I'd say the difference between sluggish and snappy started when the
2.5 duals came out. You could sense a different that the 2.0s were
reasonably quick but the 2.5s' actually had snap.

And with each new version of OS X, the interface speed increased.
That is until Tiger where you can sense the window resizing/opening
was faster than that of Panther but other things were slower and the
beach ball returned for a lot of people.

I talk to many people with 2.5 duals who say that Panther under 2.5
dual was the fastest Mac OS X machine they experienced.

And if you had a better video card (i.e. ATI X800 versus ATI Radeons
below the 9600 XT) you would experience better performance. And a
faster drive also added "snap".

When 10.43 comes out, I'm hoping some of the speed has been restored.

But yeah, it does seem that to equal the old single user Mac OS
cooperative multitasking interface speed, you would need a nine
gigahertz quad cpu, quad core cpu.

Just a thought.

GAH!

[i_c_andrade]

"ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 with 128MB of DDR SDRAM and dual-link DVI"

STILL WITH THE Radeon 9700!
man what does it take to get a better video card?

Re:GAH!

[Sevenfeet]

This is puzzling. Why not go with the Mobility 9800 if you're doing a refresh? Yeah, the Mobility X800 would have required a PCI Express bus, but that's doable too, especially with the Powermacs that were just introduced. Somehow I have a feeling that these PowerMacs won't be around for long and that whenever Apple introduces Intel Macs, these will be some of the first to go. At that point, I expect better buses and video cards. Changing the screen and DVD drive was probably easy and cheap...no motherboard change required. The tower PowerMacs on the other hand will be the last models to go to Intel. Either that or Intel and PowerPC models will be available together for a little while. Mac professionals are loathe to change their hardware towers for any kind of significant technology paradigm shift, and it doesn't get more significant than this. If anyone remembers in the old days, there was actually a run on 68K Mac II sales before PowerPC debuted, and again on Nubus machines when the Nubus->PCI transition happened.

Well everyone knows

[Tibor the Hun]

That you can reduce the Aperture but you'd have to increase the shutter!

hardy har har

Re:RAW

[mpapet]

It's the easy RAW processing that is the unique selling proposition in Aperture. RAW processing has been in the past a binary-only kind of thing. Photoshop certainly doesn't have this kind of workflow. Yes, it has the features hidden in menus, but doesn't execute them like Aperture.

Native (whatever that means) RAW handling is also why the system requirements are high(ish).

Based on my experience, Apple should win far more creative users with this application. Many photographers working in digital use(d) Windows and Adobe certainly hasn't made anything like this.(yet)

Optical audio out!

[tempfile]

One thing that is easily overlooked is the addition of an digital audio out jack on the 15" powerbook. With the 17" being just too big, this makes the Powerbook much more attractive as a desktop replacement if great audio quality is important to you.

Re:Optical audio out!

[earthbound kid]

Save a thousand bucks: buy an Airport Express. It lets you use optical out with iTunes and costs way, way less. Of course, it doesn't work for DVDs, but why are you watching a DVD on a 15" screen anyway?

Re:Optical audio out!

[reiggin]

I don't watch DVDs on my laptop screen but the inclusion of optical out is nice b/c now it's a TRUE portable DVD player/entertainment center. S-Video /DVI out plus optical out makes it just perfect. This is seriously a big selling point for me. I have been holding off on upgrading from my old titanium PowerBook b/c of no real feature boosts that benefitted me. Until now. But I hesitate now because of the processor bottleneck. I just can't justify popping down big money for a machine that's way behind its desktop brethren. So I'll probably just wait impatiently for the Intel PowerBooks. :o(

Re:Optical audio out!

[10Ghz]

why are you watching a DVD on a 15" screen anyway?

because it's a pain in the ass to carry the 32" TV to airplanes, trains, vacation...?

Re:Optical audio out!

[earthbound kid]

In which case, you'll be using either headphones or the laptop's speakers. Not optical audio out.

I'm not saying that Airport Express is always the best option. I'm just saying, for a laptop user, if you just want optical out, then AE will probably cover 90% of what you want to do.

Re:Optical audio out!

[glennrrr]

If I had the new 15", I'd watch DVDs on my 20.1" monitor, and pass sound data via TOSLink to my 5.1 receiver, and it would deliver the best quality DVD viewing experience in my apartment. Better than the s-Video/SPDIF combination my standalone DVD player gives me; better than the DVI/stereo mini-jack combination my 12" Powerbook gives me. And better in terms of the useability than the junky applications on Windows or Linux which also give me DVI/TOSLink.

And the problem with Airport Express is the sync issue between audio and video. I'm wondering what people's experience is with music videos in iTunes. Aren't they noticeably out of sync when using Airport Express?

Re:Optical audio out!

[earthbound kid]

Yeah, I suppose in your case, you're better off with the 15". But probably most people who have good stereos also have component output DVD players. So, to those people, my advice stands.

Apple gets around the lag problem by having videos in iTunes play through speaker out not Airport Express. It's lame, but with the current generation of tech, there's no other way to get around the sync problem. Here's hoping that the "Airport Express 2.0 with Video Out" of rumors will solve the problem someday.

Re:Price? 14% savings?

[mosb1000]

Refurbished iMac G5 1.6GHz/ 256MB/ 80GB/ Combo/ 56K/ 17-inch
Learn More
&#8226; Save 43% off the original price
Original price: $1,299.00
Your price: $749.00
Estimated Ship:
3-5 business days
Free Shipping

$750 for a 1.6 GHz G5 iMac with a built in 17" monitor? That's pretty damn cheap. Shit, I'm thinking about buying it and I already have two macs (non are G5 class though).

What should it be named, but...

[dduck]

The Quadro Pounder!!!!

Re:What should it be named, but...

[Xyde]

Or the Quadra Pounder with Cheese for the older mac users among us...

Where's my 4-way XServe?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

How long until the 4-way mobos get shrunk down to fit an XServe? Would it have to expand to a 2U server to accomodate 4 procs, or would it be do-able in the current 1U form-factor?

Re:Where's my 4-way XServe?

[Sevenfeet]

Well at the rate of product announcements from Cupertino, how about next week at this time? ;-)

Re:Where's my 4-way XServe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. Why would anyone buy an Xserve this week, except for the form factor?

I can't think of anything else major that Apple hasn't refreshed lately. They're on a roll ...

Re:Where's my 4-way XServe?

[Anonymous Coward]

The motherboards shouldn't be difficult to fit in an XServe - since they still only need to support two physical processors. I think the real problem will dissipating the heat generated by 4 cores.

Re:Please Apple, save us from Finale (Sibelius)

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Sibelius.

167 MHz System Bus on PowerBooks

[Anonymous Coward]

167 MHz system bus on the newest update of the PowerBooks is one of the reasons this line needs the Intel chips first.

GeForce 7800 GT?

[i_c_andrade]

I see it on the graphics page, but not in the store
what gives?

Still overpriced

[thecpuguru]

Apple has yet to grab "the middle class" market. Thats the price range from $1000-1500.00, what most consumers in that area expect to pay for a new Laptop. I'm very disappointed that Apple is still charging $2000-2400 for G4 powerbooks that are now a generation behind their desktops and priced more than a comparable Wintel notebook. At this price point looks like we'll be buying some more Mac Mini's and lugging the monitors arround, fun stuff.

Re:Still overpriced

[boomerny]

iBooks are in that range, obviously not as nice as a Powerbook but fine for casual computing

Re:Still overpriced

[painandgreed]

Apple has yet to grab "the middle class" market. Thats the price range from $1000-1500.00, what most consumers in that area expect to pay for a new Laptop. I'm very disappointed that Apple is still charging $2000-2400 for G4 powerbooks that are now a generation behind their desktops and priced more than a comparable Wintel notebook. At this price point looks like we'll be buying some more Mac Mini's and lugging the monitors arround, fun stuff.

Check the Apple website and you'll find something called an iBook. It's a consumer laptop priced in that area.

Re:Still overpriced

[thecpuguru]

We have looked at the ibooks and will pass thanks. These may be fine for School children, but they won't hold up to the road test and no one in the office likes white.

Re:Still overpriced

[Hiro Antagonist]

Hello, the iBook, iMac, and Mac Mini easily fit within your price range, and all of them are very capable systems. Unlike Windows boxes, they come from Apple with a pile of useful software, no built-in spyware, and a much more sensible OS.

If you are a student, life is even better -- I just picked up a new PowerBook G4 12" for $1,400 USD out-the-door at my student bookstore; 80G HD, 512M RAM, and honestly, the best notebook I have ever owned. It's the same size as the Dell X-series ultraportable, only a bit thicker and with a built-in DVD burner, and much more solidly built -- the metal case makes a big difference. Every Dell and Compaq I've ever owned I worried about breaking, as they felt flimsy -- my PowerBook feels like it could take a few rounds out of a Vulcan and keep ticking.

Oh, and compared to the Dell, my PB was (for me) about $500 cheaper.

Re:Still overpriced

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Hello, the iBook, iMac, and Mac Mini easily fit within your price range, and all of them are very capable systems."

Depends on how you define "capable". The CPU in minis and iBooks is the slowest you can get in that class of machine from anyone, a 4200 rpm laptop drive is the slowest you can get, the resolution on iBooks sucks (particularly for the 14"). I think a VIA C3 processor might be slower in some areas, but the machines they come in are generally cheaper than even a mini.

As for the iMacs... they look pretty reasonable, but the lack of an entry-level tower is a problem. Because Apple disabled the dual-display feature of the video chipset and they lack PCI slots (or even laptop card slots) they are significantly less capable than entry-level towers. The lack of PCI is deffinitely an issue. Apple is willing to screw G3 iBook and G4 iMac users with machines less than 2 years old by dropping firewire support from iPods, and there's no reason to believe they won't be willing to do the same in 2 years when something else comes out.

An iMac might be okay for some users, but for enthusiasts or profesionals the lack of anything between an overpriced PowerMac and an less capable iMac is a problem.

Re:Still overpriced

[RTMFD]

I'm "middle class" and the Apple Powerbook or the PowerMac is the equivalent of a week's pay for me. Which "middle class" are you talking about?

Considering the longevity of apple hardware, it's more like putting down a down payment on a car or something equivalent. I had the "bic lighter" laptops from Dell and HP. They broke after a year of use.

Re:Still overpriced

[locnar42]

Most comparisons I've seen say the iBook is actually more durable than the PowerBook. I had an Apple rep tell me the same thing instead of trying to sell the most expensive thing in the store. The case is made from the same material as bulletproof glass with a magnesium frame to give it even more strength. Same drop sensors as the PowerBooks, so no advantage there either. Most 12-year olds are going to give it a beating like it's never seen (no kids, huh?) I owned my PowerBook for about 2 weeks before I managed to get some dents and scratches (my fault, but there nonetheless).

Re:Still overpriced

[Hiro Antagonist]

First, The original poster was asking about consumer grade PCs, not about high-end workstations.

Second, the iPod still has Firewire support through the special cradle, IIRC. Also, most Macs since 1999 have shipped with USB, and I'm fairly certain that the two-year-old Macs have USB 2.0, so iPods should work with them, no problem.

Third, iMacs are an all-in-one solution, aimed at a *consumer* who doesn't want to screw around with special discounts, having to pick a display and connect it, etc. You take it out of the box, plug it in, turn it on, and start using it. If you want a tower, you're likely going after either a cheap box (covered by the Mini) or a powerhouse (covered by the G5 towers).

Fourth, the CPU isn't that much slower than most modern chips, and they ship these things with a reasonable amount of RAM (512M), as well as a decent amount of hard drive space, and a good bundle of *useful* software. The people buying Minis aren't editing film or doing 3D graphics; they want a system that Just Works, and the Mac, by and large, does.

Fifth, the displays are fine. I hate how every other manufacturer is trying to cram more pixels into these tiny-ass displays, which for me, makes them harder to read. I honestly love the display on my 12" PB (same as the one on the iB), having come from a world of much higher-res PC laptops (running Linux, of course).

Re:Still overpriced

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Second, the iPod still has Firewire support through the special cradle, IIRC."

Apple specs page - I don't see "firewire" or "1394" anywhere on that page.
Arstechnica review - "Upon connecting the new iPod via Firewire, you'll see the same screen you get when you try to connect the nano via Firewire"
said screen

It would appear you recall incorrectly.

"Also, most Macs since 1999 have shipped with USB, and I'm fairly certain that the two-year-old Macs have USB 2.0"

G4 iMacs and G3 iBooks did not. PowerMacs and PowerBooks have it... but artificially constraining the cheaper machines is one of my criticisms, and leaving USB 2.0 out of the cheaper machines is an example of that.

"If you want a tower, you're likely going after either a cheap box (covered by the Mini) or a powerhouse (covered by the G5 towers)."

My goal, along with the majority of tower owners, is a machine that isn't necessarily outrageously powerful but one that can be updated, and has better capabilities. Wanting dual displays or PCI slots does not imply wanting a second CPU or having a few thousand extra dollars lying around.

Also, an entry-level tower from Apple, if they decided to make one, would "just work" just fine. PowerMacs can do it, you only worry about the slots when you need to use them.

"Fourth, the CPU isn't that much slower than most modern chips"

Depends on how you define "slow". If you think 2-4 times slower (integer code) isn't that much slower... Well, then you have pretty low standards. I've used the faster G4s on integer-heavy stuff like web pages (particularly things like javascript) and it's pretty sad.

"I honestly love the display on my 12" PB (same as the one on the iB), having come from a world of much higher-res PC laptops"

If 1024x768 on 12" iBooks is okay, then 1280x1024 should be okay on a 14".

Re:Still overpriced

[Riot Nrrrrd]

"Also, most Macs since 1999 have shipped with USB, and I'm fairly certain that the two-year-old Macs have USB 2.0"

G4 iMacs and G3 iBooks did not. PowerMacs and PowerBooks have it... but artificially constraining the cheaper machines is one of my criticisms, and leaving USB 2.0 out of the cheaper machines is an example of that.

Just to add to this, my first-generation 17" Aluminum PowerBook (1 GHz) only has USB 1.1 ports. No new iPod for me ...

My goal, along with the majority of tower owners, is a machine that isn't necessarily outrageously powerful but one that can be updated, and has better capabilities. Wanting dual displays or PCI slots does not imply wanting a second CPU or having a few thousand extra dollars lying around.

Funnily enough, my officemate just mentioned this very same thing/desire yesterday. His main machine at home is a PC, but he wants to upgrade his old G3 desktop. He doesn't want to spend much money on one because he doesn't have much need for power, but a Mac mini won't do, because he has PCI cards (or a single PCI card; I'm not sure). There is no "middle ground" with Apple anymore. I suggested a used/refurbished single-CPU 1.8 GHz G5 to him; that was about the best I could come up with.

Re:Still overpriced

[thecpuguru]

Apple Reps love to blow smoke in your face and use the dog and pony show to make their product look good. But seriously, we have associates who have road tested (ie: taken them out of the office), the ibook with mixed results. Everything from cracked screens to chips dents and OS issues when running pro software. The Ti-books are quite lovely by comparison and hold up for everyone I know who owns one. The problem and the gripe was the price point, and only Apple can change that, but they won't.

Re:Still overpriced

[DarkVader]

iMac G4s shipped 2 years ago had USB 2.0.

The "iMac G4 (USB 2.0)" was released in September of 2003.

The iBook G4 was released in October of 2003.

So, the statement "Also, most Macs since 1999 have shipped with USB, and I'm fairly certain that the two-year-old Macs have USB 2.0" is almost correct.

The eMac didn't get USB 2.0 until April 2004.

Re:Still overpriced

[ArbitraryConstant]

Fair enough, they're now slightly more than 2 years old.

aperture lite=

[circusboy]

iPhoto

You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unless..

[gsfprez]

If you do not shoot 500 pictures or more at a family gathering "because you can" - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

If you do not have a camera body that costs over $1200 or if you don't understand what "camera body" means - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

If the idea of spending twice as much money on a single lens than what you paid for your camera body or your car seems totaly insane - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

If you think 5000 pictures is a lot of pictures - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

If you have absolutely no problem deleting pictures you've taken - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

If you never take your memory card out of your camera - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

If you don't piss your pants at the thought of panning and zooming 8 pictures simultaneously - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

If you use AOL's webmail to send people pictures of your dog - then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop.

Aperture is for photographers. Photoshop is for graphic artists.

Is DDR2 worth it?

[Once&FutureRocketman]

I'm getting ready to buy a Powerbook, and I'm wondering how much real impact on performance the upgrade from DDR RAM to DDR2 RAM is likely to have. I can buy a nearly-new used unit for several hundred dollars less than a new-new unit from Apple. But the extra performance granted by faster RAM might be worth a bit more cash.

Opinions?

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[RcktMan77]

There is no performance benefit gained from the addition of DDR2 RAM to the Powerbooks today since the FSB at 167Mhz remains a bottleneck of system component communication. However, this addition does allow Apple's engineers to extend the cycle life of the battery as has been touted as one of the features of these new laptops. The old DDR interface I believe drew 2.5V; whereas DDR-2 draws only 1.8V

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[argent]

Doesn't Freescale have a G4 with a 200 MHz bus? Even if they can't get the MPC8641 yet, they could at least get a BIT of a speed bump there.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[ArbitraryConstant]

A G4 has a 167 mhz bus. DDR-333 memory was already too fast by a factor of 2. Add to that the fact that DDR2 has higher latency and you get a performance downgrade.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Doesn't Freescale have a G4 with a 200 MHz bus?"

They do, but Apple didn't use it.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[Wiz]

DDR-2 does have lower power requirements, which is a win for laptops. More battery, and less heat. But I do agree it is likely, if anything, to degrade performance.

What Apple should have done is put in the 7448 core from Freescale. It is pin compatabile with the current 7447a and has a faster FSB (200MHz) as well as more cache and better power management. Along with other general core improvements.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[argent]

Then Steve Jobs can take his complaints about G5 powerbooks and shove them where the sun don't shine. If he really cared about the performance of the Powerbook he'd have taken that as "One More Thing" and he'd be all over Freescale to get him a working MPC8641D.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[ArbitraryConstant]

My problem with Apple, over and above anything specific, is that machines are configured by policy, not by technological or economical constraints. They'll omit obvious features or even disable ones they get for free to implement this policy.

Even if certain classes of machine are attractive at some points in time, Apple policy prevents the platform from being a viable home.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[argent]

And this is different from any other computer manufacturer how?

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[ArbitraryConstant]

a) most OEMs won't go out of their way to reduce the capabilities of their computers
b) even if they do there's lots of alternatives
c) even if they all do I can build my own

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[argent]

a) You're right. Intel, for example, would never hardwire the clock speed into a chip so you can't overclock it. HP would never add components to a printer to decrease its performance. You'll never find a motherboard with a NIC but no RJ45, Firewire support and no Firewire socket, but with traces for both leading to empty vias. It'd never happen, because only Apple ever reduces the capabilities of their computers. That's why people are so upset with Apple over shipping Mac minis that could have a faster CPU or more VRAM but they're disabled... oh, sorry, they're not disabled, and people are upset with Apple over that. I guess they can't win.

b+c) Competition is good, I agree. It's a shame that the rules of the intellectual property game have been written so as to make an OS monopoly more or less inevitable, but at least you've got hardware choice if you choose the monopoly OS.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"You're right. Intel, for example, would never hardwire the clock speed into a chip so you can't overclock it. HP would never add components to a printer to decrease its performance. You'll never find a motherboard with a NIC but no RJ45, Firewire support and no Firewire socket, but with traces for both leading to empty vias."

Hey, there's plenty of manufacturors for all those parts.

"Competition is good, I agree. It's a shame that the rules of the intellectual property game have been written so as to make an OS monopoly more or less inevitable, but at least you've got hardware choice if you choose the monopoly OS."

For the moment at least MacOS and Windows aren't the only choices, and even if software patents make the open source OSes unviable by themselves there's still the commercial distributions like Suse.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[argent]

Hey, there's plenty of manufacturors for all those parts.

You already covered that with points "b" and "c", and I agreed with you on points "b" and "c". These points do mitigate the effect of point "a" on non-apple hardware, but repeating them over again doesn't actually make it a stronger point.

For the moment at least MacOS and Windows aren't the only choices

If you're only interested in running open source software, that's true. Now, there's a good argument for only running open source software. I was primarily running, as well as writing, what was not yet called open source software myself on a variety of operating systems back when Richard Stallman was still working on Emacs and the Free Software Foundation wasn't even a gleam in his eye. But not having the kind of tools available on proprietary platform begins to pall after a decade or two, even for someone like me.

And on the other hand, someone like me (or, I would guess, your good self) who is capable of handling the limited choice of application software that results from picking free UNIX (whether Linux- or BSD- based) is also capable of handling the limited hardware availability that results from picking OSX. It's simply a matter of which limitation one is willing to put up with.

You can pick the monopoly OS, and put up with the lousy security model that makes bodged like "anti-virus software" seem reasonable.

You can pick the other commercial OS, and put up with a limited hardware selection.

You can pick a non-commercial OS (and packaging it in a cardboard box with a manual doesn't change what it is) and put up with a limited software selection.

There's no win-win solutions.

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"And on the other hand, someone like me (or, I would guess, your good self) who is capable of handling the limited choice of application software that results from picking free UNIX (whether Linux- or BSD- based) is also capable of handling the limited hardware availability that results from picking OSX. It's simply a matter of which limitation one is willing to put up with."

That's true, but I've bought Apple computers in the past when their offerings coincided with my needs, and I found that there's nothing uniquely available to the platform that I need. Indeed, there are some limitations that I find difficult to deal with (eg sluggish Java releases).

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[argent]

I found that there's nothing uniquely available to the platform that I need.

I think you will find that like myself you are an "edge consumer" in this domain.

Also, unless "I've bought Apple computers in the past" refers to a past recent enough that they were running OS X when you bought them, they might as well have been in a different universe.

(sluggish Java? There's Java that isn't sluggish? That must be in an alternate reality as well)

Re:Is DDR2 worth it?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Also, unless "I've bought Apple computers in the past" refers to a past recent enough that they were running OS X when you bought them, they might as well have been in a different universe."

I currently have an iBook running 10.3.9.

"(sluggish Java? There's Java that isn't sluggish? That must be in an alternate reality as well)"

hehehe, touche

I mean releases that are 6-12 months after Sun's.

Re:Powerbook Resolution (YES YES YES)

[argent]

Yeh, it was embarassing that my 14" Thinkpad had more pixels than the 17" Powerbook.

I wonder what all the people who argued that Apple wasn't doing higher resolution books for good technical reasons... like, they wanted to have a constant DPI on all displays... are going to say now?

I want a Powerbook e600

[argent]

I don't want a PowerHungryBook G5, I want a Powerbook with an MPC8641 in it (assuming Freescale hasn't indefinitely deferred that in light of Apple's June announcement). There's nothing wrong with a G4 that dual 768 MHz memory busses won't fix.

Re:I want a Powerbook e600

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah a dual core G4 with a less archaic memory bus would have made me upgrade too, but I am guessing that the reason Apple didn't jump is that 1/ It would have meant a redesign to the motherboard and with the new architecture coming out their designers are probably just a little busy right now, and 2/ My guess is that the Powerbook will be the first with the new Intel chips, being as Steve was citing the reason for switching was performance per watt and I am guessing that they are holding off upgrading so that selling the new intel hardware is a little easier. Existing software not recompiled for the new chips that will have to run through rosetta will have to run at least near the speed of the current Powerbooks.

Re:I want a Powerbook e600

[argent]

I am guessing that the reason Apple didn't jump is... ...the MPC8641 isn't out yet. It may never come out now. But why didn't they use the MPC7448, at least? 200 MHz memory bus would at least have given them a bit of a boost.

I don't believe they'll have Rosetta running at anything close to current G4 speeds by release, so holding back the PB to make Rosetta look like it's better than it really is... nah.

Higer DPI = Sharper text

[itomato]

word to those with poor eyesight: increase your system-wide font size.

You think 12pt looks good at 72dpi? Look at 16pt at 100dpi+.

It's like the difference between the CBS Eye on an 80's trinitron vs. HiDef.

The 30" Cinema Display rocks

[Nugget]

Just keep trying out rationalizations until you've found a way to justify one. At $2499 it's now even easier to do so.

mod the parent down! Re:photoshop is dead

[dgerman]

This is totally non-sense. I shoot in the order of 20k photos a year, on average I use photoshop several hours a day (see http://silvernegative.com/ and I have looked at the Apple materials on Aperture.

I can assure you that Photoshop is not equivalent to Aperture. I would instead, say that Adobe Bridge is (which is a part of Adobe Photoshop CS2).

Many of the features present in Aperture are available in Photoshop's bridge (easy import of RAW, non-destructive editing, RAW processing). One of the great benefits of Aperture entering the market is healthy competion.

I will not, with what I have seen, replace photoshop with Aperture. Will I be happy using Aperture? Probably yes. Will I pay for it? US$500 is a lot of money for those extra features, and I will probably not buy it. But then again, I don't think that pro-am photographers are the intended market. We are more worried about buying glass than buying software to do our hobby.

Unless Aperture seriously competes with photoshop, it will end as a fringe application similar to Impress (who only Apple drones buy). There is already talk on the f-spot mailing list about Apereture features, so you might see them in a free software application soon.

Re:mod the parent down! Re:photoshop is dead

[same_old_story]

Sorry but i think I didn't express my self very well. I didn't mean Aperture would have all of Photoshop's features. Photoshop is also used in layout composition and other industries. Photoshop stopped being a photographer's only app a long time ago. Also, even though you're right, photoshop will be the tool for very heavy picture editing, most of the time you need simple stuff like color correction, etc, and Aperture seems to deal with those very well.

What I meant is this: today most pro photographers I know will shoot about 100+ shots a day for a job, and very often 200 to 300. He then must upload them to the computer, where he must do a lot of "organizing", like selecting best shots, making sequences and organizing proofs for his client. From what I've seen in Apple's Aperture, the software is superb in doing just that. Take the loupe tool for example, it looks very intuitive and fast to use, making things like checking focus and small details a breeze. Sure, when setting up your own exhibit with the 20 perfect prints, Photoshop it to hell, else, the at daily task of deliverying many shots to a client asap, Photoshop sucks...

Keep in mind that for a pro photographer, US$500,00 for a tool that will save him hours in his work flow is a no brainer.
Also, Aperture seems to be optimized to hell (that's why you have very restrictive system requirements), meaning it's performance should be very good, doinaling a lot on the gpu. That alone can make many people switch.

It's like the iPod. All if it's features were somewhat available or are now in other mp3 players, it's the combination of many design / interface features that made it a killer gadget. Check slashdot's thread the day the iPod shipped, most people were saying "bah, x player is similar and cheaper" and look at what happened.

As for having Aperture's feature in free software, I really hope it does come true, but I am not holding my breath. Just look at GIMP, which is supposed to be Photoshop like...

p.s.: Adobe Bridge and Capture One Pro's interface suck compared to Aperture's....

Re:Needs this ("Teh Snappy" (tm))

[Afrosheen]

Well, Apple has given you guys plenty of eye candy with OSX and it's a big selling point, but all that jazz comes with a high CPU cost. The old-school, 2d renderer was very fast and light in comparison. You can't have both really..it's like having KDE 3.4 vs Fluxbox. You can still run KDE apps in Fluxbox though but some of that processing overhead comes with it.

Re:Aperture... off topic.

[johnny cashed]

I agree. Nothing like a good rig from the '80s or '90s using film. I'm just glad now that I stuck with 35mm instead of moving up to medium format. I am not a professional, so I don't have to deal with sending pictures across the globe instantly like a photojournalist. The closest digital camera that would allow me to take full advantage of my 15mm superwide is the Canon with the full frame sensor (due to "lens factor"). It costs more than my lens. And it is a different lens mount. Most digital cameras are good as polaroid point and shoots. If I was a pro Nikon user, I'd be pissed because Nikon has yet to make a digital SLR that will use existing Nikon lenses at their focal length. Most people don't want to spend money on a 15mm or 20mm lens to get an 18 or 24 out of it. Nikon is using this as a way to sell smaller lenses (we'll just call them "DX" lenses). Used to be, Nikon would brag that its lens mount is still compatible with older lenses. They still technically are, but you loose a portion of the frame. I mean, if your going to a smaller sensor area, and you are going to make a new set of lenses for this area, you might as well make a smaller lens mount. Because now you cannot use your new "DX" lenses with your 35mm film camera and you cannot use them if they ever make a "full frame" digital camera, so why are you making a new lens line with an old lens mount when they are practically incompatible? I really don't care, because I don't use Nikon. I think that they are losing the pro market anyway. Which is a shame, because Nikon really did make some good equipment. But I'm not here to start a Nikon/Canon/Olympus/etc. penis length match. Digital cameras are useful, they are handy, but they are not yet all things to all photographers. Long live chemistry.

This is not a slap in the face of adobe.

[OS24Ever]

This has nothing to do with adobe and photoshop.

This has everything to do with companies like Bibble Labs, Phase One, iView Multimedia who all make 'raw workflow' software.

For those of you who are new, or don't care, or don't use RAW workflow it's about the post processing that most enthusiast, semi-pro, and pros doin once the pictures are taken and before they're edited in Photoshop (if needed).

Photoshop has something included that has been showing up in the last few versions, they call it adobe camera raw but it is rasterized out of camera RAW and then you edit it like you would any other image.

What Aperture, and the others let you do is 'pre-process' your image to do lossless corrections to things such as white balance, color cast, cropping, etc. If you make any of these types of changes inside photoshop once you import in the RAW file you are doing it with data loss.

This is a step before photoshop, not a slap in the face and replacement.

This is condiments to the burger. The burger is much more filling than just the condiments, but the condiments aren't all that by itself

Some predictable carping and whingeing...

[otis wildflower]

... Where's the 7800gt/gtx BTO options.. Can the DDR2 take better-timing DIMMS, is it dual (or better) channel..

Most importantly:

How many FPS can one of these get in Ironforge with all chrome on max and max viewing distance?

Re:Some predictable carping and whingeing...

[be-fan]

The 7800GT option will probably be shipping when Apple can get ahold of enough cards to ship in machines. As usual, the 7800GT is still rather new and not showing up in large volumes yet. Whether the DDR2 can take faster DIMMs is largely irrelevent, since the G5's FSB wouldn't be fast enough to be able to use them. Yes, it is dual channel.

Re:Some predictable carping and whingeing...

[Slashcrap]

Can the DDR2 take better-timing DIMMS, is it dual (or better) channel..

No, worse actually. DDR2 has much higher latency than standard DDR. It does offer a bandwidth advantage, but you need really high bandwidth to make up for it.

In summary, DDR2 is often slower than DDR. But as long as Steve Jobs stands up and says it's faster it won't be an issue, as reality will automatically adjust.

That's a recommendation, not the requirement.

[OS24Ever]

Right above that (in the store portion) you have the 'bare minimum' specs

1. Power Mac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5; 17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with 1.8GHz or faster PowerPC G5; or 15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with 1.25GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
2. 1GB of RAM

Re:You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unles

[jsgates]

I was right with you, up until the last line. Aperture is a companion to Photoshop, it lacks things like layers, masking, etc. Photoshop is for photographers, and graphic artists.

actually...

[hotsauce]

a better way of wording that would be: only a handful of video cards are capable of driving the 30"

Re:actually...

[QuaZar666]

or better yet... Only a handful of video cards support dual DVI, which is required to drive the 30".

Say it, brotha!

[7Prime]

I've been working with Finale since 2.0, and it makes me cry. Coda/MakeMusic (sorta like Puff Daddy -> P Diddy) has to be one of the worst software manufacturers on the planet. Every upgrade has a mandatory propriatary format overhall, so if you don't upgrade along with other people you're sharing with, you're screwed. It's as if Adobe suddenly made it impossible to share Photoshop CS2 files with CS1. Add one of the worst UIs ever designed, one of the clunkiest midi data entry systems ever devised (drawing in midi data on an included draw program to a grid with no snap-to properties with only numeric reference... holy shit that is bad). Now they've partnered up with the single worst orchestral synth manufacturer on the market, Garratin, which is just laughably bad. Maybe if Adobe or Apple released a program, they'd do it right and sign on with East-West Quantum Leap instead of Gary Garratin.

All that, and it's STILL better than Sibelius, which may have a better interface, but it's compositional philosophy is so f**ked up it's just breathtaking. For example, if you want to add an extra beat in, you have to completely re-write a measure, how screwed up is that? It's like if your text editor made you re-write a sentance every time you wanted to add an adjective. Two days on Sibelius and I was scrambling back to Finale.

I've been praying to God for Adobe to hit the music notation market for years now. They're interface design is second to none (even possibly apple). My experience with Adobe's pro software has been even better than Apple, I'm still not so sure about the UI design of Final Cut Pro, for instance. Either way, though, if either company went into the music notation market, I'd buy it in an instant. "Notes" would be an overnight success. The entire music community hates Finale, but is forced to use it anyway. Make Music and Sibelius would literally die overnight if either Adobe or Apple would release a notation app.

--Eric

Remember your math word problems....?

[OS24Ever]

With each bucket of water Kenny can bail 2 gallons, he can do 15 buckets per minute.

Four Armed Henry can bail 1.5 gallons, and can do 30 buckets per minute.

Who's faster?

Now granted, the scheduler (the brain) needs to provide enough workload (threads) to each processor to get the best performance out of Henry's extra arms, but if it's a MP aware os/application already it will see an immediate benefit. If it's a single threaded app, well, there you go

Re:Remember your math word problems....?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, with 30 and 45 gallons per minute, this one's easier than the dual vs dual core G5 question.

No Front Row for PowerMac or PowerBook

[Johnny Mozzarella]

This is really disappointing for those looking to use a PowerMac in our home theater setup. The one major feature that Front Row lacks is the ability to record content. To do this you need a separate piece of hardware. The PowerMac is the only Mac that can accept internal capture cards. But without Front Row your back at square one.

My guess is Steve will sell it as a separate product or roll it into iLife '06. But what I really hope Steve has up his sleeve is a home theater Mac. Guess we'll find out in January.

Re:No Front Row for PowerMac or PowerBook

[1336.5]

they will probably release it as an application sometime soon, with the remote being bluetooth.

Not going to matter....

[King_TJ]

Once Apple finishes the switch to Intel based Macs, it looks like Mac users will be able to dual-boot into Windows and run it at native speeds. (The need for a "VirtualPC" emulator product will be gone.) Therefore, it will start making more sense for Apple to offer their own products that you can run directly inside OS X - while letting the other people do whatever they want. If they think Apple's competition is too much for them, let them write a Windows-only version.... Mac users can still boot to Windows and use it if they want/need to.

In the case of Adobe, practically their entire product line caters to the segment of the market most likely to be using a Mac. They may sell more Windows versions of their software just due to the sheer volume of PCs out there (including colleges and universities wanting to offer courses in products like Photoshop or Illustrator, who may only have a Windows PC computer lab). But the professionals are relatively *often* getting their work done on the Mac. They'd be foolish to "pack up and leave the platform" rather than compete.

Re:You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unles

[Anonymous Coward]

A photographer will take the time to compose a smaller number of shots rather than employ a shotgun method of shooting. Consequently, there is a balance between total number and quality. I could be wrong but it seems to me that you're suggesting 'photographers by definition take large number of images'.

A good photographer will have no trouble dropping images without a payoff. Is that what you're saying?

If you're a portrait or studio/beauty/fashion/nature photographer I'm not certain that 'panning and zooming 8 pictures simultaneously' is all that relevant.

QuadG5 power user questions...

[sakusha]

I've been saving up for one final PowerMac generation, I figured that no 1st gen MacIntel will come close to a Quad G5, and besides, I'd probably want to have a good top-end PPC machine around even after the transition starts since it will be a while before native Intel apps get released.

BUT.. this top end Quad G5 configuration has me astonished, especially the +$1650 nVidia Quadro FX 4500. I was thinking of investing in a nice 30in Cinema Display and a QuadG5, for applications like FCP, Maya, Shake, and Motion. But I wonder if it's really worth spending that kind of money on a video card, I mean jeez, that card alone is almost as much as a basic dualcore-2Ghz G5 CPU! Is this card going to really give a performance boost to make it worth that kind of money? It's not like I'm going to do the fancy tricks this card is capable of, like stereographic LCD glasses, dual 30in screens, etc.
The other big question is quad processor support. I recall seeing the "Use X processors" option in the Maya prefs, but it wouldn't accept any number higher than 2 (of course, since there were only 2 processors). I guess I'll have to call Alias (or is it now Autodesk?) to ask them if Maya will support 4 processors in the G5, and if it's worth it to get the FX 4500 video card. I know that Apple will support quad processors in their own apps like FCP, but I wonder if third party apps will be updated to quad when they're already forced to deal with the MacIntel transition.
Another issue is the amount of space for expansion in the new CPUs. There are a few aftermarket kits to toss in up to 4 additional hard drives, in the space up front between the grille and the CPU area. But now it looks like there is much less space available, no room to squeeze in a nice 4 drive RAID. Damn. I was going to stick in 4 300Gb drives and a SATA RAID card, but now it looks like this will be impossible. I guess we will have to wait and see what some clever engineer can figure out how to squeeze into that space. Darn it, I want that option NOW, not later when they figure out how to do it. Oh well, you can't have it all.
Then there's the final issue: heat dissipation. I wonder how much heat these suckers kick out, especially with extra hard drives. My office is already baking from the hot exhaust of my dual-1Ghz MDD with 4 drives, I bet a similar quadG5 config really will kick out the heat and suck up the power. It's 60 degrees outside but I'm still running the air conditioning because without it, my CPU heats my tiny office up to about 90 degrees even under moderately light CPU use.

Re:QuadG5 power user questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

The 7800 series cards are about as fast as the Quadro for most things. What the Quadro gives you is a more complete OpenGL implementation. (The Quadro will do things like hardware acceleration of lines and points with aa where "normal" 3D cards really only want to push textured triangles. In other words, the Quadro is useful for CAD and 3D design work where you will often be viewing wire frames. The "normal" 3D cards are really designed for games.) You certainly pay a lot for that privilege - lookup the Quadro FX 4500 on Google and see what it sells for other places. (> $2000 just for the card)

Re:QuadG5 power user questions...

[HTH NE1]

BUT.. this top end Quad G5 configuration has me astonished, especially the +$1650 nVidia Quadro FX 4500. I was thinking of investing in a nice 30in Cinema Display and a QuadG5.... It's not like I'm going to do the fancy tricks this card is capable of, like stereographic LCD glasses, dual 30in screens, etc.

Then don't get that card. The other one offered can drive a single 30" Cinema Display.

Re:QuadG5 power user questions...

[sakusha]

The spec sheets list the 7800 cards as available, but it's not currently available as a Build To Order option on the Apple Store. And you pretty much have to get an official Apple OEM video card if you want to insure long-term support and firmware updates.
I was coming to the conclusion that the 7800 was more bang for the buck and much cheaper than the Quadro, so I am glad to hear some specifics about what the Quadro was intended to do. It might be useful for wireframe mode in Maya, but I don't know if that's worth $2k. Apple claims the card has double the speed of the baseline video card (6600?) which would be great for hardware rendering, but still, you could buy a second G5 CPU for about $2k and double your rendering speed with a second render queue.
All in all, I'm still uncertain about the video cards, I guess the question will remain open until someone gets their hands on a quad G5 with the different video cards to do benchmarking.

Re:QuadG5 power user questions...

[sakusha]

Just to follow up my own question...

Alias updated their qualified hardware list, the document is dated Oct 4 but only appeared online today (Oct 20) so they've obviously been testing these machines internally for a while now.

Maya 7 now officially supports all the new Macs, and the nVidia 6600 and FX 4500. BUT there is no word on the 7800 yet. I called Alias tech support and they said that the quad processors are "supported but not optimized" whatever that means. I pressed them on the issue, they said they'd research it and get back to me. I suspect that this means that they still only support 2 processors and that Maya will run on a quad-G5 but with no speed advantage for the extra processors. But I can only guess at this, until I get better info.

I think we're going to get a lot of this sort of waffling until the quad G5s get into developer hands, although it is not a good sign when a developer obviously HAS the machines and has tested them but hasn't publicly committed to 4 processor support. And this is the crux of the issue, are developers going to support these last-generation quad-G5s or are they going to skip over them and put their resources into preparing for the Intel macs? It would be a shame if they didn't support the quads, as the performance looks like it will beat anything on the market. I guess time will tell. And there's not much time left on the G5s, so this could be a problem.

Re:QuadG5 power user questions...

[Riot Nrrrrd]

BUT.. this top end Quad G5 configuration has me astonished, especially the +$1650 nVidia Quadro FX 4500. I was thinking of investing in a nice 30in Cinema Display and a QuadG5, for applications like FCP, Maya, Shake, and Motion. But I wonder if it's really worth spending that kind of money on a video card, I mean jeez, that card alone is almost as much as a basic dualcore-2Ghz G5 CPU! Is this card going to really give a performance boost to make it worth that kind of money? It's not like I'm going to do the fancy tricks this card is capable of, like stereographic LCD glasses, dual 30in screens, etc.

Why not just wait for Apple to add the 7800GT to the BTO list? Given that it (mistakingly or otherwise) appeared in the specs, one can only assume that sooner or later it'll actually be orderable, and show up in the BTO list.

My office is already baking from the hot exhaust of my dual-1Ghz MDD with 4 drives, I bet a similar quadG5 config really will kick out the heat and suck up the power. It's 60 degrees outside but I'm still running the air conditioning because without it, my CPU heats my tiny office up to about 90 degrees even under moderately light CPU use.

Google for CHUD 3.5.2 and Nap mode and read http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/MDD_CHUD_feedb ack.html. My dual-1.25 MDD's nominal CPU temperature dropped 20-30 degrees after installing it and enabling Nap mode. (I only have 2 disks inside mine, but still ... )

Re:QuadG5 power user questions...

[sakusha]

The nVidia 7800 is definitely not a mistake, as Apple is prominently featuring it in all their benchmarks and online literature. I talked to the Apple Store today, the rep said he suspects the 7800 will be available about the same time the quad G5s ship. But the rep admitted he was only guessing. The big problem is, if I wait to place an order for a quad G5 until the 7800 becomes available, how far down the queue will I be? The rep suggested I order the quad now with the basic card and then try to change the order in a few weeks before it ships. That sounded rather risky, Apple could always ship early and then I'd be stuck with the low-end video card, since Apple traditionally has refused to sell these video cards separately from CPUs.

BTW, I read about CHUD and nap mode on xlr8yourmac a long time ago, but the user reports always raised issues of stability, and I really like stability. But I'll test it and see what happens.

External SATA case...

[argent]

I was going to stick in 4 300Gb drives and a SATA RAID card, but now it looks like this will be impossible.

Why compromise the cooling of your computer instead of going with an external SATA case like this one

Re:Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that a troll?

• It has only one mouse button

• It's lame

Sounds like FACT to me....

Re:You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unles

[Serengeti]

"Photoshop is for photographers, and graphic artists."

Photoshop is an image manipulation tool, not a photograph management system. I think you're right: Aperture is a companion to Photoshop, and some features overlap a little, but they have enormously different general purposes.

Re: iTunes 7

[aixou]

Look for it in iTunes 7, expected to be released sometime in November. ;)

RAM

[Universal Indicator]

One thing that gets me is that even in their top of the line machine, they still only put 512 megs of RAM? At this point in time (especially considering it will hold 16 gigs!) you would think they would at least put in one gig standard.

Re:RAM

[toddestan]

One thing that gets me is that even in their top of the line machine, they still only put 512 megs of RAM? At this point in time (especially considering it will hold 16 gigs!) you would think they would at least put in one gig standard.

The really funny thing about this is that their new software package Aperture requires 1GB of ram to run, and recommends 2GB. Their top of the line $3000 computer can't even run it without an upgrade!

12" PowerBook RAM disappointment

[hubertf]

No bump to 512MB on-board AGAIN,
so I either have to get a really expensive 1GB module if I want >=1GB, or ... get an iBook. Great...

seems Apple makes it really hard to want their "higher end" line. :(

  - Hubert (deciding about iBook soonish)

Re:12" PowerBook RAM disappointment

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah...like the 2 x 1GB Corsair modules I have in my 15" PB? :)

well I am glad they got rid of

[1336.5]

the combo drive. It used to confuse the shit out of our customers

-former apple employee

AutoCAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Because AutoCAD sucks. And Autodesk blows. Sorry, I am a former user of AutoCAD. I believe that it is still popular because it is entrenched. There are better CAD and solid modeling programs out there. I wonder what CAD package Apple uses?

Aperture

[falconwolf]

Actually, the current PowerMacs DO NOT meet the minimum specs for Aperture.

I plan on getting a Powerbook and looked at the requirements for Aperture, 15" and 17" with 1.25 GHz G4 meet the requirements. As an amateur photographer I'd like to get Photoshop but the cost is too high for my blood, so I'd be interested if Aperture would be a replacement for PH. If not then I don't see a reason to get it, I'm also think of trying Gimp again, and am hoping the current version of can do pretty much what PH can do.

Falcon

Re:Aperture

[jaseparlo]

GIMP's not great for professional print - doesn't have any CMYK management. Having gone to photoshop I find it frustrating to go back to Gimp, but YMMV. Won't cost you anything to try it :)

They require 2 GHz for Aperture??!

[falconwolf]

No, the 1.25 GHz G4 15" and "17 Powerbooks meet the requirements.

Faclon

Road test?

[AnEmbodiedMind]

I think you're trolling, but what they hey...

What do you mean road test?

I carry mine in a sleeve in bags (satchel, backpack, or just holding on to it) every day. It bounces around on my back as I walk, for at least 60 minutes a day.

No damage, no signs of problems - and I don't even bother to turn it off - just shut the screen and let it hibernate.

But if you don't like the white, that's your call.

Xbench 1.2 speed test results for the new PM

[thevil]

The Swedish site 99mac has a short test and has some pictures of the new PowerMac.

Here are the Xbench 1.2. speed test results:

CPU Test:
2.3 Dualcore: 114,32, 2.0 Dualcore: 101,55, 2.5 Dual: 122,25

Thread test:
2.3 Dualcore: 113,74, 2.0 Dualcore: 96,91, 2.5 Dual: 125,90

Memory test:
2.3 Dualcore: 121,99, 2.0 Dualcore: 110,32, 2.5 Dual: 103,73

Quartz graphics:
2.3 Dualcore: 126,64, 2.0 Dualcore: 107,07, 2.5 Dual: 125,76

Open GL:
2.3 Dualcore: 135,38, 2.0 Dualcore: 113,27, 2.5 Dual: 125,63

User Interface:
2.3 Dualcore: 121,58, 2.0 Dualcore: 118,98, 2.5 Dual: 99,94

Disk Test:
2.3 Dualcore: 66,0, 2.0 Dualcore 82,3 (2 harddrives RAID-1), 2.5 Dual: 69,3

TOTALS:
2.3 Dualcore: 108,7 (winner!), 2.0 Dualcore: 103,1, 2.5 Dual: 105,9

Re:You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unles

[Too Much Noise]

If you do not shoot 500 pictures or more at a family gathering "because you can"

If you shoot 500+ pictures at one event because you can you're a monkey with a finger reflex, not a photographer. A photographer would only shoot as many pictures as needed.

If you do not have a camera body that costs over $1200

I can up your troll just fine - if your hasselblad doesn't have a digital back you are not doing pro digital photography (after all, that's what you're droning about with 'then you can't understand the difference between Aperture and Photoshop' 'cause Aperture is 'for photographers') Do you still qualify? Craftmanship is not a matter of the tool and conversely throwing money at pro photo gear does not a photographer make (they used to say philosophum non facit barba)

If you have absolutely no problem deleting pictures you've taken

So you keep all those 500+ pictures per event? That says something about your discerning ability ... remind me never to ask you about your photos. Heck, if you shoot 500+ pics on a daily basis, you don't even see most of them. Or you meant 500+ once in a blue moon, when you play 'photographer'?

If you never take your memory card out of your camera

yep, 2x 20D (with USB2 connectors, so transfer time is not a big issue) loaded with 8GB cards (to fit about 900 RAW pics each) cannot possibly help you understand ... wait, nevermind. Perhaps you didn't think someone could actually be using more than one camera (the horror!!!)

If you use AOL's webmail to send people pictures of your dog

ah, indeed. I seem to have been wasting my time after all. You are absolutely right - pictures of your dog won't do at all. Now, pictures of your cat, on the other hand ...

How you got +5 Insightful is perhaps a testimony of how much apple section mods know about photography - because it certainly has no relevance for the 'insight' of your post.

I can't believe no one's said it yet....

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine an Xgrid cluster of those!

Re:I can't believe no one's said it yet....

[HTH NE1]

Say, does this mean another round of inexpensive previous-generation machines from a certain University as they upgrade their system to the latest and fastest?

save money

[falconwolf]

Sons a Bitches! I just paid $1,499 for a 23" Cinema Display 2 weeks ago. Argh!

Did you get it from a walk in store? Maybe what you can do is return it then buy a new one. Back in the mid '80s a friend bought a new PC from Zenith, ZDS, and shortly afterwards they dropped the prices. When they did they sent him a refund. I'm glad they dropped prices on the 23" Cinema Displays as well as 17" Powerbooks, I'd like to get them around news years.

Falcon

Sibelius is good for children

[Anonymous Coward]

Finale, though hard to learn, is the only choice for serious composers. Sibelius is great for amateurs and slow-learners. And Broadway composers.

what are layers?

[falconwolf]

I don't believe Aperture *HAS* to support layers. Because it keeps a record of the manipulations that you do, and CoreImage dynamically does them on the fly, and shows you the file with the updates applied. CoreImage uses the GPU so it's fast enough that you don't actually have to save the effects, as layers.

If this is all what layers does then I need to reprogram my memorybanks. It was my understanding that layers was much like double or multiple exposures in a darkroom, ie you have two or more negatives and you expose each one on the same photo paper one at a tyme thus combining them on one photo print. In the case of photo/graphics programs you'd have one or more images on each layer then you'd overlay each layer onto another. That was one of mine favorite activities when I worked in darkrooms.

Faclon

Re:what are layers?

[CatOne]

Layers can be a lot of things.

But, typically, layers are used to make non-destructive edits to images. For example, start with an image with low contrast. You can make the edits directly with the "levels" tool to adjust the white and black points. Save it, and the changes are permanent, and irreversible (well, unless you go back to the unedited original... you DID do "save as..." correct?).

Another option is to create a new adjustment layer, and make it "levels." Then you make the changes, and it looks to you exactly like you had edited the base photo layer. What you can *also* do is show or hide the layer (by clicking a little "eyeball" icon on it), and blend the layer by changing the opacity from anywhere between 0 and 100%. This way, if you make a "levels" layer, and a "curves" layer, and a "saturation" layer, you can turn them each on and off in order to see how they affect "the big picture," and see if you're heading in the right direction.

Layers are also good with masks -- say one part of the photo is really dark, you could select a region, and then do a new layer with "shadows and highlights." I will create a new layer and mask out everything but what was selected. You can then fudge with the mask (editing it by using brush tools to tune the edges), do a guassian blur to make it blend better and not be apparent, yadda. Layers are VERY powerful, and pro users make very extensive use of them. They're probably the single most important tool for the professional user, and were really the turning point in PHotoshop when they were introduced way back in version 2 or 3.

The one real stinky thing about them is they are full bitmaps. If you start with a 9 MB RAW file (say from a 20D), it is opened as 24 MB uncompressed. Each additional layer adds about 24 more MB to the file, so with 10 layers you're looking at a 260 MB file. And these things take FOREVER to save, and obviously hog a lot of disk. Some people I know have files with layers that are 1.5 GB in size. Ouch. If Aperture can use CoreImage to dynamically render all this, it could save tens or hundreds of gigs of disk space for pro photographers.

Re:what are layers?

[falconwolf]

You can make the edits directly with the "levels" tool to adjust the white and black points. Save it, and the changes are permanent, and irreversible (well, unless you go back to the unedited original... you DID do "save as..." correct?).

Ok, first I don't recall having heard of layers in this way, then when I used to edit photographs I always edited a copy and kept the original as a backup. Actually when I turn in film for development I also order a cd, so I don't edit originals. The few tymes I've edited something that wasn't mine I'd either make a copy and edit the copy or I'd do a "save as" as soon as I opened it.

Layers are VERY powerful, and pro users make very extensive use of them. They're probably the single most important tool for the professional user, and were really the turning point in PHotoshop when they were introduced way back in version 2 or 3.

Though not a pro I would like to get into photography professionally, well get paid for it, which is why I'd like to get Photoshop. Something I hadn't thought of before I'd like to do, when taking my photography classes and in the photo labs on campus at the college I was attending, I'd heard of others who were printing books of their photos and I've come across some articles in photo magazines about how to do this using a computer system. I'd also like to get a full frame DSLR as well as a 645 medium format camera with both film and digital backs. When it came out I wanted to get Canon's 16.7 Megapixel EOS 1DS Mark II but was no where near being able to afford it's $8000 price tag. They've got a new full frame DSLR, EOS 5D with 12.8 MP for less than half. If I weren't planning on getting a new Powerbook I could manage that. So for now I'll just have to get by with my film based EOS Rebel. When I do get a DSLR though I want to be able to use the lenses I have now.

The one real stinky thing about them is they are full bitmaps. If you start with a 9 MB RAW file (say from a 20D)

Obviously I prefer the bigger sensors, higher pixel count, with a full frame. Like the EOS 1Ds Mark II. Mamiya has a new digital medium format, the Mamiya ZD with 22 MP. Boy am I drooling over it, but I'd really rather have a "regular" camera with both film and digital backs. Mind you, while to most people the larger pixel counts won't really make a difference, I love to make big enlargements, and would love to make some posters from photos of mine.

Falcon

Cooling?

[Rainbird98]

Does anyone have specs on cooling? The previous Power Macintosh 2.7 required liquid cooling. Will the new dual core run cooler and require only fans?

Re:Cooling?

[Warlock7]

I don't have anything to really back it up, but I can guarantee that the new quad-core will require liquid cooling.

Re:You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unles

[Empty Yo]

I think it was intended to be humourous. The general gist is that if your photography doesn't extend to zillions of pictures, Photoshop is probably just fine. When the number of pictures starts to climb, the organization abilities of Aperature start to really show their worth and make Photoshop look to be a bit less ideal. I'm a wedding photographer who shoots a lot of shots and will love the organizational abilities of Aperature.

GIMP

[falconwolf]

GIMP's not great for professional print - doesn't have any CMYK management. Having gone to photoshop I find it frustrating to go back to Gimp, but YMMV. Won't cost you anything to try it :)

I tried Gimp a few years ago and found it lacking. I've heard the new version has improved quite a bit but still don't know what it's capable of, so I'd like to get a good book on it to work through. If not able to do all I want it for then I've thought about trying Corel's offering, Painter or Canvas maybe. But if I have to go with Photoshop then what I might do is get a cheap older version then upgrade to whatever version of CS is out now as I seem to recall the upgrade prices are much lower than full retail.

Falcon

ATTN: DELL

[1336.5]

APPLE JUST PWNED YOU!

iPad ?

[polemon]

I wonder when they'll finally get up with this...

A better comparision would be...

[saha]

A better comparison would be with Phase One "Capture One PRO" software . The emphasis being on RAW files from Canon, Nikon, Olympus and TIFF, I haven't seen if other proprietary formats are supported. It also supports Adobe DNG (Digital Negative format). I would be impressed if it could also handle Kodak DCS Pro Back, Phase One, and Leaf formats. Aperture also supports flattened PSD files with no Alpha channels.

The way I look at it I would use Aperture as a virtual light table. I really like that loop tool and the intelligent stacks organization aids (See the Quick Tours)This is software is meant for the professional to serious photographer and this program is metadata crazy. Great for photographers for stock photography, as well as ones who do weddings, sports, photojournalism...etc. After selecting a handful of images from hundreds to a thousand + images using Aperture, I can see using Photoshop at the end of the of workflow. Where I need Photoshops large array of filters, brushes and text tools. graphics artists won't care about Aperture but professional photographers who now shoot digital will probably love this application.

On a side note I'm glad there is finally a workstation class graphics card for the Mac. I can forsee that stereo based projections, Powerwalls, and even CAVEs aren't so far off in the future once you add the genlock/framelock daughter card to the Nvidia Quadro FX 4500 board.

no 7200rpm hd for Powerbooks?

[falconwolf]

Eh? I've never seen that. They were 4200/5400 on the 2004 models, and "5400rpm drives standard" on the just-discontinued ones. I never saw 7200 even as an option. Until today.

I have. And 7200 was standard, you could save something like $100 for choosing a hd at 5400. Since before the Intel switch was annouced I've check Apple's online store at least once a week, and more often since then. Prior to that I haunted a brick and morter Apple store near where I live asking the workers if they'd heard when G5 Powerbooks would be coming out. Because of the heat problems of the G5 I wasn't supprised of the switch.

Falcon

Re:You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unles

[PenGun]

The Ali - Foreman fight, a round and a quarter million shots. No that must have been amateurs. If you have ever shot for a living you tend to use all the film or memeory you brought. I do nature stuff and water shots often require a massive number of shots to get the one I came for. You can often tell how pro a guy is by how much film he bought.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

The advantage is stability

[SuperKendall]

You might want to wait for an Intel laptop - if you're an early adopter that cares little for system stability.

For people that have laptops they depend on and a suite of programs that do what they like, the new Powerbooks are a good chance to get a decently powerful laptop now to use for a few years until the Intel laptops settle down and software needed is all ported.

Seems like an excellent time to buy a laptop to me...

Re:You can't get difference in Aperture v PS unles

[Too Much Noise]

I do nature stuff and water shots often require a massive number of shots to get the one I came for.

Indeed they do. Sports, too. Or, for that matter, any session that goes after the unplanned for ;-) On the other hand, more controlled sessions (studio, but not only) require fewer shots and more planning. As I said, you shoot as much as needed and not just fill your media with noise 'because you can.' Now, as you pointed out, the definition of 'as much as needed' varies from session to session and from photographer to photographer.

Power Cords

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone was wondering...

The new cords (mentioned in that review above) are C19 Sockets/Plugs.

The reason behind this is NOT to be un-standard, but rather, because of ratings on any other Desktop PSU socket.

C19 Sockets are usually seen on servers with massive current ratings of 10Amps or more (up to 16 Amps @ 120V). Thats a LOT of power. Your typical PSU plug isn't rated for this, so Apple had to beef it up.

You don't see these cables around because its server equipment. Apple pegs the Quad at 10Amps, 120V, so to be within working specs, you'd need a C19 socket and a cable to go with that (NEMA 15-5P on the other end, for a North American wall socket).

Re:Aperture is to Bridge what FC is to AE

[TRRosen]

This isn't a PS killer its a Bridge killer. Aperture is designed to import catalog and adjust your photos much like bridge. Photoshop is still the man as far as editing and modifing goes.

This could be considered a shot across the bow of Adobe as a warning that they could release a Photoshop killer and a foot in the door to warm Photoshop users up to the idea of leaving Adobe.

Have you tried Photo Mechanic?

[snowwrestler]

http://www.camerabits.com/pages/PM4.html

It's way, way faster than PS for sorting and organizing RAW files.

It's not an editor--it's just for importing and organizing the take. But at that it is best I've used. I understand it's very popular with PJs.

Re:Have you tried Photo Mechanic?

[Anonymous Coward]

PJ == photojournalist?

Not the only ones!

[jscotta44]

They are not the only ones to do that. Most software/hardware vendors do this to give them features/price points for their different customers.

overhyped - yep!

[toby]

the hype of their early days has failed to solidify

Nice to hear someone else echo the sentiments of my last year's jeremiad. It's still amazing how many professionals fall for it. How ridiculous being forced to replace your equipment every year, and yet still not getting the quality we take for granted with 35mm... let alone medium format.

Save some money and take a look at Photo Mechanic

[snowwrestler]

This is the PJ industry standard right now for organizing and culling high-volume takes.

http://www.camerabits.com/pages/PM4.html

And it's a lot less expensive than Aperture, especially if you take the ridiculous system requirements for Aperture into account.

iPhoto is terrible for this sort of work compared to software like Photo Mechanic, Extensis Portfolio, iView Media Pro, etc.

Re: Dell Displays

[lullabud]

If you're going 20" or 23" might I recommend at least considering the Dell 2005FPW (20") and 2405FPW (24").

Bad recommendation on the 2405FPW. I recently got a sweet deal on a 9100 and a 2405FPW, so I sold my 2005FPW. Now I regret it. The 2405FPW is terrible quality, probably the worst quality LCD I've ever seen, other than pixel count. Honestly, I've never seen ghosting so bad, and the color saturation sucks. On top of that, it comes with a built-in 5-port USB 2.0 hub and a media card reader, and it would actually be useful if I didn't have to worry about it causing my G5 to kernel panic. Seriously, the *first* time I've ever seen my G5 kernel panic was when switching inputs on the 2405FPW. When you turn the monitor off, the hub turns off too. When the display goes to sleep? Yeah, the USB Hub turns off. That means don't bother mounting USB disks like iPods or USB thumb drives, or anything in those media slots. The 2005FPW, however, was a *fantastic* monitor. It has great color saturation, brightness, and no ghosting. I didn't test the USB ports on it, but then again, it only had 2 (I think) USB ports, and no media card slots. All in all, I'm seriously considering selling this 2405FPW POS and buying another 2005FPW or an Apple display. 2405FPW sucks, IMHO, if you're a gamer, photographer or graphic designer, or want to use those USB ports and media slots on a Mac.

I wish there's a better mac mini

[Anonymous Coward]

I want something having the spec of the iMac, but like the mac mini, without the monitor so I can use my existing one. The price should be between the mac mini and the iMac. If not possible, then I wish Apple could at least sell a better mac mini, for eg. give me better graphics card than 9200.

Finale is fine

[chocolatetrumpet]

Finale is one of the few apps that I know very well. I was shocked once to find that some archane method I came up with of changing the note value/time signature relationship was the offical method listed in the manual. I guess I think like Finale is programmed.

Finale works fine. It gets the job done. I can work very quickly with it.

It's a little weird getting started, but the important thing is that there isn't anything Finale can't do, that you can't think of. You can do all sorts of weird modern notation, and it's all pretty quick and easy. By easy I mean - once you start to think like the program, you'll be fine.

You don't hear people bitching that After Effects is too complicated... so why all this Finale nonsense? Learn how to use the software, it works fine.

Re:Finale is fine

[radicalskeptic]

I'm sorry, did you even read your own post? Let's look at what you said:

I was shocked once to find that some arcane method I came up with of changing the note value/time signature relationship was the offical method listed in the manual.

What?? Arcane means "understood by few; mysterious or secret". You just said that the official way to change (whatever) is "understood by few; mysterious or secret." Uh, that's the fucking DEFINITION of bad UI.

You can do all sorts of weird modern notation, and it's all pretty quick and easy. By easy I mean - once you start to think like the program, you'll be fine.

Again, the point isn't that Finale *can't* do something, it is that it often can't do things in a CLEAR, LOGICAL, CONSISTENT manner. You say "start to think like the program." C'mon, seriously, do you really think that is indicative of good design when you have to try to think like the program? It's not. Programs are tools, they should be subservient to my way of thinking, not overriding to it.

Yeah, sorry

[snowwrestler]

I was in a hurry writing that.

Re: Dell Displays

[Fareq]

That surprises me quite a bit. I have a 2005FPW, and I love it...

I've only seen a couple of the 2405s, and I haven't played with it enough to have necessarily encountered those problems. I'll keep that in mind, though, before I go out and buy [or recommend] one of the 2405s.

A few photos of the new Power Mac G5

[imorris]

A few photos of the new Power Mac G5

http://powermax.download-files.net/power_mac_g5.ht ml

Re: Dell Displays

[bjb]

I think I know what your problem is with the 2405FPW. The ghosting is easily visible if you're using the VGA / DSUB interface and you're running at native (1920x1200) resolution; you should only use the DVI interface at that high a resolution. I did a comparison between the two interfaces to my ATi Radeon 9500 Pro and found that 1920x1200 with VGA/DSUB ghosted/trembled/blurred. DVI is rock solid. Granted, I did this comparison on a PC, but for the bits that matter here (DAC VS straight digital out), the video cards should be created equal.

Remember, VGA/DSUB is only really spec'd to drive up to 1600x1280 (or somewhere close to that), and its basically a hack to do 1920x1200 (they lower the refresh rate to 56Hz or something like that, though your video card thinks its at 60Hz). As well, your video card is a digital device. It uses RAMDACs to convert this digital signal to analog to run over VGA to hit your (traditionally) analog-speaking CRT monitor. Now that we have flat panel displays, we can completely cut out the digital-analog-digital conversions by going straight digital (via DVI). Yes, flat panel monitors exist that only have VGA connectors - they've got analog-to-digital converters in them. If you've got a flat panel running anything over 1280x1024, you should really consider running DVI.

As far as the 2405FPW goes, the only complaint I've had with it is that the black isn't as deep a black as I've seen on CRTs or some other LCDs. But pixel refresh rate? Works excellent for a 60fps 1st person shooter game, and flipping the RGB pixels on/off, I see no noticable lag or ghosting. I'm a very happy customer.

DVI didn't help

[lullabud]

I think I know what your problem is with the 2405FPW. The ghosting is easily visible if you're using the VGA / DSUB interface and you're running at native (1920x1200) resolution; you should only use the DVI interface at that high a resolution. I did a comparison between the two interfaces to my ATi Radeon 9500 Pro and found that 1920x1200 with VGA/DSUB ghosted/trembled/blurred. DVI is rock solid.

My configuration is that I'm gaming on my Dell 9100 with VGA, and pretty much everything else on my G5 with DVI. I switched the Dell to DVI on your recommendation. It didn't stop the ghosting, though it's possible there might not be as much. I can still see it well. (The test I'm doing is starting a new HL2 game in ravenholm and walking towards the tree while looking up at the sky. You will see a light or dark shadow trail the limbs.) On top of that, my HUD is now messed up so that my primary ammo is rendered almost completely outside of a box that is about 2/5 the way down from the top of the screen, as well as my "aux power" messages. Pretty disappointing, though I wonder if the render problems would be caused by any DVI monitor, or perhaps any DVI at that resolution. It's doubtful that they're specific to this model of monitor, at any rate. So, yeah, changing to DVI has not helped me out here. On top of that, this is my 2nd 2405FPW. My first had an irritating high-pitched squeel like an old analog display with a bad capacitor or something.

Re:DVI didn't help

[bjb]

The test I'm doing is starting a new HL2 game in ravenholm and walking towards the tree while looking up at the sky. You will see a light or dark shadow trail the limbs.

Hmm. On GTA:SA, I don't see any such effects. I haven't played HL2, so I don't know if the rendering engine is doing anything like motion blur or something that otherwise makes the monitor appear at fault.

This is my first 2405FPW, but it also was purchased refurbished; maybe I have your original ;-)

Re:Lame

[xouumalperxe]

or, more accurately, a one button mouse that can tell where you pressed and react like a two button mouse. So the OP WAS correct. It is indeed a one button mouse. Only not quite. Erm. I'll go to bed now.

Hands-on (brief) experience

[Mozo]

I took a 30 minute training course on Aperture at Photo Plus Expo in NYC yesterday. Considering we were using version "0.1 dev", the app was quite solid and very responsive (on the G5 towers that were running it). Very, very well-thought-out, and the show was buzzing over the software. "This was clearly designed with the help of pro photographers" was something I heard more than once.

At $499, it's not a cheap program, but if I was an independent pro photographer, this is looking like an essential tool for organizing, editting, and selling images. Lots of goodies like automatically grouping similar images by time, a very slick loupe (magnify) tool, and advanced version control of edits to images.

This is a substantial program. I think most pros will want Photoshop and Aperture. And a G5 tower, which is fine with Apple....

The most impressive thing I saw at the show, which is interesting for a show full of cameras....

-John in MN

Have to track recent Java? That's a JAVA problem.

[argent]

Hey, I spent a month and a half figuring out how to install some software on a Linux box that required an older version of Java. If Java is really portable, and useful, over the long term it HAS to get to the point ehwre it shouldn't matter if your version is 1 month old, 6 months old, or 6 years old.

Seriously.

Because that's what the competition (the monopoly OS) gives you. I can buy a typical non-gaming software package off the shelf, today, and have a reasonable expectation that I can run it on Windows XP, Windows 2000, or Windows 98... or even Windows 95 if I have a recent version of IE.

The downside to this is that Microsoft can't ever get rid of even horrific design flaws, which is one of the reasons that they have so many security problems. The upside is that for the end user it's a safe purchase.

Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Java, none of these have the same kind of bloody-minded (or bloody-stupid) commitment to forwards and backwards compatibility. But Java seems to be particularly fragile, there, and it doesn't have to be. IT RUNS IN A SANDBOX, so it's in a unique position of being able to maintain bug-compatible releases without them becoming security flaws.

Ever shoot MF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiousity, have you ever shot medium format? The high-end DSLRs (The 1Ds MKII and D2X, for example) are beginning to compete with mf in my eyes. Go shoot some 6x7 cm chromes, put them on the light table, and tell me what you think... I'd agree that a 6- or 8-megapixel DSLR records more detail than most all consumer print film. And you're right, if you need to shoot at high ISO, for the love of God get a DSLR.

Btw, for me, "normal" film IS that slow slide film you speak of...

Re:Save some money and take a look at Photo Mechan

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Have you even seen the Aperture quick tours? It becomes very obvious why the requirements are so high.