Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Agreed. Will be getting the 8 core Mac Pro when it ships with Leopard. But won't be selling my G5 Quad as I love it and it's a keeper as at least a good HDTV Recorder player. Just added the ATI Radeon X1900 GT Dual Dual Link DVI G5 Mac Edition PCI Express Video card with Rotation Support for Dell Monitors - including the 30" Dell and I now have a 1200 wide by 1600 high screen left of my 2560 x 1600 high 30" with my 1920 x 1200 natve HD 24" Dell on the right with room for one more screen.

8,320,000 pixels...damn!
 
PS Upgrades

I really HOPE Adobe allows older (pre-CS2) versions of Photoshop to upgrade for less than full retail price.

Whatever was considered the oldest upgradable Photoshop at the time of Apple's Intel announcement should STILL be considered upgradable--since it only makes sense to have stopped upgrading at that time.

For instance, I was using PS7 still when Apple's Intel news came. I do every other upgrade, so I skipped PS8 (aka CS) and was ready to buy PS9 (aka CS2). But with the Intel news, I held off, waiting for PS10 (aka CS3).

Hopefully, even though I skipped TWO versions, my PS7 will still qualify for upgrade pricing next year. Seems only fair, since buying CS or CS2 for my Intel Mac would have been a waste. (I can understand paying a higher upgrade price than a CS2 user though.)

I recently looked into the issue of how far back one can upgrade. Despite Adobe's high price of its software, they have been pretty generous with the upgrades. My company just upgraded someone who had Photoshop 5.5 to Photoshop CS2.

In response to PS CS3, it asked for a previous license, and I tried two different codes (one for CS2 Standard Suite and another for PS CS2) and neither one worked. At least I can try the demo for now, I suppose.

But that install took forever! Man, that was dog slow. And it takes up 1.6 GB of space with all of the extras it adds on, as well (Bridge, stock photos, etc.). With newer computers, probably not something to worry about so much, but my computer is running out of space, so this is a concern. But PS 7 is still doing the job for what I need, but I suspect that Adobe will sell many, many copies of CS3, if only so people can run it on their new Intel Macs. I know that the driving force for PS7 for me was for the native OS X compatibility.
 
I'm sure someone's already said it but I can confirm that this app eats up all four cores, and we can only assume that means that it's fully multithreaded and would do the same on 8 cores.
 
As a software engineer, I could come up with several other assumptions.... :rolleyes:

I guess you could get a Dell mini-tower with 8 cores, and test your assumption with the Windows Vista version of CS3.... :eek:

That a way to skewer me for trying to be an optimist.

Or I could just drop 2 kentsfields in my MacPro.

Besides, of all software companies, I think Adobe realizes that processors aren't getting any faster, they are growing horizontally in their ability to process multiple threads. If Adobe wants to remain competitive performance wise, they have no choice but to make applications work well with parallel cores.
 
Or I could just drop 2 kentsfields in my MacPro..
No, but you could try two Clovertowns...

Besides, of all software companies, I think Adobe realizes that processors aren't getting any faster, they are growing horizontally in their ability to process multiple threads. If Adobe wants to remain competitive performance wise, they have no choice but to make applications work well with parallel cores.
True, but exploiting parallelism is a hard problem.

I'm sure that there are filters in CS3 that only keep one or two CPUs busy, or even fewer.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.