Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Diatribe

macrumors 601
Jan 8, 2004
4,258
46
Back in the motherland
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Well, Apple gives you a few clues if you just want to "Learn more" when getting a MacBook (or an iMac, I just checked, presumably this advice is given with all the models):

attachment.php


As I pointed out early in this thread... :rolleyes:

Yeah but who wants to hear reason when you can argue? ;)

But I totally agree, thinking to be able to run pro-apps on 512MB RAM is sheer craziness with or with Rosetta.

Basically:

You depend on the computer to make you money: Buy a PPC G5 Powermac
You don't depend on the computer to survive: Buy more RAM and wait for universal versions.
 

crees!

macrumors 68020
Jun 14, 2003
2,018
245
MD/VA/DC
FleurDuMal said:
The question is: Should Apple be selling machines at the stock configurations they are (i.e. 512mb RAM) at a time when a lot of the software which defines the Mac - the creative software - doesn't work very well on it?
No. People who use this "creative software" should be intelligent enough to know what specs are needed for their machine to run such software well. Besides, if the person doesn't know this I don't want them designing anything for me.

why sell a product if it's going to run like crap on what you've included
Apple doesn't include any Adobe software on their machine, so the claim that Apple doesn't provide what is needed with what it delivers is absurd. Add those needed components when you purchase the machine or do it yourself.
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,910
44
Andover, MA
crees! said:
No. People who use this "creative software" should be intelligent enough to know what specs are needed for their machine to run such software well. Besides, if the person doesn't know this I don't want them designing anything for me.
Because technical know-how is a good indicator of artistic ability?
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,929
265
crees! said:
Besides, if the person doesn't know this I don't want them designing anything for me.

Blunt. But fair.

This is one of the silliest threads I've read here for a while. Caveat emptor.
 

devilot

Moderator emeritus
May 1, 2005
15,584
1
jsw said:
Because technical know-how is a good indicator of artistic ability?
Hah, are you sure you don't want to edit that w/ "[/sarcasm]" notation? :p
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,910
44
Andover, MA
devilot said:
Hah, are you sure you don't want to edit that w/ "[/sarcasm]" notation? :p
I did, but my tags are so sophisticated that they only run on systems with more than 16GB of RAM.

Anyway... does anyone have anything germane to add? I think we've pretty much settled how much RAM is good for different types of users and what the Intel iMac is and is not good for. Anything else?
 

balamw

Moderator emeritus
Aug 16, 2005
19,365
979
New England
hellodon said:
i certainly dont remember him saying anything other than "this is going to be so much faster" and "rosetta will take care of any apps that you need to run that arent made specifically for intel mac yet".
Both of those statements are true, just not together or necessarily on a machine with the stock 512MB. The Core Duo is much faster than the G5 when running native/universal applications, but can be slower and/or a memory hog when running PPC only applications using Rosetta, but these will still run, filling the gap.

B
 

7on

macrumors 601
Nov 9, 2003
4,939
0
Dress Rosa
Well CS1 runs faster on my new macbook than on my old 1Ghz G4, does that count :p

Though the installer crashed - I later read that the adobe installer won't work during a software update. Other than that it went without a hitch.

I'll probably go 2GB further down the road, may ask it from my mom upon college graduation.
 

NightGeometry

macrumors regular
Apr 11, 2004
210
216
More memory - seems to work for me...

Okay, I have Illustrator and Photoshop on here (here being a 2ghz Macbook, with 2gb ram).

Both open. Photoshop has an 8mp photo in it, an extra layer from background.

Ilustrator has the cheshire cat demo file,

In photoshop I am applying gaussian blur to one layer at 250 pixels. Took about 10 seconds (wasn't timing, subjective measure blah blah). Which is faster than my powerbook (1.5 ghz, 1gb memory) does it.

Would give more benchmarks, but I am not really a CS person. They are only here for my (lovelier) better half.

SO - would 2 gig of ram solve your problem - from my experience it may make it better, but I don't think the apps are going to run as well as they would do on a tricked out G5.
 

netdog

macrumors 603
Feb 6, 2006
5,760
38
London
hellodon said:
It was sold to me with 512 ram, it should run on 512...and it doesnt. So i've been told "get more ram"......why sell a product if it's going to run like crap on what you've included? Plus how much improvement am I looking at by spending 240 on 2GB? My G5 at work runs perfect on 512.

Get RAM and have a great machine or just sell it. But please stop whining. You know what the problem is. Fix it or don't. I was a switcher and I knew to get enough RAM. Hard to believe that a veteran MAC user didn't know.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,834
16,455
quae tangit perit Trump
hellodon said:
I didnt realize that's what was up...obviously.

Everyone is putting themselves in my shoes and saying "WULLLLL I'd react this way because I know this".

I thought I was getting a computer that topped a G5 iMac.
That's the BOTTOM LINE.

I was looking to order a G5 imac, i use them at work, they run great....i said "i'll wait for macworld"...so i did that. Then the intel macs came out. And based on that presentation, i was under the assumption that it would run great. Just like a G5 only BETTER. THAT is why i bought it. I didnt say "oh well universal binary" blah blah...no..i didnt do that. I didnt even know what the hell that meant that day and i certainly dont remember him saying anything other than "this is going to be so much faster" and "rosetta will take care of any apps that you need to run that arent made specifically for intel mac yet".

Unfortunately you're suffering from nievete. Jobs was presenting the new machines and thus would proclaim their inherent advantages while off-handidly noting their disadvantages. This is something that can be expected from every presentation on a new product and Apple is no different.
Furthermore, the machine isn't broken (I think) but just needs something extra to bring it to its full potential. When Adobe releases UB versions of software your new iMac will be as good or better than the iMac G5, but not yet.
Take this as a learning experience:

1) Marketers lie, fib, distort the truth. The next new thing is always better, faster, cheaper than the old thing. Disadvantages are ignored. Marketers lie.
2) Never buy a product the minute it comes out. Unless it's a toothpick there's the real possibility that the new design doesn't work out of the lab. This is true with cars, computers, and toasters. The real world is much harsher.
3) Every computer likes RAM, the more the better, and it makes a difference.
4) Research your purchase (see 2) enough to understand flaws and advantages, there's always some, it just matters what you can live with.
5) Fabulously wealthy people can ignore 4, but if $1500 matters to you, think about it.

For extra credit:
6) Calling someone a jerk, fanboy, or dumbass is a way to get flamed. Someone can hold an opinion opposite of yours without being one of the above. That's not to say that one can't be a fanboy or apologist, but calling someone such changes the arguement to an unhelpful place.
7) Stock configurations suck. On everything, they exist to hold down the price and people who do 4 know this.
8) Everyone should have an opportunity to whine. Then they need to shut up. You get five minutes or one post to snivel, then it's time to fix the problem.
 

plinden

macrumors 601
Apr 8, 2004
4,029
142
jsw said:
Anyway... does anyone have anything germane to add? I think we've pretty much settled how much RAM is good for different types of users and what the Intel iMac is and is not good for. Anything else?
Yes - some hard data regarding RAM and Photoshop, from this thread

Abulia said:
512MB, OS X: 14m, 19s
1GB, OS X: 7m, 2s
1.25GB, OS X: 5m, 29s
2GB, OS X: 5m, 8s
2GB, Windows XP: 6m, 29s
 

hellodon

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 19, 2006
453
0
hulugu said:
For extra credit:
6) Calling someone a jerk, fanboy, or dumbass is a way to get flamed. Someone can hold an opinion opposite of yours without being one of the above. That's not to say that one can't be a fanboy or apologist, but calling someone such changes the arguement to an unhelpful place.
7) Stock configurations suck. On everything, they exist to hold down the price and people who do 4 know this.
8) Everyone should have an opportunity to whine. Then they need to shut up. You get five minutes or one post to snivel, then it's time to fix the problem.

I got ripped apart in every post. Eventually, I started to get a little irritated when i had to read through 9 people being completely rude and wasting valuable page space where i could have been reading answers. It's still going on and the problem has already been resolved.

I also got most of what i had to say out in my initial post. Then got "flamed" for about 2.5 pages of this....I just don't like when some mac elitist talks down to me and anyone else on here rather than being helpful. I'm sure 9 out of 10 times that sarcastic person could help, but instead, due to probably having misery in their own life, they feel the need to put others down that have a question or a problem. It's ridiculous.

I ignored quite a bit of the crap, but a few times I had to respond because it's not cool.

Anyway, I appreciate your (and everyones) help/suggestions. My ram will be here by monday.
 

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,891
523
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
For universal apps: No, not necessarily. Most day-to-day surfing, mail, iCal, text editing/word processing, iPhoto etc. runs seem to run very well with 512 MB RAM, just don't run ALL at the same time. (I base this on comments here at MR and first hand experience).

I don't agree. Even running all native apps, an intel mac with 512 chokes much quicker than a PPC mac. Also, one of the mac websites confirmed that pretty much all the universal apps they looked at used more ram on intel than on PPC.

Rosetta definitely makes the ram situaion worse. But even with all native apps, the intel macs need more RAM.

jsw said:
Because technical know-how is a good indicator of artistic ability?

No, because someone who's clueless about technology has a higher chance of botching something on the technical side.


Let us know how the ram works out for you. Good luck.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,684
1
LaLaLand, CA
hellodon said:
I got ripped apart in every post.
Maybe it was your approach. ;) You get more flies with honey. This happens all the time here. Instead of just asking for help or for us to answer your question, you instead talk about how much you hate your iMac and don't think you should have to buy more RAM. I don't understand why people post such things, then wonder why they're flamed in a board filled with Mac fans used to being a little defensive because they're ripped on for no reason.

If the RAM doesn't help, and you keep having problems, and a full re-install from scratch doesn't help, call Apple. You may have a bad machine. If it's just slow, wait for CS3 and suck it up.
 

jhipolito

macrumors member
May 16, 2005
65
0
solvs said:
Maybe it was your approach. ;) You get more flies with honey. This happens all the time here. Instead of just asking for help or for us to answer your question, you instead talk about how much you hate your iMac and don't think you should have to buy more RAM. I don't understand why people post such things, then wonder why they're flamed in a board filled with Mac fans used to being a little defensive because they're ripped on for no reason.

If the RAM doesn't help, and you keep having problems, and a full re-install from scratch doesn't help, call Apple. You may have a bad machine. If it's just slow, wait for CS3 and suck it up.

I feel the love :)
 

bennyboi

macrumors regular
Jun 1, 2006
133
0
West Coast
What happened?

How did this turn into a RAM issue? Photoshop and Illustrator are running at the same time, which is taxing already- cool. But, these are being emulated by Rosetta. Ever run anything Virtual PC? Ever play SNEX 9x Super Nintendo Emulator? It makes my nice g4 powerbook get reeeal hot. It Emulates, and is therefore is all software driven with a help from the RAM. You're not utilizing ANY of that nice purdy intel chip (yet), so cool your jets and love your computer until you CAN run your adobe suite natively. Use your G5 for photoshop and your new intel for programs that run in intel. And as for RAM, yeah, 512 is a no-go if you're working with adobe stuff. But, a 4GB hike in RAM ain't gonna solve your woes. It just needs to run native without Rosetta to get Apple's so called *4x* of increased intel testocerone steroid cream. I'm sure Adobe will be releasing that update soon. Till then, post more complaints about having a G5 and an Intel iMac so us G4-ers can hate. :)
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
How about blaming Adobe? What are their minimum recommended hardware specs for Adobe CS2?

And is it just me, or is this thread a slow motion train wreck? Can anyone believe that they're actually reading this? Or even worse, replying? Can someone please lobotomize me with a plastic fork? I have one right here on my desk.
 

jhipolito

macrumors member
May 16, 2005
65
0
tristan said:
How about blaming Adobe? What are their minimum recommended hardware specs for Adobe CS2?

And is it just me, or is this thread a slow motion train wreck? Can anyone believe that they're actually reading this? Or even worse, replying? Can someone please lobotomize me with a plastic fork? I have one right here on my desk.

Is it a fpoon? Or a spork? LOL :p
 

yvovandoorn

macrumors regular
May 2, 2005
104
15
Amsterdam, NL
Earlier last month I had a choice to drop my rev B iMac G5 with 1.0gb of ram to an iMac Intel Core Duo with 512mb (as the memory from the rev B iMac G5 is obviously not compliant). The reason for this is quite a story on it its own but in short: 3 iMac G5 hardware failures in less then a year (logic board & PSU all three times), a "Mac Genuis" not plugging in the CPU fan in the last service and me sending out an email to sjobs@apple.com asking why the hell my iMac was sucking.

Back to the thread... My biggest concern was performance slow down and boy did I get it. Photoshop was literally suffocating and having a large spreadsheet open in Excel would bring my system to a good ol' beach ball. I ordered a 1GB stick from OWC (next day was only $7, ground was $5) and since then... Excel seems faster, no more beach balls. Photoshop is still noticeably (unfortunately) slower then the previous iMac G5 2.0ghz machine I had. However this is only noticeable when working with large images and applying cpu intensive filters.

Summary: Upgrading the memory from the default stock configuration, 512MB, to 1.5gb significantly improved performance. However don't expect PPC apps (aka apps running in Rosetta) to outperform true PPC computers.

I know you have already purchased the memory, I just wanted to set proper expectations.
 

Dunepilot

macrumors 6502a
Feb 25, 2002
880
0
UK
I'd like to add two things to this sorry tale, if I may.

1. The original poster had some reasonable points, but got everyone's backs up in the way that he posted. I think he's accepted the salient point that he needs to either buy more RAM, or do a trade for a PPC Mac.

2. I'm confused by the distinction people on this board are always trying to draw between 'pro' apps and 'consumer' apps, 'pro' macs and 'consumer' macs, in defence of a certain position. There really isn't much difference between the underlying technologies leveraged by apps that people are referring to as 'pro' versus those people refer to as 'consumer'. The iLife suite does some pretty heavy lifting (iMovie, for instance), and fundamentally does it in the same way that Final Cut Pro does, but with fewer controls and a simplified interface. If hellodon had tried running a PPC version of iLife I'm sure iPhoto would run like crap through Rosetta emulation in similar way to Photoshop. The designation of 'pro' app here is pretty irrelevant (apart from by price) - the amount of work done by the computer (and therefore the emulation overhead) wouldn't be drastically different.

Similarly, whether it's a Powermac or an iMac doesn't make that much difference in terms of processing oomph. It's more about being able to plug in larger screens, add more internal storage, that sort of thing is the advantage for the 'pro', and of course some will be willing to pay the premium for the incremental performance increase. The MBP is sold as a 'pro' machine but really isn't that different from a Core Duo iMac which is sold as a 'consumer' machine. It's a false distinction for many people.

What is different, is whether you try to make money by those apps, or those macs. The 'pro' element is that you need something dependable that will allow you to get through your chargeable workload.

And its for this reason that the graphic designer is better off with a G5 machine.
 

THX1139

macrumors 68000
Mar 4, 2006
1,928
0
Maybe it's been said, but I have to chime in here. I've been doing professional graphic design for around 10 years now. A big part of knowing how to design, is also the need to know how your tools work. It's like that in all professional level jobs. Would you hire a contractor to work on your house if they didn't know their tools? Knowing that pro-apps work better on ANY computer with more ram is basic computer 101. It's the first thing I learned when I turned on my first computer and launched Photoshop. As a matter of fact, when I price a computer, I always consider the current price of ram. I usually purchase it separate and install it when my machine arrives.

Intel and rosetta aside...were talking basic stuff here when it comes to ram. Hasn't the rule always been "get as much as you can afford, the more the better?" Having a "professional" come on this board and complain that their computer doesn't run effectively with the stock amount of ram must be trolling. Either that, or he really doesn't know what he's doing. I can't remember a time that I've ever ran a Mac on the stock amount of ram. Neither do any of my associates. Whenever I tell them I got a new Mac, the first thing they ask me (besides what model), is how much ram did I put in it, and what kind of video card does it have. I think my partner has 4GB in his computer and it's a lowly G5.

Oh, and to blame Apple is ludicris. Sure they should include more ram, but there are many users who get along fine without 1GB. Anyway, all the poster had to do was look at the ram recommendations in his (software) manuals, that would have told him what he needed to know. He must be a stubborn dude, or...

I think you all got played. Maybe a spiteful Windows user logging in here to get a rise out of the Mac freaks? I really doubt the OP was serious. If he was serious, then I think it was stupid to have struggled for as long as he has, just to prove a point.
 

THX1139

macrumors 68000
Mar 4, 2006
1,928
0
yvovandoorn said:
Summary: Upgrading the memory from the default stock configuration, 512MB, to 1.5gb significantly improved performance. However don't expect PPC apps (aka apps running in Rosetta) to outperform true PPC computers.

While I appreciate the sincerity of your post, I'm having a "Well, Duh!!" moment. :rolleyes:

I recommend putting air in your tires... it will help your car to go faster. ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.