Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
yes he was wrong. you can run it without a problem.
Photoshop CS3 will run without a problem, older versions wouldn't work so well since they're going to run through Rosetta.

oh and be sure its the Mac version too.
 
Yes, it runs all right on my 2.0GHz CD Macbook with 1GB RAM, but 2GB RAM with a C2D processor would be much smoother :)
 
*adds an anonymous CompuSmart employee to his List of People to Beat to Death With a Brick*

Even though I am considering changing that to a bottle after seeing Pan's Labyrinth last night.
 
Runs great on my CD MacBook with 2GB. Sometimes takes a bit time to load (although much faster than CS2) but once it's open, it's works fine.
 
The misconception might be based on the relatively weak integrated graphics.
Photoshop is processor-based and runs fine on any current Mac as long as it's CS3.
 
The misconception might be based on the relatively weak integrated graphics.
Photoshop is processor-based and runs fine on any current Mac as long as it's CS3.

Even with the integrated graphics issue, with enough physical ram, it works just fine - maybe a hair slower than a machine with dedicated graphics.
 
Even with the integrated graphics issue, with enough physical ram, it works just fine - maybe a hair slower than a machine with dedicated graphics.

the point he was making is that a it doesn't matter if you have integrated graphics or a dedicated chip, since it doesn't make use of it.
 
I have a CD macbook with 2 gigs of RAM and can run CS2 just fine. Its slow, but it gets the job done. I imagine the native CS3 version would run extremely well.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.