I am not a happy iMac owner anymore

[Willy S]

My rev A isn´t even a year old, but nevertheless it doesn´t even meet the bare minimum requirements of Aperture!

I would understand that a Mini would not be fast enough or a few year old iMac, but this is just too outrageous. Aperture needs a Radeon 9600 at least but the rev A only has Nvidia 9200.

Well, I´m not going to make the same mistake twice and spend a fortune on a computer that is too obsolete and cannot be upgraded.

 

[Macaddicttt]

Aperture is a pro app. An iMac isn't a pro machine. I understand your frustration, but if you plan on using pro apps, you should get a pro machine (i.e. a Power Mac). iMacs were made for iMovie and iDVD and iPhoto, not for Final Cut Studio Pro or DVD Studio Pro or Aperture.

 

[TBi]

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.

 

[Macaddicttt]

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.

This is a hardware issue, not a software issue. Aperture is an app that uses the latest and greatest technology, therefore, you need the latest and the greatest computer (well, basically).

 

[TBi]

It should still have a fall back to run on older hardware by emulating features. Although the problem is Apple make money from hardware sales too, so why jeopardise these by making the program work on older hardware...

 

[MBHockey]

Absolutely not. Pro Apps are designed for Pro users using Pro machines.

the iMac is a consumer machine. There's no reason to cry foul when you can't run the latest and greatest apps when you didn't pay much for the hardware in the first place.

This is just how technology is.

 

[EricNau]

Let me ask... Would you be upset if the newer iMacs couldn't run it also? Probably Not.

 

[yoda13]

Yeah, the iMac is a consumer level machine. Aperture is a pro-app. This is to be expected. I understand your frustration. This is why I haven't jumped on the new Intel iMac. I want to be able to upgrade it some in the next few years and that is a no go on the iMac. My current PowerMac is from 2001, a Quicksilver model, and it is finally starting to feel dated to me. There are apps that I can only run on my fairly new 1.5ghz Powerbook. But because it is upgradeable, my PowerMac has lasted me 4+ years, and is still running well, albeit a little slow on some things.

 

[MBHockey]

Me? I would be surprised and impressed if the new iMacs could run Aperture, since it is meant for a Pro machine.

I would not be disappointed.

 

[CanadaRAM]

Well, I´m not going to make the same mistake twice and spend a fortune on a computer that is too obsolete and cannot be upgraded.

You go... You can spend your money on a computer that can have its CPU and video card changed as often as you like, (except if it is a Dell, or a Compaq, or an Emachine or any other that uses proprietary parts). Oh wait: The new Pentium 4's use a different socket than last months, which are different than last years, and the motherboard you bought last year because you upgraded doesn't support the new CPU, so you need a new one. Which uses different RAM. And the video card that supports the new game you want is $700 because it doesn't run on last year's midrange card. Wait, the new video card requires its own power connector, and your power supply doesn't have enough watts. Which is OK though, because you've already spent the money renewing the Norton subscription again.

 

[pcmeissner]

Try Adobe's Lightroom BETA. http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/

Here are the system requirements:
Power PC G4 processor
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger)
768 MB memory
1024 x 768 resolution screen

 

[MBHockey]

I might have to print that out, CanadaRam.

This is why i hate when people say that you can't upgrade Macs, and that PCs are infinitely upgradeable. These people think they know everything...but they don't. And that's the worst kind of people...those with a little bit of knowledge to make the crap they spew sound believable.

 

[Mord]

you can install aperture, right click on the installer click show package contents go to the resources and delete installationchecker then it'll install on anything.

 

[McScooby]

Me? I would be surprised and impressed if the new iMacs could run Aperture, since it is meant for a Pro machine.

I would not be disappointed.

No need to be suprised or impressed, of course they're going to be able to run Aperture - the imacs are the basically the same specs as the new macbooks.

 

[MBHockey]

I know that. What i meant, and should have said, was if in a year Apple releases a new Pro App, i'd be surprised and impressed if the intel imac of today can run it, where as i would expect a Power Mac to run it.

I thought it was clear given the actual situation the original poster is in.

 

[kwajaln]

My rev A isn´t even a year old, but nevertheless it doesn´t even meet the bare minimum requirements of Aperture!

Your iMac is just as good as it was before Aperture was released. Here's your solution: buy a PowerMac!!

 

[Willy S]

you can install aperture, right click on the installer click show package contents go to the resources and delete installationchecker then it'll install on anything.

Thanks for the tip!

I will try it and see if it works. The performance of Radeon 9600 is not far away from my graphics card.

Ps. if this doesn´t work, I will try Lightroom. Unfortunately, it does not support the white balance settings from my Nikon, but it will be worth the try.

 

[geese]

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.

Which industry would that be? The creative industry? dont think so!

Surely it would be more accurate to say that Windows became the dominant OS by being the cheapest option (particularly in the business world) and by aggressive marketing. XP wasnt great in its legacy support, yet it didnt do the platform any harm.

 

[decksnap]

I am amazed that you could be upset about this. It's not like they used to support the iMac with Aperture and now they don't. Aperture is an odd duck- brand new, and with the highest requirements I've ever seen. Seriously, (and a quick look a the price tells you this) this is a serious pro app, not a consumer oriented one. It is designed for pros to run on their pro hardware. Building it to be useable on lesser systems would likely be to the detriment of the software.

 

[Dark]

I have a revision B iMac that I bought just a month before the iSight versions came out. Sure I wish I could get a PowerMac but I make do with what I have, no use complaining to the world about it. I still run Photoshop CS and Adobe Lightroom on my computer.

 

[zap2]

its a ''i"Mac its a ''Pro'' App consumer Mac were not made to run it plain and simple

 

[TBi]

its a ''i"Mac its a ''Pro'' App consumer Mac were not made to run it plain and simple

I don't get why people so easily accept this limitation. On the windows side of things photo shop and 3d studio max are both pro applications but will run on a $500 Dell. Is windows better than OSX or something... or did apple artificially limit how many computers aperture could run on. All the effects apperture does can be done in software, albeit slower than hardware, so why doesn't it have a software path?

 

[rt_brained]

This is precisly why windows took over industry and why apple couldn't get a foot hold. Backwards compatibility! Sure it's nice to have the fastest PC you can get but all newer versions of software will run on the lowest machine you can run windows 2000 on. Which means machines all the way back to 2000 and earlier.

Yeah, with all the money and R&D Microsoft has put into Windows all these years, isn't it nice to fire up a brand new top-of-the-line PC and see those first couple lines of DOS load up underneath Windows? Microsoft is all about backwards compatibility...Hell, "Backwards" is practically Microsoft's middle name.

 

[EricNau]

I don't get why people so easily accept this limitation. On the windows side of things photo shop and 3d studio max are both pro applications but will run on a $500 Dell. Is windows better than OSX or something... or did apple artificially limit how many computers aperture could run on. All the effects apperture does can be done in software, albeit slower than hardware, so why doesn't it have a software path?

Windows is not better than OS X. "On the Mac side of things," Photoshop can run on a $500 Mac Mini (just as good as a dell).

Did it occur to you that Aperture might be more demanding software than Photoshop?

 

[Mord]

photoshop CS2 is sitting in the dock of my 600MHz ibook g3, and it runs just fine, as does ilife 06, iwork 06, allong with a bunch of other cool apps.


now, stop your bitching and use your damn imac. apple brought something to the table in no way does that take anything away from you.

and besides i gave you a way to install it