Which Mac is Fast Enough?

[decksnap]

Yeah that is such a lie I had 1GB in my Macbook for the first few month's I owned the Machine and there was no way I could have 10-15 apps open I remember trying to open photoshop and use it with iTunes, Mail and Safari open and it could not be done without huge slow downs it became unworkable when working with large files, you need ram and when switching between applications especially CS3 you want it to be fast Especially If you want to move large files between many applications.

I'm sorry about your macbook. Must suck. But I'm not lying. This video right here on Macrumors was done on my system with 1Gb of RAM. Granted it's not running some of my CS3 apps, but there's 12 apps running right there plus SnapzPro running on top of it to record it all.

 

[ChrisA]

Our company is preparing a mac-upgrade and I want to make sure I have fast enough for each responsibility without overkill.

How much do the users make per hour? Let's say the lifetime of this machine is four years and each user works on it half time. That's four thousand hours before the machine gets pushed off the desk by a replacement. Take the hourly rate times 4,000. That's what you pay the person pushing the mouse. When you think in those terms, saving $2K (that's $500 per year) by trying to "make do" with a Mac Mini hardly makes sense. Buy either the Mac Pro or a MBP.

 

[fluidedge]

mac mini is out of the question. You'll want a machine with a dedicated graphics card for sure.

 

[Techguy172]

I'm sorry about your macbook. Must suck. But I'm not lying. This video right here on Macrumors was done on my system with 1Gb of RAM. Granted it's not running some of my CS3 apps, but there's 12 apps running right there plus SnapzPro running on top of it to record it all.

It did suck, I have 4GB's now and it's fine but I see you have Tiger. I have Leopard which could be one of the reasons. What mac was that on if you don't mine me asking?

 

[decksnap]

It did suck, I have 4GB's now and it's fine but I see you have Tiger. I have Leopard which could be one of the reasons. What mac was that on if you don't mine me asking?

It's a G5 tower.

One of the other reasons may be that the Macbook shares ram with the integrated vid card, right?

 

[Techguy172]

It's a G5 tower.

One of the other reasons may be that the Macbook shares ram with the integrated vid card, right?

That's another reason but it's fine now so I don't care.

 

[DesignerOnMac]

That is so wrong. Running all applications at once doesn't really require more than 2 Gb. Depends what you mean by 'all'. I keep about 10-15 apps open at a time on a 1 Gb machine.

The iMac is also powerful enough.

RAM is so CHEAP right now that to max out the RAM on an alum iMac should be not issue at all. Better to have more RAm than less anyway.

I bought an Alum iMac 2.8 extreme and it runs all of the programs you mentioned all opened at the same time with easy. Upgraded from a G4 duelie mirrors desktop and this blows the doors of it.

 

[mcavjame]

CS3 semantics

Maybe it's just me, but let's not swing so quickly to the negative side when someone makes a comment. CanadaRam indicated that an Intel machine is needed to see CS3's potential. Sometimes we are just typing along and not really considering how our choice of words will be taken by someone else. What he probably meant was optimal. While I'm sure CS3 runs fine on G4 and G5 machines even Adobe recognizes the benefits of the Intel processor to their suite:

Photoshop CS3 features substantial speed gains for Intel Macs, according to Adobe’s Nack.I upgraded to a MacBook Pro and Photoshop just screams on that,” Nack said. “We are seeing an 40 percent increase in speed in addition to the 30 percent speed increase in what Rosetta was able to do with the 10.4.8 update.”

With that said, it does seem like the original post is asking for the most cost effective set up. System requirements indicate G4 as a minimum with 512 MB of RAM, far below what most people are recommending in this thread.

 

[fluidedge]

FB 800MHz RAM for the MP is not THAT cheap

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Photoshop CS2 can only use the first 2GB of RAM on a system, so anything over 4GB might be overkill.

Photoshop CS3 can use the first 8GB of RAM, so there really isn't anything that could be considered overkill.

 

[mcavjame]

Photoshop CS2 can only use the first 2GB of RAM on a system, so anything over 4GB might be overkill.

Photoshop CS3 can use the first 8GB of RAM, so there really isn't anything that could be considered overkill.

There is a quick little article here (http://prodig.org/2007/04/20/ram-can-photoshop-cs3-cope/) that indicates how to get PS to address more RAM and what the benefits are. His first paragraph indicates that you need a 64 bit OS and with ForceVMBuffering.plugin enabled.

 

[digitalnicotine]

I second CanadaRams advice. The OP's description of what he needs to do, sounds like they are working on something that needs optimal performance, not "it will work, but..." performance. Granted the machines others have mentioned will do the job. But this is a workplace environment, and there is a difference between optimal and overkill.

Ram and HD's are the cheapest upgrades for what they provide in return. You can start with what you think will be plenty, and see if your predictions were accurate over time. It's a simple fix, and doesn't result in buyers remorse. Getting less than what will make your workflow run smoothly, on the other hand, will result in wasted time, frustration, and a potentially edgy work atmosphere.

As for CS3 needing Intel chips, this is inaccurate as it's a Universal software set, which means it runs natively on both PPC and Intel Macs.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

There is a quick little article here (http://prodig.org/2007/04/20/ram-can-photoshop-cs3-cope/) that indicates how to get PS to address more RAM and what the benefits are. His first paragraph indicates that you need a 64 bit OS and with ForceVMBuffering.plugin enabled.

Here's the article from Adobe's site. Gives a pretty good overview.