Forums | MacLife

avkills wrote:

Bah! Color Syncing is still easier and superior on the Mac.  Unless that high-end camera is generating larger than 8bit files, I doubt they are a 1GB in size.  Now I can easily see a multi-layered comp easily going over 1GB.

-mark

Be that as it may Apple is bleeding it's traditional pro graphics market by the buckets if my observations are any indication.
Frankly, I think it is a deliberate effort on their part. The ham fisted way the OSX transition was handled started it and the obscured upgrade path since then has only aggravated  things.
Had Apple informed Adobe that 64bit cocoa was going to be killed off we wouldn't be looking at this fiasco. Apple's adamant refusal to establish a cogent future map for developers is paying off in loss of pro sales.
The simple fact is Apple makes it too hard to do business with and If I were to start up a printshop, something I am very qualified to do, I wouldn't even consider using Macs.
The Mac upside just can't compete with the predictability and compatibility that Windows offers plus the glaring hardware handicap that Apple has going on.
Not even so much as one C2D desktop system, just really sad.
I could equip a 4 seat pre-press department with high end machines for 5k using Windows. Using Macs it would be more like 15k to no real advantage.

avkills wrote:

I think you mean 64bit Carbon.  Hardware handicap?  Well if what you say is true about the future of digital cameras and the increasingly number of megapixels being pushed, don't you think a "single" C2D system is going to be inadequate?  I am going to say yes since my Mac Book Pro cries at stuff that the Mac Pro eats up for lunch.

I'm not saying Apple could do better; they can and they should release a mid-range upgradeable tower, that I agree with.

Sometimes the road to a better future is filled with speed bumps.  Windows will not be the cheery compatibility engine everyone knows and loves when Microsoft finally decides to embrace the *real* future.

-mark

Well, you can buy a very well equipped C2D system that can handle massive multi page PDFs with ease for a little over $1000 or with a Mac you can achieve the same thing with $2300 and have to use a monitor that may or may not fit with your work flow. Or you can buy an absolutely bottom of the line Mac Pro for $2400 that runs on Xeons which offer exactly <zero> benefit in the DTP context.
There is a hole in the Apple line up which leaves out an entire industry. An industry that has been the very backbone of Apple's market and arguably the only thing that kept the Mac afloat during the dark days.
Why on earth would a 2d pro want either an iMac, disposable, non-upgradable or a Mac Pro which is based on server tech which is inefficient  to say the least at typical DTP applications?
Intel makes some great CPUs for many applications but Apple has chosen to abandon the mainstream segment: Those who do not need the compactness of a AIO but also do not need the sustained multi-threaded specialty of the Xeons.
The simple fact is that Xeons are slow unless they get a chance to get up and running, they are great for doing large scale tasks like video and 3D but they are an anchor compared to the 2D performance of cheap C2D chips.
So today in the DTP world you are looking at Apple with no hardware that really hits the spot combined with Adobe gimping the Mac versions to 32 bit and combine that with an industry that expects to be able to use hardware for a long time and you just come up with a big, fat loose for Macs in publishing.
Ten years ago going with Macs was a no brainer, it was the obvious choice. Today the only reason to have Macs is if you have recalcitrant pre-press people who won't learn new things. Like he grey beards that are the only reason anyone uses Quark today.

Must you ALWAYS use every little thing as a soap box?
We all know by now ... You want a consumer level desktop...
thread derailing/jacking all the time isn't going to get you the computer you want.

Pariah wrote:

a Mac Pro which is based on server tech which is inefficient  to say the least at typical DTP applications?
Intel makes some great CPUs for many applications but Apple has chosen to abandon the mainstream segment: Those who do not need the compactness of a AIO but also do not need the sustained multi-threaded specialty of the Xeons.
The simple fact is that Xeons are slow unless they get a chance to get up and running, they are great for doing large scale tasks like video and 3D but they are an anchor compared to the 2D performance of cheap C2D chips.

Really?  Since I consider After Effects to basically be a 2d program (ok 2.5d, well ok 3D with the new CS4 version); I can honestly tell you that the Mac Pro is way God damn faster than the C2D in my Mac Book Pro, and I am not talking rendering here, just simple image and text manipulation...way way faster.  Yes I know the C2D in the MBP is a laptop chip but by all comparisons it is pretty much just as fast as the desktop version clock for clock.  And I am not going to argue the memory since most people consider FB-DIMMS to be slow.

Xeons are workstation chips...high end.  Why would you not want a high-end computer (provided one can justify the cost and afford it) for anything in the computer graphics industry, whether it is print, video, web design, whatever.

From the looks of what is coming down the road in computing in general, it sounds as though having more cores is going to be a good thing, whether one needs it or not.

I am always the skeptic when it comes to Intel, and I can honestly say I was upset when Apple jumped from the PPC CPU line; but the past is the past and I can see that the jump was the right move, maybe not necessary (at least as desktops are concerned), but certainly a smart economic decision.  IBM could wipe Intel if they wanted to, but since no one wants to throw money their way (aka Apple) to make it happen, it just isn't.

You don't realize how damn fast a Mac Pro is until you go back to something like a Dual G5 or a C2D laptop.  Whether I need the cores or not (I personally do at work) all I can say is those Core Xeons are fast ass chips; and as Jon Rubinstein would say... "this is one kick ass machine."

and they are.

-mark

Mr. T wrote:

I think he meant C2Q.  For example, the Q9550 is a bit faster than the E5462 used in the single-socket Mac Pro, and costs about a third as much.  The Xeon is often advantageous in server and scientific number crunching applications (because of things like FB-DIMMS), but mortals and creative professionals would be better off consumer-oriented parts.  Given that, the MP is a fairly "good deal" for the parts you do get -- but it would be a lot cheaper with consumer parts.

Hmmm.... I wonder if it is that way because Apple wanted the same basic HW config (CPU/Chipset/memory) for the xServe and the Mac Pro to make their life easier.

-mark

Mr. T wrote:

I think he meant C2Q.  For example, the Q9550 is a bit faster than the E5462 used in the single-socket Mac Pro, and costs about a third as much.  The Xeon is often advantageous in server and scientific number crunching applications (because of things like FB-DIMMS), but mortals and creative professionals would be better off consumer-oriented parts.  Given that, the MP is a fairly "good deal" for the parts you do get -- but it would be a lot cheaper with consumer parts.

The MacPro is well priced in it's class. That is not in issue. What is at issue is the advantages or lack there of, with using Xeons at a much greater expense.
FBDimms are all fine and dandy but Adobe has pushed back the day that tech will matter in DTP. What exactly is the point of having a system that can support so much ram when your bread and butter applications won't see anything over 4gig at best?
It just keeps going around the same hole. Apple makes no optimized DTP solution as they once did. There low end stuff is primarily focused on fashion while their high end stuff offers capabilities that don't matter with current software.
Sure Mac Pros are all fast and all but when you can have essentially the same performance at 1/3 the cost they are hard to make a case for. And you can try to justify MPs based on furure use except that cost issue tanks that argument. I could buy a very capable C2Quad, DTP seat for a little over $1000, use it for two years, throw it in the trash, buy what ever is in the same price point at that time for even greater performance and even after buying that second system two years latter I would still have saved over $1000 over buying a 2008 MP.