INTEL 2 POWERMAC WOES

Hello there, folks
I recently got started on a couple new videos on my MacBook Pro, which is an Intel processor model. Then suddenly the MacBook Pro died, quite without warning. I hadn't setup AE CS3 on my PowerMac G5 dual 2gig yet, so quickly did so, but for some reason, although AE opens, whenever I try to open the project it crashes. Is there some incompatibility or something I need to do to be able to make this work? I upgraded to the latest version of AE.... Just can't figure out what is wrong.
Thanks so much for any assistance.
- Fredo

yes, I agree. With both your points. I made quite a stink with Apple and they fixed it within 24 hours, and saved the hard drive, so I am quite grateful.
Regarding the project, there must be something odd about my G5. At first I though, hey! I didn't do the AE update! That's the problem! Did the update, but the problem persists. :( Are there any other setting...
hmmm... maybe quicktime isn't updated...? Could that be it?

Similar Messages

InDesign CS2 on Intel PowerMac?

Can you install InDesign CS2 on an Intel PowerMac running 10.4.11? My installer for CS2 is gray. I also have CS3 and CS4 already installed.

I believe you can.
I have ID2, CS, CS2 and CS4 installed on an Intel Mac running 10.5.8, and had ID2, CS, and CS2 installed on 10.4.11 on an G4 Mac.
BUT, I believe you have to install them in order.
So, if it is worth the trouble, you would need to deactivate CS4 and CS3. Uninstall. Probably run the clean scripts. Then start reinstalling with CS2, then CS3, then CS4.
HTH
-mt

Final Cut Studio on Intel PowerMacs?

I am planning on eventually upgrading to a top of the line PowerMac for editing using Final Cut Studio (which I currently own and run on my PowerBook), but I have a few questions that I need to figure out before making a decision on what to get and when to get it.
So I know all this is a little ways off, but soon enough, Apple PowerMacs will be running on Intel processors. Does anyone know if they will be fully capable of running the current version of Final Cut Studio (which is made for the PowerPC processor) and how much slower it would be, since it would be run using Rosetta? When Apple releases the Intel PowerMac, do you think it would be better to get the older generation Quad G5 or the newer and supposedly much faster Intel PowerMac, which would have to run Final Cut Studio through Rosetta, which would slow it down (if it indeed can run the app). Thanks a lot for the input.
15" PowerBook G4 1.25 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.3)

As I understand it, Apple has since OS X created versions of all its applications for both Intel and PowerPC.
Perhaps not all its system levels, but its pro apps.
Remember that Apple bought Final Cut Pro (nee Final Cut) from Macromedia, where the program, originally developed for PC and at one time earmarked to be the front-end editing software for Media 100 on the PC, was being developed by Randy Ubillos.
It was originally called "Key Grip."

Win 8.1 & W520 Intel wifi woes

Is anyone else having issues with win 8.1 and their W520's Intel wireless? In my case I have the Centrino N 6205, and the latest drivers from Intel (the Intel driver installer is version 16.6, but curiously the driver shown in the device manager is 15.10.4.2).
The issue I have is that the connection drops several times daily, and can only be reestablished by turning the wireless router on and off. There is no other way to reestablish it! Rebooting the W520 doesn't even work. By contrast, wireless when this same W520 is running Ubuntu is rock solid.
It's really quite frustrating. I certainly get tired of having to reenter the WPA2 password every time using the anemic win 8.1 network GUI. It has me contemplating the time consuming step of wiping win 8.1 & reinstalling win 7.
Thoughts?

Use another computer. Download the full feature software and drivers here.
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/softwareCategory?os=4158&lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&sw_lang=&product=5191...
Pick your OS.
Say thanks by clicking the Kudos Thumbs Up to the right in the post.
If my post resolved your problem, please mark it as an Accepted Solution ...
I worked for HP but now I'm retired!

Resolution has dropped on Intel powermac

I was having trouble with my old non-Intel Power Mac G5, so I switched to an Intel G5 dual core 2.66 that I had hanging around. It has an NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 video card. But using the same monitors as I did with the non-Intel, the resolution is not as good. I have the same resolution settings on each monitor (1600X1200 on one, and 1920X1080 on the tv monitor) But for some reason the resolution is clearly not as sharp. I would appreciate any suggestions on what I might try to improve the resolution, I am not sure what video card I had on the old non-intel but I think it was an ATI Radeon 9600 with only 128 memory. I'm not a whiz at this stuff, but I would think the Intel would be an improvement...

hint: don't call it an "G5" Intel
One of the 7300GT ports is capable of higher resolution and the other is not.
Try switching the ports you are using.
Ideal would have been the Apple 5770 which was $250, and which works on all Mac Pro models but are gone, long gone.

PowerMac G5 Intel

Right, im not sure if were allowed to discuss this, but here goes...
When is the Intel PowerMac G5 due to be released ?
Even better...when is the Intel PowerMac G6 due to be released ?
If were forbidden to discuss that, then where can I find out ?

First, the TOS of the discussion group keeps us from speculating about what Apple might do in the future - say when the developers conference begins in August. Second, there won't be an Intel G5 because G5 designates a PPC chip which Intel isn't.
What isn't speculation is that Apple said the transition to Intel would be completed by the end of 2007 and Apple is way ahead of where anyone expected at this time.

Operating system on a PowerMac G5 tower

I have a later 2005 PowerMac G5 tower with the intel. I took it to the shop for a previous problem and the tech asked me if I wanted to Upgrade to Snow Leopard. I need to know if "Snow Leopard" is compatible with a Intel PowerMac G5. OR What the Latest OSx is compatible with it?

I have a later 2005 PowerMac G5 tower with the intel. I took it to the shop for a previous problem and the tech asked me if I wanted to Upgrade to Snow Leopard. I need to know if "Snow Leopard" is compatible with a Intel PowerMac G5. OR What the Latest OSx is compatible with it?
japamac has you covered on the model question.
If it is truly a G5 then Leopard (not Snow Leopard - oh why did Apple have to give them similar names?) is the highest system. If the technician was offering to upgrade to Leopard I would seriously think about going for it. Tiger is no longer supported and Leopard will be the last OS that machine will run. Then too, it is hard to find a copy of Leopard and if the shop has a copy they will sell you at Apple's retail price I'd go for it. The main hesitation would be if you still use OS9 generation software since Leopard does not have Classic.

Can anyone help me decide which computer I need...

I do intensive video/audio/and photo imaging processing on my computers. My boss is going to get me a new computer and I'm trying to decide between a MacBook Pro and G5.
I need:
FW 800
graphics card capabilities for Motion and Aperture
Audio input
DL burning
My real question I suppose is the Macbook Pro as good of a machine as G5. I want a machine that is FAST and reliable. The portability of the Macbook is a plus, but the reliabilty/compatibility of the G5 is also a plus.
I also am afraid to get a G5 because it may be obsolete sooner than we imagine. But so would the MBP.
So, can I have some thoughts on the performance values on both machines. This would be my main computer for all my video/audio/photo editing. Thanks alot...

At this point, as long as you are talking about a PowerMac G5, the G5 will be a more reliable performer.
Most likely, it will either outperform, or perform comparably to the MacBook Pro.
If you are in need of something that will do the job without all the returns to the store, then you are probably better off with a G5 (don't get an iMac G5 though - they are even more trouble).
But, you are right to be concerned about life-span when it comes to PowerPC vs Intel.
The Intel architecture is definitely the way of the future now. And, there will come a day when developers will care less about backwards compatibility. So, we will likely see a day when something will be released only for Intel.
Who knows how far off that day is. But, it will likely come eventually.
Apple last updated the PowerMac G5 in December. So, they are going to be nearing their average replacement cycle pretty soon. I would suspect that by Fall or Winter that we will see a new replacement for the PowerMac based on the Intel CPU's.
But, if you have to buy now, then you are choosing between two basic concepts:
1) MacBook Pro: CPU with more support going forward. 32-BIT CPU instead of 64-BIT. Reliability problems, and lots of early design issues. You could get a good one, or you could spend all your time in the repair shop. All repairs will have to be done by Apple.
2) PowerMac G5: CPU with no future support. Will likely be supported in software for at least another year or two. 64-BIT CPU, and very powerful. Proven design, and greater reliability than the MacBook Pro. Also, fully serviceable. The only component you can't really replace with after-market parts is going to be the main logic board.
So, in the end, you have to choose between the solid and reliable performer who's future is unsure, and the unreliable first-born who's future is assured but may spend all it's time being fixed.
I'm not sure if this helps. But, maybe it will give you some thoughts to help with your decision.
If it were me, I would eliminate the 15-inch MacBook Pro immediately from the equation.
Then, consider that the 17-inch comes with FireWire 800 (instead of having to add it on as you would with the 15-inch model).
The 17-inch has so far had fewer complaints than the 15-inch model had in the same amount of time following it's introduction. But, the 17-inch may have also seen far fewer sales in this same time period due to price (and the fact that many of it's potential buyers probably already have a 15-inch).
To be honest, I don't know for sure which route I would go. I personally had two iMac G5's that gave me a lot of problems. These were iMac specific issues. They were not G5 issues, but rather issues unique to the design of the iMac.
I sold them, and have decided to wait until a reliable Intel machine ships to purchase my next replacement. At this point, I am watching for an Intel PowerMac.
But, if I were forced to buy today, it would be a very tough call.
I would avoid all iMacs. And, I wouldn't want the current MacBook Pro or the Intel Mini. So, I'd be stuck between purchasing something I didn't want or something that might be obsoleted faster than I'd like.
It's a tough one.
How tied into product availability are you?
Do you need to be assured that you can always run the latest titles? Or, are you going to be using the same programs you buy today for the next 3 to 5 years?
If your software upgrade cycle is fairly long, then I might be inclined to suggest going with the proven PowerMac G5. Just get the most powerful one you can.
If your software upgrade cycles are shorter, then I would probably consider (with a mental struggle) the idea of getting a new Intel based system. And, then try to pick the least problematic of the bunch. At this point, that would appear to be the 17-inch MacBook Pro. But, only time will tell if it has the same issues as the 15-inch. Right now it's good appearance could be due to lower sales volume than the 15-inch in the same time period.
One additional thought, is whether the programs you use or need will be available in Universal Binary form in the near future. If not, then they will perform slower on the MacBook Pro than they will on the PowerMac G5.
Hopefully my thoughts are helpful. It's a tough spot. But, I know some people can't put off a purchase until the outlook improves.

Problems with Mail and Safari

Hi,
I'm running OS 10.11 and am having some consistent problems with Mail and Safari on my MacPro Dual 2.66. Here they are:
Sometimes, for no apparent reason, selecting these applications from the dock no longer opens the application (or a new window if already opened), but causes them to be revealed in the finder.
In Safari, when this problem occurs, another symptom seems to be that new windows will ONLY open in a new tab, even though I have preferences set to open links in a new window. If I click on a bookmark within a folder in the bookmark toolbar, Safari will open ALL the bookmarks in the folder in new tabs!!
In Mail, when I open my Inbox, clicking on various messages will highlight (in blue) ALL the messages I'm clicking on, instead of simply displaying the highlighted message in the reader.
The only way to get things back to normal is to reboot my machine, which is getting to be a total drag, especially since this seems to happen fairly often.
One other thing that may be related- if my screen saver is running, and I move the mouse to go to an active screen, the computer will "freeze." It stays like this indefinitely- I figured out that if I press the button on the machine itself it will go to sleep, and I can wake it up and then everything is fine, but I don't understand what's going on.
I have tried using Disk Utility and Disk Warrior, and have used OnyX to clean out my system cache and aall sorts of other stuff, but to no avail.
Is anybody else experiencing any of this? I'm starting to get really frustrated. Thanks for any advice.
Cheers,
Andrew

Scott,
I had posted earlier that I had Flash payer problems and then QuickTime and PDF preview problems too, on my Intel PowerMac. I could not figure out what the problem was, because fixing permissions and moving plugins did not work. Console indicated that the Quicktime components were not found, with the problem in a webkit pref file somewhere (nil field value). Anyway, I bailed and reinstalled Leopard from a 10.5.0 DVD, and then updated using the combo updater to 10.5.3. Everything worked. Then, after the 'Java for Mac OSX 10.5 Update 1', it all broke again. This time, repairing permissions resulted in:
User differs on "System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/1.4.2/Home/lib/jvm.cfg", should be 0, user is 95.
User differs on "System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/1.4.2/Libraries/classlist" , should be 0, user is 95.
Now it all works again. This is obviously a flaw with the Java update, and also somehow Disk Utility did not find it earlier. Anyway, take a look at reverting the Java update, or manually changing user for those files (I suppose user 0 is root, but maybe it is nobody).
Obscure....

Audio stops halfway when encoding to .flv in AME

Hi there,
I have a .mov file that works perfectly when I play it in quicktime. But when I encode it to .flv (settings "same as source") and play it in Flash or Adobe AIR. The sound cuts out halfway. I tried changing bitraid settings and even changing the format to MP3 in the settings, but it doesn't help. The are no errors in the errorlog.
I'm using Adobe Media Encoder CS4 on OSX 10.5.7 Intel Powermac 2x2.66Ghz
Thank you!

Glad to know someone else has experienced this bug. I had the audio cut out midway through a recording, and stay silent through a number of subsequent "takes". It came back the next day and I haven't had any trouble since. Still, I'd like to know how to avoid this problem, or if it's just a random bug.
I first thought I might have inadvertently pressed some button muting the microphone, but there really doesn't seem to be any control over the sound in the video recording function.

Using older G5 as a future server

To preface, we have 2 Intel Machines in our office and one PPC G5 (the one listed in my Model info). Going forward we plan on upgrading to Snow Leopard and thus replacing our PPC with a newer Intel PowerMac.
My question is how easy or plausible will it be to repurpose our G5 as a server and will there be any connectivity issues between it and the newer machines running Snow Leopard? Can anyone point me to any online resources for making such a transition?
EDIT: I wanted to further clarify. We are a small (very small) production studio. We have 3 people with the possibility of a 4th who would access the server and we'd want to use it both as storage and as a render station for either shared (multiple computer) rendering or just rendering on the G5.
Message was edited by: The Bundok for Clarification

If you mean this thread (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=9936850&#9936850) then I've looked it over, but my question is the same as the last one he posed. I guess I just don't understand enough how a render farm would work with shared processing through Qmaster or in Compressor or even command line rendering, but my understanding is that it would treat the two computers as one.
I suppose I could just link it as well via a KVM switch like you suggest and just render from that machine by itself but I'd like to understand how the shared processing works and why it would be worthless/useless in this case.

Aperture tomorrow's application available today

On these boards there seems to be a lot of complaints regarding the performance of Aperture. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that people do not realize how ahead of its time the application really is. Aperture is the fist imaging application to leverage the power of a graphics card to perform its RAW conversion and image processing. In fact it is surprising that no one has done this as yet.
Image processing is one of the few computational tasks that lends itself to highly parallel processing ie; the image can be broken up into small pieces, each piece processed individually and the recombined for the final result. Not surprisingly graphics cards are highly optimized for this type of processing with each card being able to process several of these little pieces simultaneously. The number of pieces that a card can process is defined by the number of “pixel pipelines” the card has. The fastest card to date the ATI X1900 has 48 of these pixels pipelines compared to the hot card last year at this time the 9800 Pro which only has 8 pixel pipelines. If this processing was not done by the graphics card the maximum number of simultaneous processes would be 2 on a dual core or perhaps 4 on a quad.
As a result of leveraging the power of the graphics card Aperture is able to do RAW conversion and image processing in Real Time. This is a quantum leap in image processing. All the other applications allow you to make approximate adjustments on a low-res version or on a portion of the image. Once you have picked the adjustment the application then goes off and processes the whole image at full resolution while you wait. Aperture does the whole image, at full resolution in Real Time.
The other major change is that with such fast processing Aperture is able to make all adjustments to the original RAW image. There is never any destructive processing on the image. Eg. Prior to Aperture one of the golden rules was always perform sharpening last. This was due to the fact that sharpening is destructive to the image and if you wanted to make a change after sharpening you would have to hope that you had saved the version prior so that you could go back. With Aperture all these rules are out the window. You can sharpen first, then adjust shadow highlight and then exposure as all adjustments are recalculated from the original RAW each time a change is made…in Real Time. Sharpening is not the only destructive process that is done to an image. In Photoshop you can use ‘Adjustment layers’ for some changes that are non destructive but any change that is not available as an ‘adjustment layer’ you can assume is destructive.
Prior to Aperture besides the odd game there really were no applications that took advantage of the processing power of the graphics card. As a result, in general, Macs were equipped with relatively low end video cards. The chart below shows the approximate performance of some common video cards. All performance numbers are from PC testing and are only approximates as not all on same motherboard.
Card...................Memory................Pixel................3DMark 2005
......................Bandwidth (GB).........Pipelines ..........1024 x 768 (Approx)
9600............... 6.4...............................4....................1800
6600(LE)...........16.............................. 8.....................2000
6600GT............16...............................8.....................3000
9800Pro ...........21.............................. 8.....................2600
X1600..............12...............................12...................5000
X800XT.............32.............................16....................6000
X1800XT...........48.............................16....................8000
7800GT.............38.............................20....................7000
X1900.................?..............................48..................10000
As can be seen the standard card that Apple provides even in the PowerMac G5 the 6600 is relatively low end. However it appears things are changing as the new Intel iMacs (consumer grade machines) have the X1600 which is no slouch.
The other thing to note is that last year this time the hottest cards were the 6600GT and the 9800Pro. As can be seen in only 1 year their performance has been eclipsed. We can assume that ATI and NVIDIA will keep on pushing the envelope which will result in cards getting not only faster but cheaper. Currently the biggest demand for these high end cards is PC gamers, 3D animation and some CAD, however with the release of Vista the demand should greatly increase as the minimum recommended card for the full Aero experience is high end with at least 512MB. The increase in card production for Vista should greatly assist in driving down prices. At least we can be thankful to uncle Bill for one thing
As we can see Apple is poised with an application that takes advantage of the cutting edge in technology. So while it may seem a lot today to spend $300 to purchase an Aperture optimum card if you hold on that same card will be $200 in six months and probably $100 in a year. Also in a year should you feel you need a boost in Aperture performance you do not need to purchase a whole new computer. Simply an upgrade to the latest video card should result in a significant performance increase.
While Aperture is the first application to see graphic card based optimization I would not be surprised to see other applications following suit. My guess is if not Lightroom or CS3, CS4 will have at least some filters graphics card optimized. I am also sure this same technology will be used in Final Cut to make more transitions real time.
Comments welcome.

<...>
Let's take a specific example. Open a 12MB Canon 5D
RAW file in both applications and apply Shadows &
Highlights, then immediately scroll around the image
fully zoomed to see the effects (check for noise,
etc.). This is a fairly typical digital darkroom
task that works fine in Photoshop after the initial
few-second hit while it computes the final image.
Smooth scrolling after that. Aperture? A spinning
beachball o' death -- for 90+ percent of current
users. This is NOT the "application of the future",
but rather the "doorstop of today".
Not for me, and I have an older computer.
To more exactly recreate your scenario I downloaded a 5D RAW from here:
http://www.jirvana.com/rawlarge/canon5d
And used that. Granted both Shadows/Highlights were a bit jumpier than I normally see (as I work with imported TIFF files) as was scrolling - but not once did I see the beachball at all.
Lightroom by comparison (same file) felt a little faster adjusting, but it's kind of a pointless comparison since it also decreased the image resolution by a factor of four while doing so making live preview less useful as a feature since I had to wait for the image to clear up before I could really see what happened. Scrolling was smoother but still jerky.
Look down there at my specs and tell me they are so unreasonable to be working with a really large RAW file. I don't even think I'm in that upper 10% of Mac users right now.
And exactly which piece of information from Apple was
supposed to make it possible for people to stand a
chance at "realizing" this? Oh, that's right, those
"recommended" hardware specs. How silly of them to
trust the literature and the box.
I would say however the recommendations fail mostly for the 6600 - as I said some people are happy with Aperture on a 12" TiBooks. Some people like you are suffering using Aperture on a fairly powerful computer while at the same time some people struggle to find cracks so that the can install and use Aperture on computers that are below even the minimum specs, so it's a hard thing to say what should be on the list and what shouldn't since people buy the software for different needs.
<...>
For Quake 4, yes. For what Aperture's doing? No
freakin' way. I've done what Aperture's (or Core
Image, depending on how they broke it out) doing with
SIMD instructions and it works just fine.
You are underestimating what is going on there, and Aperture is trying to do it through a general purpose API, not hand tuned assembly. I am pretty sure there are some inefficiencies in all the layers there which will get baked off over time, Aperture is really the first app to make heavy use of Core Image.
Why should Aperture not suffer as greatly at the
hands
of a less dedicated processor?
My point exactly, thanks!
?? - I was actually saying that Aperture would downgrade just as much running on the CPU only as a video-card dependent game would, as it is equally dependent on the specialized features of the video card to perform well.
Have you ever heard about newer video cards
removing features?
Yes.
Not to the extent that API's cannot work around it. I'll admit that was hastily penned.
<...>
It'll suffer if Core Image has to start emulating
things.
So give us an example of something Core Image is doing that may have to be emulated in the future?
Although you walk a fine line complaining the CPU can easily do the same work while at the same time complaining that API performance will downgrade if the API has to switch to use the CPU...
It's not doing that in the case of the 6600 card.
Perhaps its speed-detection routines need
recalibration?
I think you'd see Aperture run an order of magnitude slower by running using only the CPU instead of the GPU.
Actually I think you could even test it. There may be debugging features in the dev kit (perhaps even the same profiler tools you were using) that let you disable use of the GPU by CoreImage and see how well it works.
<...>
Hmm. How big are your RAW files? Shadows &
Highlights is the worst one on the 6600 -- delays are
in the TENS of seconds. This is especially
problematic when trying to scroll around within an
image.
As I said I don't even see a beachball on the 5D files, it's just a little jerky. Normally I work with TIFF files directly which I'll grant are faster than working with RAW.
Any my card is roughly half again as slow as the x800XT card according to the only Core Image tests I've seen on both cards. I think I could say that working with 5D files using a x800XT would in fact be pretty reasonable.
I'm not sure how to note that some power users may
be not be
happy with some cards while other users will
Given this is a "professional" application, who
exactly would be a NON-power user? And trust me,
unless you do ZERO adjustments in Aperture you will
eventually be "unhappy" (understatement of the year)
with the performance on a 6600 card.
Actually I think the people using out-of-spec laptops (or perhaps any laptops) are using it for comparison features more than adjustments, until they get back to a desktop. For that use it would work well even with fairly poor video cards.
Not everyone uses Aperture for the same things.
I do think that card might be there just because
it's shipping
with the Powermacs
Oh, well, that makes it okay to mislead customers
then.
You seem to have missed how that was a critique on my part. I didn't say it was right, just what I thought might be going on there.
On the other hand as we noted your card should behave about as well as my card, I really don't understand what is going on there unless the 6600 drivers and/or CoreImage support is really, really poor.
<...>
But MY point (and the point of many disappointed
Aperture customers) is that HIS point is completely
specious and irrelevant. While Apple's goals are to
be lauded, and even appreciated in a "think tank"
type environment, they chose to unlease this product
upon WORKING PROFESSIONALS. They made promises and
created high expectations. They failed to fulfill
some very critical ones. That is ALL that matters
right now to most people.
<...>
I don't see your point as fully valid because it IS working for many people today, yes it's a subset of the Apple community but it's not as if everyone was let down. In your case you obviosuly were, but in other cases people got what they expected. I did. After seeing the previews I got exactly the software I was expecting.
Those defending Apple are blinded to seeing or even
acknowledging this point, much less conceding it.
Problems cannot be fixed until they are acknowledged
and Apple fan boys (not saying you are one!)
attacking people on for being unsatisfied with
Aperture and finding it unusable for one reason or
another are not helping the situation.
I sympathise with people in your situation, where you have a computer that really should be capible of running the software at full tilt but cannot.
However many such people don't just vent and move on. They must come and post EVERY time someone actually says they like the software. After about ten or twenty of the same comlaints for the same user, I have to say - we get the point. It's obvious the software is doing you no good. Get a refund, I think anyone who complains loudly enough to Apple can do so though they don't make it easy.
I don't know if that is the case for you as I don't really follow posting history. But I would say it's perfectly valid to correct posters that over-generalize problems and make people think that ALL users suffer from them when they do not. I only post corrections when I see that to be the case - if people want to complain about specific setups that's perfectly valid and helpful to potential purchasers. What is not helpful is making an x800XT user stay away from the software thinking the experience is going to be a nightmare when in fact it would be far better for them.
Similarly, telling these upset customers "See, you
just need to ignore your pain and appreciate how
GRAND AND WONDERFUL Apple is for "seeing" the future!
All hail Apple!" is also pointless. It may be
informative, but it doesn't take away any of the
sting and it doesn't get them a refund and (worst of
all) doesn't suddenly make Aperture usable.
It's not saying that at all. It's just saying that Apple put a lot of thought into the software and is really leaning heavily on some leading edge technology, so give them some slack and recognize that in just a year or two the performance concerns will not really be there for newer users and possibly for some older ones. It may not help now but it's pointing out these problems are more short-lived than they would appear, and that the approach is sound (which I still think it is). Some people seem to think that Aperture performance problems are simply unsoluable, and the original post addresses that.
<...>
Well, hopefully the PCI-X cards come soon. In the
meantime I'll just continue to disagree with the
assertion that the 6600 is a "low-end" card. I run
some REALLY SOPHISTICATED software on that card on my
Windows PC. There's no excuse why it can't handle
something like Aperture, which is CHILD'S PLAY by
comparison.
<...>
I'm not saying low-end either, more like mid-range. I consider my Radeon 9800 to be bit dated at this point as well and the 6600 is around the same level of performance.
I'm not saying they aren't. The wrong track they're
on is being lazy writing software -- the super-wazoo
card is NOT NECESSARY for Aperture. Heck, you even
say yourself that your lowly old ATI video card is
running it in realtime. I think the developers just
didn't test the application with the 6600 (and
probably several other cards).
I do wonder if that is the case (6600 testing). However I don't think they are being lazy exactly - I think they simply focused more effort in getting the Core Image API the way they wanted it and less on tuning actual cards.
Given the timeframe of software release I'll bet most of the developers were working with Quad G5's though, not the newer dual-core models... probably rectified by now although perhaps they just all jumped to prototype Intel Powermacs (or whatever they will be).
This is a shame,
since that's what they sell as the default in
Powermacs. On a positive note, this is why I expect
this problem to be fixed. Now that developers are
aware of the performance issues on the 6600, plus the
fact that they've sold a lot of them, leads me to
believe (hope) my performance issues will melt away
(like butter, even!) with the next point release.
Please, please, please...
I have the same hope. You'd think it would be a focus of Aperture though since as you say that card is default on all new Powermacs and they would seemingly want the software to shine there.
I wonder how much they are reliant on the nVidia driver performing well though, to that extent their hands may be somewhat tied.
<...>
So how about giving the application away for free
until it's good enough to be sold at retail? Why
does everybody cut Apple slack on this when it's an
EXPENSIVE and PROFESSIONAL application? Are those
same apologists as forgiving when they have to wait 6
months for updates to their favorite game to make it
playable? Of course not. So why are they THAT
demanding on a $40 application and yet so forgiving
on a $500 too? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
<...>
But the application is ready for prime time for some users. Some of the early bugs were glaring to be sure but it's definitely a very solid applciation at this point, especially when you look at Lightroom and use the two apps for any length of time. Aperture really is a finished product with a fair amount of polish to it when you look at all the little things it handles well and the detail that has gone into it.
That's the only option available to some people --
anyone with a PCI-X video card, for example. The
more interesting question is why do others choose to
attack these customers and defend Apple? Who screwed
who here, for goodness sake? Some people really need
to back off on their koolaid intake...
My goal is simply to clarify on what confgurations people may see problems - and where they may not.

23" Apple vs Dell 2405FPW

Hey, i am in the market for a new powermac sometime soon, and i was recomended a 2405FPW instead of a 23" cinema display. Im not good with specs of monitors and don't understand them. Im in the UK and i was told the Dell is cheaper, to order a apple display with a powermac would cost £850, but a dell is £950, am i in the wrong place? Also how much better is the dell then the apple (if it is?) and what graphics card would i need to run that and games such as COD and doom?
Thanks in Advance,
Liam

thank you, seems you americans have it lucky, the exchange rate on apple products means we get ripped off here as well, they charge us more. But being a apple person i would most likely have to opt for a 30" ACD, i won't need any perfect colour match or anything as im not a big photographer, just photographs of friends and family and events for myself. I won't be able to order my powermac under september mainly because i won't have the income until then (being a student) so you never know, intel powermacs and displays with built in iSight maybe (no hopes up though, props happen week after pruchase knowing my luck)

Start up

can anyone help wth this
i get inconsistent start up
sometimes just goes to start up screen other tmes i have t go to restart button as it goes ot grey screen
i noticed this:-
Power On Self-Test:
Last Run:          29/03/2014 15:09
Result:          Failed
Failure Type:          Memory
Memory Slot:          DIMM 1/DIMM Riser A
ihave a pre intel powermac running 10.7.5
regards
andy

The Mac pro features Error Correcting Code (ECC) memory. The Xeon processor provides a hardware assist that generates syndrome bits (permutations of multi-bit parity across the data bits in the word) that are stored with each word in memory.
On Read, single-bit errors are detected, and the syndrome bits are used by the Hardwsre to correct without slowdown. Most are logged and a summary report can be read out later.
Double-bit Errors are detected, but generally can not be corrected. Instead, they cause a kernel panic, machine check, Uncorrected error or Error overflow.
At Startup, the error correction logic is enabled during the Power On Self Test. Any errors that occur in the Test cause your Mac to declare that slot "Empty", which forces the module (and its partner if paired) not to be used.

Problems with Spaces and System Preferences

Hello all. I previously had setup my spaces so that when I opened certain apps, they would open in specific spaces (ex. Safari opened in upper left space, system preferences opened in lower right space etc.). I had spaces setup so that there were 9 spaces. Now somehow my spaces got reset so that I have only 4. Whenever I open system preferences, or even open spaces preferences to change it, it opens, but does not appear, and when I hit the spaces button, there it is, overlapping my spaces, but I cannot click on it to change the settings, only choose a space to go to.
Heres what it looks like when i hit the spaces button:
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5122/picture1bw3.png

Hey guys i found a fix to this but its basically using System preferences blind, and toggling on and off the radio buttons for Expose and Spaces.
So to really understand my jumble of words to make you understand my weird train of thought. Its The Master & the Grasshopper Lesson on _'Believing without Seeing.'_
Young Apple Seed (aka Grasshopper), Just because one can not see what one is doing, does not mean one is doing nothing. This just means that the Mime is miming a mime action to a blind person.
So if you wish to not be the blind mad and the mime, do as it is written, and as you think. For one who goes down a path they choose they will sure be the Mime. And if you are, then you need an Mime EGO check.
_TO GET WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE_
1. If you don't already have SP (System Preferences) running then you will need to start the Application named SP.
2. When in SP, click on View | *Expose and Spaces*
+(If your here and saying how the bleep do I do this step. Then you need to Bleepity make sure that right next to the Apple Icon in the top left corner reads+ *System Preferences*, +Mr/Mrs/Ms Mime.)+
3. Press Tab +(ONE TIME)+
4. Press *Right --> Arrow* +(ONE TIME)+
*5. Press ⌘L +(ONE TIME)+
*6. Press ⌘[ +(ONE TIME)+
7. Press Tab
8. Press Tab
9. Press *Space Bar*
+(Now if you were doing each step while reading it on the screen then right after you did that last step like magic it appears.)+ The space bar toggled Enable or Disable Check box.
* These steps really should not be here but I noticed a bug that would make my steps not work correctly if these were not done. Usually when you press tab once in a 2 part option menu for SP its tabbed. And usually when you press the arrow key to go to the next tab, usually the focus is still on the tab for the next tab. But it doesn't and that isn't only on my system, its on many others i tried it on. So you Bug mashers or fixers this has been duped on several other systems that range from non-Intel, PowerMac, PowerPC, iMac, even non apple macs. but focus disappears and even if you pressed tab or the arrow keys nothing would happen and trust me you would be doing my steps over and over and then post something either on my profile that i'm a bleepity bleep bleep or something positive. But i'd like the positive comments, but hey if you want to leave me bleepity bleep bleep bleep bleep bleeps? Then i have one thing to say to you "BLEEP you!!"

INTEL 2 POWERMAC WOES

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for