Photoshop 7 faster than CS 3 on Mac Intel .....

How come Photoshop 7 running on a MacIntel so via Rosetta emulation mode is really really quite faster than the CS 3 which is native !!
It clearly shows the lack oof optimisation of adobe softwares and that after each update they are becoming more and more gaz factories !!
It is clear that softwares with competitors are really better than others, the flagrant exemple of Lightroom vs Aperture !
Plus the prices ...
CS 3 Standard Edition is in Europe 2032 vs 1199 $ in Northern America reported in US $ 2985 $ vs 1199 $ !!! European customers have to pay 2,5 the price for the same crap !!
It is clearly that you take your customers for pigeons !!
Thank you i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!

But its it faster than CS3 on an Intel Mac with Leopard.
You also have clearly confused the people here on the forums (OTHER USERS) with Adobe.
Also instead of getting mad at Adobe in America Maybe you should be asking why Adobe distributers in your part of the world see the need to jack the price up. I have a feeling it has more to greed on your end than our end.
>i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!
Well if you really do own Photoshop 7 instead of just a pirate copy you might want to upgrade now as Adobe's policy world wide is 3 versions back. As soon CS4 is released you will no longer be eligible for upgrade pricing.

Similar Messages

PowerMac faster than intel Mac when running video programs?

Hello everyone! Having a question now so wonder if any of you have the same experience?
Recently i have many video works to do. I have a powerbook, which is the lasted 17inch powerbook and an intel imac (early 2008, 2.66GHz). I run the same version of finalcut pro and compressor. But thing become very strange, which is that when i run compressor to make final video files, my powerbook is much faster (about 2 times faster) than intel iMac. When i run XDCAM program to import video clips to finalcut from Sony XDCAM blueray reader, powerbook is also much more faster than intel iMac, and which is about 10time more faster than intel iMac. So it become very strange. I list my configurations below, and any of you can help me to solve the 'problem' or explain the strange fenominal.
Maybe theres anything wrong with software configurations, any one can also help me with that?
Thank you very much!
Powerbook G4 17inch:
CPU: powerpc G4 1,67GHz
RAM: 2GB (two 1GB module)
HDD: 120GB IDE
System: Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.8
Program: Final Cut Studio 2
iMac 20inch Early 2008
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2,66GHz
RAM: 4GB (two 2GB module)
HDD: Cosair 256GB SSD
System: Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (tried also on Snow Leopard)
Program: Final Cut Studio 2 (tried also Final Cut Studio 3 on friends imac with the same configuration)
Camera:
Sony XDCAM PDW530 Broadcast Camcorder.
Media:
Sony XDCAM blueray disk
Reader:
Sony XDCAM blueray disc drive
Program:
XDCAM transfer for Final Cut Pro 2.12
XDCAM browser software 1.20

Of course it depends on what you're doing and how well you know how to use available resources... the general rule for Logic is:
>>>Fastest machine with the most RAM you can afford.<<<
That said, someone who knows what they're doing can get an amazing amount of effects and virtual instruments on an old PPC G5 computer running Logic 8.
So, while fast machines will allow more plugins/VI with less overloads... knowing what you're doing will take you further so that the difference between machines would not make a difference in the music.
pancenter-

Is an Intel iMac faster than PowerMac G4 1.25 Ghz single proccesor?

Hi, I'm owner of a PowerMac G4 1.25 Ghz single proccesor, working whit Adobe Creative Suite 1. I'm wonderin if the iMac Intel Core Duo is faster than my PowerMac G4? Thanks for your support.

I have a 1.25 G4 Mac Mini and the new intel Mac. The answer to your question is that the iMac will be loads faster for anything that is a native Universal Binary like iLife programs. It will also be faster for games that are not the latest thing, but that are accelerated by its fairly beefy 3d card - so faster for Halo, Call of Duty - Unreal Tournamaent1 etc. (other Unreal tournaments not good under Rosetta - but 2004 now has a UB so that should whizz when you download the patch, if you are into such things).
However it will be slower for power applications running under Rosetta - ie: Photoshop or Dreamweaver. Until the Universal Binary versions come - then it will be much faster for those too.

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

Mac faster than PC's?

Hi everybody.
I already have a iMac 21,5" but i'm considering to buy the next Macbook Apple publish.
I hope they make a Macbook Pro inside a Air body, but thats not what this threat is about.
I often her that people say that if a Mac and a PC had the same specs, the Mac would still be faster?
That is also my experience, but why is that? I thougt that a PC that had better specs would run faster than a Mac?
Is specifications all that matters when you buy a computer?
Of course it's individually what you like best when it comes to software, but do the software make you computer run faster?
I think my Mac run a lot faster than my PC, and they have someway the same specs.
That was a lot of questions

Mac's can be faster than PC's and PC's can be faster than Mac's.
It all depends upon the processors, graphics capability and other factors, age of each machine, data on the drive, etc.
If you put Windows and OS X on the very same type hardware, freshly installed on each hard drive, everything matches. Likely OS X would be a hair slower than Windows.
It's because OS X renders the UI with a finer degree of detail.
However when it comes to hardware, PC's outstrip Mac's in that department not mainly in the processors, which they both share the same Intel ones (Mac's sometimes gets theirs before PC users) but rather the video card upgrade choices and tweaking ability Windows towers users enjoy and Mac owners do not.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
So if your considering a 3D gaming machine, your choices are simply a Win 7 tower.
Generic PC's also have another advantage, one can replace Windows with the lighter Linux, I've done that with HP XP netbooks that were going for a song, slapped Linux on them and they make great portable use machines for the basics. I even use a UI that looks like OS X so I feel at home.

I want to buy an adobe product that cuts the background from a picture very fast. Faster than photoshop cs6

I Want to buy a photoshop product that can cut my background from a picture very fast. Faster than ps6

Quick Selection Tool | Understanding Adobe Photoshop CS6 | Adobe TV
Nancy O.

Photoshop CS compatible with mac intel ??

Hi all,
I think to change my old MAC Powerbook G4 (laptop) for an Imac intel core duo 21.5 inches.
But before to change it I have a very important question about Adobe Photoshop CS
What about my files/project created with Photoshop CS on my old mac ?
I have to buy a new photoshop version for mac intel or can I install my current photoshop version (PPC version of course...)
Thanks in advance
Regards,
A.
PS : and for illustrator CS (PPC version...) : is it supported by this new mac intel ?

Thanks for your reply,
I already heard about Rosetta but it's not very interesting...
I'm very disappointed by Apple and Macintosh since many years with these new mac/pc machine.......
I don't want to buy new products especially (very expensive !) for a new mac...
Thanks again.
A.

Faster than 2010 Mac Pro?

HI,
I am wondering if anyone can tell me if the new Mac Mini is actually faster than my current Mac Pro Tower?
It's a Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.66 (2010/Westmere)
Thanks

based on these:
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/creativesuite/production/cs6/ pdfs/adobe-hardware-performance-whitepaper.pdf
http://provideocoalition.com/f/story/adobe-premiere-pro-and-multiple-gpus
You Mac Pro is faster and can likely be improved like adding an SSD boot drive
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6836500
and maybe upgrading the graphics card

Is firewire 800 on mac mini 2010 faster than sata2 ?

is firewire 800 on mac mini 2010 faster than sata2 ?

No. SATA at its slowest is 1.5 Gb/s while FW800 is 800 Mb/s. SATA is available on some Macs at 1.5, 3.0, or 6.0 Gb/s depending on the model and when it was made.

Is Mac to Mac faster than Mac to PC?

Someone told me something which doesn't make sense to me, but I could be wrong. Is it true that a website made with my iMac is opened faster than, say Windows PC? This is what the person wrote to me. I don't know how to respond.
She wrote:
*'I know that but when you are working with the same exact equipment it goes faster too doesn't have to convert back and forth. That I know too.”*

Website speed varies by web standards and web browsers used. See my FAQ* on what web standards are, and what web browsers exist:
http://www.macmaps.com/browser.html
Connection speed also varies widely unless you have a dedicated internet line. Not even ADSL is truly dedicated because your upstream is capped and connections on websites are as much a function of upstream as downstream traffic.
- * Links to my pages may give me compensation.

Are all parts of Adobe Creative Suite 3 truly "Mac-Intel Optimized"?

I know from using Photoshop CS3 Beta that it renders effects faster on the Intel Macs than CS2. Adobe has indicated that Acrobat 8 Pro (part of CS3) will render PDFs faster on Intel Macs than previous versions.
I'm wondering if InDesign CS3 or Illustrator CS3 "crunch" things faster. Or are they "nominally" Intel Native with extra features over CS2 versions.

There are a couple articles or blogs on the topic of 64-bit applications and Adobe's move to 64-bit.
The benefits, but the cost in programming, too.
One thing at a time. Get the code cleaned up for one thing. And most of their core base, even Vista, isn't fully up to 64-bit. It will come, but later. And wait for Leopard to begin development work and large installed base.
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/
Phootoshop CS3 and 64-bit
Google: Adobe 64-bit
The problem with 64-bit and CS3 argument
Message was edited by: The hatter

Dedicated scratch not faster than scratch on boot volume

My Mac Pro boot OS is on a 150 Gb striped raid made from outer partitions on two 1Tb drives in bays 1 and 2. There is 95 Gb free on the boot. 8 Gb RAM.
My normal scratch is on a dedicated 150 Gb striped raid made from the outer partitions of the 1Tb drives in bays 3 and 4.
I ran the Retouche artists Photoshop speed test with the scratch on the dedicated separate scratch, and on the boot volume.
The results were:
Average time of several runs with dedicated scratch was 45.5 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was 43.9 seconds.
Since I was expecting the dedicated scratch to be faster I was a bit surprised so I repeated the exercise on my MacBook Pro (1.83 MHz, 2 Gb RAM). Normal scratch is the boot volume which a 5400 rpm 500 Gb Samsung with 150 Gb free, no partitions. For this exercise, I connected an eSATA via an express card to provide a dedicated scratch alternative.
Average time with dedicated separate scratch was 152 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was also 152 seconds.
All Retouche Tests were done with 40 history states and 4 cache levels, which results in about 7Gb of scratch being used. On both machines Quickbench shows the scratch as just a few percent faster than the boot.
I repeated the Mac Pro tests with the test file located on different drives, including the boot and the scratch, but there were no significant differences.
What has happened to the standard advice about dedicated scratch for Photoshop?
Any thoughts ? (other than that I have too much time on my hands!)
Mike

Important to note the buffer on those drives are the all 32MB or are some 16MB.
A drive with a 32 MB buffer is going to record data faster.
However if you are on a MacPro (Intel) which it sounds like you are,
I can confirm that using your start up disk as opposed to a dedicated
separate scratch will not be of any speed advantage with photoshop.
At least it does not seem that way from my own test.
I also found partitioning the drive does not seem to be necessary on the intel box?
I have a test that is fairly consistent regardless as long as you have sufficient RAM 8 GB or more a Raid O scratch and an the same amount of memory allowed.
I still find with CS 4 that using bigger tiles is helpful as wel as the Forced VM Buffer plug in.
They still seem to speed things up a bit.
My test work on my dual xeon core duo that way in 16-18 seconds ona 8 core MacPro with 2GB of RAM and with out the Raid 0 and using the startup as the scratch with no Raid configured and without the plug ins it takes about 3 minutes.
The Ram and the raid are the important things the other two help.

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

Photoshop 7 faster than CS 3 on Mac Intel .....

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for