Anyone running this....
Any one here running the new Mac desktops with the dual chips. If so, any comments. Dave Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
I've been using one; works great for native apps... still prefer the G5 for photoshop and any MS Office work. Absolutely flies w/ CaptureOne compared to the G5. -R On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, David J Brooks wrote: Any one here running the new Mac desktops with the dual chips. If so, any comments. Dave Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
Thanks Ryan. I like the ibook, and the mac way of things, for the most part, but i do like 1-2 PC programs i still run, but i'm sure i can get mac based ones aswell.(Apperently BBPro will not be available anytime soon for Mac) My PC has probably reached its limit and i fear a C drive wipe clean and reload may be the only way out. I have never done one, and dread the thought of doing it and reloading everything and doing all of the updates again. Dave Quoting ryan brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've been using one; works great for native apps... still prefer the G5 for photoshop and any MS Office work. Absolutely flies w/ CaptureOne compared to the G5. -R On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, David J Brooks wrote: Any one here running the new Mac desktops with the dual chips. If so, any comments. Dave Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On 9/7/06, David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Ryan. I like the ibook, and the mac way of things, for the most part, but i do like 1-2 PC programs i still run, but i'm sure i can get mac based ones aswell.(Apperently BBPro will not be available anytime soon for Mac) Look into a product called Parallels. It will let you run a Windows XP virtual machine on an Intel-based Mac. Also, there's a product called Boot Camp, which will let you multi-boot the intel-based macs into either Windows XP or OSX. Yes, a mac that runs windows. No, I'm not kidding. -Mat -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Mat Maessen wrote: I like the ibook, and the mac way of things, for the most part, but i do like 1-2 PC programs i still run, but i'm sure i can get mac based ones aswell.(Apperently BBPro will not be available anytime soon for Mac) Look into a product called Parallels. It will let you run a Windows XP virtual machine on an Intel-based Mac. Also, there's a product called Boot Camp, which will let you multi-boot the intel-based macs into either Windows XP or OSX. Yes, a mac that runs windows. No, I'm not kidding. I have several clients running Boot Camp on their Apple Intel-based systems. The new systems run Windows very well, although there are a few issues with some oddball driver or another that doesn't work. Parallels has more driver limitations and does not provide anywhere near the same performance at this point in time, but allows both OS to be running simultaneously. The next version of Mac OS X will have what is now Boot Camp embedded and will be able to run both OSes without having to add anything at all. I do contracting work on Apple systems and Mac OS X system administration. Not one person who has purchased an Apple Intel-based system - Mini, iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook, or Mac Pro - has complained that they bought the wrong system to date, whether they came from Mac OS X or Windows background. There have certainly been some glitches but all have been resolvable to their satisfaction with very little effort. When Photoshop is upgraded to a Universal Binary, or Lightroom goes final, there will be powerful incentive for me to upgrade the G5 to a Mac Pro tower... ! I'll continue to run Mac OS X though as Windows gives me a headache. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
Mat Maessen wrote: On 9/7/06, David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Ryan. I like the ibook, and the mac way of things, for the most part, but i do like 1-2 PC programs i still run, but i'm sure i can get mac based ones aswell.(Apperently BBPro will not be available anytime soon for Mac) Look into a product called Parallels. It will let you run a Windows XP virtual machine on an Intel-based Mac. Also, there's a product called Boot Camp, which will let you multi-boot the intel-based macs into either Windows XP or OSX. Yes, a mac that runs windows. No, I'm not kidding. -Mat Unfortunately, David is running an iBook, which cannot use BootCamp or run Parallels. Look into VirtualPC, which is a PC emulation program for PPC Mac's like the iBook -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Adam Maas wrote: I like the ibook, and the mac way of things, for the most part, but i do like 1-2 PC programs i still run, but i'm sure i can get mac based ones aswell.(Apperently BBPro will not be available anytime soon for Mac) Look into a product called Parallels. It will let you run a Windows XP virtual machine on an Intel-based Mac. Also, there's a product called Boot Camp, which will let you multi-boot the intel-based macs into either Windows XP or OSX. Unfortunately, David is running an iBook, which cannot use BootCamp or run Parallels. Look into VirtualPC, which is a PC emulation program for PPC Mac's like the iBook But he was asking about the Apple Intel-based systems, Adam. I would NOT recommend VirtualPC for anything to do with image processing. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Mat Maessen wrote: I like the ibook, and the mac way of things, for the most part, but i do like 1-2 PC programs i still run, but i'm sure i can get mac based ones aswell.(Apperently BBPro will not be available anytime soon for Mac) Look into a product called Parallels. It will let you run a Windows XP virtual machine on an Intel-based Mac. Also, there's a product called Boot Camp, which will let you multi-boot the intel-based macs into either Windows XP or OSX. Yes, a mac that runs windows. No, I'm not kidding. I have several clients running Boot Camp on their Apple Intel-based systems. The new systems run Windows very well, although there are a few issues with some oddball driver or another that doesn't work. Parallels has more driver limitations and does not provide anywhere near the same performance at this point in time, but allows both OS to be running simultaneously. The next version of Mac OS X will have what is now Boot Camp embedded and will be able to run both OSes without having to add anything at all. I do contracting work on Apple systems and Mac OS X system administration. Not one person who has purchased an Apple Intel-based system - Mini, iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook, or Mac Pro - has complained that they bought the wrong system to date, whether they came from Mac OS X or Windows background. There have certainly been some glitches but all have been resolvable to their satisfaction with very little effort. When Photoshop is upgraded to a Universal Binary, or Lightroom goes final, there will be powerful incentive for me to upgrade the G5 to a Mac Pro tower... ! I'll continue to run Mac OS X though as Windows gives me a headache. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On 7/9/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: When Photoshop is upgraded to a Universal Binary, or Lightroom goes final, there will be powerful incentive for me to upgrade the G5 to a Mac Pro tower... ! I'll continue to run Mac OS X though as Windows gives me a headache. ;-) This is good news Godders. One of the things I will be setting up is a vehicle-based non-linear edit system and as I already use Final Cut Pro, that's the way I was headed. However, I may be asked at some point in the future to have Avid Newscutter available (PC only) and a powerful G5 Mac will allow me to choose both software. Blooming marvellous :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The next version of Mac OS X will have what is now Boot Camp embedded and will be able to run both OSes without having to add anything at all. I do contracting work on Apple systems and Mac OS X system administration. Not one person who has purchased an Apple Intel-based system - Mini, iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook, or Mac Pro - has complained that they bought the wrong system to date, whether they came from Mac OS X or Windows background. There have certainly been some glitches but all have been resolvable to their satisfaction with very little effort. Thats good to hear. There is a big meeting here at work Friday, restructure and re orginizing, so i may or may not be in a position to buy anything just yet(sort of a vbg) When Photoshop is upgraded to a Universal Binary, or Lightroom goes final, there will be powerful incentive for me to upgrade the G5 to a Mac Pro tower... ! I'll continue to run Mac OS X though as Windows gives me a headache. ;-) It does me to lately. Want the number of my ear candle lady. It helps. :-) Dave Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On 9/7/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You'll need one of the new Mac Pro or MacBook Pro's, not a G5, which won't run the PC software. Any current-production Apple system will run them. Apple has transitioned over to all-Intel processors. MacBook (core solo/duo) MacBook pro (core duo) iMac (core 2 duo. Brand new. VERY attractive). Mac Pro (dual-core Xeon processors) They're all very significantly faster than their older G4/G5 equivalents. -Mat -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
Cotty wrote: On 7/9/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: When Photoshop is upgraded to a Universal Binary, or Lightroom goes final, there will be powerful incentive for me to upgrade the G5 to a Mac Pro tower... ! I'll continue to run Mac OS X though as Windows gives me a headache. ;-) This is good news Godders. One of the things I will be setting up is a vehicle-based non-linear edit system and as I already use Final Cut Pro, that's the way I was headed. However, I may be asked at some point in the future to have Avid Newscutter available (PC only) and a powerful G5 Mac will allow me to choose both software. Blooming marvellous :-) Cotty, You'll need one of the new Mac Pro or MacBook Pro's, not a G5, which won't run the PC software. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On Sep 7, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: They're all very significantly faster than their older G4/G5 equivalents. Actually Apple's benches on their site are worth nothing. If we would take in consideration the same count and clock speed of G5 and Intel processors - then there would be very little difference in real world speed. Dual core G5 2 GHz is about as fast as dual core Intel 2 GHz. Quad core G5 2.5GHz is only slightly slower than Quad Xeon 2.66 GHz: http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/135 Yes. The PowerPC chip set was always a better overall performer than the Intel equivalent. The problem that Apple is responding to with the move to Intel was lack of commitment on the part of the chip vendors (Motorola and IBM) to develop the PowerPC line in such a way as to pose a business advantage to Apple, not any lack in the current/ recent PowerPC offerings themselves. Even a PowerMac G5 2.0Ghz DP system is a stunningly capable, powerful system. Remember that I worked at Apple and was the Technology Manager for Development Tools. I was involved in this chip transition as far back as 1999 when it was a deep deep black project that I couldn't even tell my boss and his boss about, as it was being handled through the Hardware and OS/development tools groups exclusively until about 2003. If Apple wouldn't go Intel way, we would just see next generation of PowerMacs G5 as fast as Xeon based Macs Pro . The unfortunate truth is that getting a faster G5 was likely not going to happen in any reasonable time frame, where getting faster, better, improved Xeons/equivalents will likely happen sooner due to the amount of development dollars being dumped in that direction. That said, all of the last generation of chips (G5 post 2Ghz, Xeon, etc) have been disappointing compared to the original specification projection. It seems there is a threshold being approached at which it takes a lot more subtle and complex development work to go beyond the perceptible performance of this class of system. I'm sure we'll pass beyond this threshold sometime soon, but my bets are on the chip vendors who dump lots of money and time in that direction. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On 7/9/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed: You'll need one of the new Mac Pro or MacBook Pro's, not a G5, which won't run the PC software. Sorry, that's what I meant. Mac Pro. Thanks guv :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
Mat Maessen wrote: On 9/7/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You'll need one of the new Mac Pro or MacBook Pro's, not a G5, which won't run the PC software. Any current-production Apple system will run them. Apple has transitioned over to all-Intel processors. MacBook (core solo/duo) MacBook pro (core duo) iMac (core 2 duo. Brand new. VERY attractive). Mac Pro (dual-core Xeon processors) They're all very significantly faster than their older G4/G5 equivalents. -Mat Actually, for a Photoshop user, the previous generation G5's are significantly faster than the current Mac Pro's and will continue to be until the release of CS3, as Photoshop is not Universal. Also Apple does not use any Core Solo processors (Only the low-end Mini ever had them and that has been replaced by a Core Duo model), the MacBook was never a Core Solo unit. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On 07.09.2006, at 19:40 , Mat Maessen wrote: Any current-production Apple system will run them. Apple has transitioned over to all-Intel processors. MacBook (core solo/duo) MacBook pro (core duo) iMac (core 2 duo. Brand new. VERY attractive). Mac Pro (dual-core Xeon processors) They're all very significantly faster than their older G4/G5 equivalents. Actually Apple's benches on their site are worth nothing. If we would take in consideration the same count and clock speed of G5 and Intel processors - then there would be very little difference in real world speed. Dual core G5 2 GHz is about as fast as dual core Intel 2 GHz. Quad core G5 2.5GHz is only slightly slower than Quad Xeon 2.66 GHz: http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/135 If Apple wouldn't go Intel way, we would just see next generation of PowerMacs G5 as fast as Xeon based Macs Pro . Cheers, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On 07.09.2006, at 20:36 , Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Yes. The PowerPC chip set was always a better overall performer than the Intel equivalent. The problem that Apple is responding to with the move to Intel was lack of commitment on the part of the chip vendors (Motorola and IBM) to develop the PowerPC line in such a way as to pose a business advantage to Apple, not any lack in the current/ recent PowerPC offerings themselves. Even a PowerMac G5 2.0Ghz DP system is a stunningly capable, powerful system. Thanks for interesting insights Godfrey :-) But I doubt if there was a real problem with development of higher spec PowerPC. Right now Microsoft's XBOX 360 uses tri core PowerPC running at 3.2 GHz - imagine having two such a CPUs in Mac - six cores in total, each running at 3.2 GHz - I guess it would easily outperform the fastest Xeon configuration... I guess one of the reasons for switching to Intel was lack of G5 processors suitable for portable use - after all no Powerbook was available with this CPU. Cheers, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On 07.09.2006, at 22:03 , Adam Maas wrote: Both were issues. IBM wasn't particularly interested in producing general-purpose G5 units of faster speed (And indeed had lagged on it's promises to Apple about 3GHz G5's) while they had concentrated on producing the tri-core and Cell variants for MS and Sony. Also IBM had not produced a version suitable for laptop use, which was the driving factor in the timing of the conversion to Intel from all reports. That's a pity - I have always liked Power PC architecture for no rational reason :-) But what a interesting times that we live in - Microsoft uses PowerPC - Apple Intel processors :-) Cheers, Sylwek -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: On 07.09.2006, at 20:36 , Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Yes. The PowerPC chip set was always a better overall performer than the Intel equivalent. The problem that Apple is responding to with the move to Intel was lack of commitment on the part of the chip vendors (Motorola and IBM) to develop the PowerPC line in such a way as to pose a business advantage to Apple, not any lack in the current/ recent PowerPC offerings themselves. Even a PowerMac G5 2.0Ghz DP system is a stunningly capable, powerful system. Thanks for interesting insights Godfrey :-) But I doubt if there was a real problem with development of higher spec PowerPC. Right now Microsoft's XBOX 360 uses tri core PowerPC running at 3.2 GHz - imagine having two such a CPUs in Mac - six cores in total, each running at 3.2 GHz - I guess it would easily outperform the fastest Xeon configuration... I guess one of the reasons for switching to Intel was lack of G5 processors suitable for portable use - after all no Powerbook was available with this CPU. Cheers, Sylwek Both were issues. IBM wasn't particularly interested in producing general-purpose G5 units of faster speed (And indeed had lagged on it's promises to Apple about 3GHz G5's) while they had concentrated on producing the tri-core and Cell variants for MS and Sony. Also IBM had not produced a version suitable for laptop use, which was the driving factor in the timing of the conversion to Intel from all reports. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On Sep 7, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Thanks for interesting insights Godfrey :-) But I doubt if there was a real problem with development of higher spec PowerPC. Right now Microsoft's XBOX 360 uses tri core PowerPC running at 3.2 GHz - imagine having two such a CPUs in Mac - six cores in total, each running at 3.2 GHz - I guess it would easily outperform the fastest Xeon configuration... I guess one of the reasons for switching to Intel was lack of G5 processors suitable for portable use - after all no Powerbook was available with this CPU. Both were issues. IBM wasn't particularly interested in producing general-purpose G5 units of faster speed (And indeed had lagged on it's promises to Apple about 3GHz G5's) while they had concentrated on producing the tri-core and Cell variants for MS and Sony. Also IBM had not produced a version suitable for laptop use, which was the driving factor in the timing of the conversion to Intel from all reports. Most of the factors involved in what was or wasn't developed are political rather than technological. I cannot discuss such details in depth, for obvious reasons, but in the end the PowerPC consortium of Motorola/IBM were not heading in the development direction that Apple needed, and other vendors were happy to step up to the plate and participate in development that was to Apple's advantage. The team at Apple predicted this result as far back as 1999 (maybe a little earlier ... that's when I became involved in the effort) and much of Mac OS X's inner workings were architected to provide a good degree of processor independence and a reasonable schema for moving forward through a processor change. The results of my five/six years of effort along with that of several thousand other people are producing the Apple systems, Mac OS X and the third party applications of today and into the foreseeable future. It was a darn good feeling hearing the MacBook Pro announced at last. :-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....Related question
One problem with the recent OS X versions: When one copies a file from one disk to another, the system considers it a modification, and displays the date of the copying as the date modified. This is a PITA when one is dealing with several versions of a document and making backups. Is there a way to have the system pay attention only to =real= modifications of the file content? Rick --- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 7, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Thanks for interesting insights Godfrey :-) But I doubt if there was a real problem with development of higher spec PowerPC. Right now Microsoft's XBOX 360 uses tri core PowerPC running at 3.2 GHz - imagine having two such a CPUs in Mac - six cores in total, each running at 3.2 GHz - I guess it would easily outperform the fastest Xeon configuration... I guess one of the reasons for switching to Intel was lack of G5 processors suitable for portable use - after all no Powerbook was available with this CPU. Both were issues. IBM wasn't particularly interested in producing general-purpose G5 units of faster speed (And indeed had lagged on it's promises to Apple about 3GHz G5's) while they had concentrated on producing the tri-core and Cell variants for MS and Sony. Also IBM had not produced a version suitable for laptop use, which was the driving factor in the timing of the conversion to Intel from all reports. Most of the factors involved in what was or wasn't developed are political rather than technological. I cannot discuss such details in depth, for obvious reasons, but in the end the PowerPC consortium of Motorola/IBM were not heading in the development direction that Apple needed, and other vendors were happy to step up to the plate and participate in development that was to Apple's advantage. The team at Apple predicted this result as far back as 1999 (maybe a little earlier ... that's when I became involved in the effort) and much of Mac OS X's inner workings were architected to provide a good degree of processor independence and a reasonable schema for moving forward through a processor change. The results of my five/six years of effort along with that of several thousand other people are producing the Apple systems, Mac OS X and the third party applications of today and into the foreseeable future. It was a darn good feeling hearing the MacBook Pro announced at last. :-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....Related question
Hm. Never seen that. I copy files from one hard disk to another all the time, the Finder preserves file creation and modification dates transferrin between on any Mac OS file system volume. Copying to a FAT or FAT32 file system or a UNIX file system, sometimes the creation or modification date are lost. This is an issue in that the external file system does not always support the creation/modification date metadata. An example of this is copying a file from my boot drive to a flash drive ... checking the file with Get Info shows the Modification date on the file now on the flash drive is preserved but the creation date is -- ... not supported, the field is NIL. If you're regularly shifting files back and forth between volumes built on different file systems, I can see where this might get to be a problems. All my hard drives are formatted for Mac OS X Extended, Journaled except for one, which is used as a transfer/temp drive in FAT32 format. If you want to be sure to preserve your modification and creation dates properly, create read/write disk image files on your alternative volumes, mount them in the Finder, and read/write your files to that virtual volume when mounted. Another possible cause is using UNIX-based command line utilities that do not preserve file specs properly. ... I'd have to know more about what your doing to really answer this any further. Godfrey On Sep 7, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Rick Womer wrote: One problem with the recent OS X versions: When one copies a file from one disk to another, the system considers it a modification, and displays the date of the copying as the date modified. This is a PITA when one is dealing with several versions of a document and making backups. Is there a way to have the system pay attention only to =real= modifications of the file content? Rick -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
The team at Apple predicted this result as far back as 1999 (maybe a little earlier ... that's when I became involved in the effort) and much of Mac OS X's inner workings were architected to provide a good degree of processor independence and a reasonable schema for moving forward through a processor change. The results of my five/six years of effort along with that of several thousand other people are producing the Apple systems, Mac OS X and the third party applications of today and into the foreseeable future. 90% of the portability work was done at NeXT, not Apple. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
David, I've ordered one of the new Mac Pro's. I'm getting the faster machine with the dual 3Ghz Xeons and 4Gigs of ram. I've also stuffed it with 2 Terabytes of storage (4 500G drives). It should be in around the end of the month. I'll let you know how it runs. -Brendan --- David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any one here running the new Mac desktops with the dual chips. If so, any comments. Dave Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
ryan brooks wrote: The team at Apple predicted this result as far back as 1999 (maybe a little earlier ... that's when I became involved in the effort) and much of Mac OS X's inner workings were architected to provide a good degree of processor independence and a reasonable schema for moving forward through a processor change. The results of my five/six years of effort along with that of several thousand other people are producing the Apple systems, Mac OS X and the third party applications of today and into the foreseeable future. 90% of the portability work was done at NeXT, not Apple. That's not actually true. While OS X is very definitely a version of NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, it has fairly significant additions, all of which complicated the portability work. There was massive work on the kernel, and an entirely new UNIX subsystem along with the Carbon API and the Classic Emulation environment were added. Ryan, note that Godfrey worked on the team involved. He knows exactly what happened. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On Sep 7, 2006, at 4:50 PM, ryan brooks wrote: The team at Apple predicted this result as far back as 1999 (maybe a little earlier ... that's when I became involved in the effort) and much of Mac OS X's inner workings were architected to provide a good degree of processor independence and a reasonable schema for moving forward through a processor change. The results of my five/six years of effort along with that of several thousand other people are producing the Apple systems, Mac OS X and the third party applications of today and into the foreseeable future. 90% of the portability work was done at NeXT, not Apple. That's an uninformed, snide comment. I'm sorry, ryan, but you don't know what you're talking about. I was on the team, I know what was done, precisely. I helped make some of the decisions to make it that way. Besides, half the critical development team of NeXT came to Apple when Apple acquired the company and lent their expertise and blood/ sweat/tears to the Mac OS X development effort for four years to release Mac OS X. At that point they were working for Apple, not NeXT. What do you think they were doing? Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone running this....
On Sep 7, 2006, at 9:05 PM, Adam Maas wrote: That's not actually true. While OS X is very definitely a version of NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, it has fairly significant additions, all of which complicated the portability work. There was massive work on the kernel, and an entirely new UNIX subsystem along with the Carbon API and the Classic Emulation environment were added. Not to mention the entire Quartz graphics library, the change from Display Postscript to PDF, the font subsystem, the IO Kit and kernel extension subsystems, six massive and major revisions of the gnu-cc compiler suite (which alone, by the way, is more than 3x the source base size of the kernel), the overhaul of all the development tools, the Java language implementation, the Aqua human interface library, etc etc ... Ryan, note that Godfrey worked on the team involved. He knows exactly what happened. Uh huh. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
On any sized graph, Dan, it's a large X ! keith Dan Scott wrote: On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 07:37 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote: He don't have to go to all those meetings the pointy haired guys insist upon? Ciao, Graywolf Well, I guess that must be the answer. Has anyone ever derived a productivity to meeting ratio? Dan Scott
Meetings, WAS: Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
Well, I guess that must be the answer. Has anyone ever derived a productivity to meeting ratio? Dan, One of the things my last employer did right was that they had a corporate rule limiting all meetings to no more than 1 hour. Amazingly effective--actually forced people to get things done during the meeting and then allowed them to do real work during the rest of the day. The employer before that never had meetings, and that was worse than too many meetings. Nobody was ever on the same page and there was never any face-to-face to lighten up the office-political shenanigans. It sucked. --Mike
Re: Meetings, WAS: Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:37:39 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: One of the things my last employer did right was that they had a corporate rule limiting all meetings to no more than 1 hour. One of my former bosses said no chairs makes for shorter meetings, and he enforced the rule that chairs were not allowed in meeting rooms unless customers were present in the meeting. It did, in fact, make for shorter meetings. On top of that, people seemed less inclined to screw around while standing. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
It's a matter of money, of course. Do you develop stuff for minority platforms? Or do you develop stuff for the majority platform? Do you want to sell millions of copies, or just thousands? It's just business. There are plenty of small companies to fill the little niches. The big ones have too much overhead to put a lot of effort into something only a few are going to buy. Hamrick doesn't have to sell millions of copies to make a good living, so he is comfortable in his niche, and does great things. Len --- Vuescan is my driver of choice, both with my ScanDual II (before it crapped out) and my unkillable Umax S-6E flatbed. Hamrick is doing a great deal to keep old scanners compatible withcurrent OS versions. Really hard for me to understand how these megacorporations can't do as well. Dan Scott _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
He don't have to go to all those meetings the pointy haired guys insist upon? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] If one guy can do all this and keep it up todate on a daily basis, what the H*ll is wrong with megacorps that can't manage it for months or years at a time on just their on hardware and the few platforms they committed to?
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 07:37 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote: He don't have to go to all those meetings the pointy haired guys insist upon? Ciao, Graywolf Well, I guess that must be the answer. Has anyone ever derived a productivity to meeting ratio? Dan Scott
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
I'm sure it's been done. (But the results were embarrassing to management so the report was suppressed). At 12:34 AM 1/12/2003 -0600, you wrote: On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 07:37 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote: He don't have to go to all those meetings the pointy haired guys insist upon? Ciao, Graywolf Well, I guess that must be the answer. Has anyone ever derived a productivity to meeting ratio? Dan Scott Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
Cotty, I don't have a Mac but, from what I read it is stable as long as you can allocate enough memory for it. If you want, I'll look to see what they recommend. OS-X and Windows both automatically allocate memory. Thanks Len, I have have a Gb currently and I have 420k allocated to PS 5.5. I tend to use it with nothing else running. Best, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
on 09.01.03 20:02, Cotty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi gang, Anyone running Photoshop 7 on a Mac under 9.X and *not* OS X ? Any issues that you have found? Is it stable? I am running it on PM G4/400 for 3 months and no problems so far, excepto for MacOS 9.2.2 that sometimes get confused because it is contained in program package. Sometimes when I want to drag and drop graphics file photoshop icon simply swallow it, acting like a plain folder. Remedy is to open Photoshop Program package, search for program file itself and make alias of it - then it works flawless. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I want to save this whole thing and reread it next time somebody claims that Mac usage is SIMPLER than the most common alternative ... :) Some things are simpler. But on the whole, it's an equally frustrating machine, just in different ways. I could go on about it, but I've already vented too many times about my switch to the Mac. I even wrote to Apple about my switch experience. For some reason, they didn't publish it ; ) Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
--- Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark, I had problems with Epson's driver, too, until I suddenly realized problems only happened when OS 9 was running in the background?you might check if it's the same for you. The print driver has worked fine except that it lacks the two (and maybe more) features I had listed. This is well documented on the Epson website. Epson has really screwed the pooch when it comes to OS X. I still don't have a driver for my 1200U Photo and must rely on Vuescan. Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 04:59 AM, Mark D. wrote: --- Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark, I had problems with Epson's driver, too, until I suddenly realized problems only happened when OS 9 was running in the background?you might check if it's the same for you. The print driver has worked fine except that it lacks the two (and maybe more) features I had listed. This is well documented on the Epson website. Epson has really screwed the pooch when it comes to OS X. I still don't have a driver for my 1200U Photo and must rely on Vuescan. Mark Maybe my problems with the Epson driver were unique to my machine then. Vuescan is my driver of choice, both with my ScanDual II (before it crapped out) and my unkillable Umax S-6E flatbed. Hamrick is doing a great deal to keep old scanners compatible withcurrent OS versions. Really hard for me to understand how these megacorporations can't do as well. Dan Scott
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 01/10/03 at 03:08 PM, Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: |Really hard for me to understand how these megacorporations can't do |as well. not a can't its a won't. new hardware sells new software and new software sells new hardware. An hardware company that is selling product requiring new software gets better driver support from the megacorp. Megacorp support or denial of said even brought ibm to its knees. Bran -- --- We are sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone ninety degrees and try again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
Hi gang, Anyone running Photoshop 7 on a Mac under 9.X and *not* OS X ? Any issues that you have found? Is it stable? many thanks, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
Hey Cotty, I'm running PS 7 on OS X. But I boot into OS 9 when I need to do my printing (because Epson can't seem to put together a half decent driver for OS X). Even though I installed it in OS X, it runs just fine in OS 9. What's it doing? Have you donwloaded the updates for it?? Mark --- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi gang, Anyone running Photoshop 7 on a Mac under 9.X and *not* OS X ? Any issues that you have found? Is it stable? many thanks, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
I'm running Mac OS 9.2, and PS7. Have not found any problems with it yet. Nick Wright On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 01:02 PM, Cotty wrote: Hi gang, Anyone running Photoshop 7 on a Mac under 9.X and *not* OS X ? Any issues that you have found? Is it stable? many thanks, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
I'm running PS 7 on OS X. But I boot into OS 9 when I need to do my printing (because Epson can't seem to put together a half decent driver for OS X). Even though I installed it in OS X, it runs just fine in OS 9. What's it doing? Have you donwloaded the updates for it?? Mark Thanks Mark, I'm considering it but have heard one source mention it was unstable (!) under 9.2... Cheers Cot Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: OT: Anyone running PS7 on a Mac?
Cotty, I don't have a Mac but, from what I read it is stable as long as you can allocate enough memory for it. If you want, I'll look to see what they recommend. OS-X and Windows both automatically allocate memory. Len --- Hi gang, Anyone running Photoshop 7 on a Mac under 9.X and *not* OS X ? Any issues that you have found? Is it stable? many thanks, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
