I see you missed the Support for Intel Macs link above the thread list.
Laptops have always been seriously disadvantaged for PS use. The faster PB G4s were the first that ran PS reasonably. When attempting PS on a laptop it is best to have the strongest laptop available.
MacIntels are inherently enough stronger than Powermacs that even running under Rosetta emulation, PS performance on a MacBook Pro with 2 GB RAM is similar to that of the fastest PB G4s (like mine). Expectations are that PS will perform well on pro MacIntels when PSCS3 is released in ~6 months.
…buddy in Iraq has a 2month old MacBook. he is looking to get to Photoshop CS2 for his Mac…
MacBooks comprise the current bottom of the MacIntel line. Currently I believe that a MacBook with 2 GB RAM runs PSCS2 about like a MacBook Pro which is similar to a 1.67 GHz PB G4 for PSCS2. Meaning yes, (with 2 GB RAM) your friend can run PSCS2 moderately well so long as he realizes the generally substandard historical PS performance on laptops in general.
How such lowest-end MacIntel MacBooks will perform with PSCS3 in 6 months is quite unknown. After all PS is a pro app and MBs are decidely not pro laptops. Today’s similar MB/MBP performance is only because PSCS2 does not take advantage of the advanced onboard graphics of MBPs and better PB G4s.
On the one hand PSCS3 will be UB and that will hugely benefit MacIntel performance, including MBs. On the other hand with PSCS3 (1) we will be running OS 10.5 which will more heavily access onboard graphics power, (2) MacIntel hardware will have evolved to (technically) twice the available power of 2006 MacIntels and (3) even stronger graphics will be on board mid-2007 boxes.
Like (or because of) the OS, PSCS3 may heavily access onboard graphics power as well as stronger 2007 CPUs. The current MacBooks’ lame (built-in, no graphics card) graphics could be a significant drag on the performance of 2007 apps and OS versions.
Sorry if the previous was a bit convoluted. Bottom line to the OP was:
yes, (with 2 GB RAM) your friend can run PSCS2 moderately well so long as he realizes the generally substandard historical PS performance on laptops in general.
The advice is ideal but not necessarily practical, especially when there is no idea what kind of Photosohp work is being done. Plenty of people need and use Photoshop on laptops and have no issues with substandard performance. Their workflow is substandard when they are confined to a tower at a desk.
I would recommend something stupidly obvious, try the 30-day trial first and see how the latest OSX updates work with CS2.
I agree that
Plenty of people need and use Photoshop on laptops and have no issues with substandard performance.
That is why I said
(with 2 GB RAM) your friend can run PSCS2 moderately well
However I restate that new laptop PS users should be aware of general laptop graphics performance limitations. For instance a G5 tower PSCS2 user moving to a laptop would very likely be disappointed with the relative performance of PSCS2 on a MacBook.
However I restate that new laptop PS users should be aware of general laptop graphics performance limitations. For instance a G5 tower PSCS2 user moving to a laptop would very likely be disappointed with the relative performance of PSCS2 on a MacBook.
Please point me to information suggesting that has anything to do with graphics performance. Sure, PS will perform worse on a Macbook compared to a G5, but that’s because of Rosetta emulation – not the graphics card. To paraphrase Bruce Fraser, "screen redraw performance in PS is more about getting the information INTO the video card than the card itself".
All one has to do to prove that to themselves is to run the Windows version of PS via BootCamp. Same machine, same video card, but PS will probably run as well on a Macbook/Pro in Windows as a G5 if configured as similarly as possible. (ram, scratch disk, etc)
No offense, Allen but it seems you base all you theories and recommendations around the requirements of Aperture and the CoreImage technology that drives it. I realize you feel Aperture is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but not all new(er) graphics apps rely on Apple’s CoreImage technology. (which is the reason for the heavy GPU dependence) Witness Lightroom – which performs well on machines that would absolutely choke under Aperture.
Unless you know something no one outside of Adobe could possibly know, and they substantially change the way that Photoshop works (utilize CoreImage? I’d be very surprised.), PS CS3 will likely require no more GPU performance as it always has – not much, relatively speaking.
-phil
I’m struggling to understand Allen’s point. The OP is asking about a laptop in Iraq. Is there an Apple store there where the buddy can pick up a G5 tower? What image editing alternatives does Allen recommend for the laptop if he thinks Photoshop is not ideal?
I often use PSCS2 on a G4 with less than a GB of RAM. Not everyone uses Photoshop in RAM-intensive applications. Lighten up on your Apple hardware sales pitches. The question is about buying software; not hardware.
What image editing alternatives does Allen recommend for the laptop if he thinks Photoshop is not ideal?
No alternative to PSCS2 was asked about or discussed. We are discussing PSCS2 performance expectations. I used PS on G3 laptop and PS performance sucked, but that did not mean there was a better laptop solution.
I’m struggling to understand Allen’s point. The OP is asking about a laptop in Iraq. Is there an Apple store there where the buddy can pick up a G5 tower?
Sorry I appear to be miscommunicating. The OP:
my buddy in Iraq has a 2month old MacBook. he is looking to get to Photoshop CS2 for his Mac. are there any issues that I need to be aware of with the new intel Macs, or have they all been resolved.
Could be that the MB user has used PS before on a tower, now wonders about PSCS2 on a MB; hence the warning about relative laptop performance.
—————————-
I said:
…new laptop PS users should be aware of general laptop graphics performance limitations. For instance a G5 tower PSCS2 user moving to a laptop would very likely be disappointed with the relative performance of PSCS2 on a MacBook.
Phil asked:
Please point me to information suggesting that has anything to do with graphics performance.
PS is a graphics app that I have been using for more than a decade on both towers and laptops. Laptops (as compared to towers) have always been relatively weaker for PS usage. I am simply making the user aware of that, particularly since the user is asking about using use of one of the heaviest graphics apps made on the current lowest end Apple box, a laptop.
—————————-
Unless you know something no one outside of Adobe could possibly know, and they substantially change the way that Photoshop works (utilize CoreImage? I’d be very surprised.), PS CS3 will likely require no more GPU performance as it always has – not much, relatively speaking.
Phil we agree that PSCS2 does not currently utilize GPUs much. However I will be surprised if with PSCS3 Adobe engineers are not moving to utilize the heavy graphics power now available on pro MacIntels.
Apple’s new hardware is (IMO) oriented toward powerful new graphics capability. Certainly OS 10.5 will be using those GPU capabilities and Adobe’s usage of system calls and the like will tie PSCS3 performance to GPU strength even if Adobe does not specifically address the GPU. Also it seems to me that the UB tools Apple is providing to developers do generally link app performance to graphics hardware.
————————
it seems you base all you theories and recommendations around the requirements of Aperture
I did not mention Aperture in this thread. I do consider Aperture to be illustrative of the direction that Apple seems to be going. Of course anyone may disagree.
My opinion that the hardware, OS and some major apps will be moving in the direction of heavier usage of graphics hardware and RAM is not simplistically based around the atypical requirements of Aperture.
————————
I often use PSCS2 on a G4 with less than a GB of RAM. Not everyone uses Photoshop in RAM-intensive applications. Lighten up on your Apple hardware sales pitches. The question is about buying software; not hardware.
The question was regarding expected PS performance on a laptop. IMO folks using PS will be happiest with 2 GB or more of RAM. Folks on lowest end laptops in particular are well advised to max out the RAM.
Of course some folks will choose to use PS on low end boxes and/or with minimum RAM, and PS will usually run. That is any individual’s choice but not something I intend to recommend when asked.
Buko – 6:06am Oct 14, 06 PST (#1 of 8)
I see you missed the Support for Intel Macs link above the thread list.
I see you didn’t realize that is over 18 months old.. that is a lifetime in computer years.. but I digress….
thank you very much, that is extremely informative. I really appreciate your time and effort!
I see you didn’t realize that is over 18 months old..
actually its more like 12 months old but Adobe still doesn’t support the new Mactels with CS2 and won’t be releasing CS3 until 2nd quarter 2007. If the information was no longer pertinent then it would have been removed.
MacTels are supported by CS2.
But they run under Rosetta emulation, not Intel native until CS3.
MacTels are supported by CS2.
So if you have problems with CS2 on a MacTel you can call tech support and they will work with you just like a PPC Mac?
If it’s not just a "Rosetta is slow" problem, yes.
Well that’s good to hear. As we had some folk come through telling that Tech support will not even talk to them when they find out they are using Mactels.
I currently have a new MacBook Pro with a 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo and 1 GB 667MHz of Ram. I have had some issues with crashing. I just downloaded the update from Adobe so hopefully that will fix it. So, far my experience has not been great using CS2 and the MacBook Pro.
Part of your problem (apart from the Rosetta issues) may be that you do not have a second internal HD for Scratch?
Thanks Ann! That could very well be the problem since I do not know what you mean by either issue. What are the Rosetta issues? and I do not have a second HD set up that I am aware of, what is Scratch and why do you need a second HD?
Thank you.
Jan
The problem is that the code used in CS2 cannot be understood directly by the MacIntels (you will have to wait for CS3 for that to be possible) so Photoshop is currently running through a "translator" called Rosetta which does slow it down.
And Photoshop uses a hard drive for its own "virtual memory" or "swapfile" space which is known as a Scratch Disk.
<
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/scratch_disk.html>
Optimally, Photoshop’s Scratch space should be on a different HD from the boot drive which is used by Mac OSX for its own need for swap-file space.
<
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200012150214401 38>
[Hopefully, the Links may help to make my rather basic description a bit clearer!]
I currently have a new MacBook Pro with a 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo and 1 GB 667MHz of Ram.
Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that MacIntels may be more RAM hungry than Powermacs, especially since current PS versions run in Rosetta (emulation) mode on MacIntel Macs. You might want to try at least 2 GB RAM. IMO laptops running heavy graphics apps should have maxxed RAM.
Rosetta certainly needs more RAM than running natively.
