[normhead]

I run Aperture 3 on a Core 2 duo mini w/ 256MB shared video memory & 2 GB of RAM. It runs, but it has to be the only application running. It also takes about 5 minutes to create a swap file the first time I hit the Adjustments tab.

That's the kind of thing we were dealing with. We have two people sharing a machine, so in our house hold, if we've just come back from shooting we both have 50 images, at least 5 or 6 we are really wanting to see, and the computer is taking 5 minutes everytime we change pictures? That's a lot of time wasted x2.

The online reps are suggesting 1 gig dedicated memory for Aperture. So likely, a system like yours, I (I own two of them) is going to go from struggling.. to really struggling with the next upgrade. The other thing about a company like Apple is that their sales reps know where their engineering is going (and Adobe has considerable input as well, not just the Apple engineers). In my experience when Apple tells you you are going to need 1gig dedicated video memory to run Aperture, not too long down the line, it's going to be true. If your machine is like mine, it's 4 years old and it doesn't owe me anything, so you may as well use it as long as you are happy with it. I noticed a huge degradation in performance between Aperture 2 and Aperture 3 and then another one between 3.1 and 3.1.1. My older machine is now a Photoshop CS2 machine. If you can stay with the software that was current when you bought your machine, it will always be good with that. Aperture 2 just wasn't to the point where you could do that. The new stuff in Aperture 3 has made Photoshop much less of a necessity, although not completely.

The upside of that is with the new machine, we are going back in to our Aperture 2 photos and improving them, using things that were just to demanding on the computer with my older systems. With my older systems, you'd run a few broad adjustments and then start your dogeing and burning, and the whole thing would just bog down. Both processors cores were running full out. With the i7 four cores are never more than half busy. That's a lot of growth room for later upgrades, and almost everything is real time and instantaneous.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-16-2011 at 11:02 AM.

[boriscleto]

That's the kind of thing we were dealing with. We have two people sharing a machine, so in our house hold, if we've just come back from shooting we both have 50 images, at least 5 or 6 we are really wanting to see, and the computer is taking 5 minutes everytime we change pictures? That's a lot of time wasted x2.

It's only the first time selecting the adjustments tab after opening Aperture. Once it has created its swap file it runs fine.

I will probably be upgrading my RAM in the near future. I'm looking at picking up a SMC F 35-135 from craigslist. If that falls through then I'll upgrade my RAM.

[normhead]

I will probably be upgrading my RAM in the near future. I'm looking at picking up a SMC F 35-135 from craigslist. If that falls through then I'll upgrade my RAM.

That is an issue. One of my older machines has 2 gig and one has 2.5. I was using up to 2 gig of virtual memory. So that was an issue, but, when I sat down with the computer store guy, he pointed out, the maximum memory configuration in those older machines was 3 gig. And video and system memory have to come out of that. On my new machine Aperture 3 uses over 4 gig and still has a bit of virtual memory open. In other words, I couldn't put enough memory in to those older machines to significantly reduce the use of Virtual memory (very slow). If your machine is just 3 months newer than my old ones it'll take 4 Gb, but even at 4, you could still end up with a half gig or more of virtual memory open. To run clean, I'm guessing Aperture 3.1.1 needs a minimum of 6 Gb memory in the machine (my new one has 8 Gb (and I'll be watching to see when it needs to go to 12). Or to quote my Mac store techie guy "I'll be happy to sell you this Ram, but I don't think it's going to make that much difference.)... see the part about the processors running full out.

It's painful hearing you go through this, I struggled with it for a long time, they are very expensive computers. But, because of how long they last, the older ones, one of which I'm typing on right now while the wife processes images on the new one, they cost me about $250 a year per machine. which isn't too bad. The new one will probably cost over $400 a year, but, four a couple of years, it will be a premium machine, where as the other ones weren't high end when they were new.

[boriscleto]

That is an issue. One of my older machines has 2 gig and one has 2.5. I was using up to 2 gig of virtual memory. So that was an issue, but, when I sat down with the computer store guy, he pointed out, the maximum memory configuration in those older machines was 3 gig. And video and system memory have to come out of that. On my new machine Aperture 3 uses over 4 gig and still has a bit of virtual memory open. In other words, I couldn't put enough memory in to those older machines to significantly reduce the use of Virtual memory (very slow). If your machine is just 3 months newer than my old ones it'll take 4 Gb, but even at 4, you could still end up with a half gig or more of virtual memory open. To run clean, I'm guessing Aperture 3.1.1 needs a minimum of 6 Gb memory in the machine (my new one has 8 Gb (and I'll be watching to see when it needs to go to 12). Or to quote my Mac store techie guy "I'll be happy to sell you this Ram, but I don't think it's going to make that much difference.)... see the part about the processors running full out.

It's painful hearing you go through this, I struggled with it for a long time, they are very expensive computers. But, because of how long they last, the older ones, one of which I'm typing on right now while the wife processes images on the new one, they cost me about $250 a year per machine. which isn't too bad. The new one will probably cost over $400 a year, but, four a couple of years, it will be a premium machine, where as the other ones weren't high end when they were new.

I have an early 2009 mini. Officially it can be expanded to 4GB, but it can use 2 4GB SO-DIMMS to go to 8GB. 8GB would only be $110, but LBA first RAM second.

[normhead]

I have an early 2009 mini. Officially it can be expanded to 4GB, but it can use 2 4GB SO-DIMMS to go to 8GB. 8GB would only be $110, but LBA first RAM second.

You are in so much better a position than I was in. But just to be sure, bring up Activity monitor app, and see how often you processor is running full out, because that won't change with more memory.

[boriscleto]

You are in so much better a position than I was in. But just to be sure, bring up Activity monitor app, and see how often you processor is running full out, because that won't change with more memory.

That's another advantage the 2009 minis had over earlier minis. It has a Nvidia 9400M GPU instead of Intel GMA. Most of what Aperture does is offloaded to the GPU.

[Frogfish]

That's another advantage the 2009 minis had over earlier minis. It has a Nvidia 9400M GPU instead of Intel GMA. Most of what Aperture does is offloaded to the GPU.

That's very interesting. I think I'll have to switch over to the 9600M GT from the 9400M permanently (I usually run it in 9400M mode to save juice).

That would explain why I never see in the iStat I have running that the CPU (max 75%) or MEM (75%) are flat out. The only time I see the CPU hit 100% is when I use Secure Delete to empty the trash.

[mickeyobe]

To sum it all up -

M A C

Mickey

[Ash]

Haha! Where are RioRico and lithos?

Truthfully, for a photography enthusiast, both systems will suffice - it all depends on what hardware setup you decide on between the systems. I had an Apple G5 PPC 2GHz for a few years running on OSX 10.4 and it performed remarkably well with CS2. The slowest PS action I put it through was probably batch opening/saving files, which wasn't detestably stifling. Video editing was a chore with it though. Upgrading to an i5 quad-core has made all operations blisteringly fast.

I'm sure the high end PCs can perform at least as well too.
Just see the heated discussions previously here on the topic: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/1101...est-specs.html, https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/62778-mac-vs-pc-pentaxians.html, https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/99768-mac-windows.html, and for fun: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/82808-dont-buy-mac-comedy-option.html

[boriscleto]

It's probably the extra 2GB of RAM. On my machine Aperture takes all available RAM and starts creating a swap file when I click the Adjustments tab the first time. It might also have something to do with the large number of third party presets I have installed. After that it frees up about 250MB of RAM.

[normhead]

Just see the heated discussions previously here on the topic

I used to hang out on Ars Technica, among other places, why would I subject myself to that ever again?

[twitch]

Aperture is a memory thief. I just upgraded my 27" iMac from 4GB to 8GB, the difference is massive, 4GB was just not enough to avoid HDD thrash, 8GB is smooooooth

I also have a 13" macbook w/ 4GB. In a pinch I can run Aperture on it, but it's not a fun experience that's for sure. For starters the screen is just too small for photo editting, and that 4GB is not enough.

[magkelly]

I've used both, personally and professionally and honestly I don't think either is better. If you've got a good PC with a good monitor it can be exactly the same as using a Mac. The hardware in either type of computer these days is very comparable actually. You just have to know what you are buying when you buy it.

It's no longer true that Macs aren't susceptible to viruses. PC viruses are still far more prevalent but in the past few years the people writing malicious code have definitely been making an effort to write more for Mac. As far as stability of platform goes?
Working on both at work, we had problems with both types of computer all the time. Anything you're likely to network will have issues. Only detatched computers that are an island unto themselves can remain stable most of the time. That's just the nature of networking and for the record our Macs, top of the line at the time, they crashed all over the place too.

If you're doing graphics actually I'd suggest that unless you're working alone all the time you learn to do both. It shouldn't even matter which type of computer you are on in the end. The tools are the same, a lot of the components and peripherals are actually the same and the more you know about both, the more valuable you tend to be. Cross training is very important particularly now when good jobs in design are so very hard to come by. What you choose to use at home? That's just personal preference really. Some people like PC's, some like Mac's but it really isn't that big of a deal anymore in terms of graphics and what you can do and a lot of places do use both now.

Macs still dominate in the schools but it's not because they're somehow better than PC's. That perception is just that, a perception. It's actually because Apple actively courts colleges and design schools and often gives the schools major discounts for using their products hoping to keep the students coming up using them when they go to work after school. They have a vested interest in keeping design and educational people using their products and unlike PC makers which are many they don't have a whole lot of competition to worry about. To get a Mac you basically have to go to Apple or one of their distributors. You want to buy a fleet of new PC's you can go practically anywhere. Apple needs those bucks coming in and being as they have to work harder to get them coming in they will do whatever they can to keep educational institutions and design firms using their products. Apple usually sells more computers in those niche markets than they do personal ones. It's their bread and butter in so far as the computer market is concerned though these days? It's actually their phones and media player and such that's really been making them their money and that's only going to increase now that hybrid computers like the I-pad are becoming more and more a regular thing.

5 years from now most people will probably be hooking up some type of pad computer to their main monitor/network most of the time. Desktop PC's as we know them will probably be largely seen as quaint antiques and so will OS's like Windows and Leopard. Everything will be in the cloud and our personal computers will be with us all the time and will probably weigh about as much as a clip board does.

It's already started that shift from PC to pad. The other day I was in a store and I saw a woman shopping with her toddler? The kid wasn't playing with a regular toy. He was watching a learning video on a pad computer that was attached to his stroller. He couldn't have even been 3 and already he was learning to use a touch pad to learn and interact with what he was watching. It was totally instinctive for him.

I don't think it will even matter soon the whole Mac vs PC thing. Give it a decade or less and which type of computer? It will all be redundant.

[normhead]

That sounds like every anti Mac post I've ever heard.

I'm not going to do a line by line rebuttal, that would waste my time..

So I'll take your first point..

It's no longer true that Macs aren't susceptible to viruses

Macs were always susceptible to viruses. I ran into virus problems on a Mac over 8 years ago. I've seen absolutely no information showing Macs are catching up to PCs in terms of likelihood of being infected though, yet I heard the exact same arguments from PC users over 10 years ago.

I could go through the whole post in similar fashion. The thing is, that would seem to me to be a misleading statement. One that I've been hearing for years.

Come on, give us something new. No rehashing the same old stuff.

[boriscleto]

That sounds like every anti Mac post I've ever heard.

I'm not going to do a line by line rebuttal, that would waste my time..

So I'll take your first point..


Macs were always susceptible to viruses. I ran into virus problems on a Mac over 8 years ago. I've seen absolutely no information showing Macs are catching up to PCs in terms of likelihood of being infected though, yet I heard the exact same arguments from PC users over 10 years ago.

I could go through the whole post in similar fashion. The thing is, that would seem to me to be a misleading statement. One that I've been hearing for years.

Come on, give us something new. No rehashing the same old stuff.

Technically Macs don't get viruses. A virus is a program that can replicate itself and spread to other computers. This hasn't existed on the Mac, other than Word macro viruses, since the days of OS 9. What does exist for Mac OS X is a small number of Trojan Horse apps. For the most part these have been distributed through warez sites and porn sites. All require the user to enter an Administrator password and they do not replicate themselves.

The only problems I have encountered with OS X since 10.4 started shipping exist between the keyboard and the chair, or involve Micro$oft or Adobe (Flash).