I have a bit of a predicament here that I was hoping somebody might be able to offer some advice on. I've just signed on as the staff photographer for a 3 1/2 month international study abroad university program, and the trip departs at the end of this month. Up until today, I'd been planning on bringing my 15 inch Aluminum Powerbook laptop aboard the trip to use for image processing along the way. Unfortunately, just a short while ago, my laptop endured a bit of a catastrophe as I unfortunately dropped it on my hardwood floor and completely busted (it to the point where the keyboard had popped off and the monitor clearly cracked).
Here's the gist of my current predicament. I could either go to the Apple store or some other Macintosh store here in New York City and purchase another 15 inch Aluminum Powerbook laptop (that is, if they still sell them)... However, since the release of Photoshop CS3 beta, I have been giving some serious thought to upgrading my laptop to a MacBook Pro, and I wanted to know if anyone had any idea if the beta version of Photoshop CS3 should suffice for my in-the-field image editing purposes for the next 3 1/2 months while traveling internationally. This particular assignment that I've signed on for is going to be coming to an end on May 14, and I seem to have a vague recollection when I first installed Photoshop CS3 on my computer that a pop-up window notified me that this beta version of the software would expire sometime, I believe, in late May if I'm not mistaken. Is this correct?
Would I theoretically be able to use Adobe Photoshop CS3 on a new MacBook Pro for the duration of my trip, and in a worst-case scenario, resort to using Rosetta to run Photoshop CS2 should something or another happen with the beta along the way were no longer continues work?
I have been using Adobe Photoshop CS3 pretty much the first day it was released, and unlike Lightroom's initial beta releases, Photoshop CS3 seems to be running pretty smoothly, as I've yet to experience any major problems with the program. I have read on some other forums and in some online articles about some issues that the Intel Macs have been experiencing with the beta version of Photoshop, that are not issues for Mac users running the software on a PowerPC computer (which does raise a bit of concern)
I think that just about spells out my current predicament. Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions regarding my and in dilemma? What would some of you all do if you are in this particular situation? Is there any real risk in attempting to use Photoshop CS3 beta on a MacBook Pro during this assignment. Is Thomas Knoll going to wake up one day and decide to change his mind and have the beta version expire a couple months sooner? Is there anyone else out there with the current set up that I'm considering purchasing that has any comments in regards to the functionality of Photoshop CS3 on the Mac book Pro?
I know it would probably be the safe bet to try to buy a new 15 inch aluminum PowerBook and simply run Photoshop CS2 on it for the duration of my trip, however I would be pretty much throwing a couple thousand dollars down the drain, because I would inevitably upgrade to a Mac book Pro (and sell the replacement 15 inch aluminum PowerBook laptop that I bought just for this trip) as soon as they released the full version of Adobe Photoshop CS3 (which is supposed to occur sometime right around the time when I return from my trip).
Any comments or suggestions on the subject would be sincerely appreciated! Thanks...
Full Version: MacBook with CS3 or Powerbook with CS2??
1. Buy a 15" 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro with 2GB memory. Don't get the glossy screen option. The new MacBook will probably run Photoshop CS2 faster using Rosetta emulation than your old powerbook did running it native. Version 10.4.8 of the Mac OS made emulation a lot faster and Photoshop CS2 is now quite fast on a MacBook. See: http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firstlooks...p?lsrc=mwtoprss
2. Download the CS3 beta and use it if you wish. It is very fast. But keep CS2 for backup and reliability. CS3 is a beta and it does have bugs. Bridge sometimes quits for no reason. Brushes in PS CS3 can be invisible. No web gallery in PS CS3 running native. And on...
3. Bring a small external backup hard drive and use it. If you're not already using it, get SuperDuper for fast, reliable, bootable backups.
4. Have a great time!
2. Download the CS3 beta and use it if you wish. It is very fast. But keep CS2 for backup and reliability. CS3 is a beta and it does have bugs. Bridge sometimes quits for no reason. Brushes in PS CS3 can be invisible. No web gallery in PS CS3 running native. And on...
3. Bring a small external backup hard drive and use it. If you're not already using it, get SuperDuper for fast, reliable, bootable backups.
4. Have a great time!
I principally fit into the profile that Roy outlined above, with the exception that I have the 17" MacBook Pro. I had decided at the end of 2006 to convert both my desk and portable systems to the new Mac Intel platform. There is no future in the PowerPC processors on Macs.
In brief, it's been glorious. Specifically to your interests, the MacBook Pro has been an excellent performer, even with 2Gb of RAM. It is generally 1-step quicker than my previous 17" PowerBook with a 1.5GHz G4. But the CS3 beta and Lightroom both run quite quickly on it, evidence of performance to come.
My own advice: Don't buy yesterday's Mac if you can afford (in time and/orr money) not to do so. Delay your purchase as long as possible, then buy the most advanced system you can easily afford. You'll buy fewer systems over time and waste less time in unproductive discussions like these.
In brief, it's been glorious. Specifically to your interests, the MacBook Pro has been an excellent performer, even with 2Gb of RAM. It is generally 1-step quicker than my previous 17" PowerBook with a 1.5GHz G4. But the CS3 beta and Lightroom both run quite quickly on it, evidence of performance to come.
My own advice: Don't buy yesterday's Mac if you can afford (in time and/orr money) not to do so. Delay your purchase as long as possible, then buy the most advanced system you can easily afford. You'll buy fewer systems over time and waste less time in unproductive discussions like these.
How much travel do you plan to do on your trip? And what sort of deadlines will you face?
These are the sort of things that will determine if you get the 17 inch or 15 inch or, if portability is key, the macbook.
These are the sort of things that will determine if you get the 17 inch or 15 inch or, if portability is key, the macbook.
Glad to hear that the public opinion regarding the speed of the new MacBook Pro running either CS2 or CS3 is favorable and that many of you actually says that it runs faster on the new Intel machines (which was something that I had previously not believed to be true)...
I did have two remaining concerns regarding the MacBook Pro...not specifically related to the size of the computer (as I would almost certainly get the 15" model), but rather in regards to the type of screen (glossy or glare-free/matte), and also in regards to the choice of internal hard drives that apple offers....
Let me start out with the quick one...Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether I should get the 160GB hard drive that runs at 5400rpm, or if I should opt for the 200GB hard drive that only runs at 4200rpm? Realistically, how much slower could I expect everything (including Photoshop and the Finder) to run as a result of choosing the bigger/slower hard drive...If its something along the lines a 1-sec here and there depending on the various command I've issued, then I would be totally fine with that if in return it buys me an extra 40GB of internal storage space, but if more of a considerable slowdown that could be expected, I would love to hear about that as well to aid in making my decision....
Regarding the screen type...I did a bit of searching around online and found that there were a number of highly respectable people who loved the glossy LCD on the MacBook Pro, and also a number of them who hated it (as compared to the regular 'matte' screen type..). In the end, it seemed that the consensus was that most people recommended actually going in a seeing both machines side-by-side with your own eyes and making your decision based on your own personal preference...which about an hour later, I did so at the Apple Store on 5th Ave. in Manhattan...Personally, I like both of them, and I could easily see that each had its strengths and weaknesses...I won't get into the pluses and minuses of each that I was able to perceive with my naked eye but I will say that one obvious difference was that the black-point of the glossy screen was much, much deeper and 'blacker' (if you will) than that of the 'matte' screen...immediately I was reminded of a forum post I had read earlier in the day posted by Tim Ernst on these forums in which he said the following,
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofive...php/t12239.html
This brings me to the obvious, and undoubtedly the most important question regarding the glossy screen on the new MacBook pro...Is it color manageable? Does the screen display photographic images with such a high degree of contrast and saturation that, while undeniably gorgeous on-screen, are simply impossible to match in print, and is therefore not the best option for a color managed digital photography workflow...?
In thinking about it, all of the discussion about this screen that I have come across online has been about the general look and appearance of the images on the two displays, and yet this particular post by Tim was the only one that I found that addressed the issue of its 'color correct-ness'...
Does anyone know if any of the Gurus/Color-Geeks out there have put this screen through the standard battery of tests to determine some of its specifics? This is probably the biggest issue for me in choosing which screen to go with, because from what I was able to see with my own eyes when viewing the monitors side by side, I was almost immediately convinced that the black, as displayed on the glossy display, was simply a black that was far deeper and more rich than one could ever hope to achieve in print (as I am sure the red was redder, the blue was bluer, etc...). Anyone have any thoughts on this?
I'd love to hear what some of you think about these two issues/concerns I've raised regarding the MacBook Pro (and the displays and hard drive options)...Thanks!
I did have two remaining concerns regarding the MacBook Pro...not specifically related to the size of the computer (as I would almost certainly get the 15" model), but rather in regards to the type of screen (glossy or glare-free/matte), and also in regards to the choice of internal hard drives that apple offers....
Let me start out with the quick one...Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether I should get the 160GB hard drive that runs at 5400rpm, or if I should opt for the 200GB hard drive that only runs at 4200rpm? Realistically, how much slower could I expect everything (including Photoshop and the Finder) to run as a result of choosing the bigger/slower hard drive...If its something along the lines a 1-sec here and there depending on the various command I've issued, then I would be totally fine with that if in return it buys me an extra 40GB of internal storage space, but if more of a considerable slowdown that could be expected, I would love to hear about that as well to aid in making my decision....
Regarding the screen type...I did a bit of searching around online and found that there were a number of highly respectable people who loved the glossy LCD on the MacBook Pro, and also a number of them who hated it (as compared to the regular 'matte' screen type..). In the end, it seemed that the consensus was that most people recommended actually going in a seeing both machines side-by-side with your own eyes and making your decision based on your own personal preference...which about an hour later, I did so at the Apple Store on 5th Ave. in Manhattan...Personally, I like both of them, and I could easily see that each had its strengths and weaknesses...I won't get into the pluses and minuses of each that I was able to perceive with my naked eye but I will say that one obvious difference was that the black-point of the glossy screen was much, much deeper and 'blacker' (if you will) than that of the 'matte' screen...immediately I was reminded of a forum post I had read earlier in the day posted by Tim Ernst on these forums in which he said the following,
QUOTE
During a recent workshop I was teaching everyone had their own laptops - all but one were the normal LCD screens, but one lady had a glossy screen. It was head and shoulders the favorite of all the students - the images just looked stunning, so much better then everyone else’s (including my large cinema display on my desktop). However when it came to printing, we could never get a print to even come close to the color that was displayed on her screen - and we profiled all the monitors with an eye one. So in this instance at least, while the images were just gorgeous, it was very frustrating to her not to be able to get accurate color on the monitor for printing...
The link to this thread is as follows:http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofive...php/t12239.html
This brings me to the obvious, and undoubtedly the most important question regarding the glossy screen on the new MacBook pro...Is it color manageable? Does the screen display photographic images with such a high degree of contrast and saturation that, while undeniably gorgeous on-screen, are simply impossible to match in print, and is therefore not the best option for a color managed digital photography workflow...?
In thinking about it, all of the discussion about this screen that I have come across online has been about the general look and appearance of the images on the two displays, and yet this particular post by Tim was the only one that I found that addressed the issue of its 'color correct-ness'...
Does anyone know if any of the Gurus/Color-Geeks out there have put this screen through the standard battery of tests to determine some of its specifics? This is probably the biggest issue for me in choosing which screen to go with, because from what I was able to see with my own eyes when viewing the monitors side by side, I was almost immediately convinced that the black, as displayed on the glossy display, was simply a black that was far deeper and more rich than one could ever hope to achieve in print (as I am sure the red was redder, the blue was bluer, etc...). Anyone have any thoughts on this?
I'd love to hear what some of you think about these two issues/concerns I've raised regarding the MacBook Pro (and the displays and hard drive options)...Thanks!
Hate the glossy screens. They get dirty and ugly easily.
As for drive speed, faster means less battery life if that's important.
On an Intel Mac, CS3 is pretty fast!
As for drive speed, faster means less battery life if that's important.
On an Intel Mac, CS3 is pretty fast!
Intel MacBook! Faster, and you can run Windows apps as needed seamlessly.
I'm writing you from a low-end, since superceded MacBook 1.83/2 gigs RAM, and it is the fastest thing I have (faster than the 20" G5 iMac in the office). Crunches audio files and images very quickly.
And yes, the glossy screen gets smudges and dust all over it... ;-) Thankfully the smudges don't show when the screen is lit up.
If you end up with the slower drive, you can always work off of an external FireWire drive running at 7200rpm.
I'm writing you from a low-end, since superceded MacBook 1.83/2 gigs RAM, and it is the fastest thing I have (faster than the 20" G5 iMac in the office). Crunches audio files and images very quickly.
And yes, the glossy screen gets smudges and dust all over it... ;-) Thankfully the smudges don't show when the screen is lit up.
If you end up with the slower drive, you can always work off of an external FireWire drive running at 7200rpm.
QUOTE (m021478 @ Jan 5 2007, 11:31 AM)
...
Let me start out with the quick one...Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether I should get the 160GB hard drive that runs at 5400rpm, or if I should opt for the 200GB hard drive that only runs at 4200rpm? Realistically, how much slower could I expect everything (including Photoshop and the Finder) to run as a result of choosing the bigger/slower hard drive...
Let me start out with the quick one...Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether I should get the 160GB hard drive that runs at 5400rpm, or if I should opt for the 200GB hard drive that only runs at 4200rpm? Realistically, how much slower could I expect everything (including Photoshop and the Finder) to run as a result of choosing the bigger/slower hard drive...
The answer to that might not be what you expect. BareFeats has lots of Mac/Photoshop/drive speed testing. Data transfer rates slow down as drives fill so a large 'slow' drive can be faster than a small 'fast' drive when the total amount of data being stored reaches a certain point.
Cheers
Peter
QUOTE (peterhorsley @ Jan 5 2007, 12:23 AM)
The answer to that might not be what you expect. BareFeats has lots of Mac/Photoshop/drive speed testing. Data transfer rates slow down as drives fill so a large 'slow' drive can be faster than a small 'fast' drive when the total amount of data being stored reaches a certain point.
Peter,
Thanks for the tip about that site with the specs on the differences between drives...I guess I could also just opt for the product at the following link which would take care of any concerns I might have regarding performance...
http://www.mcetech.com/optibay/
Thought this was kinda cool and just thought I'd post the link for anyone interested!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.