anil - to me, it's much more sensibly laid out and very intuitive. i have yet to have a lockup or anything, which is rare for me in the XP world. I was afraid i would spend a lot of time getting up to speed on OS X, but after using it for about a week, i feel fairly comfortable with it. its elegantly designed and implemented. to me, windows seems like a bunch of bandaid fixes on top of each other trying to look elegant. and, i've been using windows literally from the get go...even used DeskView back in the day...ugh!
to me, the ideal marriage would have been Apple and AMD...defeating the forces of Wintel. I have a lot of respect for AMD and their continued attempts at battling the Goliath.
Tiger on a MDD 1.25Mhz dual 2 GB Ram scratch on another disc. 39secs.
Okay but the AMD looks great if only one didn't have to change over every application to PC.
Some are dual platform like Gretag Profile Maker , just move the usb dongle and away it goes.
ent2b wrote:
anil - to me, it's much more sensibly laid out and very intuitive. i have yet to have a lockup or anything, which is rare for me in the XP world. I was afraid i would spend a lot of time getting up to speed on OS X, but after using it for about a week, i feel fairly comfortable with it. its elegantly designed and implemented. to me, windows seems like a bunch of bandaid fixes on top of each other trying to look elegant. and, i've been using windows literally from the get go...even used DeskView back in the day...ugh!
to me, the ideal marriage would have been Apple and AMD...defeating the forces of Wintel. I have a lot of respect for AMD and their continued attempts at battling the Goliath....Show more →
Asim,
You write about Mac/apple like it was a sensation that your system isn't locking up. You must be one of the the very few, or you are just not pushing it hard enough. If you read enough Mac forums you will be more then familiar that lockups and crashes are quite common - it isn't a miracle machine! it is just a computer!!
:-)
on the marriage issue, I totally agreen with you, I am surprised that they didn't go with AMD.
Marli wrote:
Interesting. Im only a few seconds slower with P4-3.4 HT 1 gig ram (now 2) 7200 RPM drive..
Me too. I don't see a reason to go upto 2 GB in this case, since my 1 GB P4 only took 35.78 seconds, not too far behind all the higher end machines. :-)
Additional RAM will only help if you actually need it. Keep an eye on Efficiency in the Status Bar. If it does not go below 100% while running the test it means that entire process is taking place in RAM (not using the scratch disk which is MUCH slower).
This test process may well be able to be handled in 1 GB RAM (I haven't yet run it myself, plus I already have 2GB); if so adding additional RAM will not matter for this test. If you start working with larger images (or images with many layers) you may find that the Efficiency does drop below 100% and at that time more RAM will probably help.
After a quick look at the image I doubt seriously that any RAM issues would apply here since the image is only 87.6KB in size. In fact you could very likely run this test on a 512 MB or smaller system and not see RAM issues.
Dwight,
While it is true the image size on disk is only 87.6KB - the 1st step you resize it to 2000 pixels so the size grows. However, I believe 1GB of RAM is enough to hold everything.
OS X 10.3.9
2.5 GB Ram
Dual 2 G5
Stock 160 GB HD
20" and 17" Apple LCD panels
3 External Firewire Drives and 1 Lacie (500 GB) FW800 External drive
31 seconds
While these were running in the background:
Firefox
Dantz Retrospect
Text Edit
MS IE
ITunes
Illustrator CS
Yahoo Messenger
GMail status
and streaming KBIG 104.3 through my speakers
PKuglin wrote:
Dwight,
While it is true the image size on disk is only 87.6KB - the 1st step you resize it to 2000 pixels so the size grows. However, I believe 1GB of RAM is enough to hold everything.
I added another gig and NC and PS are a lot faster for every day use.. I would not go back..
- it isn't a miracle machine!