Photoshop CS5 for MAC

[sanking]

I currently have a 24" iMac with a 2.16 Mhz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, running System 10.4.11.

Will I be able to run Photoshop CS5 with this system, or will I need to upgrade the system, or buy a new computer?

Sandy King

[Bob McCarthy]

Yes it will run fine.

But even better I believe if you upgrade you Mac to latest OSX (I'm on 10.6.3) as it runs native 64 bit.

It positively screams on my machine vs CS3.

bob

[Brian K]

I currently have a 24" iMac with a 2.16 Mhz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, running System 10.4.11.

Will I be able to run Photoshop CS5 with this system, or will I need to upgrade the system, or buy a new computer?

Sandy King

Sandy, 10.4 is Tiger? If I were you and I was seriously interested in CS5, I would buy it first and see how it runs. I think though that you'll need to update to snow leopard. Do not mess with plain leopard. However in order to get the full 64 bit speed boost of CS-% you may need a current model computer. My wife just got the the new 27" iMac, it has the newer processor and can hold considerable ram.


One thing though, you scan with an Eversmart right? You might need to either update the Eversmart software if possible, or make a second boot drive on your new computer that boots up with Tiger. Or keep the your current iMac and dedicate it to the scanner and use the new iMac for more challenging tasks.

[Marko]

Sandy, you don't mention RAM - if your system can take at least 4GB and some 2009 models, which yours could be judging by the size, can even take 8 GB, albeit in 4GB modules (still rather expensive).

If you have less than that (most of those came with 2 GB or less by default), that's, IMO, the very first upgrade you should do. Especially if you decide to go 64-bit (10.6.x), as Bob advised. That's the single upgrade that will give almost every system the most visible improvement.

It's rare, BTW, for someone to really have to buy a new Mac simply to run a new version of any software, including the OSX. It is common, though, to see performance improvement when doing so. :)

[SW Rick]

I just got one of the new MacBook Pros (i7 processor), and tried to boot from my 10.5.8 external drive and couldn't do it. When I spoke with Apple, they told me the new MacBook Pros would not boot from an older system than Snow Leopard. So much for my plan to keep a "legacy" boot drive for older software. You might check on this situation vis-a-vis a new imac, if you need to use older software.

[sanking]

Brian,

I run the Eversmart with an old MAC G4 with System 9.2.2, not with the iMac.

Marko,

My iMac only has 3 gig of RAM and I believe that is all it can take. It is not a 2009 model as I bought it in spring of 2008.

Sandy

[sanking]

After some research I found out that my 24" iMAC is a iMac6,1 model, from early 2007. It accepts 4 gig of RAM but the system can only full address 3 gig and this is what Apple recommends. However, tests show that most applications run faster on the iMac6,1 with 4 gig installed.

I can upgrade to Snow Leopard for $29 so I have decided to do that and try out CS5 before making any decisions about a new MAC. The current 27" iMac is very appealing, and not all that expensive but most of my files are in the below 1 gig size and which is handled fairly well by the old 24" iMac.

Thanks for the replies.

Sandy King

[77seriesiii]

Sandy,

I agree w/ Marko memory is key for a hog like photoshop. Take a look at www.macsales.com (no affiliation just a customer) and see what their memory upgrader states. Secondly, take a look at the 10.6 and see if it will run on your system. worst case use what you have and when you can swing an upgraded system get what your money buys. best upgrade on a computer is memory followed by hard drives...fast hard drives.

./e

[Jlentz]

I've been wondering about an upgrade for my G5, I had a bad feeling that I'd be SOL on CS5. I guess I'll just have to get by on CS4 for now.


best upgrade on a computer is memory followed by hard drives...fast hard drives.
OWC has some of the best external drives as well. I have a pile of them at home and work.

[8x10 user]

After the horrible experience that I had with my very expensive quad core G5 I think I will look for windows solutions to CS5. Apple has lost my business.

[sanking]

After the horrible experience that I had with my very expensive quad core G5 I think I will look for windows solutions to CS5. Apple has lost my business.

Sorry to hear about your problem with the G5.

However, to keep things in perspective remember that there are horror stories about every product, no matter how reliable it may be in general. I have used both Macs and PCs since the early days of computing (and I have both laptops with both systems right now) and for every miserable experience I have had with Macs I can count two or three with PCs. Overall I find the MAC system much easier to work with than Windows or Vista because most of the programs are better integrated with the operating system. That is important to me because I am an end user, not a tech person who wants to spend time building and setting up computers. My next upgrade from the 2007 24" iMac will definitely be another MAC.

Sandy King

[8x10 user]

We have used Macs and Pcs both for a long time. Some legacy equipment requires one or the other. For the most part both seem to last a long time except the G5s are very flawed. They run hot, have bad capacitors (power supply), logic board problems (lead to runaway heating), and defective water coolers. We spent a huge amount on the quad core with 8 Gigabytes of ECC ram. We started having problems with it shortly after the purchase. We called Applecare about it many times and were told it was a software issue and reinstalled the OS. We keep having issues and were given the same line while the computer became more and more crippled. Now it is slower then my old Dell Optiplex, and restarts from overheating when doing simple tasks such as watching videos online.

So I research the problem and found out that G5s were notorious for these kind of issues and that apple was replacing many of the units with Mac Pros, and even released a recall to do with some defective parts. Now why didn’t Applecare tell us about this while it was under warranty? They could have easily contacted the owners you who had defective machines and offered to replace them but instead they hoped we wouldn’t find out until it was too late. Now the defective parts have damaged my CPU’s and the computer is worthless. $3500 to $~100 in 4 short years.

More upsetting is that there must have been a 1000 wasted man hours trying to fix the computer with software reinstalls, and redoing work that was lost on the machine. Not to mention the general lowered productivity due to the slowness of the device.

For me Windows seems to make more sense. I assume that it is more stable and faster then before. Plus it seems like the components are cheaper and faster for PC’s. There are more companies competing to make higher performing parts for PC’s. For example for a certain video card you might be able to find 5-10 version made by different companies some of which have built in performance modifications. My friend makes customs PCS for eBay and he says that you can get a lot more power for your money with PCS at the moment.

One thing that I find interesting is that the Imac is now faster then the Mac Pro which makes me wonder if there is a mac pro successor on the way.

I think Mac should go back to using components that are more unique. Right now it seems that they are going with basemodel PC components and all the “performance” parts are going to PCS (no extreme edition macs). Plus there are many parts for PC’S that are not available for Mac that would give the user a huge boost in Photoshop performance (see Fusion IO’s website for example)

Honestly, I’d like to see some innovating new designs from Apple that use non PC components such as the new 6 GHZ IBM chips, and maybe a “cell” processor. Of course they would need to extend the warranty to about 6 years before I would feel safe to purchase.

[8x10 user]

O yeah... I'm also displeased with the legacy support for macs. Apple dropped classic support a long time ago, and all the new programs are intel only. CS5 and google chrome wont even work on a G5.

Compare to windows which just now ended support for Windows NT 4.0

[Bob McCarthy]

I own a video production shop and my experience is just the opposite. Most of our computers are used for video rendering. For some projects the bnox is running 100% on all cores for a month at a time.

About half of out equipment is Mac pro and the other is PC with roughly the same specs. Macs are not more expensive that the PC equivalent.

Anyway to the point, we over time have lost virtually every PC, typically due to processor cooling issues and power supplys. No mac has died in 3 years and we pull the old 4 cores out to be replaced with newer units. The only Mac I've lost in 3 years was a HD on a Imac used in the office.

I'm a fan.

Kinda funny, we ran Win 64 on the Mac's as the software from the "flash" company was 64 in Win and 32 in Mac. It made a difference.

I'm using a pulled "from production" 8 core Mac Pro with the new CS5 and it frikin' screams.

bob

[8x10 user]

That is interesting Bob. The problems with the G5's were probably fixed with the Mac pro's. With the intel cores they were able to drop the water cooling system. I have read about people with a 60-70% failure rate with large groups of late model G5's. There are just not reliable machines. I got G3s, and PCS from the 90's that are still working fine.

I actually didn't even know my G5 quad was water-cooled but apparently it is and has been running low on coolant for years! I am especially upset because we even had it looked at 3 times in person before they only finally found the problem after I had to research it on the Internet first. It seems like a lot of the damage to my system would have been preventable if was defect brought to my attention by Applecare in the first place. Also my friend says Apple censors their forums to remove critical reviews and remarks. This makes me loose some trust for apple.

I was a PC guy before recently a Mac guy, I’ll probably continue going back and forth as then continue to leap frog each other in terms of speed and value. I’m likely to be mad at apple for a while but maybe I will contact them again politely to see again if they will do anything to change my mind about them.

As far as the Mac pro VS iMac the apple store and apples website has the iMac with i7's down as outperforming the Mac pro in photoshop. According to the apple store tech, server chips (xeon) are not supposed to be the best for this application. But I don't think that takes into account the higher Ram capacities of the Mac pro.

My guess is that a PC with intel i7 Extremes, gaming type cooling mods, performance ram, and an Iodrive extreme or PCI SSD drive would substantially outperform a $4000-$5000 Mac pro in photoshop… At least as long as the user/tech takes care of the system properly. If more then 24 gigs of ram are desired then a duel CPU windows configuration can be used to support 48 gigs of ram. With that much ram you could make a large ram disk to use for your scratch disc to give a mega boost to photoshop. Duel i7’s can equal 12 cores of power, with a moderate amount of overclocking on demand you can easily peak the cores to 4ghz each. Plus as photoshop increases optimization for GPU computing PC’s are going to have more of an advantage for one do to the better pricing on PC video cards, and also do to PC only GPU technologies like Nvidas Tesla card which is basically a super computer for your PCIe slot.

My friend says that PC’s are like some very fast cars that require proper maintenance or you start to loose performance. But for maximum performance you can’t beat the best well kept PC’s. So if you do go for a PC bring it in for maintenance every-once-in-a-while if you cannot do it yourself.

I know that many PC power supplies were also affected by the bad capacitors around 2005-2006.

When buying PC’s IMO its best to build your own or find someone else who is willing to build it for you. I personally don’t trust the components used in most preboxed PC’s. Most of the time they use cheaper parts then you would get if you built one yourself with the same budget. There are many online resources to find reviews on quality PC components. Extended warranties are available on most PC parts. IMO building from parts is the only way to go for PC computers.

[sanking]

That is interesting Bob. The problems with the G5's were probably fixed with the Mac pro's. With the intel cores they were able to drop the water cooling system. I have read about people with a 60-70% failure rate with large groups of late model G5's. There are just not reliable machines. I got G3s, and PCS from the 90's that are still working fine.

I actually didn't even know my G5 quad was water-cooled but apparently it is and has been running low on coolant for years!

That is interesting about the G5. I started to buy a G5 a short while before buying the 24" iMac that I currently use. I did not know anything about the kind of problems you had but I was pretty concerned that software support would end for the machine.

On that subject I can report that Phase One in getting CS5 installed on my iMac, which is a system upgrade to Snow Leopard, has been completed and everything appears to be working perfectly. If I had realized that I could go directly from Tiger to Snow Leopard for $29 I would have done so some time ago.

Sandy King

[Bob McCarthy]

I don't know that the latest processor speed increases actually result in a practical improvement. My 8 core Mac, memory loaded with a competent video card never asks me to wait for anything. I'm use a fair number of the filters and other plugin's.

What was a "little" pokey, is faster in CS5 which apparently runs 64 bit native (an assumption).

I see no reason to upgrade for years the way this is working. I'm scanning 4x5 (color) and 8x10 (B&W) in 16 bit btw.

bob

[sanking]

I don't know that the latest processor speed increases actually result in a practical improvement. My 8 core Mac, memory loaded with a competent video card never asks me to wait for anything. I'm use a fair number of the filters and other plugin's.

What was a "little" pokey, is faster in CS5 which apparently runs 64 bit native (an assumption).

I see no reason to upgrade for years the way this is working. I'm scanning 4x5 (color) and 8x10 (B&W) in 16 bit btw.

bob

From what I have learned it appears that the Intel 2.16 Core 2 Duo processor on my iMac, although 64 bit architecture, is blocked by Apple from booting in 64 bit. I have seen some "hacks" that allow this but have decided against trying them as there might be unintended consequences, and I really hate that!!

As is I have not been hampered by the speed of my iMac and believe that it should give me another couple of years of service.

Sandy King

[Bob McCarthy]

I have an imac in the office.

I "thought" with snow leopard the issue was resolved. I know with lightroom there was a 32/64 bit software switch, CS5 is auto-detecting.

Have you installed the 30 day free trial yet?

hmmm,

bob

[sanking]

I have an imac in the office.

I "thought" with snow leopard the issue was resolved. I know with lightroom there was a 32/64 bit software switch, CS5 is auto-detecting.

Have you installed the 30 day free trial yet?

hmmm,

bob

It is not that all Intel iMacs can not run 64 bit software, but that some of the older ones can not. I ran this select program on my computer and it told me that while the chip was 64 bit Apple had blocked the ability to use it at 64 bit. I ran this after installing Snow Leopard.

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/32252/32--or-64-bit-kernel-startup-mode-selector

I have not yet received CS5 which I ordered a few days ago. If I am able to run it in 64 bit, great, but my research so far indicates that I can not run it with my iMac, which is this one. http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/stats/imac-core-2-duo-2.16-24-inch-specs.html

If there is anything I am not grasping perhaps Marko can point it out to me.

Sandy

[Marko]

In a nutshell, that's exactly right. Your Mac is one of the models with a 32-bit EFI firmware, which means that you cannot boot into a 64-bit kernel.

The main reason why they did that is most likely to prevent incompatibilities with the chipset used on their logic board at that time, similar to the early 32/16 bit Intel processors on PCs way back.

But there were also some models that actually had a 64-bit EFI but were still configured to boot into a 32-bit kernel by default. You can find out which one is yours by typing the following into your Terminal:

ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi

It will return the following:

| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFIxx">

xx will be either 32 or 64, which is self-explanatory.

If it turns out to be a 64, you can try forcing a 64-bit boot by holding "6" and "4" keys simultaneously while booting. Once up, go to Apple Menu > About this Mac > More Info... then Left Sidebar > Software. Entry "64-bit Kernel and Extensions" should say "yes".

Hope this makes sense.

Marko

[Marko]

One more comment - even if you do manage to boot into the 64-bit kernel, you will need at least 8 GB of RAM to really see any advantage of it. This would make the effort largely an academic one on your current machine.

[8x10 user]

That is interesting regarding the speed increase of CS5, it probably does have to do with the 64-bit migration.

I do try to make CS3 (my current version) do some pretty tough things. I have to use an older duel core G5 since the quad core will crash on anything more then simple simple stuff. Some of the filters / single operations that I have done in the past took maybe 3-4 hours or more to complete! As a "power" user who wants to maximize his productivity a faster customized computer might make more sense. Ideally I would like to be able to do everything in photoshop in real time. For a lighter more occasional user it is very possible that the newer macs offer enough performance with less maintenance and a more "user friendly" operating system.

I'm still POed about my experience with the Mac G5 but maybe I went a little overboard with my venting by posting here. My apologies to everyone if I distracted from the subject of the thread.




I don't know that the latest processor speed increases actually result in a practical improvement. My 8 core Mac, memory loaded with a competent video card never asks me to wait for anything. I'm use a fair number of the filters and other plugin's.

What was a "little" pokey, is faster in CS5 which apparently runs 64 bit native (an assumption).

I see no reason to upgrade for years the way this is working. I'm scanning 4x5 (color) and 8x10 (B&W) in 16 bit btw.

bob

[PenGun]

I own a video production shop and my experience is just the opposite. Most of our computers are used for video rendering. For some projects the bnox is running 100% on all cores for a month at a time.

About half of out equipment is Mac pro and the other is PC with roughly the same specs. Macs are not more expensive that the PC equivalent.

Anyway to the point, we over time have lost virtually every PC, typically due to processor cooling issues and power supplys. No mac has died in 3 years and we pull the old 4 cores out to be replaced with newer units. The only Mac I've lost in 3 years was a HD on a Imac used in the office.

I'm a fan.

Kinda funny, we ran Win 64 on the Mac's as the software from the "flash" company was 64 in Win and 32 in Mac. It made a difference.

I'm using a pulled "from production" 8 core Mac Pro with the new CS5 and it frikin' screams.

bob

Interesting. I certainly am able to find much cheaper and frankly much better solutions in a PC than from Apple. It's a bad time for Mac hardware, there is nothing to compete with quite cheap and very powerful i5/i7 PC solutions. What is Win 64 BTW?

Just to illustrate the hardware gap. An i7-980X in a decent mobo with 12 G RAM,, twice the Mac Pro, will be about $2000, with a decent video card even, not available on a Mac. It will do anything that Mac Pro can, many things considerably faster. Two in a Tyan dual processor board would be monsterous for $1200 more, approaching the price of a Mac Pro here ;). You can have a Thuban machine for a lot less money but not quite the ridiculous number of threads.

Ahh hardware my true love. There is so much wonderful stuff these days.

Here's a small bit of advice. Get some decently made PCs with nice power supplies and good cooling. Your present PC vendor/builder is obviously less than stellar.

You can test a new box with prime. I use mprime for Linux but there are ports for everybody. Should reveal any cooling or power supply problems pretty quick. I use it to 'prove' a new machine.

[Marko]

Interesting. I certainly am able to find much cheaper and frankly much better solutions in a PC than from Apple. It's a bad time for Mac hardware, there is nothing to compete with quite cheap and very powerful i5/i7 PC solutions.


Good for you. Go get one. Or a dozen cheap ones for all I care. Cheap computers are every bit as bad as cheap wine, if not worse.

But... "bad time for Mac hardware"??? Dude, read (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/17/u-s-mac-sales-up-39-in-april/) the (http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/05/17/ipad-sold-out-all-over-the-tri-state-area/?partner=yahootix) news (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-closes-the-revenue-income-gap-with-Microsoft-to-just-1-billion/1272053555)!

Which part of "Mac sales up 39% year over year" or "on track to beat Wall Street expectations for the June quarter (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/17/u-s-mac-sales-up-39-in-april/)" don't you understand?

Or the iPad being sold out over large areas (http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/05/17/ipad-sold-out-all-over-the-tri-state-area/?partner=yahootix)?

Not to mention "Apple closes the revenue, income gap with Microsoft to just $1 billion (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-closes-the-revenue-income-gap-with-Microsoft-to-just-1-billion/1272053555)".

Bad time for Mac hardware? Come on, it's so ridiculous it's not even funny... :D

[PenGun]

Good for you. Go get one. Or a dozen cheap ones for all I care. Cheap computers are every bit as bad as cheap wine, if not worse.

But... "bad time for Mac hardware"??? Dude, read (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/17/u-s-mac-sales-up-39-in-april/) the (http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/05/17/ipad-sold-out-all-over-the-tri-state-area/?partner=yahootix) news (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-closes-the-revenue-income-gap-with-Microsoft-to-just-1-billion/1272053555)!

Which part of "Mac sales up 39% year over year" or "on track to beat Wall Street expectations for the June quarter (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/17/u-s-mac-sales-up-39-in-april/)" don't you understand?

Or the iPad being sold out over large areas (http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/05/17/ipad-sold-out-all-over-the-tri-state-area/?partner=yahootix)?

Not to mention "Apple closes the revenue, income gap with Microsoft to just $1 billion (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-closes-the-revenue-income-gap-with-Microsoft-to-just-1-billion/1272053555)".

Bad time for Mac hardware? Come on, it's so ridiculous it's not even funny... :D

Yeah the gadgets are flying off the shelves. The computer stuff however is not doing so well. Certainly the hardware is falling behind the PC stuff quite fast. As the Mac premium applys you now get an underpowered machine with a premium price. Any good i7 machine and there are many now will smoke the Mac Pro Quad. Some by a lot. Once you get into tweaking the beasts, which requires bulletproof hardware BTW you can achieve some multiples of Mac Pro Quad performance. For much much cheaper.

As I said it's not a good time for Mac hardware. Obviously I was talking about computers, you have read the thread I presume.

My cheap POS rebuild will smoke all known Macs except in a heavy thread environment. Not surprising, i built it for speed, not rendering. I run prime on it to prove it. Lets see some Macs surviving 24 hrs of prime. That really is the test of a machine.

I build my own and others machines as all the vendors want to sell me crap. Apple is no exception no matter how hard you believe.

[Vaughn]

Okay, what did I buy...

iMac 21.5", OS 10.6.1, 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 duo, 4 GB DRAM, and a Tbit hard drive

My soon-to-be ex is keeping the computer, so I had to go buy something, and being on staff at a university has a couple of perks. Will be getting PhotoShop CS5 in a couple weeks -- when the bookstore gets it in.

Now I am a PhotoShop weenie, but will be trying to learn how to use it. I don't know the difference between 32 and 64 bit, but I will figure it out as I go.

Did I buy the right machine? (Edit -- the right machine for someone who can/will not dig into the insides of a computer).

Vaughn

PS -- it has a ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics processor with 256MB of GDDRS memory that the folks in the bookstore oohed and aahed about.

PS#2 -- I can install up to a total of 16 DRAM. Would I ever need that much?!

[Marko]

Yeah the gadgets are flying off the shelves. The computer stuff however is not doing so well. Certainly the hardware is falling behind the PC stuff quite fast. As the Mac premium applys you now get an underpowered machine with a premium price. Any good i7 machine and there are many now will smoke the Mac Pro Quad. Some by a lot. Once you get into tweaking the beasts, which requires bulletproof hardware BTW you can achieve some multiples of Mac Pro Quad performance. For much much cheaper.

As I said it's not a good time for Mac hardware. Obviously I was talking about computers, you have read the thread I presume.

My cheap POS rebuild will smoke all known Macs except in a heavy thread environment. Not surprising, i built it for speed, not rendering. I run prime on it to prove it. Lets see some Macs surviving 24 hrs of prime. That really is the test of a machine.

I build my own and others machines as all the vendors want to sell me crap. Apple is no exception no matter how hard you believe.

Well, either your PC is too fast for your reading skills OR all that smoke obscures the content :rolleyes: but if you bothered to actually read the first quote you would have noticed that it's actually Mac computers that are up 39% over last year. Show me a PC vendor that's even positive, much less close to these figures.

As for the rest, I'm way past the age when I used my computers to run benchmarks or games. These days, I use them mostly for business and then for some fun, such as photography. I don't really care about all that smoke nor do I need any tweaking.

My computers just work. Right out of the box. The way they are supposed to.

And this is a thread about new Photoshop on a Mac. So perhaps you could take all this smoke and mirrors elsewhere? The Lounge strikes me as a perfectly good place, if you must do it here...

[Marko]

Okay, what did I buy...

iMac 21.5", OS 10.6.1, 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 duo, 4 GB DRAM, and a Tbit hard drive

My soon-to-be ex is keeping the computer, so I had to go buy something, and being on staff at a university has a couple of perks. Will be getting PhotoShop CS5 in a couple weeks -- when the bookstore gets it in.

Now I am a PhotoShop weenie, but will be trying to learn how to use it. I don't know the difference between 32 and 64 bit, but I will figure it out as I go.

Did I buy the right machine?

Vaughn

PS -- it has a ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics processor with 256MB of GDDRS memory that the folks in the bookstore oohed and aahed about.

You'll be fine with it for quite some time. The only thing I would really suggest is to up the memory to 8 MB. If you go third party, you could have additional 4 GB for about $100 and then build it in yourself. It's really easy and the instructions can be easily found on the internet.

8GB is the practical minimum if you want to go 64-bit, and given that both your computer and CS5 are 64-bit native, there is simply no reason you woudn't want to.

While at it, I would also highly recommend to get a pair of external 1TB hard drives and set up a proper dual-copy backup. Cheap insurance.

[PenGun]

For Vaughn

Sure. Those Radeons are actually pretty good for an onboard card. The on chip memory keeps them from using your RAM which can be a problem with some on board VGA solutions.

Faster core duo and 4 G RAM , good photoshop machine

[urs0polar]

Hi Marko,

I ran ioreg on my few years old intel mac pro (now running 10.6.3). It says:

$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi
| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI32">

Does that mean I'm screwed wrt 64-bit OSX and CS5? I'm glad I ran across this thread before I shelled out...

Here are my specs:

Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 12 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B08
SMC Version (system): 1.7f10

The OS seems to be able to address the 12GB just fine.



In a nutshell, that's exactly right. Your Mac is one of the models with a 32-bit EFI firmware, which means that you cannot boot into a 64-bit kernel.

The main reason why they did that is most likely to prevent incompatibilities with the chipset used on their logic board at that time, similar to the early 32/16 bit Intel processors on PCs way back.

But there were also some models that actually had a 64-bit EFI but were still configured to boot into a 32-bit kernel by default. You can find out which one is yours by typing the following into your Terminal:

ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi

It will return the following:

| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFIxx">

xx will be either 32 or 64, which is self-explanatory.

If it turns out to be a 64, you can try forcing a 64-bit boot by holding "6" and "4" keys simultaneously while booting. Once up, go to Apple Menu > About this Mac > More Info... then Left Sidebar > Software. Entry "64-bit Kernel and Extensions" should say "yes".

Hope this makes sense.

Marko

[Vaughn]

Thanks guys. I'll see how it goes before adding more RAM.

I really should have bought a 7x17 camera instead, but I really do need to get myself up to speed with these things. The computer was $1500 after tax and the CS5 will be a couple hundred more. I'll have to be happy with just the 8x10!

Vaughn

[Marko]

Hi Marko,

I ran ioreg on my few years old intel mac pro (now running 10.6.3). It says:

$ ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi
| | "firmware-abi" = <"EFI32">

Does that mean I'm screwed wrt 64-bit OSX and CS5? I'm glad I ran across this thread before I shelled out...


Hi Mark,

You have a nice machine there. Definitely not screwed with it, won't be able to run it in 64-bit mode, but it should still provide very decent performance with CS5, especially with plenty of RAM and with good set of disks configured right.

[urs0polar]

Thanks Marko

I have 2 1.5 TB internal drives mirrored (software raid), so I don't have to worry about backups for data. Everything seems fast enough for me at the moment. Striping + mirroring starts to get expensive and eat into the 8x10 film budget.

Just in case someone with my same setup finds this thread later, I was doing some googling, and it appears that the 32-bit kernel in 10.6 can address 36 bits worth of address space, so that's 64GB. It can also allow a 64 bit program to address more than the 32 bit limit (4GB) of process space.

I suppose that with a 32 bit kernel, passing it a 64 bit long will still have to have it split when it goes into a register, but it's not like it's something that will be super noticeable (and does photoshop even utilize 64 bit longs anyhow).

I think I get it now: the upshot is that it's not really anything to worry about at present.

Thanks again for the help!


Hi Mark,

You have a nice machine there. Definitely not screwed with it, won't be able to run it in 64-bit mode, but it should still provide very decent performance with CS5, especially with plenty of RAM and with good set of disks configured right.

[Marko]

Thanks Marko

I have 2 1.5 TB internal drives mirrored (software raid), so I don't have to worry about backups for data. Everything seems fast enough for me at the moment. Striping + mirroring starts to get expensive and eat into the 8x10 film budget.

Yeah, there's no free lunch in this hobby I'm afraid. But there is one more thing you could do to get a very visible improvement: get two more drives, configure them as RAID0 (striped RAID) and use them exclusively for Photoshop scratch. They don't need to be too large, 200 GB each should be quite fine, as they would be adding up.

I know you know it, but it is worth stating this for the record:

- Mirroring drives (RAID1) is done to increase data security by synchronously duplicating data on two (or more) physical drives. This is recommended for data storage.

- Striping (RAID0) increases read/write speed by interleaving - simultaneously writing multiple chunks of data across two or more drives - but also resulting in greatly increased chance of failure. This is recommended for temporary read/write storage, such as memory swap or scratch writes.

There are other combinations but these two are the most frequently used on the semi-consumer level.

Marko

[urs0polar]

Hi Marko

Thanks, I should do that; 300gb drives are cheap. Perhaps a present for myself in a few months -- I'm trying to extend the life of my mac pro as long as possible.

Thanks again for the help.

-Mark


Yeah, there's no free lunch in this hobby I'm afraid. But there is one more thing you could do to get a very visible improvement: get two more drives, configure them as RAID0 (striped RAID) and use them exclusively for Photoshop scratch. They don't need to be too large, 200 GB each should be quite fine, as they would be adding up.

I know you know it, but it is worth stating this for the record:

- Mirroring drives (RAID1) is done to increase data security by synchronously duplicating data on two (or more) physical drives. This is recommended for data storage.

- Striping (RAID0) increases read/write speed by interleaving - simultaneously writing multiple chunks of data across two or more drives - but also resulting in greatly increased chance of failure. This is recommended for temporary read/write storage, such as memory swap or scratch writes.

There are other combinations but these two are the most frequently used on the semi-consumer level.

Marko

[Nicholas Whitman]

I am new to this thread but it seems to be hitting a lot of cords I've been dealing with so some opinions would be most appreciated.

I've been an Apple person since the first pc and had really good luck until my G5.

Now running 10.5.8

Model Name: Power Mac G5
Model Identifier: PowerMac11,2
Processor Name: PowerPC G5 (1.1)
Processor Speed: 2 GHz
Number Of CPUs: 2
L2 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
Memory: 512 MB
Bus Speed: 1 GHz
Boot ROM Version: 5.2.7f1
Serial Number (system): G8601357UUY

I had the hard drive fail and it went through a couple of years where the fans would come on full blast and the thing would crash. It is stable now and has been for a year, but you know I never really trust it any more. My image files are mirrored in 1T LaCie external drives so I have some security there.

I'm a photographer from before computers. I totally acknowledge the multitude of improvements digitization has wrought. I'm on the computer every day. It is integral to my livelihood and my art. But I am not a computer person. It is not intuitive to me and sometime I really struggle.

Currently I am running PS3, Lightroom 2 and Bridge. I run Imageprint rip to an Epson 4800 with phat black. I let PS4 slide - like a lot of us.

This system does everything I need - though in some areas it could be quicker. However, I learned the hard way once if one doesn't keep upgrading you can get into real trouble. And if you do upgrade you can get into trouble too. For example: apparently Imageprint and Snow Leopard have some issues. So I'm not inclined to rock that boat. But I'll have to sooner or later. Truth be told I feel kind of ripped off. Every few years a perfectly functional system is made obsolete so you have to shell out good bucks and rejigger your system to keep in the game.

OK, you saw my specs. Am I correct in believing Photoshop CS5 won't work? Is it time for a new computer or can this one be upgraded? Or considering its shaky past, should it be?

Many thanks for your ideas.

[Ken Lee]

Memory: 512 MB ?

[Marko]

Model Name: Power Mac G5
...
Memory: 512 MB



OK, you saw my specs. Am I correct in believing Photoshop CS5 won't work? Is it time for a new computer or can this one be upgraded? Or considering its shaky past, should it be?

Hi Nicholas,

You are correct, Photoshop CS5 will not work on your current system because it requires a multicore Intel processor. What you have - a G5 PPC - is neither Intel nor multicore.

Also, you definitely need more RAM. When (if) you decide to buy a new computer, get as much RAM as you can afford - RAM is cheap these days and upgrading RAM will give you more visible improvement than boosting up the CPU. It is THE best single improvement you can do to your system (and yourself).




Truth be told I feel kind of ripped off. Every few years a perfectly functional system is made obsolete so you have to shell out good bucks and rejigger your system to keep in the game.

There is simply no reason to feel ripped off. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade and your old system won't just stop working on some sinister schedule.

If you have a car, chances are you are taking it in for a scheduled maintenance every once in a while, at least twice a year, because that's the price of keeping your car operational. You also keep buying gasoline, don't you? :) That's all part of the Total Cost of Ownership, just like with any complex piece of machinery.

[bdkphoto]

I am new to this thread but it seems to be hitting a lot of cords I've been dealing with so some opinions would be most appreciated.

I've been an Apple person since the first pc and had really good luck until my G5.

Now running 10.5.8

Model Name: Power Mac G5
Model Identifier: PowerMac11,2
Processor Name: PowerPC G5 (1.1)
Processor Speed: 2 GHz
Number Of CPUs: 2
L2 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
Memory: 512 MB
Bus Speed: 1 GHz
Boot ROM Version: 5.2.7f1
Serial Number (system): G8601357UUY

I had the hard drive fail and it went through a couple of years where the fans would come on full blast and the thing would crash. It is stable now and has been for a year, but you know I never really trust it any more. My image files are mirrored in 1T LaCie external drives so I have some security there.

I'm a photographer from before computers. I totally acknowledge the multitude of improvements digitization has wrought. I'm on the computer every day. It is integral to my livelihood and my art. But I am not a computer person. It is not intuitive to me and sometime I really struggle.

Currently I am running PS3, Lightroom 2 and Bridge. I run Imageprint rip to an Epson 4800 with phat black. I let PS4 slide - like a lot of us.

This system does everything I need - though in some areas it could be quicker. However, I learned the hard way once if one doesn't keep upgrading you can get into real trouble. And if you do upgrade you can get into trouble too. For example: apparently Imageprint and Snow Leopard have some issues. So I'm not inclined to rock that boat. But I'll have to sooner or later. Truth be told I feel kind of ripped off. Every few years a perfectly functional system is made obsolete so you have to shell out good bucks and rejigger your system to keep in the game.

OK, you saw my specs. Am I correct in believing Photoshop CS5 won't work? Is it time for a new computer or can this one be upgraded? Or considering its shaky past, should it be?

Many thanks for your ideas.

My opinion would be to upgrade to a new system. If you are making a living with your photography, periodic upgrades to your system and software are simply part of the cost of doing business. You should be able to migrate your current system to Snow Leopard without any problems as you can always have your current system running as a boot disk along with SL. This will allow you to make sure all your software and printers etc will work properly on the new OS with your old system as a back up.

If you want to upgrade your current system you will need to max out your memory, 512 is not enough to work with in PS. A dedicate scratch disk, and additional drives would be helpful as well.

Drive failures should be expected, and your back up to the Lacie is a good start but you will need to have a more comprehensive workflow in place to make sure your data is secure. www.Macgurus.com has a great section on systems set up for photographers, and the DAM book by Peter Krogh and www.dpbestflow.org are excellent resources to get a handle on your IT needs and skills.

[mandoman7]

I found that CS4 really did have some benefits for speeding up my workflow. But I would want to know what the tangible benefits would be, however, for moving to CS5 before I upgraded my whole system. You never know what problems may crop up when you're changing major components. You could be spending weeks just getting the system operational, calling tech support, and all of that stuff.

I would guess that doubling or quadrupling your ram may do a lot toward making you happy with your system.

[Nicholas Whitman]

Thanks all for the suggestions.

Rick at MacGurus has been most helpful. I'll add to my ram, and replace my LaCies with their Burley storage system. I'll keep my old mac for a while longer and wait on PS5.

[Ken Lee]

There have been some problems relating to printer profiles and calibration.

See this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/solving-update.shtml).

[Frank Petronio]

Wow no wonder you feel ripped off -- but that would be mostly from trying to operate any sort of imaging workflow on 512mb of RAM... that's just plain ridiculous with any sort of computer system from the last ten years or so.

Just splurge, blow $100 and get a couple gigs of RAM and 99% of your issues will disappear.

If everything is working otherwise, and you're not a hardcore nerdy power user, why upgrade?

There are many new, nice features with CS5 and with an Intel Mac it definitely is snappier and faster than CS4 probably because the code is written for the newer chips. But you would need a new computer to really appreciate the difference.

And the Adobe upgrade policy is that you can only upgrade from three versions back. So if you have legal CS3, you should be OK for getting CS6 in two years, at which time your vintage G5 will undoubtedly be begging for euthanasia.

[juliet eden]

I operate mac dual quad pro os leopard 10.5.8
Just upgraded to photoshop CS5 and it's so slow and the open GL refuses to work properly. My graphics card is aty radeon X1900 , I am unable to find driver updates and AMD informed me that they have not updated the osx drivers for 5 years.
Please can somebody point me in the right direction to resolve this problem

[paulr]

I feel bad for people who invested in G5 systems ... they were poised to be systems you could grow into for years to come, but they were introduced right at the point where IBM backed away from its commitment to low energy desktop and laptop chips, and when Intel announced its new architecture.

So it got orphaned practically right after it entered the world. We never got to see how its rough edges (thermal issues, etc.) might have gotten refined in future iterations.

But I would never abandon the Mac over that. I'd sell the G5 (I see them fetching real money on craigslist and ebay) and get a mac pro. This site (http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html) offers excellent advice, backed by serious testing, on configuring systems for photoshop performance.

My hardware choice is based on giving different weights to different factors. The scale would look something like this:

Price / performance: 10 points
Reliability: 10 points
Industrial Design / ease of upgrading: 5 points
Ability to run the Mac OS: 500 points

Seriously.

At any rate, I just picked up a two year old mac pro for not a whole lot of money. I haven't even invested in the drives and memory that will let this thing show its true colors, and it's already a photoshop rocket ship.

You can go that route, or get a great deal on a refurb direct from Apple. Even buying new, anyone who says they can build an equivalent PC for half the price of a Mac hasn't actually tried. Here (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985-2.html) is one of many (failed) attempts to do so.

[sanking]

I
But I would never abandon the Mac over that. I'd sell the G5 (I see them fetching real money on craigslist and ebay) and get a mac pro. This site (http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html) offers excellent advice, backed by serious testing, on configuring systems for photoshop performance.



People with very high end processing requirements need the open features of a MacPro. However, the iMac is available in monitor sizes up to 27" and offers a lot of performance at a price quite a bit lower than the MacPro. I have a 24" iMac with 8 GB of RAM and with Snow Leopard and Photoshop CS5 running in 64 bit it is a very fast processing machine.

I agree with Paul to sell the G5. I almost upgraded to a G5 a few years ago before deciding to go with an iMac (an older generation one that the one I now use) and it was one of the best decisions of my life. Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe you can run a G5 in 64 bits, and being able to do so with CS5 is a large benefit with the newer Intel iMacs.

Again, I don't want to imply anything negative about the Mac Pro, but I think most people will get all the performance they need in the iMac for a lot less money.

Sandy

[SamReeves]

The Mac Pro's are going to crap anyway. Apple won't upgrade our 32 bit firmware for 1,1 machines while the rest of them may get them.

[paulr]

People with very high end processing requirements need the open features of a MacPro. However, the iMac is available in monitor sizes up to 27" and offers a lot of performance at a price quite a bit lower than the MacPro. I have a 24" iMac with 8 GB of RAM and with Snow Leopard and Photoshop CS5 running in 64 bit it is a very fast processing machine.

The newer iMacs are blazing fast and impressive machines. For photography, though, I would not want to be limited by the lack of choice in built-in monitor (I think the apple monitors are fine, but not great. And I don't love the supergloss glass of the imac screen).

The better imacs don't have the old problem with limited RAM, but disk performance is an issue. You have a single, difficult to access hard drive. The drive layout in a mac pro is liberating. They slide in and out, there's room for four (officially) or more than twice that (with some ingenuity). And you can have fast (esata) access to external drives. The imac limits you to firewire800.

For all these reasons, I feel more future proof with an older mac pro than with a newer (theoretically faster) imac that costs roughly the same. Future-proofness is always relative, of course. And always finite.

[sanking]

The newer iMacs are blazing fast and impressive machines. For photography, though, I would not want to be limited by the lack of choice in built-in monitor (I think the apple monitors are fine, but not great. And I don't love the supergloss glass of the imac screen).

The better imacs don't have the old problem with limited RAM, but disk performance is an issue. You have a single, difficult to access hard drive. The drive layout in a mac pro is liberating. They slide in and out, there's room for four (officially) or more than twice that (with some ingenuity). And you can have fast (esata) access to external drives. The imac limits you to firewire800.

For all these reasons, I feel more future proof with an older mac pro than with a newer (theoretically faster) imac that costs roughly the same. Future-proofness is always relative, of course. And always finite.


I don't argue with anything you say, but I have personally not felt myself limited by any of the things you note about the iMacs, and I process some very large files, ones that often get to over 5 GB with layers. The one exception I would agree with you about is that access to external drives is not fast with the iMAC. However, I do not find that such a problem because I use the external 2 TB hard drive primarily as a back-up device and work almost exclusively from the internal hard drive.

Yes, the iMac monitors are far from perfect but I find them perfectly acceptable for image processing and they seem to calibrate as well as any monitor. In any event, I am much less interested in the image on the screen than in the image on a digital negative or on paper.

I can understand why some people would choose the Mac Pro. Just saying that I have carefully considered the pros and cons and for my own work figure I am getting a lot more for the money with the iMAC. I might feel differently if there were not so much difference in price comparing a new iMac to a new MacBook Pro, but for my money I would much prefer to have a new generation iMac than a past generation Mac Pro, and that is about the trade off in $ at this point. Now if money were no object, yes, a current generation Mac Pro would be optimum.

Sandy

[Frank Petronio]

Over on RFF a fellow was going to pop $3K for a loaded 27" iMac but then he found a refurbished Mac Pro and discovered the RAM and HDs for the big machines are less expensive, plus you have a choice of monitors. Seems like a good idea if you plan to run the box for a long time, since you can replace the monitor independently of the box and everything runs cooler and has more breathing room.

Of course it uses more electricity and isn't as elegant, there are always trade-offs.

Some moderate (i.e. sane) users actually use the Mac Mini in the same way, it keeps you from being tied to the monitor so if it fails you're not down for the count.

That said, I like the iMacs and would use external hard drives anyway. I would just buy third party RAM for sure.

[paulr]

I can understand why some people would choose the Mac Pro. Just saying that I have carefully considered the pros and cons and for my own work figure I am getting a lot more for the money with the iMAC.

All of these machines are like sci-fi fantasies compared with what was available just several years ago, so in a way we're splitting hairs. Not too long ago I was working on 500MB photoshop files on an imac g3, with 1 gig of ram and a 13 gig hard drive. It was slow, but photoshop never once crashed. I just got in the habit of hitting Go and then leaving for lunch. I only retired that machine after the monitor became uncalibrateable.

After that was a series of G4s. I didn't break down and get the mac pro until the final g4 blew up at an inopportune time. This was just a few weeks ago, so having a vaguely up-to-date computer is a matter of novelty for me.

What I like is that even though the machine is a couple of years old, I'm pretty much on the ground floor of its capabilities. Future version of Photoshop will likely use more of the processor cores. There's room for 32gigs of ram. And I can very easily put a solid state boot drive, a 2 disk striped raid for data, and a time machine backup into the machine. And have unlimited external possibilities for backup, archiving, etc. etc.. I think that since it's the first time that I spent anything like real money on a machine, I wanted to get off the obsolescence treadmill for as long as I could afford. That being said, if there was a brand new top of the line imac in front of me, I'm sure I wouldn't find anything to complain about.

[sanking]

All of these machines are like sci-fi fantasies compared with what was available just several years ago, so in a way we're splitting hairs. Not too long ago I was working on 500MB photoshop files on an imac g3, with 1 gig of ram and a 13 gig hard drive. It was slow, but photoshop never once crashed. I just got in the habit of hitting Go and then leaving for lunch. I only retired that machine after the monitor became uncalibrateable.



You are absolutely right about that. I worked with a G4 tower for many years, in fact still have it and use it as a dedicated computer for my two high end vintage scanners. I have it maxed out with 1.5 GB of RAM, and three internal hard drives, a USB 2 card, and some other goodies, and it is not half bad at processing smaller size files with CS.

So the bump up to even a last generation iMac or Mac Pro is light years away from the G4 configuration.

Sandy

[paulr]

I think I'd still be happy with the performance of my last G4, except it started getting marginalized by orphaned technologies. Things like flash became such a headache. I found myself chosing between new versions of things that performed badly, and old versions that were increasingly incompatible with the world.

Of course now I'm addicted to the performance of the new gizmo. HDR processing that took 40 minutes on the old machine takes 5 on the new one. And I typed this post in less 1/4 second.