Digital BW, The Print

On Dec 10, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Christer Rosewell wrote:

> Sam,
>
> this has nothing to do with the performance of the Intel Macs - it is
> purely an Adobe issue.

Actually, Christer, the _relatively_ limited performance of the  
current MBP vs the next MBP which I had in mind can I think be laid  
at the doorstep of Intel for being slow to reclaim their leadership  
in the window-box war with AMD. The next MBP will be even faster, I  
believe, partly because its admittedly already impressive Core 2 Duo  
processor will be even faster when it can be used in the context of  
the "Santa Rosa" chip not yet released by Intel. Or at least that's  
what I've heard.

Such an MBP might then be released with the major OS X upgrade also  
just around the corner and who knows what in the way of a  faster  
graphic processor. And maybe even four GB of RAM? Whatever, I think  
the next MBP should probably be regarded mature, and that I should  
probably then quit waiting for it to get even better and buy one as a  
replacement for my old Mac desktop.


> Adobe has chosen NOT to write a universal binary version of CS2 - so
> the Intel Mcs has to use the Rosetta translation in order to run the
> Mca version of CS2 - of course - you can install Parallels or boot
> the Intel Macs as a PC and run the Windows version which will run at
> full speed of the processor.
>
> The Core 2 Duo processor is generally considered the fastest thing
> out there - so don't blame Apple of this - it is purely Adobe who's a
> fault here - and are incurring the wrath of many, many Adobe users -
> me for one - I am certainly hoping Apple will write a Photoshop
> killer - as a Photoshop user since version 1 - I am enraged at the
> way Adobe is treating it's Mac users.
>
> Christer

I feel your rage, Christer, and sometimes participate in it. But I  
also think Apple unnecessarily angered and scared Adobe by firing  
Aperture across the bow of Adobe's Photoshop flagship. So I don't  
think we can fault Adobe for making Apple - and incidentally us -  
wait while it wheels Lightroom into position to compete with  
Aperture. And absent that, I think Apple would be improving Aperture  
even more slowly and still at its originally higher price. If so  
that's some compensation for the collateral damage we've suffered in  
the Apple-Adobe skirmish.

So I'm maybe as frustrated as anybody but less angry at Adobe because  
I'm angry at Apple too. But now let's see if we can agree on  
Microsoft's outrageously bumbling and fumbling Vista, therefore  
leaving both Adobe and Apple free to continue to neglect our image- 
processing needs for years on end.

In any case, happy holidays, Christer, and please welcome my dumb  
MacIntel questions when I start to lob them over the Sierras in late  
winter (I hope) or early spring (more likely I guess).

Thanks for taking me away from printing Christmas cards. 8)
--
Sam