-
1. Re: Converting from PC to MAC
370H55V Dec 18, 2009 7:06 PM (in response to MeganMegan1)First off, welcome the world of Mac (if you indeed make the switch).
CS4 is for Mac as well as Windows. There is no need for Elements unless you want to have it in addition to CS4 (which I do).
As far as cross platform compatibility, I spend about ten hours a day working files back and forth between Vista and OS X. If you made it with CS4 on one, it'll open in CS4 on the other.
Licensing is not 100% cross platform as far as I know. You can do it, but it will cost you a nominal fee.
-
2. Re: Converting from PC to MAC
Reynolds (Mark) Dec 19, 2009 4:00 PM (in response to MeganMegan1)Megan - Photoshop is cross-platform meaning that its completely the same application designed for both Operating Systems (Mac OSX and Windows).
All your files, in any format, will be readable whichever way you are running Photoshop
Getting your coss-grade should be possible. 'Nominal fee' means a small price to cover Adobe for the effort supplying you with new installation disks
-
3. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
mhollis55 Dec 19, 2009 6:26 PM (in response to MeganMegan1)Crossgrading can be done and I am hopeful that Adobe has figured out how to do this. they have earned some notoriety for being really slow in satisfying a crossgrade request.
Photoshop in Vista and Windows 7 is a 64-bit application. Adobe has not seen fit to make Photoshop 64-bit on a Macintosh. I think this is because Adobe is still stuck in writing code using Apple's Carbon API and not Cocoa. Carbon was supposed to be a transitional API for companies who were trying to move System 9 applications to OS X and Adobe has, arguably, had 10 years to transition to a more modern framework.
That said, Apple has always been better at managing memory spaces than Microsoft and applications that run in 32-bit have more access to RAM on a Macintosh than they did in Windows. You're not going to run out of RAM on a Mac, provided you have a good scratch disk that is not your boot drive if you are doing large projects.
All of your projects will come across wonderfully. And you will probably have less frustration with your computer in general. I do note that my wife used to curse "her technology" all of the time -- especially when it came time to check email and do pretty ordinary tasks when she had the Dell. I have heard no complaints of the sort since she started using the Macbook Pro.
-
4. Re: Converting from PC to MAC
MooBox Dec 27, 2009 2:46 PM (in response to MeganMegan1)I recently switched over from PC to Mac as well. Had Pshop CS3 on the PC, moved to CS4 on the Mac. No problems finding my way around the program, it's all pretty similar. I've been able to work with most of my old files as well. In my experience a .psd file works on both systems. Hope this helps!
-
5. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
Marian Driscoll Dec 22, 2009 7:57 AM (in response to mhollis55)mhollis55 wrote:
You're not going to run out of RAM on a Mac, provided you have a good scratch disk that is not your boot drive if you are doing large projects.Is there a confusion about what RAM is or was this mis-typed?
RAM limitations are based on what the hardware and operating system can handle so it may be an over-generalization that Apple has been better at memory management. The past is much different than the present and future.
You will find that with comparable hardware, Mac can perform just as well as Windows. Photoshop is the same application. As a user of both platforms, I cannot find a difference between the two that would have me choose one over the other. That is why many of us live in limbo. We'll work with whatever is placed in front of us.
-
6. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
mhollis55 Dec 22, 2009 8:25 AM (in response to Marian Driscoll)No confusion about RAM.
I use both Windows (when I have to) and Mac to make television. Video editing and compositing can take prodigious amounts of RAM.
The move to 64 bit is a means by which more RAM may be provided to applications. This is especially important for Windows applications, most of which can never see more than 2.5G of RAM, even though many Windows computers can fit 4G of physical RAM.
Some applications use a BOOT.INI modification in Windows that will allow them to see as much as 3G of physical RAM thusly:
/3GB/USERVA=2700
This is due to the unfortunate fact that Microsoft uses spots in memory to address peripherals that are attached to the computer and that includes everything from the hard disk and the graphics card to the keyboard, mouse and serial ports. Apple doesn't do that. So, if you have 4G of RAM installed in your Mac, your OS and your applications can see all of it. If you have 8G of RAM installed in your Mac, 32-bit applications can see a full 4G (assuming your OS and other running applications aren't crowding it for space).
Adobe also created its own proprietary "virtual memory" system with the scratch disk, which Photoshop uses when you are designing for something that is positively huge (like a poster or an outdoor billboard). Photoshop will try to fit as much of your material in system RAM as possible and then will use the scratch disk as soon as it needs more.
So, despite the fact that Adobe hasn't gotten their act together with Cocoa and is still using legacy "transitional" Carbon, with 4G of system RAM available to their applications on a Mac, I don't see as serious a RAM crunch on a Mac as there is on Windows 32-bit.
-
7. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
Marian Driscoll Dec 22, 2009 9:21 AM (in response to mhollis55)You may not be confused about RAM but you might be confusing others with the reference to unlimited RAM with a scratch disk on Mac.
I'm sure it was to defend Mac's capability to run Photoshop well enough on a lesser 32-bit system or for the 32-bit Mac app running on a 64-bit system - - but it might have been mistakenly read to say that Mac has no problems with RAM and Windows does have RAM problems. Your previous post could have stated: You're not going to run out of RAM on either system, provided you have a good scratch disk to handle less efficient virtual RAM.
If one is looking to buy a new computer today, they should be comparing a Mac and a Windows computer on the market today. Your mention about Windows RAM limitations is not really applicable since we are done with those systems. Maybe you feel forced to use Windows because you have no experience with current Windows systems.
EDIT: and no, I'm not trying to sell any brand of computer. They both work fine for Photoshop.
-
8. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
370H55V Dec 22, 2009 2:26 PM (in response to Marian Driscoll)The thing I tell most people looking at a new computer is (even if they don't know the first thing about Mac) is that when you buy a Mac it's like getting two computers in one because you can run Windows on it too.
Try that with a Gateway, Dell, Sony, Toshiba or HP.
Since I work in both formats all day long I have to have a Mac for OS X. I have two PCs and I use them frequently, but my Mac is my workhorse, and if I need to use something that is Windows only, I just Boot up XP or Vista on the second monitor and "git-r-done". Then it's back to OS X.
-
9. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
Marian Driscoll Dec 22, 2009 3:06 PM (in response to 370H55V)CowboyInAZ wrote:
Try that with a Gateway, Dell, Sony, Toshiba or HP.
Many people already have (osx86). If you can boot Windows on Mac hardware, why assume you could not boot Mac OS X on generic PC hardware? Mac is certainly not unique in being able to run multiple operating systems as an alternate boot or as a virtual machine.
It seems a little silly to pay a premium for Mac hardware, just to put Windows back on it. That's not a "switch".
-
10. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
370H55V Dec 22, 2009 5:46 PM (in response to Marian Driscoll)How about when Apple comes out with a new OS build, 95% or more of the software already installed is compatible with it?
Try that with Windows 7.
I did. It was more like 15%.
Thus, like several million people so far, I went back to Vista from 7.
Vista wasn't much better two years ago.
I still have two machines running XP, because after ten years, it finally plays nice with the rest of the world.
It'a all about personal preferences really.
I prefer things that work and that's why I prefer Mac.
I've run OSX86 on a PC and the only thing I would qualify as more excruciatingly slow, was the old Virtual PC from Connectix running XP on a G3 iMac 400mHz with 256Mb of RAM.
And like running Windows on a Mac, it wasn't much of a "switch" either.
-
11. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
Marian Driscoll Dec 23, 2009 6:45 AM (in response to 370H55V)Statistics are great, especially when there's nothing to back them up.
I'm not sure where you are trying to steer this topic to anything other than what we have all said: Adobe files are fully cross-platform. Adobe has recognized that both platforms are suitable for their design tools. You are trying to compare memory issues on old 32-bit systems when these are difficult to find on the market today.
-
12. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
mhollis55 Dec 23, 2009 10:49 AM (in response to Marian Driscoll)OK, we've gotten completely off topic here.
There are some people who like Macintosh others who like Windows. One can switch from one to the other by asking Adobe for a "Crossgrade" license and the attendant disks that will install on the new system. I have some evidence that Adobe is not very good at crossgrading their software, based on a plea from someone with a pretty large production shop who bought a bunch of Macs and was stymied for a good three months. It took a "friend of a friend" someone who works in television production to talk to a high-level manager at Adobe to get the job done, whereupon (because the folks at Adobe had to justify their foot-dragging to a senior manager) Adobe promised to look in on their procedure for crossgrading and, maybe address the issues. Please see the whole story here.
From the standpoint of a Macintosh, the OS allows applications to use more RAM, so if you have a 32-bit application (and all of Adobe's applications, save Photoshop for Windows are 32-bit) will see and be able to use more RAM on a Mac because Microsoft's OSs do not reveal more than 2.5GB of system RAM to most 32-bit applications.
Also from the standpoint of a Macintosh, Adobe applications are mired in a transitional API (Carbon) that is probably going to cause them to run more slowly than their Windows equivalents. If Adobe were still running with Windows 2000 APIs or Windows NT APIs today, everyone who uses Windows would curse their slowness, but that is what Adobe has chosen to do with the Apple operating system.
Displays are displays and you can get third-party displays for both Windows and Macintosh computers. Apple does make a really nice 27" iMac with their shiny glass display that one may find an issue in a workspace with lighting that is problematic and one hopes that people think more about ergonomics than that. I'm using an Apple display that I chose to work with their á la carte "Cheese Grater" and I like the monitor a lot. It's bright enough to outshine most reflected illumination behind me.
If people are still saying that Apple's computers are more expensive than computers that only run Windows, Apple pretty much put that to rest years ago. Their prices are lower today than they were during Scully's leadership of the company and, if you price computers that only run Windows against their Apple equals (and don't "cheat" by choosing a computer from some third-tier company that does not support their products, like Acer) you will find first-tier companies that actually innovate in computer design price their computers about the same. Then there's the length of life one gets from an Apple. I purchased a G4-400 (Sawtooth) in 1999. I decommissioned it this last summer. I don't think anyone here has done that with a computer that only runs Windows (Actually, my G4-400 is currently running as a testing server for php and Dreamweaver, so it's still very useful).
Microsoft writes very good software (though I hate "Clippy" and most people I know do, too). Their operating system people have a really hard time keeping up with modern trends and yet still allowing legacy software to run on them and that's a thankless task. Apple made a very clean break with their past with OS X (and Adobe ought to have transitioned to the modern Cocoa API but they chose to remain "legacy") and they're currently making a clean break with any type of compatibility with their System 9 and below software base (Intel Macs can't run their old System Software or those applications). Apple will continue to support 32-bit within their new 64-bit OS but there are issues with Snow Leopard and Adobe software as well as software that Adobe does not make. Apple's operating system has been being developed since 1969. Microsoft's operating system has been being developed since 1979. That, alone, does not make one superior to another, though one could argue that, with a ten-year head start, Apple's operating system will always do more and be a little more mature than the best Microsoft can do.
Microsoft's new stores look creepily identical to Apple Stores. Dance video aside, everything is identical.
If you are thinking about upgrading, waiting to upgrade may be a mistake in my opinion. Here's why:
- Every hour you spend waiting for your old CPU to get your work done is going to add up.
- Your time is actually worth something if you are working professionally. If you are a hobbyist, then go ahead and wait.
- The time spent working professionally that you cannot bill always costs you.
- Computer manufacturers tend to release new hardware on their own timelines, not yours.
- Rumors of coming attractions are more often wrong than right (the Apple iPhone rumors predated the device by three years!).
If you are upgrading, my advice is to buy as much processor as you can afford. Get enough RAM to run what you are running now. You can always add more hard disk room and you can always add more RAM. The speed of the processor will be what saves you the most time in working on your projects.
Apple versus Microsoft. Windows versus OS X. Bah! What does that have to do with Adobe's Photoshop?
-
13. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
Lundberg02 Dec 28, 2009 7:18 AM (in response to mhollis55)You can always trust Driscoll (Oblak) to drag the Win/Mac scuffle into any topic.
I don't care what Microsoft does or how Windows drives people nuts.
Macs run Win now because Intel was the only way forward for Apple to increase speed, so why not?
You don't waste nearly as much time when you use a Mac, and they are more intuitive. End of story.
-
14. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
Marian Driscoll Dec 28, 2009 12:36 AM (in response to Lundberg02)The last two that replied to this thread appear to be confused that this was in some way a platform debate. There was simply a digression when someone made a mistaken comment about a perceived RAM limitation between platforms. Lighten the load on your minds. This ain't rocket science.
<removed>
Name calling and personal attacks will not be tolerated
Message was edited by: Zeno Bokor
-
15. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
John Joslin Dec 28, 2009 12:37 AM (in response to Marian Driscoll)Marian Driscoll wrote:
<removed>
He didn't attack you personally, but calling him a goof is not nice.
And talking of screen names...
-
16. Re: Converting from PC to Macintosh
Marian Driscoll Dec 28, 2009 7:21 AM (in response to Marian Driscoll)Zeno, if name calling and personal attacks are not permitted, why are you not censoring Lundberg?
That is goofy. You are a goof if you cannot see the name calling. PM me if you are still confused. This is not rocket science.
EDIT: I see you just yanked one of his posts. I guess thanks are in order but you may still be missing the issue.



