f



To Mac or not to Mac?

What ho, pre-pressers! Long time no post, or view, come to that. No 
doubt some of you will remember me as I see that many of same crowd are 
**STILL** here after all these years. Grettings to Aandi, Ted, Lee, 
Allen...well, to you all, not forgetting Mr Shagnasty, who I am 
gratified can still find something to say after all this time.

Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan has 
sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face possessed 
of some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a crust for the 
Tree family. So I'm looking for **SENSIBLE**, non-partisan advice, 
please on hardware and software.

Specifically, I need 2 new workstations and need to upgrade from Quirk 
4.11, AI8 and Photoslop 6.
For obvious reasons, CS3 seems to be the most cost-effective and 
productive way to go so far as layout, illustration and image 
manipulation tools are concerned. Acrobat and Pitstop will also need 
updating to the latest versions.

So it seems to be more a choice about platforms rather than software as 
it simply would not be cost effective to buy two copies of Quirk 
Drepress 7, Photoslop and Illustrator CS3, when CS3 does it all in one 
box.

My thinking is to plump for 2 new dual core Mac Pros. But would CS3 run 
faster and more productively on PC's? What about cost? I can get new 
PC's built for a fraction of the price of two Mac Pros, but they may not 
be as fast or as productive as the Macs.

What about 24 inch iMacs? Any good for pubslashing and prepress?

Then there's the OS. I pretty much *LOATHE* Windoze XP and wouldn't 
touch Vista with a ten-foot casting stick. But I have zero experience of 
doing design and pre-press on an OS 10 Mac. IIRC, font management used 
to be a bit iffy under the early versions of OS 10 whereas both Type 1 
and TT font management was a breeze with Windoze XP.

Can I still use all my existing T1 Adobe, Bitstream, Linotype and 
FontFont fonts with OS 10x?

What about converting Quirk 4.11 (PC and Mac) documents to Indesign CS3? 
Is it even possible or will I have to re-create old jobs from scratch 
before I can re-purpose them?

Printing. I currently use a Xerox 7700 laser for proofing and am loathe 
to ditch it. Does OS 10x support this old colour laser?

Memory. What is optimum nowadays? My two existing PC's run with about 
2GB each. Is that enough for the current versions of Indesign, Photoslop 
and Illustrator? How fast do these apps run on current hardware (PC or 
Mac) compared to the old versions I'm using?

Questions, questions, questions... Sorry for asking so many!

I'm looking at a budget of around $12,000. That has to pay for 2 
workstations, all the software and one 30" LCD screen. (I have two 
existing 20" LCD screens for the 2nd workstation).

Any advice and suggestions would be most gratefully received.
-- 
Derek Tree
0
derek.tree (92)
8/19/2007 2:13:31 PM
comp.publish.prepress 3348 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

33 Replies
3002 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 3

Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote in 
news:QszyRlCLAFyGFwjU@nonone.noonehere.com:

> What ho, pre-pressers! Long time no post, or view, come to that. No 
> doubt some of you will remember me as I see that many of same crowd are 
> **STILL** here after all these years. Grettings to Aandi, Ted, Lee, 
> Allen...well, to you all, not forgetting Mr Shagnasty, who I am 
> gratified can still find something to say after all this time.
> 
> Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan 
has 
> sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face possessed 
> of some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a crust for 
the 
> Tree family. So I'm looking for **SENSIBLE**, non-partisan advice, 
> please on hardware and software.
> 
> Specifically, I need 2 new workstations and need to upgrade from Quirk 
> 4.11, AI8 and Photoslop 6.
> For obvious reasons, CS3 seems to be the most cost-effective and 
> productive way to go so far as layout, illustration and image 
> manipulation tools are concerned. Acrobat and Pitstop will also need 
> updating to the latest versions.
> 
> So it seems to be more a choice about platforms rather than software as 
> it simply would not be cost effective to buy two copies of Quirk 
> Drepress 7, Photoslop and Illustrator CS3, when CS3 does it all in one 
> box.
> 
> My thinking is to plump for 2 new dual core Mac Pros. But would CS3 run 
> faster and more productively on PC's? What about cost? I can get new 
> PC's built for a fraction of the price of two Mac Pros, but they may 
not 
> be as fast or as productive as the Macs.
> 
> What about 24 inch iMacs? Any good for pubslashing and prepress?
> 
> Then there's the OS. I pretty much *LOATHE* Windoze XP and wouldn't 
> touch Vista with a ten-foot casting stick. But I have zero experience 
of 
> doing design and pre-press on an OS 10 Mac. IIRC, font management used 
> to be a bit iffy under the early versions of OS 10 whereas both Type 1 
> and TT font management was a breeze with Windoze XP.
> 
> Can I still use all my existing T1 Adobe, Bitstream, Linotype and 
> FontFont fonts with OS 10x?
> 
> What about converting Quirk 4.11 (PC and Mac) documents to Indesign 
CS3? 
> Is it even possible or will I have to re-create old jobs from scratch 
> before I can re-purpose them?
> 
> Printing. I currently use a Xerox 7700 laser for proofing and am loathe 
> to ditch it. Does OS 10x support this old colour laser?
> 
> Memory. What is optimum nowadays? My two existing PC's run with about 
> 2GB each. Is that enough for the current versions of Indesign, 
Photoslop 
> and Illustrator? How fast do these apps run on current hardware (PC or 
> Mac) compared to the old versions I'm using?
> 
> Questions, questions, questions... Sorry for asking so many!
> 
> I'm looking at a budget of around $12,000. That has to pay for 2 
> workstations, all the software and one 30" LCD screen. (I have two 
> existing 20" LCD screens for the 2nd workstation).
> 
> Any advice and suggestions would be most gratefully received.

Welcome back Del and Greetings from Oz,

It makes very little difference what platform you work on.
The software and the fonts work on both.
TT and Opentype are cross platform - Type 1 from the PC will work on the 
Mac.

As a service provider, we support both, my personal preference is for PC, 
but this is more to do with my history than any percieved superiority of 
the platform.

Mac prices have come more into line with similar quality PC prices
OS-10 is quite intuitive and the latest builds seem to be reasonably 
stable.

You can also boot into Windows on the Intel Macs with Boot camp
CS3 is a native Intel Mac application suite so will take full advantage 
of the hardware.

Fonts are a bit touchy with an OS-10 an Quark combination, but the Adobe 
Apps don't seem to suffer from the same issues.
For the Mac, I would recommend Font Agent Pro for font management.

2Gb is good for either platform - 4Gb is better

Quark documents up to V4.x can be opened with Indesign, but require some 
work. Marxtools produce a convertor that will do Quark 6.0 - Indesign.

I can't comment on the Imac, but the specs suggest they should be 
suitable for the job.

The budget may be a little tight, though not impossible, the last 
workstation I set up was a dual core Intel Mac, 23" LCD, CS2 and the 
usual utilities. This came in at about $AUS 8500.

Hope this helps

Mike







0
8/19/2007 3:17:51 PM
Welcome back Derek.  Sorry about the circumstances.

What are you going to be doing on these machine?  Design?  Trade work 
taking in files?  Will you be providing files in native format?  PDF?

Shooting from the hip, I'm thinking you may want both a Mac and a PC.

- Allen
0
awessels1 (257)
8/19/2007 3:26:44 PM
In message, Mike Powell <nospamthankyou@optimapprreess.com.au> wrote:
>Welcome back Del and Greetings from Oz,

It hardly seems I've been away, Mike. The same old faces rambling on 
about the same topics...but I digress...
;-))

>TT and Opentype are cross platform - Type 1 from the PC will work on the
>Mac.
That's good to know. Thanks.

>As a service provider, we support both, my personal preference is for PC,
>but this is more to do with my history than any percieved superiority of
>the platform.
Same here, as you may recall...

>Fonts are a bit touchy with an OS-10 an Quark combination, but the Adobe
>Apps don't seem to suffer from the same issues.
You mean InDesign, I take it? Is that the preferred choice now on both 
platforms? Most of my printers and SP's are using it.

>Quark documents up to V4.x can be opened with Indesign, but require some
>work.
Yeah, I figured that.

>The budget may be a little tight, though not impossible, the last
>workstation I set up was a dual core Intel Mac, 23" LCD, CS2 and the
>usual utilities. This came in at about $AUS 8500.
Then I may plump for two PC's. I can get 2 Intel core duos with 2GB ram 
and 2 decent screens for that money from a mate who builds cheapo PC's. 
The cases are awful and the PSU's a tad noisy, but they will do the job.


>Hope this helps
Yep, thanks.
-- 
Derek Tree
0
derek.tree (92)
8/19/2007 3:28:59 PM
Hi Allen,

In message, Allen Wessels <awessels@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
>Welcome back Derek.  Sorry about the circumstances.
Aw, no biggie. At least I'll be helping to pay for more foreign 
excursions by our esteemed government...
;-))

>What are you going to be doing on these machine?
Design and publishing for offset litho. Same as before. Main job is a 
60pp 4c monthly magazine. We also hope to pick up some general design 
work, ads, brochures, etc. Output to either device-dependant PS files or 
pre-press ready PDF.

>taking in files?
Only Word, PP and possibly Microserf Pubslasher.

> Will you be providing files in native format?  PDF?
Nope, just PS or PDF as I said above.

>Shooting from the hip, I'm thinking you may want both a Mac and a PC.
In which case I may be better off getting 2 new PC's and sticking with 
my old G4 Mac for any Mac files we may get? Dunno if an 867 G4 will run 
OS 10.4 though. I also have a G4 powerbook which prolly would run OS 
10.4.
-- 
Derek Tree
0
derek.tree (92)
8/19/2007 3:48:13 PM
In article <QszyRlCLAFyGFwjU@nonone.noonehere.com>,
 Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

> My thinking is to plump for 2 new dual core Mac Pros. But would CS3 run 
> faster and more productively on PC's?

I know a very good commercial printer with some high end prepress 
experience where the entire shop, save for one machine ("just in case"), 
is Wintel.

Of course, the guy running the entire IT operation is a genius, so maybe 
that has something to do with it.  But he swears--and he's a young 
guy--that there's no reason not to go Wintel.

Frankly, I present this as a man-bites-dog story.  But there you have 
it.  Plainly, it can be done in a high end, profitable commercial print 
operation.




> Printing. I currently use a Xerox 7700 laser for proofing and am loathe 
> to ditch it. Does OS 10x support this old colour laser?

Postscript is Postscript, a PPD is a PPD, therefore any Macintosh will 
happily set that up for you.



> Memory. What is optimum nowadays?

CS3 won't even run the installer unless you have 2GB installed.  That 
tells me that 4GB is the realistic minimum, and of course more is always 
welcome.

0
elmop (1209)
8/19/2007 4:02:21 PM
In article <QM+yJGP9YGyGFwRY@nonone.noonehere.com>,
 Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

> >taking in files?
> Only Word, PP and possibly Microserf Pubslasher.

Then you need at least *one* Wintel machine.

0
elmop (1209)
8/19/2007 4:02:52 PM
In article <QM+yJGP9YGyGFwRY@nonone.noonehere.com>, Derek Tree
<derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

> In which case I may be better off getting 2 new PC's and sticking with 
> my old G4 Mac for any Mac files we may get? Dunno if an 867 G4 will run 
> OS 10.4 though.

It will, but slower than you may like for a production environment.
Maxing the RAM will help.
0
dave16 (4224)
8/19/2007 4:03:02 PM
In message, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Frankly, I present this as a man-bites-dog story.  But there you have
>it.  Plainly, it can be done in a high end, profitable commercial print
>operation.
You've clearly forgotten, young Elmo, that I was using 'ALL' PC's when I 
used to post here apart from one token Mac, which I still have.

Indeed, I was using PC's for pubslashing before almost anyone else, at 
least here, in the UK. My original Pentium 90 ran Quirk 3.1, Illy 4.1 
and Photoslop 2.5 under Windoze 3.11 in a whopping **120MB RAM** when 
most PC's ran with 16MB's. I doubt if more than a handful of people were 
doing that back then.

Nowadays, there is precious little to choose between platforms other 
than aesthetic and political choices. I won't deny I **PREFER** Macs, 
but am more used to PC's and have almost zero experience of using OS 10x 
in a prepress setting. If only OS 9.2 were still available and 
rock-solidly multi-tasked. But that's another topic...

>Postscript is Postscript, a PPD is a PPD, therefore any Macintosh will
>happily set that up for you.

But it still needs a driver that is recognised by the OS, surely? Plus 
the 7700 duplexes and has a webserver interface, both of which require 
that the OS recognise these features and functions, which are quite 
independent of the PS interpreter.

>CS3 won't even run the installer unless you have 2GB installed.
Really, that much? You mean the whole suite I take it, rather than just 
InDesign or Photoshop?
-- 
Derek Tree
0
derek.tree (92)
8/19/2007 4:39:46 PM
In article <y6Va0IQSJHyGFwnx@nonone.noonehere.com>,
 Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

> >Postscript is Postscript, a PPD is a PPD, therefore any Macintosh will
> >happily set that up for you.
> 
> But it still needs a driver that is recognised by the OS, surely?

The PPD is all the information anything requires.  The OS has a built in 
Postscript driver (just like OS 9), and you can happily feed it any 
PPD--which *is* the detailed description of what the printer is.

Between the Postscript driver in the OS and the PPD supplied by the 
manufacturer, you have absolutely everything required to drive that 
printer fully.



> Plus 
> the 7700 duplexes and has a webserver interface, both of which require 
> that the OS recognise these features and functions, which are quite 
> independent of the PS interpreter.

The web interface is just that--a web interface.  Is it on your network?  
Then fire up a web browser and get to it.  That's independent of OS.

As for duplex, paper feed options, color control options, etc., all 
those are described in--of all things--the PPD file ("PPD" stands for 
"Postscript Printer Definition").  Once the OS-level Postscript driver 
gets together with the printer-level PPD file that's supplied by the 
manufacturer, everything is there.

You're thinking too much like an old Windows hand with this "but I need 
a driver" thing.  And actually, even Adobe fixed this particular Windows 
issue with its universal Postscript installer.  Just run the universal 
Postscript printer installer, feed it the PPD, and it will set 
everything up for you within whatever flavor of Windows you have.  No 
need for a separate "Windows installer" for each and every Postscript 
printer.  All the Postscript printer manufacturer needs to supply is a 
simple PPD.


> >CS3 won't even run the installer unless you have 2GB installed.
> Really, that much? You mean the whole suite I take it, rather than just 
> InDesign or Photoshop?

Yeah, the suite.

0
elmop (1209)
8/19/2007 5:37:27 PM
On Aug 19, 9:02 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> CS3 won't even run the installer unless you have 2GB installed.

Make that 1GB. No need to make it worse than needs be.

We currently have it running at work with 1GB and it's fine if you
only have one or two apps running at a time. We're only playing with
it at the moment though, most all work is still in CS2.

I've been pushing to get more memory installed since before we got CS3
but I'm working for the government now and things move slowly...that'd
be the Queen's Printer in British Columbia for Del's edification - eh
wot? ;)

I've got it running at home on a AMD 3800+ dual core with 2GB and it
runs pretty well. If I was doing serious work I'd pump the ram up.

0
jono.moore (241)
8/19/2007 6:12:27 PM
On Aug 19, 7:13 am, Derek Tree <derek.t...@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:
> Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan has
> sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face possessed
> of some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a crust for the
> Tree family. So I'm looking for **SENSIBLE**, non-partisan advice,
> please on hardware and software.

Personally I'd stick with Windows XP (I wouldn't touch Vista). You can
still get more bang-for-buck going the PC route. The files are fully
cross-platform as long as you've got the fonts.

I never did like the OSX interface that much (and yes, I've used it
quite a lot) and fonts are still a pain if you are doing a lot of
loading and unloading. Other than that though, the Macs make a fine
workstation.

Also, there is the advantage of running Boot Camp for booting Windows
and Parallels or VMWare for running Windows virtualized on the
desktop--the best of both worlds.

I mostly run Ubuntu Linux at home these days and run Windows
virtualized and it works quite well. I only reboot to Windows if I
really need to.

0
jono.moore (241)
8/19/2007 6:22:13 PM
In message, Jono <jono.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've got it running at home on a AMD 3800+ dual core with 2GB and it
>runs pretty well. If I was doing serious work I'd pump the ram up.

So RAM appears to be more important than outright processor speed then? 
I can't say I'm surprised. But with RAM prices at around 25 squids per 
GB I think I could stretch to installing 6GB. That should make it work 
about half as fast as Quirk 4.11 I guess?
;-)))
-- 
Derek Tree
0
del577 (243)
8/19/2007 6:30:09 PM
In message, <jono.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

>Personally I'd stick with Windows XP (I wouldn't touch Vista).
That's the conclusion I came to long ago. Bad as XP is in parts, Vista 
is an unmitigated disaster as far as I can tell. It seems history is 
repeating itself. Remember how awful XP was on release and how many 
folks stuck to 2000 for ages?

> You can
>still get more bang-for-buck going the PC route
Indeed. That much is clear...
;-))

>I never did like the OSX interface that much
I confess I have to agree. Even though I only use it at home I much 
prefer OS 9.

Thanks for advice, Jono.
-- 
Derek Tree
0
del577 (243)
8/19/2007 6:35:17 PM
Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote in 
news:QM+yJGP9YGyGFwRY@nonone.noonehere.com:


Well, well, well. Look who the felid dragged in.

Sorry to hear about your retirement situation. Hope the opportunity 
arises again.

> Hi Allen,
> 
> In message, Allen Wessels <awessels@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
>>Welcome back Derek.  Sorry about the circumstances.
> Aw, no biggie. At least I'll be helping to pay for more foreign 
> excursions by our esteemed government...
> ;-))
> 
>>What are you going to be doing on these machine?
> Design and publishing for offset litho. Same as before. Main job is a 
> 60pp 4c monthly magazine. We also hope to pick up some general design 
> work, ads, brochures, etc. Output to either device-dependant PS files 
or 
> pre-press ready PDF.

I do much the same (plus Photography) on wintel and CS2 (CS3 has some 
issues. Got it installed, rarely use it.) The biggest source of cross-
platform headaches are fonts still. On the magazine, you can solve the 
problem by requiring PDF x/1a for completed ads or if you are required to 
build them, outlined logos and such.

General design work is a seperate fight. PDF solves pretty much any 
problem with your output folks, but you will get lots of people sending 
you stuff requiring Mac fonts. Now, the Mac version of CS will use any PC 
font, so that's a plus for that route.

Though, truthfully, the biggest problem I have with submissions these 
days is the steady decline of people making sure they have something 
useful. People who won't pay pros, dealers that will scan a catalog or a 
business card instead of getting the info for the web site with a 
manufacturer's agency-produced art, idiots who can't use the point and 
shoot cameras they imagine will produce pro-grade images, and M$ users.

And forget PS files altogether. PDF is sleeker and more reliable these 
days.

<snip>

> In which case I may be better off getting 2 new PC's and sticking with 
> my old G4 Mac for any Mac files we may get? Dunno if an 867 G4 will run 
> OS 10.4 though. I also have a G4 powerbook which prolly would run OS 
> 10.4.

Either would help. You could keep some software on the laptop for 
outlining fonts you can't use on your PCs, and similar annoyances.

0
ericvgill (473)
8/19/2007 7:02:28 PM
In article <Xns99918F8ED22C9ericvgillyahoocom@208.49.82.28>,
 Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Though, truthfully, the biggest problem I have with submissions these 
> days is the steady decline of people making sure they have something 
> useful. People who won't pay pros, dealers that will scan a catalog or a 
> business card instead of getting the info for the web site with a 
> manufacturer's agency-produced art, idiots who can't use the point and 
> shoot cameras they imagine will produce pro-grade images, and M$ users.

This is news?

0
elmop (1209)
8/19/2007 7:08:48 PM
In article <+Fdp7eTxwIyGFw1b@nonone.noonehere.com>,
 "D. Tree Esq" <del@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

> >I've got it running at home on a AMD 3800+ dual core with 2GB and it
> >runs pretty well. If I was doing serious work I'd pump the ram up.
> 
> So RAM appears to be more important than outright processor speed then? 

It's a balance, not necessarily an issue of one over the other.

If either one is insufficient, you'll suffer--no matter how much you 
overcompensate on the other side.

0
elmop (1209)
8/19/2007 7:10:38 PM
In article <+Fdp7eTxwIyGFw1b@nonone.noonehere.com>, D. Tree Esq
<del@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

> So RAM appears to be more important than outright processor speed then? 

Combination of. A slower processor will definitely benefit from more
RAM, but a faster processor AND more RAM is A Good Thing.
0
dave16 (4224)
8/19/2007 7:40:47 PM
In message <190820071340472867%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave 
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote
>In article <+Fdp7eTxwIyGFw1b@nonone.noonehere.com>, D. Tree Esq
><del@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So RAM appears to be more important than outright processor speed then?
>
>Combination of. A slower processor will definitely benefit from more
>RAM, but a faster processor AND more RAM is A Good Thing.

As every Ewe knows...
;-)))
-- 
Derek Tree
0
del577 (243)
8/19/2007 10:02:07 PM
In message <elmop-3AF268.15103819082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>, Elmo P. 
Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
>In article <+Fdp7eTxwIyGFw1b@nonone.noonehere.com>,
> "D. Tree Esq" <del@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I've got it running at home on a AMD 3800+ dual core with 2GB and it
>> >runs pretty well. If I was doing serious work I'd pump the ram up.
>>
>> So RAM appears to be more important than outright processor speed then?
>
>It's a balance, not necessarily an issue of one over the other.
>
>If either one is insufficient, you'll suffer--no matter how much you
>overcompensate on the other side.

Yep, got that Elmo. I said I was old, not senile.
;-)))
-- 
Derek Tree
0
del577 (243)
8/19/2007 10:02:46 PM
In message <elmop-B5BD70.15084819082007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>, Elmo P. 
Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote
>In article <Xns99918F8ED22C9ericvgillyahoocom@208.49.82.28>,
> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Though, truthfully, the biggest problem I have with submissions these
>> days is the steady decline of people making sure they have something
>> useful. People who won't pay pros, dealers that will scan a catalog or a
>> business card instead of getting the info for the web site with a
>> manufacturer's agency-produced art, idiots who can't use the point and
>> shoot cameras they imagine will produce pro-grade images, and M$ users.
>
>This is news?

I see you're still provoking the inmates, Elmo. I'm sure that all Eric 
meant was that the tide of crap is ever-increasing. As such, it is news 
for those of us who have been a bit out of the loop of late.
-- 
Derek Tree
0
del577 (243)
8/19/2007 10:04:56 PM
Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

Buy one Mac Pro and two iMacs.

Use the Mac Pro with tons of ram for your photoshop work and use an iMac
for regular page layout. Turn the other iMac into a server or utility
scanning box.

Register with Adobe as a service provider and get a cheap copy of CS and
buy one for the other box.

Since you can boot the Mac's to windows now (and not vice versa) go with
the Mac. You also can use your legacy pc fonts with the Mac version.

But I'll confess that a professional of your experience could get the
job done with anything. It's not the hammer, it's the carpenter that
gets the job done.

It's really about personal prefs.

In my case the 20,000+ mac font library keeps me connected to the mac.

You might have a similar thing to keep in mind for windows.
0
leeb (1197)
8/19/2007 10:20:06 PM
On Aug 19, 11:30 am, "D. Tree Esq" <d...@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:
> So RAM appears to be more important than outright processor speed then?

I'd definitely say more RAM for heavy work.

I just did a test on my home rig, opening Illustrator/Photoshop/
InDesign/Acrobat registered a total commit charge (according to task
manager) of about 510mb - that was with no documents open, just the
applications.

0
jono.moore (241)
8/20/2007 1:43:54 AM
In article <QM+yJGP9YGyGFwRY@nonone.noonehere.com>,
 Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:

> >Shooting from the hip, I'm thinking you may want both a Mac and a PC.
> In which case I may be better off getting 2 new PC's and sticking with 
> my old G4 Mac for any Mac files we may get? Dunno if an 867 G4 will run 
> OS 10.4 though. I also have a G4 powerbook which prolly would run OS 
> 10.4.

10.4 should be fine on that machine.  I'm running it on a dual 867.  I'd 
throw a bunch of RAM at it though.  Check the Apple support site to be 
certain about the 10.4 compatibility.

I'd get display calibrators with the new screens.

- Allen
0
awessels1 (257)
8/20/2007 2:03:50 AM
D. Tree Esq wrote:
> So RAM appears to be more important than outright processor speed then?
> I can't say I'm surprised. But with RAM prices at around 25 squids per
> GB I think I could stretch to installing 6GB. That should make it work
> about half as fast as Quirk 4.11 I guess?
> ;-)))

Interesting limitations concerning memory on Windows machines:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx


0
8/20/2007 3:37:14 AM
On 8/19/07 10:48 AM, Derek Tree commented:

> Hi Allen,
> 
> In message, Allen Wessels <awessels@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
>> Welcome back Derek.  Sorry about the circumstances.
> Aw, no biggie. At least I'll be helping to pay for more foreign
> excursions by our esteemed government...
> ;-))
> 
>> What are you going to be doing on these machine?
> Design and publishing for offset litho. Same as before. Main job is a
> 60pp 4c monthly magazine. We also hope to pick up some general design
> work, ads, brochures, etc. Output to either device-dependant PS files or
> pre-press ready PDF.
> 
>> taking in files?
> Only Word, PP and possibly Microserf Pubslasher.
> 
>> Will you be providing files in native format?  PDF?
> Nope, just PS or PDF as I said above.
> 
>> Shooting from the hip, I'm thinking you may want both a Mac and a PC.
> In which case I may be better off getting 2 new PC's and sticking with
> my old G4 Mac for any Mac files we may get? Dunno if an 867 G4 will run
> OS 10.4 though. I also have a G4 powerbook which prolly would run OS
> 10.4.
> -- 
> Derek Tree


Hi Derek, I'm not an old friend like many others, but I loved and misssed
your posts here. Selfishly, I'm glad to have you back. You always brought a
smile.

For my two cents, I'd the think newish Intel Macs would fill the bill since
they can run Windoze, two machines in one. As using an old G4 for any period
of time for design, well, I'm doubtful. I haven't rad all the replies yet,
but know you're getting more professional advise than mine.

inez (still suffering with ancient equipment and apps)

0
nezmyth1 (44)
8/20/2007 7:59:25 AM
In message, the unfortunately named 'Fishface' <invalid@ddress.ok?> 
wrote
>Interesting limitations concerning memory on Windows machines:
>http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

Indeedy. Thanks for the link. I admit that I was surprised by the limits 
in XP and even more so in Vista, given the ballyhoo surrounding it's 
development as the best thing since the invention of the soft-brimmed 
hat.

That alone would seriously push me towards Mac Pros, for which I assume 
no such paltry limits apply?

One would think that Mr Gates would have twigged by now that **some** 
folks actually try to do serious photoshopping and rendering on his 
boxes? But then again it explains why so many use Windows server, for 
which the limits are much higher.
-- 
Derek Tree
0
del577 (243)
8/20/2007 8:40:58 AM
In message, inez wrote:
>Hi Derek, I'm not an old friend like many others, but I loved and misssed
>your posts here. Selfishly, I'm glad to have you back. You always brought a
>smile.

Oh tish and pish, Inez. I remember you very well. Anyone who can stick 
it out on here for more than a year is an 'old timer' IMV.
In any event, you are a lady and the more ladies who contribute the less 
opportunity the boys have to throw hissy fits when one of then takes 
exception to their pet theory being criticized.
;-)))

>For my two cents, I'd the think newish Intel Macs would fill the bill since
>they can run Windoze, two machines in one.

I am leaning in that direction. It is only price that puts me off since 
I can get PC boxes built for peanuts. But one gets what one pays for. 
There is no question that the Mac Pro is in an altogether different 
league to all but the most exclusive PC's. And, of course, it's so very 
pretty!

>As using an old G4 for any period
>of time for design, well, I'm doubtful.
I figured that I could use the old G4 867 for backup. I'm assuming that 
OS 10.4 will talk to, and network OK with OS 9.2? Other than that I have 
an old Umax flatbed attached to the G4 which works perfectly for those 
few occasions I need to scan something in. I know the scanner will *NOT* 
work with Windoze XP and doubtful if it would work with OS 10.4. FWIW, 
it's a Umax Powerlook 1120 driven by Binuscan Photoperfect.

>inez (still suffering with ancient equipment and apps)
Well...if it works. I think you know my views on the upgrade treadmill 
that we are all tied to. Currently I manage very well with Quirk 4.11, 
Photoshop 6 and Illy 8. The only real issue is Quirk not accepting 
anything higher than PDF 1.3. I still think 4.11 was the most reliable 
iteration of Quirk ever.

How old is your kit? I'm tempted to keep at least one of my PC's. It's a 
P4 3.0 GHZ with 2GB RAM running XP Pro SP2. Photoshop 6.0 flies on it 
even working with 200MB A3 images. I'm not at all sure how quick PS CS3 
would be on a Mac Pro. Mind you, there are many features in the later 
versions of Photoshop I miss which I know would vastly improve 
productivity. Ditto for Indy over Quirk 4.11.

Best wishes and thanks for your help.
-- 
Derek Tree
0
del577 (243)
8/20/2007 8:57:00 AM
On Aug 19, 2:35 pm, "D. Tree Esq" <d...@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:
> In message, <jono.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Personally I'd stick with Windows XP (I wouldn't touch Vista).
>
> That's the conclusion I came to long ago. Bad as XP is in parts, Vista
> is an unmitigated disaster as far as I can tell. It seems history is
> repeating itself. Remember how awful XP was on release and how many
> folks stuck to 2000 for ages?
>
> > You can
> >still get more bang-for-buck going the PC route
>
> Indeed. That much is clear...

However, that bang is quieted somewhat by the architectural
limitations if one uses Windows. Series of posts about how a person
wanted to store apps on a RAM drive on a Windows box so that they
could be quickly re-started since leaving all apps open as most Mac
users do wasn't an option.

> >I never did like the OSX interface that much
>
> I confess I have to agree. Even though I only use it at home I much
> prefer OS 9.

One can pretty much configure Mac OS X to mimic OS 9's appearance and
behaviour if desired --- you really should take the time to learn all
the possibilities though, it affords a lot of niceties which make for
very productive use.

William


0
willadams (1425)
8/20/2007 11:46:17 AM
Recently, Derek Tree <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> posted:

> What ho, pre-pressers! Long time no post, or view, come to that. No
> doubt some of you will remember me as I see that many of same crowd
> are **STILL** here after all these years. Grettings to Aandi, Ted,
> Lee, Allen...well, to you all, not forgetting Mr Shagnasty, who I am
> gratified can still find something to say after all this time.
>
> Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan
> has sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face
> possessed of some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a
> crust for the Tree family. So I'm looking for **SENSIBLE**,
> non-partisan advice, please on hardware and software.
>
Good to hear from you, Del, even if only under the duress of having to
return to the life of the worker bees.

Sorry that I can't offer you any wise advice beyond the obvious regarding
new workstations. Like you, I also dislike XP immensely. My dabbling with
Vista is limited to a laptop belonging to my wife, but that is enough to
say that my shop will not be running that dog of an OS (I'm the resident
IT person and this OS is grief-in-a-box). AFAIC, it brings nothing to the
table for those of us doing content creation. Sadly, if one wants to run
CS3 on a PC, the choice is between XP and Vista. I'd choose XP simply
because it's cheap and about as good as it will ever be.

I am also in the unfortunate position of considering hardware "upgrades",
and have considered going the Mac route. However, my particular field of
work is not very Mac-friendly w/r/t the apps that I must run to support
clients and so forth.

FWIW, I don't think that performance is much of an issue with either
platform. Down-time due to thinking (wetware), customer reflections, and
other such drags on productivity still far exceeds losses to system
inefficiencies.

Good luck, and do let us know what you finally settle on buying.

Neil





0
neil9133 (816)
8/20/2007 2:25:18 PM
On 8/20/07 3:57 AM, D. Tree Esq commented:

> In message, inez wrote:
>> Hi Derek, I'm not an old friend like many others, but I loved and misssed
>> your posts here. Selfishly, I'm glad to have you back. You always brought a
>> smile.
> 
> Oh tish and pish, Inez. I remember you very well. Anyone who can stick
> it out on here for more than a year is an 'old timer' IMV.
> In any event, you are a lady and the more ladies who contribute the less
> opportunity the boys have to throw hissy fits when one of then takes
> exception to their pet theory being criticized.
> ;-)))

Lady!?! Why, thank you. I'm more in the "old broad" class, but I appreciate
the compliment;)
 
>> For my two cents, I'd the think newish Intel Macs would fill the bill since
>> they can run Windoze, two machines in one.
> 
> I am leaning in that direction. It is only price that puts me off since
> I can get PC boxes built for peanuts. But one gets what one pays for.
> There is no question that the Mac Pro is in an altogether different
> league to all but the most exclusive PC's. And, of course, it's so very
> pretty!

I'd sell my soul for a Pro, but unfortunately my soul doesn't seem to be
worth much;)

>> As using an old G4 for any period
>> of time for design, well, I'm doubtful.
> I figured that I could use the old G4 867 for backup. I'm assuming that
> OS 10.4 will talk to, and network OK with OS 9.2? Other than that I have
> an old Umax flatbed attached to the G4 which works perfectly for those
> few occasions I need to scan something in. I know the scanner will *NOT*
> work with Windoze XP and doubtful if it would work with OS 10.4. FWIW,
> it's a Umax Powerlook 1120 driven by Binuscan Photoperfect.

> 
>> inez (still suffering with ancient equipment and apps)
> Well...if it works. I think you know my views on the upgrade treadmill
> that we are all tied to. Currently I manage very well with Quirk 4.11,
> Photoshop 6 and Illy 8. The only real issue is Quirk not accepting
> anything higher than PDF 1.3. I still think 4.11 was the most reliable
> iteration of Quirk ever.
> 
> How old is your kit? I'm tempted to keep at least one of my PC's. It's a
> P4 3.0 GHZ with 2GB RAM running XP Pro SP2. Photoshop 6.0 flies on it
> even working with 200MB A3 images. I'm not at all sure how quick PS CS3
> would be on a Mac Pro. Mind you, there are many features in the later
> versions of Photoshop I miss which I know would vastly improve
> productivity. Ditto for Indy over Quirk 4.11.
> 

Oh my. We're almost matched with the big exception that I'm stuck with about
the 2nd G4 model, a 350-Yikes. I maxed it out with 1GB RAM, but it can't
even take advantage of all that. I'm using QXP 4.11, PS 6.0.2, Illy 9.0.3,
Acrobat/Distiller 4. I'm glad I stuck with 4.11, but I would love to keep
this box alive for it and other old apps but add a Pro to move up to 7.x and
the CS3 Design package. I like versitility and diversity and am
anti-monopoly. If I decided to run Windoze I'd add Exression to my arsenal
off tools. I HATE that MS stopped development for Mac when they bought the
app from CreatureHouse, but I love and use the free beta version I have.

I don't think you can run in Classic mode with the Pros, which steams me. I
doubt, but don't know, if you can select a spearate startup drive to run OS
9.x. Anyone know? But OS 10.4 had better be able to recognize and deal with
OS 9.x files.

OS X is pretty and fast, but it doesn't feel like my old *foolproof* Mac
OS:\

Now, I have to read all these replies to pick up some tips for myself, even
if it is wishful thinking;)


inez


0
nezmyth1 (44)
8/20/2007 3:10:26 PM
On Aug 20, 11:10 am, inez <nezm...@no.thank.you> wrote:
> I don't think you can run in Classic mode with the Pros, which steams me.

It's been _years_ since Mac OS 9 was last released / up-dated. If you
need Classic, be sure to track down a PowerPC machine.

> I
> doubt, but don't know, if you can select a spearate startup drive to run OS
> 9.x. Anyone know?

Not on anything released since they stopped supporting Mac OS 9 has a
stand-alone OS.

One could install Basilisk or vMac and use a full emulator if one has
a ROM and OS 9 (or earlier) license to spare I believe --- I've been
meaning to look into that myself.

It's really a shame that the ARDI folks couldn't've kept Executor
alive until now, when there was finally a market for it.

> But OS 10.4 had better be able to recognize and deal with
> OS 9.x files.

It does do that fine, whether on Intel or PowerPC, so long as there's
an app installed which can handle the files in question.

The really funny / ironic thing is that Apple is still using
FrameMaker v6 to produce their manuals --- even for the brand-new
Numbers.app (which I _really_ wish did dynamic reformatting of
spreadsheets like Lotus Improv / Lighthouse Design's Quantrix do).

William


0
willadams (1425)
8/20/2007 6:07:33 PM
In article <YJ2gIwXcdVyGFwA$@nonone.noonehere.com>, "D. Tree Esq"
<del@spamnull.co.uk> wrote:


> I figured that I could use the old G4 867 for backup. I'm assuming that 
> OS 10.4 will talk to, and network OK with OS 9.2?

Not beyond OS 10.4.8 it won't.
Any file over 100k from OS 9.2 --> OS X causes the server to shut down. 
I've reverted to 10.4.2

See 
http://forums.macosxhints.com/archive/index.php/t-69583.html
or Google "network problems after 10.4.9"

DB-W
0
byram9297 (17)
8/20/2007 7:56:04 PM
"Derek Tree" <derek.tree@spamnull.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:QszyRlCLAFyGFwjU@nonone.noonehere.com...
> What ho, pre-pressers! Long time no post, or view, come to that. No doubt 
> some of you will remember me as I see that many of same crowd are 
> **STILL** here after all these years. Grettings to Aandi, Ted, Lee, 
> Allen...well, to you all, not forgetting Mr Shagnasty, who I am gratified 
> can still find something to say after all this time.
>
> Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan has 
> sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face possessed of 
> some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a crust for the Tree 
> family. So I'm looking for **SENSIBLE**, non-partisan advice, please on 
> hardware and software.

Back atcha, Del. We had a similar ... both of us just got fatter and poorer, 
so we both took wage-slave jobs.

> Specifically, I need 2 new workstations and need to upgrade from Quirk 
> 4.11, AI8 and Photoslop 6.
> For obvious reasons, CS3 seems to be the most cost-effective and 
> productive way to go so far as layout, illustration and image manipulation 
> tools are concerned. Acrobat and Pitstop will also need updating to the 
> latest versions.

I've heard rumors that the new version of Acrobat Pro will offer many of the 
features of Pitstop. Any confirmations out there?

<snipped>
>
> Any advice and suggestions would be most gratefully received.
> -- 
> Derek Tree

Go into honest work: drug dealing, white slavery, etc. More profitable, 
shorter hours and better benefits. <g>

Peggy 


0
pjcoquet1 (75)
8/20/2007 9:10:31 PM
Reply: