Quick question RE: Macbook vs Macbook PRO

If I don't play any games............and I outfit a macbook and a macbook pro with the same 2Ghz Core Duo with 2 gigs of RAM each - would it be safe to say, aside from screen real estate, that performance on each machine when running Photoshop CS would be exactly the same??

Thanks!!!

Ro1

 

should be the same, but I am not positive

 

Yeah it would most likely stay the same, however the pro might perform just SLIGHTLY better, because it doesn't have to used shared video memory. I'm sure the GPU is used in some of the stuff in Photoshop.

Like I said it's most likely only gonna be merely x seconds differences nothing more.

 

yep should be the same

 

COOL thanks!!!

I think I'm gonna get the cheaper macbook and spend the extra cash on the RAM and aperture.

Ro1

 

One question?? When you have Adobe Photoshop, why would you waste even a penny on Aperture???

 

He was trying to say that since he is saving extra money by going with macbook, he would probably be able to afford aperture.

Now, I know that in specifications for aperture it doesn't list Macbook anywhere in it, but it does for MBP.

I have read the review where someone had Aperture running on his macbook, so i guess its possible, but he did mention that aperture is set at a certain resolution which is higher than what Macbook can support, so you'll have to manage with it if you really want it that much. He said his Macbook ran Aperture fairly well, he gave the impression it ran better than he had expected.

I think Photoshop is an excellent program and a great alternative to Aperture.

 

... I would say that Aperture is a can-live-with alternative to Photoshop for an amature photographer and never the other way around. If anything, only Aperture's organization/management abilities constitute the reasons for having it along with PS. IMO

As for Apertutre's fast RAW image viewing ability, since mostly only DSLRs that support RAW coupled with the fact that the manufacturers (Canon, Nikon etc.) ship their proprietary fast RAW file viewing & minor editing software along, that ground is also covered.

Nevertheless, even if not for functionality, its asthetics still makes it a nifty software to have for a photographer with money not a concern. To me anyway, if you have PS, it does not justify purchasing Aperture.

 

I guess photoshop only uses the GPU for alpha blending, and the Macbook 950 GPU is more than capable than that. So indeed any performance gain would be due to the slightly larger amount of memory available (supposing CPU and HDD are the same, of course).

 

You're right.........I tried Aperture on a Macbook PRO today in the Apple store and it was a clunky program. In fact, the free version of RSE is better than Aperture............the program did look very pretty though

Ro1

 

Like all Apple programs, Aperature is going to need some time to develop before it is a strong performer. It is not meant to be a Photoshop replacement, it is meant to work with and organize RAW, but not necessarily edit them. Adobe is making a similar program called Lightroom, or Darkroom or something like that. So it is not a replacement for Photoshop. It is supposed to be used alongside Photoshop.

Anyway, like the person a few posts up said, the GPU itself won't really help in Photoshop. The difference will be that 64MB of RAM the GMA 950 steals. That will likely not come into play too often unless you are dealing with really big files, and if you are 2 GB of RAM likely wouln't be enough anyway. One other thing to think about is that I am pretty sure a 7200 RPM drive is not available for the MacBook which can make a difference in Photoshop.

 

Another thought came into my mind.... if you're interested in photo-editing, won't the lower resolution of the Macbook annoy you? 800 pixels in height is quite encumbering ( I do some light photo-editing work myself, and I feel restrained with the Macbook). On the other hand, 1440x900 on the 15.4" MBP is probably just a little better, it would be nice if the Macbooks were available with higher resolutions.

 

800 for photoediting is preposterous.. ridiculous.. I sincerely doubt you can do any sort of comfortable editing with that. I suggest you go for a lower GHz MBP with higher screen resolution (to maintain cost)... seriously man.. 800x600 resolution was half a decade ago!!

That is what I said.. most cameras that can shoot RAW provide software to read their RAW files. With my Canon, I received ZoomBrowser which is a fast RAW viewing and management tool.

 

I think you're confused. The 800 being referred to is the height not the width. The MB resolution is 1280 X 800 and the MBP has a resolution of 1440 X 900.

 

I was concerned about that.............Its too bad they don't have photoshop running on the macbooks in the Apple store so I can give it a go to see how much space I get...........OTOH, I really like the fact that the Macbooks are more portable than the pro versions............And I figure that for the amount of cash I save, I can get a DELL 20 incher when I do my photo editing at home.

But so far I haven't decided on which ones to get yet...........

Ro1

 

1280 x 800 is something you could live with as the 1280 is more important than the 800 vertical height. And as you said, at home you can use an external monitor.

 

For the amount of money I saved..........I ended up getting the Macbook with the free Nano and Printer!!!! WOOHOOOO!!! The printer and nano are here....but the Macbook won't be ready till the 26th!!!! D*RN!!! I am on pins and needles waiting for this beauty!!! For the moment, I am reading as much Mac related stuff as possible............

.........and my RAMS are here too!!! Just waiting for a good home.

Thanks for all the help everybody!!!

Ro1