Can Mac Book Pro + Aperture handdle a D2Xs file?

In the real world.

I scare it's to slow, anyone have a experience?

PS. Now, I'm using Duron 1 GHz. 512 MB
It's too much very slow to process any RAW.
I HATE A SLOW PROCESS, AND NEED TO KILL!! ;-D

--
PS. Sorry for my rudiment english.

hi than - the new macbook pro uses the intel core 2 duo which is extremely fast, and the machine itself is a marvel of industrial design. and of course, there are many people who swear by the usability of mac computers for audio and video type applications. that said, however, my future son-in-law owns one (he has a masters degree in computer science and works as a software engineer in LA), and he does not like it - he has very specific complaints about it, most of which revolve around applications that will not run on it, common software which is not ported to run on it, and a few things pertaining to design (he hates the magnetic power cord connection, and a few similar things). he does however admit that it excels at compiling and other applications where lots of horsepower is required for long periods of time - one of his common tasks for his work - where he enters data sets for compilation and the machine cranks on it for 10-12 hours at a time.

i am rather surprised at his rather negative opinion of the machine, as he absolutely loved his previous powerbook G4. my daughter, who is also a photographer in LA, loves her 12" powerbook G4 and runs CS2 to process D200 RAW files - it seems about as fast as my T40 thinkpad. i was thinking of buying a 15" macbook pro myself to replace my thinkpad, but am now reconsidering.

at any rate, any of the new machines with core 2 duo processors, large L2 cache size (2-4 mb), and fast frontside buss speed, should have no problems handling D2xs RAW image files, regardless of software. though the new macbook (non-pro) is llikely quite capable of handling D2xs files in aperture with no problem, i have not considered it a contender on my list of possible purchases simply because it does no have a dedicated video card (it uses intel integrated graphics), and i really believe that to be a deciding factor in the purchase of a new high-end laptop for graphics applications.

--
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon
D200, nikon 12-24mm ED-IF AF-S DX, 18-70mm DX
Cambo 45NX, nikkor SW 90/8, 135/5.6, 210/5.6
Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5 (1948 model)

btw, you should post your question on the mac talk forum, where you are likeyl to get a much more comprehensive answer than you got from me...
--
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon
D200, nikon 12-24mm ED-IF AF-S DX, 18-70mm DX
Cambo 45NX, nikkor SW 90/8, 135/5.6, 210/5.6
Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5 (1948 model)

Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul said:

In the real world.

I scare it's to slow, anyone have a experience?

Click to expand...

I use Aperture for 8MP raw files on a 20" Intel iMac, which in many ways is similar to a MacBook Pro in a desktop package. If you get one, get the most graphics memory possible, as Aperture makes use of it, as well as the maximum RAM you can and largest disk, of course.

--
Archer in Boulder, CO

--
PS. Sorry for my rudiment english.

Try CAPTURE ONE PRO for its simplicity, speed and superior quality at http://www.phaseone.com . Put it this way, I have processed 7000+ RAW files to 8 bits TIF in space of 5-6 days. It took me something like 2 days just to build an APERTURE library before any RAW processing can proceed.

Forget APERTURE, painfully slow even just at import / building library. I had been burned and I hate to see other does. All the BIG NAME PHOTOGRAPHER showing Aperture on APPLE's site were mostly having APERTURE run by an assistant. Needs too much screen space for all the bells + whistles - TOO MANY PALETTES at the same screen.

Trust me, I am a MAC fanatic since APPLE c ERA and I love APPLE products, but APERTURE really disappoint even at v1.5.2. Great idea but needs at least 2 more years + 3 to 4 revisions - I mean perhaps v6 like iPhoto - took a long time for APPLE to get this little program right!