PDA

View Full Version : Is Rosetta THAT bad?



hogscape
11th April 2006, 06:39 PM
I've just read a review of the Intel iMac on Apple Insider.

Of Rosetta, the writer opined that running a non-native ap via Rosetta killed the machine - "It was like running 2 different machines."

That's contrary to the reviews I've read in Australian Macworld and elsewhere which have indicated that yes, there is slowdown but it's not THAT horrific!

Can anyone tell me first hand what it's really like?

I'll be getting back to my Mac roots at the end of June and I still don't know whether to get a G5 'runout' or Intel Mac...

Help!

Thanks

g3monster
11th April 2006, 06:53 PM
With the stock 512mb ram it runs like a dog but with 2gb the thing is almost magical!!!

marc
11th April 2006, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by hogscape@Apr 11 2006, 06:39 PM
Can anyone tell me first hand what it's really like?
Yes. It's great.

Just get loads of ram. I'm getting a bit sick of people complaining about the speed. I can just imagine them opening up a big Photoshop document to prove their point "HA! SEE!!!! IT TOOK 3 WHOLE SECONDS LONGER!!! I'M RIGHT, ROSETTA IS CRAP AND SLOW!".

It's amazing that it works as seamlessly as it does. Top points to Apple.

Btw, I'm using Photoshop CS1 on a 1.83ghz MBP with 2GB of ram. I'm probably what most would consider a "high-end" user. Honestly, it's great and I look forward to a big speed increase in 12ish months time when I buy CS3.

PartridgeAHA
11th April 2006, 07:24 PM
I use Photoshop Elements 4 on a 2gig Core Duo with 2 gig RAM and its at least as fast as
PSE was on my Xp machine. In fact it seems as fast as CS2 does on my (now rarely used) XP box at home. Its also a lot faster than PSE 3.0 was on my 1.5 Powerbook with 1.25 gig RAM

RAM seems to cure all evils on OSX- PPC or Intel

nicwithsticks
11th April 2006, 07:35 PM
From what I've seen, Rosetta is totally amamzing stuff. True, the machine I tested it on only had 512mb RAM, but I'm sure with an increase it would scream along.

I'm planning on buyin an Intel Mac Pro (?) later this year and will run Photoshop on it. I consider myself to be a high end user, but I'm not worried about it at all.

Bring the Intel's on I say!

samuelclarke
11th April 2006, 07:42 PM
I was wondering the same question. As a graphic designer (and part time photographer) I use Adobe software a lot, and I'm not wanting to take a huge cut in speed from what I've got: Power Mac G5 1.8GHz, 2.25GB RAM but I need a laptop, and I can't afford to have both at the moment.

I've spent about an hour in total in at Mac1 in Fyshwick playing around on a Intel iMac and a MacBook Pro. And I'd say that most people won't really notice the speed difference in Photoshop and InDesign unless they're working on large files (50MB+). I managed to lock-up PS doing some actions on a large file (150MB), but realistically I don't work with large files like that very often (and if I did, I'd have a Quad PM G5). For most things in PS (like levels, curves, unsharp mask and paths) it was fast enough as Marc said, its going to be great when Adobe get their act together and release CS3! I found InDesign to be very usable, I laid out a quick book of about 100 pages and put photos and text in it didn't feel unusable. It wasn't as fast as my Power Mac, but I believe that RAM plays a big part in getting better performance out of software (PPC or x86).

And when it comes to a Universal version of software, like iPhoto for example; it flies!

mwidjaya
11th April 2006, 08:07 PM
I am really glad to hear that Rosetta performance is pretty good if given RAM. Plan to get a Macbook Pro (official Rev B) or Macbook later this year and there will be surely few apps that straggle going Uni so Rosetta will still be important for couple of years to come.

Disko
11th April 2006, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by marc@Apr 11 2006, 06:33 PM
Yes. It's great.

Just get loads of ram. I'm getting a bit sick of people complaining about the speed. I can just imagine them opening up a big Photoshop document to prove their point "HA! SEE!!!! IT TOOK 3 WHOLE SECONDS LONGER!!! I'M RIGHT, ROSETTA IS CRAP AND SLOW!".

It's amazing that it works as seamlessly as it does. Top point to Apple.

Btw, I'm using Photoshop CS1 on a 1.83ghz MBP with 2GB of ram. I'm probably what most would consider a "high-end" user. Honestly, it's great and I look forward to a big speed increase in 12ish months time when I buy CS3.
I'm glad you posted that. I had some doubts, but you've put my mind at ease.

Brewster
11th April 2006, 08:16 PM
I lived with my intel iMac for a few weeks with 512 of RAM and it was slow. It was manageable if you only had 1 app open at a time (a bit like going back to system 6 with < 1 meg of memory) .

With 2 gig it&#39;s great. PS 7 is fine even for 50M + files under rosetta. Menu meters tells me I use up to 1.8 gig with my CAD & PS going (both in rosetta).

mechcon
11th April 2006, 09:05 PM
bugga... no disadvantage to own a powerbook except 8x superdrive :&#092;


would like to see more musos talk about rosetta in here though....

decryption
11th April 2006, 09:42 PM
Yep, with 512MB is rubbish. I&#39;ve got 2GB installed in here and it runs Office and Photoshop (the only non-universal apps I use) fine :)

Dubhousing
11th April 2006, 10:25 PM
I third that
2 Gig of RAM and I don&#39;t even know Rosetta&#39;s there

mechcon
11th April 2006, 10:33 PM
hmm i wonder if i get 2gb ram i&#39;ll get a performance boost compared to 1.5gb

marc
11th April 2006, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by samuelclarke+Apr 11 2006, 07:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (samuelclarke &#064; Apr 11 2006, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I managed to lock-up PS doing some actions on a large file (150MB)[/b]
Yeah, that&#39;s more of an issue. PS has crashed on me a few times (CS1).

<!--QuoteBegin-samuelclarke@Apr 11 2006, 07:42 PM
but realistically I don&#39;t work with large files like that very often (and if I did, I&#39;d have a Quad PM G5).[/quote]
150mb needing a Quad???&#33;?&#33;?

You sound like you&#39;ve got it easy&#33; ;)

I&#39;ve had the pleasure (joke&#33;) of working on a 4gb file on an old G4 with not a whole lot of RAM. Not fun. And a 300mg file on a 77mhz PowerMac... I was playing pool in between clicks.

samuelclarke
12th April 2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by marc+Apr 11 2006, 11:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (marc &#064; Apr 11 2006, 11:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>150mb needing a Quad???&#33;?&#33;?[/b]

Well, that was kinda an exaggeration&#33; B) But if you&#39;re working on those sort of files all the time extra power (like in a quad) doesn&#39;t go to waste. Mind you, not that I can really afford a Quad (well I could if I sold a fair bit, and lived on rice)...

<!--QuoteBegin-marc@Apr 11 2006, 11:24 PM
I&#39;ve had the pleasure (joke&#33;) of working on a 4gb file on an old G4 with not a whole lot of RAM. Not fun. And a 300mg file on a 77mhz PowerMac... I was playing pool in between clicks.[/quote]

I know the feeling&#33; My first Mac was a 800MHz TiBook G4 with 512MB RAM, anything over 100MB was almost too much for it and a few times I was working on 2GB+ files; it was kinda slow&#33; But back then it was almost the fastest, so I was happy. Now everyone (including me sometimes) wants everything done the second they click something, and so they think Rosetta&#39;s slow, but when you think that only a few years ago PS took minutes and hours to do stuff; and now it takes seconds and minutes even with Rosetta.

nard
12th April 2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Dubhousing@Apr 11 2006, 10:25 PM
I third that
2 Gig of RAM and I don&#39;t even know Rosetta&#39;s there
I wonder whether the RAM issue has anything much to do with Rosetta or is it just what most of us would expect when using only 512MB with applications like those in Creative Suite?

Quamen
12th April 2006, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by nard@Apr 12 2006, 08:33 AM
I wonder whether the RAM issue has anything much to do with Rosetta or is it just what most of us would expect when using only 512MB with applications like those in Creative Suite?
RAM has a major effect on Rosetta. The is because it is doing architecture translations on the fly, I think I read somewhere that a program running under Rosetta requires 3 times (?) the memory of a native intel application.

marc
12th April 2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by samuelclarke@Apr 12 2006, 07:07 AM
Now everyone (including me sometimes) wants everything done the second they click something, and so they think Rosetta&#39;s slow, but when you think that only a few years ago PS took minutes and hours to do stuff; and now it takes seconds and minutes even with Rosetta.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up my experience with rosetta.

I&#39;m sure it&#39;s not as fast as it could be (I haven&#39;t done any tests), but it&#39;s quick enough for me not to notice it being slow.

There&#39;s no way I&#39;d buy a PPC mac now given the way things are heading, unless you can afford to buy a brand new Intel one the second CS3 comes out.

nard
12th April 2006, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Quamen@Apr 12 2006, 09:10 AM
RAM has a major effect on Rosetta. The is because it is doing architecture translations on the fly, I think I read somewhere that a program running under Rosetta requires 3 times (?) the memory of a native intel application.
Three times? :o Can you remember where you read that?

decryption
12th April 2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by nard@Apr 12 2006, 09:51 AM
Three times? :o Can you remember where you read that?
Yep, I&#39;d say 3 times is about right.
Anyone got a PPC Mac that can tell us how much RAM Excel (just opened up, with a blank workbook) uses?

This is what my Intel iMac is using:
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/739/rosettaram2iw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

nard
12th April 2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by decryption@Apr 12 2006, 10:49 AM
Yep, I&#39;d say 3 times is about right.
Anyone got a PPC Mac that can tell us how much RAM Excel (just opened up, with a blank workbook) uses?

This is what my Intel iMac is using:
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/739/rosettaram2iw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Is that Excel from Office 2004 or Office X? (In order to make a straight comparison.)

Excel X uses half that amount or less (between 25MB and 30MB).

decryption
12th April 2006, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by nard@Apr 12 2006, 10:53 AM
Is that Excell from Office 2004 or Office X? (In order to make a straight comparison.)
Excel 2004 :)

Quamen
12th April 2006, 10:58 AM
40MB real and 310MB Virtual on my 1.33Ghz 12" powerbook. Office 2004.

Probably should do this test on a program that&#39;s actually doing something though.

[edit]

Not the tests I remember reading but this was the first hit I got on google http://hailstonesoftware.com/articles/2006...memory-overhead (http://hailstonesoftware.com/articles/2006/01/22/rosetta-memory-overhead)

Disko
12th April 2006, 10:59 AM
pretty much the same on my work&#39;s DP2.7 G5 PM.

nard
12th April 2006, 11:01 AM
So I&#39;m still not convinced that Rosetta has a 3x memory hit.

marc
12th April 2006, 11:02 AM
37.88mb real memory.

So... a bit less, but not third.

T-D-J
12th April 2006, 12:36 PM
I&#39;ve found that for apps like Adobe CS2 rosestta handles them fine and is very very smooth, however, for music apps that require rosetta it runs like a dog with lots of latency (even with intel friendly drivers for sound input devices, both MIDI and analog), NI&#39;s guitar rig is unusable. But I maganged to get a copy of Logic 7.2 (universal), and it runs like a dream (surprise surprise). The only downside is that PPC plugins work, but are painful to use.

BTW i&#39;ve got a MBP 1.83Ghz with 1Gb ram.

Cheers
TDJ

marc
12th April 2006, 12:53 PM
Fair call T-D-J... Logic under rosetta is probably one of the cases (and FCP) where you&#39;d want to steer clear until you have a universal.

I need Logic 7.2 now&#33; Paid upgrade though :( I think I&#39;ll just wait until 7.5 or 8 are released as my main music mac is still PPC.

mechcon
12th April 2006, 01:20 PM
Just as well I didn&#39;t follow the whole intel-high there :)

Thanks for the info T-D-J

hogscape
12th April 2006, 02:30 PM
Thanks for all the replies this post generated&#33;

I seem to be hearing "you must have 2GB."

When I get my intel Apple I might be able to spring for 1GB. Does anyone have 1GB Rosetta experience?

Cheers

g3monster
12th April 2006, 03:04 PM
yep much faster than 512mb...also people who are compareing ram usage dont forget the the two rosetta files are about 20mb real ram each too...also many other system file have to be loaded with rosetta.

T-D-J
12th April 2006, 03:23 PM
Yeah i&#39;ve got a singular Gig in my MBP, and it runs smoothly, just don&#39;t do anything silly like have Illustrator, Logic and five windows of DeerPark (Firefox), mail etc open all at once. Essentially just have one major app open, and whatever else you use (like firefox, mail, chat, etc). Its not a problem for me, cause i&#39;m not going to be making images and music at the same time. Hope this helps.

forgie
12th April 2006, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by mechcon@Apr 11 2006, 09:05 PM
would like to see more musos talk about rosetta in here though....
Rosetta ain&#39;t gonna cut it for real-time multimedia work, which includes virtually all audio production. DAW software has a hard enough time getting low latency as it is without having to emulate every instruction.

On the Ableton Live forums, someone tried running the PPC build of Live on an Intel iMac.... it loaded, but it wouldn&#39;t run without glitching like a mofo. The intel build, now that&#39;s another story&#33; :) (Ableton Live is a UB now btw)

mechcon
12th April 2006, 06:15 PM
all i can think of in the way for multimedia which has gone universal, is final cut studio, logic, soundtrack? (part of final cut i guess..) ableton... and possibly Reason (patch in the works to make it 3.0.5) found that www.macmusic.org has heaps of info on upcoming audio software getting released

marc
12th April 2006, 06:28 PM
MOTU drivers and others seem to be universal.

It might take a while for all the plugs though.

The Fluffy Duck
12th April 2006, 07:08 PM
this is what its like on my G4 1.33 iBook with a gig of ram


It may run a bit slower than a native application. But dam thank god its no classic

g3monster
12th April 2006, 09:29 PM
And again people are compareing memory usage statistics WITHOUT includeing Rosetta and other system files applicable to running rosetta apps&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;