Sometimes Planting New Seeds Leaves Bumper Crop Out to Dry
| by Joe Leo, Columnist | February 21, 2007 |
continued... from: previous page
The thing I didn't like about Adobe After Effects was that it seemed complicated. According to Adobe's website and people I asked, if you were well-versed in Photoshop, you'd have no trouble using After Effects.
Trouble is, though no trouble at all, is that Apple's Motion did all the work for you. That was the attractor (no pun intended) for getting Motion. In After Effects, you had to do most of the work yourself. Of course, isn't that what Apple sometimes does? Take something and make it even better, whether it's their own product, or someone else's.
Funny. Sounds like I'm calling Apple, Microsoft for copying someone else. Except rarely in history has Microsoft ever copied anything Apple has done and made it better. (For Apple, the word copied is in quotes-- "copied.")
So $479 plus $199 later--the part and the software under academic pricing--I had the software application I was drooling over. And because it was from Apple, I had no doubts or complaints about it, other than the fact that I had to spend all that money. (I could've bought Adobe After Effects under academic discount for less than the total I did).
That begs the question... why does Apple create new and innovative software that rocks and kicks the competition, but in turn, kicks out its core user base? Its bumper crop of hardware and pro users in the process?
Case in point, you've got Adobe's software package similar to Apple's software package (actually, Motion was Apple's answer to Adobe After Effects) but the big difference is that one is usable right out of the box, while the other requires pulling teeth!
Fast forward to the present. My, "Jack and the Beanstalk" story.
I had already gotten over that fiasco (and I'll note here before I forget, that oddly enough, the minimum system Motion could run on was a 15" 1.67 GHz PowerBook G4, but when it was made Universal and included as part of Final Cut Studio, the minimum specs became a 12" 1.5 GHz PowerBook G4) until Aperture debuted last year.
As a semi-"professional" photographer (I like to use the term professional amateur), I deal with a lot of digital images. When I heard about Aperture, I jumped for joy the same way I did when I discovered Motion. I remember the reviews-- the "Photoshop Killer?" from Apple. Of course, no one can really kill Photoshop, not even Apple.
(Sorry Cupertino. Microsoft and Vista, and everything MS, yes. Adobe? No).
I checked out its features, la dee da, and whaddaya know? There was that stipulation again, the roadblock, the salt in the wound, the Apple of my eye. Nope, wrong expression there. The rotten apple in my eye. You get the, uh, picture.
I can't use the darn Aperture application on my PowerMac G4!! A top of the line G4.
Of course, if you've been following my "life story" you'll know that I just got a PowerBook G4 recently, which is newer than the the PowerMac G4. Still, no luck on the specs area. How can an intense software application like Motion run on a 12" PowerBook and a PowerMac G4, but a seemingly less intense Aperture app not?
