PDA

View Full Version : New Intel Core Duo iMac 2X SLOWER than Old iMac G5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 07:35 PM
Okay guys, talk about a disappointment! I just picked up a new 20" Intel Core Duo iMac from the Apple Store and after transfering everything over from my old 20" iMac (still keeping all the data on my old iMac though) I ran a startup test.

The Core Duo iMac clocked in at 75 seconds exactly from desktop to login screen restart.

The iMac G5 clocked in at 38 seconds (!!!!!) exactly from desktop to login screen restart.

What in the hell is going on here? The only thing I could think of that would be in the G5's favor is the 2GB of RAM it has over the 512MB in the Intel iMac. Would this really make that big of a difference and actually make the Intel iMac start up in its touted 18-second time if it has 2GB of RAM?

This really makes me want to return my new iMac right now and go back to the G5. :confused: :mad:



zap2
Mar 17, 2006, 07:43 PM
2Gb of RAM in your old iMac? Well that has something to do with it. IF you dead set on the fact that your G5 is faster then that intel iMac

I'll trade ya:)

munkees
Mar 17, 2006, 07:47 PM
My iMac DC 20" boot 28 seconds, 1 GB memory, it so fast at booting

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 07:48 PM
2Gb of RAM in your old iMac? Well that has something to do with it. IF you dead set on the fact that your G5 is faster then that intel iMac

I'll trade ya:)

:p Well, the more I test it, it looks like it's definitely faster performing tasks. But still, the startup is slow. Any idea why that would be?

My iMac DC 20" boot 28 seconds, 1 GB memory, it so fast at booting

Hmmmm... it must be the 512MB of memory I have. I'm buying two 1GB sticks tonight and will have them next day aired so hopefully I'll startup in 18 seconds once those are in. :)

jsfpa
Mar 17, 2006, 08:04 PM
You said you transfered your files over. Did you do the transfer using the firewire connection? I'm wondering if you have something loading at start up that uses Roseta from your old setup. As far as the memory issue goes, I don't remember how fast it started up but it was most definitely sluggish once it was up and running. What a difference an additional gig of ram made. I've since maxed it out to the full 2 gig.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 08:09 PM
You said you transfered your files over. Did you do the transfer using the firewire connection? I'm wondering if you have something loading at start up that uses Roseta from your old setup. As far as the memory issue goes, I don't remember how fast it started up but it was most definitely sluggish once it was up and running. What a difference an additional gig of ram made. I've since maxed it out to the full 2 gig.

Hmmm, yeah that would definitely be a good possibility. But what do you think it could be that it's needing to use Roseta at startup? Anyway I can find out and fix it?

About the memory, yeah I'll have the 2GB of RAM installed by the end of next week so hopefully that will speed things up.

nylon
Mar 17, 2006, 08:14 PM
Your heading for this thread is a little misleading don't you think!

emaja
Mar 17, 2006, 08:16 PM
There's more to life than boot times my friend.

So what? I reboot my machine when there is an OS update that requires it which amounts to about every 6 weeks. I am no uptime freak, but right now I am sitting at over 10 days.

Run some apps, render some video, do something that actually stresses the speed of the CPU and not the access times of the hard drive and then tell us which one is faster.

tdhurst
Mar 17, 2006, 08:30 PM
Who in the hell cares about boot times? How many mac owners actually turn their computers OFF?

jsfpa
Mar 17, 2006, 08:32 PM
Hmmm, yeah that would definitely be a good possibility. But what do you think it could be that it's needing to use Roseta at startup? Anyway I can find out and fix it?


You could always start from scratch, reinstall from your install disk and install your software manually. I would wait to see what the memory upgrade dose. I originally did the firewire thing but decided to do a fresh install of everything.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 08:39 PM
You could always start from scratch, reinstall from your install disk and install your software manually. I would wait to see what the memory upgrade dose. I originally did the firewire thing but decided to do a fresh install of everything.

That would be such a bitch. :p

I seriously have so many settings, passwords and other stuff that doing a fresh install would take days if not weeks because of all of the stuff I would have to setup again. It would just be too much of a hassle to where after spending all of that effort to go a little bit faster in just a few months I'd be back in the same spot.

When is someone going to invent a computer where it doesn't start to sputter after a few months? Seriously, that would be great. There is just too many computer repair people out there. :p

jsfpa
Mar 17, 2006, 08:44 PM
When is someone going to invent a computer where it doesn't start to sputter after a few months? Seriously, that would be great. There is just too many computer repair people out there. :p


Mine doesn't sputter ever, at least not since I've gone Mac.

I'm sure your going to be much happier with the memory upgrade.

Cubert
Mar 17, 2006, 08:47 PM
Dude,
What log-in items do you have? It's probably one of those.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 08:51 PM
There's more to life than boot times my friend.

So what? I reboot my machine when there is an OS update that requires it which amounts to about every 6 weeks. I am no uptime freak, but right now I am sitting at over 10 days.

Run some apps, render some video, do something that actually stresses the speed of the CPU and not the access times of the hard drive and then tell us which one is faster.

Running Apple Mail I've got to give the Intel iMac its props! My iMac G5 would take almost a millennium to refresh the inbox and scroll my sent e-mails and the Intel iMac does it as Steve Jobs described it "scrolls like butta'." :)

Dude,
What log-in items do you have? It's probably one of those.

Dude, why the hell would it be a log-in item if it's the startup it hangs at. As in when it first starts up and opens the Apple logo. That stuff is all about the initial processes the computer needs to make to get itself going, not the startup programs that are user created.

I do appreciate your trying to help though. :)

Artful Dodger
Mar 17, 2006, 08:54 PM
Since you said you were getting more ram for the Intel try pulling out the ram in the G5 and see what you get (giving that 512MB). As far as the Intel iMac goes I have 18-20 sec. startups and 10-15 sec. shut downs. That's with 2GB Ram and it's been fine on startup.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 08:54 PM
Mine doesn't sputter ever, at least not since I've gone Mac.

I'm sure your going to be much happier with the memory upgrade.

Just wait a few more months. Guarenteed it will start slowing down. Every computer on the planet does. ;)

umgolfer
Mar 17, 2006, 08:54 PM
Who in the hell cares about boot times? How many mac owners actually turn their computers OFF?
When I go away on vacation..that's about it. :rolleyes: Otherwise it is put to sleep. I've been doing this for about 4 years now and love it. I put the WinXP machines I use at work to sleep, and they freeze half the time....

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 08:57 PM
Since you said you were getting more ram for the Intel try pulling out the ram in the G5 and see what you get (giving that 512MB). As far as the Intel iMac goes I have 18-20 sec. startups and 10-15 sec. shut downs. That's with 2GB Ram and it's been fine on startup.

Hmmm. Well I'm really hopin' the 2GB of RAM handles this then. You think it'd be worth it to Apple to include at least 1GB of RAM so people think their machines are faster considering most don't know crap about upgrading memory like this. Like my mom, she has no freakin clue you can upgrade stuff.

That would be pretty amazing though to go from 75 seconds restart to 20 seconds restart with just 1.5GB of memory more. We'll see what happens.

As far as taking memory out of the G5, I have two sticks of 1GB so it still wouldn't match up the my Intel iMac's 512 so I'm not sure it would be worth the effort.

TAV
Mar 17, 2006, 08:58 PM
You blindly migrated everything from a PPC machine to an intel box and wonder why your cold boot speeds are slow? Whacha say we boot that intel machine and check the activity monitor before you play around. Tell us what APs are running on your nice, neat intel machine. More importantly, what PPC stuff has mysteriously found it's way into your start-up/active processes.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 08:59 PM
When I go away on vacation..that's about it. :rolleyes: Otherwise it is put to sleep. I've been doing this for about 4 years now and love it. I put the WinXP machines I use at work to sleep, and they freeze half the time....

Are you telling me you've had the same Mac for 4 years? All of the computers I've had, Mac or PC, after two years I'm finished with them. They get so damn slow I just say screw it and buy a new one. I realize I can do a fresh install but how could I stand the thought of even doing that when brand new technology is out there waiting for me to buy it? :p

zap2
Mar 17, 2006, 09:00 PM
:p Well, the more I test it, it looks like it's definitely faster performing tasks. But still, the startup is slow. Any idea why that would be?


Well boot time might get faster over time, but my brothers iMac G4 boot time is fast, however it not fast doing other stuff

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 09:02 PM
You blindly migrated everything from a PPC machine to an intel box and wonder why your cold boot speeds are slow? Whacha say we boot that intel machine and check the activity monitor before you play around. Tell us what APs are running on your nice, neat intel machine. More importantly, what PPC stuff has mysteriously found it's way into your start-up/active processes.

First off, what was I suppose to do? Manually move everything over? Also what are APs? Active Processes? Please clairfy what you're saying.

TAV
Mar 17, 2006, 09:09 PM
Sorry - yes- shut down the intel machine completely. Give it a minute or two and do a cold start. Then let us know what active processes you have running in your activity monitor. My guess is that your slower boot times are related to PPC start-ups from your G5 migration. I'm using a 512 ram stick now in my intel 20" (pulled the others out) just to compare.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 09:29 PM
Sorry - yes- shut down the intel machine completely. Give it a minute or two and do a cold start. Then let us know what active processes you have running in your activity monitor. My guess is that your slower boot times are related to PPC start-ups from your G5 migration. I'm using a 512 ram stick now in my intel 20" (pulled the others out) just to compare.

Okay. Got the same boot time and after doing what you said I found the following active processes:

pmtool
kernal_task
update
WindowServer
UniversalAccessApp

Anything out of the ordinary there?

TAV
Mar 17, 2006, 09:39 PM
Interesting. Check your Universal Access under System Preferences. Make sure Zoom is off.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 09:41 PM
Interesting. Check your Universal Access under System Preferences. Make sure Zoom is off.

Checked that. It was On but I turned it Off. What was it?

TAV
Mar 17, 2006, 09:52 PM
I'm guessing you were using shapeshifter or another theme-oriented program and it migrated over.

thegreatluke
Mar 17, 2006, 09:53 PM
Startup time MEANS NOTHING.

Please don't use it as a way to judge the performance of a computer.

There are way too many factors that change the time.
RAM, for instance, could change a 58 second startup time to 28 seconds.

Using the iMac Core Duo and the iMac G5 in the Apple Store, the iMac CD is many times faster.

nutmac
Mar 17, 2006, 10:02 PM
For me, before and after adding 2GB RAM to my iMac (20" Core Duo) made no discernible impact on the startup time. In both instances, iMac was very quick to boot (25 to 30 seconds). As others have pointed out, my guess is faulty migration, which has been known to cause problems.

As convenient as that feature maybe, do a clean install on the new iMac, install applications you need, and manually copy your user directories over.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 10:06 PM
As convenient as that feature maybe, do a clean install on the new iMac, install applications you need, and manually copy your user directories over.

Will doing that make it run faster or just startup faster? If it would just startup faster it's not worth the effort. But if it would run faster I might be inclined. :confused:

admanimal
Mar 17, 2006, 10:24 PM
When you say you copied everything over from your G5 iMac, you don't mean that you copied applications over too, right? Cause then most of your apps will be PPC and will be running via Rosetta, i.e. slowly.

Apple!Freak
Mar 17, 2006, 10:37 PM
When you say you copied everything over from your G5 iMac, you don't mean that you copied applications over too, right? Cause then most of your apps will be PPC and will be running via Rosetta, i.e. slowly.

Yes, but that's only when those programs are open. They have nothing to do with the startup.

This may sound silly but, would the power cord have anything to do with it, would it? I decided to use my old power cord that I used for my iMac G5 for my new Intel iMac because it was already wired through my desk.

I mean power is power right??

Philberttheduck
Mar 17, 2006, 10:45 PM
it's a little ontopic (according to thread) but have you noticed how slow regular-use apps like safari, quicktime are? i mean, i know they're run under rosetta and all, but sometimes it feels that my 2.4ghz/768ram PC is faster with the maxthon and wmp than safari and quicktime. rosetta ruins the speed of safari and quicktime for me, being that i am a first-time mac user. full screen in quicktime is a bitch.

Chundles
Mar 17, 2006, 10:48 PM
it's a little ontopic (according to thread) but have you noticed how slow regular-use apps like safari, quicktime are? i mean, i know they're run under rosetta and all, but sometimes it feels that my 2.4ghz/768ram PC is faster with the maxthon and wmp than safari and quicktime. rosetta ruins the speed of safari and quicktime for me, being that i am a first-time mac user. full screen in quicktime is a bitch.

I really hope you're joking.

Safari, Quicktime, all Apple apps installed on the Intel Macs are Universal Binaries. They are not running under Rosetta.

Having a bit of a troll are we?

Heb1228
Mar 17, 2006, 10:53 PM
Who in the hell cares about boot times? How many mac owners actually turn their computers OFF?
I second this comment. Render some movie files and let us know how the speeds compare.

Philberttheduck
Mar 17, 2006, 10:54 PM
quicktime won't read xvids/divx, etc codecs without rosetta.

gj buddy.

admanimal
Mar 17, 2006, 10:54 PM
Yes, but that's only when those programs are open. They have nothing to do with the startup.

Well, I'm not sure exactly how many applications you copied over from the G5, but if any of them are run in the background at startup (things that you don't ever see and can't control), then yes it could.

If you did copy all of your applications over from the G5, you really need to install the Universal ones from the install DVDs properly anyway, so you'd certainly be better off just doing a proper clean install.

codecs buddy. and safari requires to run under rosetta to enable FLASH. unless you enjoy watching that annoying pop-up "x-mime undetected.. blah blah" and unsucessfully getting safari to read.

quicktime won't read xvids/divx, etc codecs without rosetta.

gj buddy.

That's weird, my Flash plugin says it's universal...

EDIT: looks like you figured that out...and P.S. there is a beta quicktime divx Universal plugin

Philberttheduck
Mar 17, 2006, 11:08 PM
well i edited the post, figuring that it was working. i googled up some info on safari/flash conflict. it didn't help (and others were experiencing the same problems), as its a intel conflict probably.

i used espn.com and nba.com to test the flash when run without rosetta. and it popped up the same problem.

yeah, i downloaded the divx beta for intel and it works flawlessly. so the fullscreen aint that ugly no more.

so in the end, i edited the wrong part of my post. SAFARI STILL REQUIRES ROSETTA if you want to view flash-related materials. Quicktime is chill now..(fullscreen is on-par with ppc now :))

Chundles
Mar 17, 2006, 11:08 PM
quicktime won't read xvids/divx, etc codecs without rosetta.

gj buddy.

OH, sorry, didn't read all the invisible type where you were talking about running codecs and stufff like that.

Philberttheduck
Mar 17, 2006, 11:26 PM
OK, well i found the solution to the safari deal. i guess i answered my own problems (i'll give some credit to admanima, even though i already installed the beta like 3 days ago, and forgot about it until i made the posts..)

the stock flash component installed in intel imacs(/others?) is the only true universal flash (10.4.4). so if you decide to update your flash (or 10.4.5 update), youre pretty much screwed. Apple and Macromedia can point fingers at each other for this cuz iono who to choose.

if you have an intel unit and is experiencing this problem with flash-safari, i suggest downloading this and installing into your "internet plug-ins" to run with true intel speed.

link (http://idisk.mac.com/nickorchard/Public/Flash/Flash.Player.plugin.zip)

fixed the majority of my problems. i have encourntered one problem, but i forgot the link in which it said "required flash 8". possibly a flash movie?

admanimal
Mar 17, 2006, 11:46 PM
OK, well i found the solution to the safari deal. i guess i answered my own problems (i'll give some credit to admanima, even though i already installed the beta like 3 days ago, and forgot about it until i made the posts..)

the stock flash component installed in intel imacs(/others?) is the only true universal flash (10.4.4). so if you decide to update your flash (or 10.4.5 update), youre pretty much screwed. Apple and Macromedia can point fingers at each other for this cuz iono who to choose.

if you have an intel unit and is experiencing this problem with flash-safari, i suggest downloading this and installing into your "internet plug-ins" to run with true intel speed.

link (http://idisk.mac.com/nickorchard/Public/Flash/Flash.Player.plugin.zip)

fixed the majority of my problems. i have encourntered one problem, but i forgot the link in which it said "required flash 8". possibly a flash movie?

Ahhh now it all makes sense. I had heard about the problems people were having with flash, but I didnt get it cause mine always just worked (since I never tried to upgrade). My Mini came from the factory with 10.4.5, but maybe they also put the correct version of flash on there too. Thanks for clearing it up.

Arcus
Mar 18, 2006, 06:32 AM
Okay guys, talk about a disappointment! I just picked up a new 20" Intel Core Duo iMac from the Apple Store and after transfering everything over from my old 20" iMac (still keeping all the data on my old iMac though) I ran a startup test.

The Core Duo iMac clocked in at 75 seconds exactly from desktop to login screen restart.

The iMac G5 clocked in at 38 seconds (!!!!!) exactly from desktop to login screen restart.

What in the hell is going on here? The only thing I could think of that would be in the G5's favor is the 2GB of RAM it has over the 512MB in the Intel iMac. Would this really make that big of a difference and actually make the Intel iMac start up in its touted 18-second time if it has 2GB of RAM?

This really makes me want to return my new iMac right now and go back to the G5. :confused: :mad:

You are kidding right? The amount of time it takes to start up makes you want to return the iMac?

Dumbest thing I have heard in a while , really.

socamx
Mar 18, 2006, 08:41 AM
You are kidding right? The amount of time it takes to start up makes you want to return the iMac?

Dumbest thing I have heard in a while , really.

I'll second that. When I first got my Dual 1.8 G5 Rev. B it booted in 20 seconds flat originally. Now it boots a bit over 45 I'd guess. Don't see me bitching over 15 stupid seconds. Like really, it's the end of the whole wide world as we know it, heaven forbid a computer takes longer than a minute to boot.

Give the iMac a friggen chance already. Thread topic title is very misleading, thought someone did some well thought out benchmarks comparing the iMac G5 vs the Core Duo in real world tests. Guess the whole '!!!!!!!!!!' should have been a giveaway.

Did you even time it's boot before loading all your old stuff onto it anyway? 512 MB of ram isn't exactly very roomy to begin with either...

giffut
Mar 18, 2006, 09:02 AM
... could be two issues only, in my opinion:

1. You have plugins or other startup software pieces, which are transferred to your intel imac, but not yet universal binary. Therefore they run in rosetta compatibility mode, which is emulation and therefore slow.

2. Spotlight, after a installation, does process a new index file, which heavily slows down startup, too, until indexing is finished. Depending on the amount of readable data this might take one to four hours.

Apple!Freak
Mar 18, 2006, 12:18 PM
Well, I'm not sure exactly how many applications you copied over from the G5, but if any of them are run in the background at startup (things that you don't ever see and can't control), then yes it could.

If you did copy all of your applications over from the G5, you really need to install the Universal ones from the install DVDs properly anyway, so you'd certainly be better off just doing a proper clean install.

Just so you understand, the startup I'm talking about is the part where the computer first turns on. Not when you enter your password and login and it enters your account to your desktop.

Login programs have NOTHING to do with the way a computer starts up before you get to the LOGIN screen. Get it, Login programs, Login screen. :p

matperk
Mar 18, 2006, 03:45 PM
My MBP started up slowly the first time I restarted it to, but it got faster everytime and now it's insanely fast. I can be using my MBP, restart it, and be back up and running before my 3.2ghz HT P4 comes out of sleep.

generik
Mar 18, 2006, 04:45 PM
The Core Duo iMac clocked in at 75 seconds exactly from desktop to login screen restart.


Something's amiss.

It took my mini all of 7 secs to go from power on to desktop, and I kid you not.

2gb of ram in it though.. so that could be the cause.

eXan
Mar 18, 2006, 05:35 PM
Okay guys, talk about a disappointment! I just picked up a new 20" Intel Core Duo iMac from the Apple Store and after transfering everything over from my old 20" iMac (still keeping all the data on my old iMac though) I ran a startup test.

The Core Duo iMac clocked in at 75 seconds exactly from desktop to login screen restart.

The iMac G5 clocked in at 38 seconds (!!!!!) exactly from desktop to login screen restart.

What in the hell is going on here? The only thing I could think of that would be in the G5's favor is the 2GB of RAM it has over the 512MB in the Intel iMac. Would this really make that big of a difference and actually make the Intel iMac start up in its touted 18-second time if it has 2GB of RAM?

This really makes me want to return my new iMac right now and go back to the G5. :confused: :mad:

Just because G5 boots faster doesnt mean its a faster computer. Install more RAM in the CoreDuo and watch the results