PDA

View Full Version : Why is my new iMac 2.16 Core 2 slower than my eMac 1.25?




bear1973
Nov 6, 2006, 06:47 PM
I just received my new 20" iMac 2.16 Core 2 Duo. I love it, or want to love it, but I've noticed that it's really quite slow when doing things like switching applications, starting new ones, and sometimes just completing basic tasks like opening a file from Word or getting the print window to open. It took no less than 15 seconds to switch over to Dreamweaver, for example, and all I had open was Word, iChat, and Entourage. That's really not a lot.

The hard drive seems to be running constantly as it completes these tasks. This was one of the reasons I bought the computer - I hated these annoying little slow downs that occurred when doing basic tasks. (don't get me wrong, when I'm encoding video, this machine blows my old eMac away).

Is this because I'm still at 1 gig? My eMac had 768 MB and wasn't this slow. Does the Intel processor demand more RAM? I was hoping to hold off a bit.

Any ideas?



BornAgainMac
Nov 6, 2006, 06:58 PM
Memory will help. Those apps are pre-Intel apps. Once native Intel versions of these apps come out, you won't need as much memory and they will scream.

balamw
Nov 6, 2006, 07:18 PM
Definitely run as few PPC only applications that require Rosetta as you can. Dump Word and Entourage at least when performance is necessary. Substitute Pages and Mail.app if possible.

Memory may help since you report disc activity, but it might not take you all the way to where you want to be.

B

Arcus
Nov 6, 2006, 08:14 PM
Just want to add: Office applications were a sticking point with me but finding NeoOffice was one of the last things I needed to do a total household Mac conversion. Its OpenOffice with a different interface and you don't need X11.

Might want to check it out. I love it.

http://www.neooffice.org/

adrianblaine
Nov 6, 2006, 08:18 PM
Definitely run as few PPC only applications that require Rosetta as you can. Dump Word and Entourage at least when performance is necessary. Substitute Pages and Mail.app if possible.


I concur. None of those Apps that you mentioned are being run natively and are being emulated. More RAM will help with those until the universal versions come out.

bear1973
Nov 6, 2006, 09:15 PM
...that's got to be it. I wonder why I, MacUser for 20 years, didn't figure this out? I've owned nine or ten Macs now and just expect the new one to do everything faster when it comes out of the box.

I think I'll make the switch to Mail (although I'm so used to Entourage!), but doubt I'll be able to give up Word anytime soon.

As for RAM, will it make much difference if I grab another gig now for 1.5 gb and then pick up another 1 gig stick later for 2 GB, or does it really pay to get a matched pair. DataMem.com has one for $238 (2 gig matched), but I'm a bit tapped right now after the iMac.

Thanks again.

joe50000
Nov 6, 2006, 09:30 PM
...that's got to be it. I wonder why I, MacUser for 20 years, didn't figure this out? I've owned nine or ten Macs now and just expect the new one to do everything faster when it comes out of the box.

I think I'll make the switch to Mail (although I'm so used to Entourage!), but doubt I'll be able to give up Word anytime soon.

As for RAM, will it make much difference if I grab another gig now for 1.5 gb and then pick up another 1 gig stick later for 2 GB, or does it really pay to get a matched pair. DataMem.com has one for $238 (2 gig matched), but I'm a bit tapped right now after the iMac.

Thanks again.

Getting a Mac right now kinda sucks because it has top notch specs but the performance is hindered by the intel transition. I just got a 12" Powerbook from a friend and i'm surprised at how fast everything runs.

Nym
Nov 7, 2006, 10:27 AM
I'm sure you can manage until the Universal Binaries of Office and etc come out, I for one am bursting with hate because Adobe is monopolizing the Design Applications world (especially after buying Macromedia) and everyone is still waiting for the damn CS3 Universal. A lot of people are waiting for some UB's to come out, guess we'll just have to wait :) that's the only downside to Intel Mac's if you ask me, still, it's temporary.

Swarmlord
Nov 7, 2006, 10:34 AM
I'm sure you can manage until the Universal Binaries of Office and etc come out, I for one am bursting with hate because Adobe is monopolizing the Design Applications world (especially after buying Macromedia) and everyone is still waiting for the damn CS3 Universal. A lot of people are waiting for some UB's to come out, guess we'll just have to wait :) that's the only downside to Intel Mac's if you ask me, still, it's temporary.

Amazing how many more months it will take before the CS3 release also. I'm dyin' here!

miniConvert
Nov 7, 2006, 10:37 AM
...and the mega-wait for UB's continues! Rosetta is a pain, totally, but at least it means we're not in the dark until the major applications get moved.

Nym
Nov 7, 2006, 11:44 AM
Amazing how many more months it will take before the CS3 release also. I'm dyin' here!

Yep, let's organize a rally against Adobe :mad:

We want Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Flash, Dreamweaver NOW!!
What sickens me is that PC-Using Designers are winning the fight of Mac Vs PC :(

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 05:48 PM
That's a good thing. PCs are just plain better. People piss and moan about Microsoft trying to have a monopoly, but Apple is the company that refuses to let any third party developers build a computer. Apple wants all the profit. Apple has a monopoly on the Macintosh OS. It should be open ended just like Windows. Microsoft doesn't force people to buy a Microsoft PC, they license their software to hundreds of hardware manufacturers. So you can buy a Dell or a Gateway, or whatever you want. You even can do like me and just buy the parts and put a computer together. Apple won't let their customers have that kind of free will. They want you to use the system they setup, and nothing else. That's just plain B.S.

P.S. I work at a printing company and 90% of our work is in some sort of Adobe format, one thing I've noticed is OS X's GUI drains so much system performance that running all those Adobe apps is very taxing for the processor. Adobe just finally got smart, and realized that PCs and the Windows OS are more streamline for speed, not visual beauty. Apple worries too much about how their OS looks instead of how well it performs.

aussiemac86
Nov 8, 2006, 05:54 PM
That's a good thing. PCs are just plain better. People piss and moan about Microsoft trying to have a monopoly, but Apple is the company that refuses to let any third party developers build a computer. Apple wants all the profit. Apple has a monopoly on the Macintosh OS. It should be open ended just like Windows. Microsoft doesn't force people to buy a Microsoft PC, they license their software to hundreds of hardware manufacturers. So you can buy a Dell or a Gateway, or whatever you want. You even can do like me and just buy the parts and put a computer together. Apple won't let their customers have that kind of free will. They want you to use the system they setup, and nothing else. That's just plain B.S.

Wow from the look of this guys sig, looks like he doesnt have a mac....and from his post sounds like he isnt too keen on getting one anytime soon... do you think he took all that time to sign up just to become a troll??

Dude its macrumors, not troll rumors.

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 06:38 PM
I signed up because I work on Macs all day at work, and we have LOTS of trouble shooting todo, and this forum seemed to have a pretty large community going. And no I'll never waste my money on a Mac. From using the brand new G5s here at work, I know that I will never again own a Mac. For the first 5 years of computer use, I learned on a Mac. Then I used a Gateway at my friend's house, and I instantly realized the PC is more for my style. I love customizing. Just look at my car and you'll see that. Macs have little to no customization. Unless you count graphical changes in color schemes. I like knowing exactly what hardware is in a computer, and knowing that I put it together from scratch is a lot more satisfying than changing highlighted txt from Aqua to Graphite colors.

And as I've seen on this forum, and from work experience, Macs are more expensive, and they run slower. So why would I spend $3000 on a new G5, when I spent $400 on my PC and it runs faster than the G5s do?

balamw
Nov 8, 2006, 06:45 PM
So why would I spend $3000 on a new G5, when I spent $400 on my PC and it runs faster than the G5s do?
You wouldn't. Because a quad-core Xeon based Mac Pro (http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjects/BizCustom?qprm=78313&family=MacPro) will only set you back $2500.

EDIT: After years of building/specing my own PCs, I finally realized that I want to do work with my computers, not work on them. The time I have saved not "working on the computer" well make up for any additional cost for the Macs.

Furthermore, any Core Duo based machine like the current Macs can easily outperform any P4/Pentium-D 3 GHz box. At least my iMac keeps pace with the latest Dells we've received at work.

B

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 07:05 PM
Of course they can. Intel makes inforior PC Proccessors. I haven't had a pentium in my computer for years. And uh My computer has been running completely virus and bug free for damn near a year now. I haven't had to reformat or anything and I've switched out motherboards and proccessors - not because they broke but because I upgraded. And uh We have 7 macs here at work and one PC for the occassional Pagemaker file, and the Macs are constantly needing to be rebooted, and reformatted. The PC running Windows 2000 had been on for 3 months straight now with no rebooting or reformating needed. I just wish they would finish the integration of PC to Mac. It's silly to have these two OSs working against each other instead of with each other. Windows can now run on a Mac, so they should allow macs to run on PC hardware. Oh wait Apple wont allow that will they?

balamw
Nov 8, 2006, 07:12 PM
Of course they can. Intel makes inforior PC Proccessors.
Not only are you a troll, you're an uninformed troll.

Game Over? Core 2 Duo Knocks Out Athlon 64 (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/)

Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795)

B

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 07:12 PM
I signed up because I work on Macs all day at work, and we have LOTS of trouble shooting todo, and this forum seemed to have a pretty large community going. And no I'll never waste my money on a Mac. From using the brand new G5s here at work, I know that I will never again own a Mac. For the first 5 years of computer use, I learned on a Mac. Then I used a Gateway at my friend's house, and I instantly realized the PC is more for my style. I love customizing. Just look at my car and you'll see that. Macs have little to no customization. Unless you count graphical changes in color schemes. I like knowing exactly what hardware is in a computer, and knowing that I put it together from scratch is a lot more satisfying than changing highlighted txt from Aqua to Graphite colors.

And as I've seen on this forum, and from work experience, Macs are more expensive, and they run slower. So why would I spend $3000 on a new G5, when I spent $400 on my PC and it runs faster than the G5s do?

Yes PCs are faster. I think all we Mac users know this. Especially if you want to overclock.:rolleyes: As for customization, PCs are far superior. From casing to choosing fans, liquid cooling, etc. But then again, it's a PC. What would happen if Apple could allow you to do these things? C'mon, Apple computers are about elegance, simplicity. It's funny how EVERY PC manufacturer fails to top Apple's simplistic and elegnat designs. If you ask me what company has offered a case that's near Apple-like, I'd say Lian Li or Shuttle.

I'd like to state that people don't "waste" money on a Mac. I'd like to hear where YOU bought all you're components for $400 and how it's faster than a Mac Pro. C'mon, you know it's not anywhere as fast as you think. If you bought similar components and compare them to a Mac Pro, I guarantee you'll find that a Mac Pro is cheaper. For instance, build a server with similar specs to a Mac Pro. I've done this, and it's definitely well over $2500. Haven't you read articles on PC sites like Anandtech? Each Woodcrest processor cost around $700 EACH. This is buying from places like Newegg.com. I agree that Apple should have a mid-level desktop that has Conroe processors in them. But only time will tell if Apple will release such a product.

Anyway, I don't wanna get into the specifics, but people who buy Macs are usually design people, who want to use it for productivity and not gaming. But now Macs have an even better value: being able to run ANY OS. From Linux, to Windows. So now you can game on it. And boy is it heaven. :) Oh and I'd also like to state that Windows Vista uses a HELL of a lot of system resources. MORE than OS X that's a fact. And NOW Microsoft is going to be heavily reliant on their GUI. Following Apple's lead like they always are. :p

cubezilla
Nov 8, 2006, 07:19 PM
Those are just more stupid generalizations. Im a graphic designer and Im on my three macs at work all day. I only restart the macs for system updates whereas the pc that I have (and no longer need since i now run my print server from the mac) needs restarted at least once a week just for security updates and typically needs a hard restart because of freezing. You could find a personal example to support any opinion.

I've also got a couple cubes and a powermac g4 that Ive built up myself. I know the amount of parts available arent as widespread as they are for pcs but this satifies my need to tinker. Its a personal preference. And your personal work experience doesnt make your generalizing opinions correct.

aussiemac86
Nov 8, 2006, 07:21 PM
And uh My computer has been running completely virus and bug free for damn near a year now. I haven't had to reformat or anything and I've switched out motherboards and proccessors - not because they broke but because I upgraded.?

...So uh, hows that working for you with the ladies?

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 07:22 PM
Of course they can. Intel makes inforior PC Proccessors. I haven't had a pentium in my computer for years. And uh My computer has been running completely virus and bug free for damn near a year now. I haven't had to reformat or anything and I've switched out motherboards and proccessors - not because they broke but because I upgraded. And uh We have 7 macs here at work and one PC for the occassional Pagemaker file, and the Macs are constantly needing to be rebooted, and reformatted. The PC running Windows 2000 had been on for 3 months straight now with no rebooting or reformating needed. I just wish they would finish the integration of PC to Mac. It's silly to have these two OSs working against each other instead of with each other. Windows can now run on a Mac, so they should allow macs to run on PC hardware. Oh wait Apple wont allow that will they?

Yay for trolling! I guess you're an AMD fanboy aren't you? Well, Intel's processors have been whooping the crap out of AMD's processors. If you didn't know this by now, then you're dumb. :p

I work with Macs and PCs at work, and NONE of them have to be rebooted or reformatted. So I beg to differ. On all the machines we use, there's SEVERAL design programs installed, and used everyday. I have a MacBook Pro I use 24/7. I haven't had to reboot or shut down the computer. I always put it to sleep. I've done this with my other Apple computers as well. Not everyone will have the same experience of course, but in my experience, if you don't actually TRY to crash a computer, ANY computer will run flawlessly, not relating to what OS is used.

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 07:26 PM
Oh by the way, you're sig sucks. There's no such thing as a "Geforce FX 6600". Because there is one without the FX in it. :-P I have a 7800 GT. Beat that. :-P You might want to get that spelling of "Athalon" right too. Oh and uhh...You're PC SUCKS. :p Mine PWNS yours. :rolleyes:

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 07:35 PM
Yeah I am not looking foreward to Vista at all.
Ok. At work we have 2Ghz Core Duo Quad core G5s right?
I have a 3Ghz Athalon ok?
The RAM amount and Graphics card are the same, both the G5s, and my PC have Gaforce 6600 in them.

Doom3:
Mac G5 - 60fps
PC - 75fps

F.E.A.R.:
Mac G5 - 50fps
PC - 65 fps

These are the results I got from doing the framerate test that comes with the games.

Oh and I bought all my hardware from a company called D.I.T. I think their website is ditcorp.com

And as for elegance. The G5s look like large toasters (and heavy as hell), I prefer the origional iMac design. But all Macs usually look like they were geared toward girls.
And the simplicity thing is where I mainly get my dislike for Macs. Apple gave the ability for any joe schmo to pic up a mouse and use a computer. That's why we have so many idiots on myspace and aol. I think that if a person wants to use a computer, then learn about it. Know the machine your manipulating. My brother bought a $3000 laptop, and doesn't know a damn thing about computers. Why did he buy one. I spend most of my time uninstalling the Spyware, and adware he downloads.

I dunno. I took great pride in learning how a computer works, and what makes it do this and that. And I get kinda pissy when over half the computers in the world are being operated by morons. I remember the good old days, when people saw a DOS prompt and ran in fear. But I could, and still can zip around in DOS faster than any GUI either company has come up with.

Ignorance just pisses me off, and Apple paved the way for idiots to use a computer. And uh just to note, I'm not saying that if you own a mac your an idiot. I have to make that clear.

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 07:40 PM
yeah my PC isn't exactly the highest end you can get.
I suck at spelling, and I couldn't remember if it was an FX or not. the Macs here at work say they're a 6600 LE, but I know mine's not an LE.

Is Athlon better?

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 07:48 PM
Yeah I am not looking foreward to Vista at all.
Ok. At work we have 2Ghz Core Duo Quad core G5s right?
I have a 3Ghz Athalon ok?
The RAM amount and Graphics card are the same, both the G5s, and my PC have Gaforce 6600 in them.

Doom3:
Mac G5 - 60fps
PC - 75fps

F.E.A.R.:
Mac G5 - 50fps
PC - 65 fps

These are the results I got from doing the framerate test that comes with the games.

Oh and I bought all my hardware from a company called D.I.T. I think their website is ditcorp.com

And as for elegance. The G5s look like large toasters (and heavy as hell), I prefer the origional iMac design. But all Macs usually look like they were geared toward girls.
And the simplicity thing is where I mainly get my dislike for Macs. Apple gave the ability for any joe schmo to pic up a mouse and use a computer. That's why we have so many idiots on myspace and aol. I think that if a person wants to use a computer, then learn about it. Know the machine your manipulating. My brother bought a $3000 laptop, and doesn't know a damn thing about computers. Why did he buy one. I spend most of my time uninstalling the Spyware, and adware he downloads.

I dunno. I took great pride in learning how a computer works, and what makes it do this and that. And I get kinda pissy when over half the computers in the world are being operated by morons. I remember the good old days, when people saw a DOS prompt and ran in fear. But I could, and still can zip around in DOS faster than any GUI either company has come up with.

Ignorance just pisses me off, and Apple paved the way for idiots to use a computer. And uh just to note, I'm not saying that if you own a mac your an idiot. I have to make that clear.

Uhh, no. There was NEVER any 2 Ghz Quad Core G5 Power Macs. There was ONLY 2.5 Ghz Quads. By the way, you mixed up Core Duo in it. A G5 is a G5. A Core Duo is a Core Duo. Get your processors right.

And I'd like to ask, what OS are these games running on? C'mon, ports are never going to run as fast as natively developed games. By the way, F.E.A.R. was NEVER and NEVER will be, ported to Mac. So if you're saying that you ran F.E.A.R. on a G5, you're still wrong. Because you can't run Windows on a PowerPC based system. Halo was ported to Mac, and yes it does run slower than the PC version.

Looks like YOU don't know anything about computers. YOU should take the time to learn about computers and how to manipulate them. :p Can I ask if you know how to use Linux? :rolleyes:

Please stop your silly troll. :p

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 07:52 PM
yeah my PC isn't exactly the highest end you can get.
I suck at spelling, and I couldn't remember if it was an FX or not. the Macs here at work say they're a 6600 LE, but I know mine's not an LE.

Is Athlon better?

Athlons WERE better. Until Core Duos came out. And now Core 2 Duos are whooping all Athlons.

Oh and another comment on the FX matter. FX stopped at the Geforce 5000 series. Didn't I say that there was never an FX 6600? Please read. You might have a standard 6600, or a 6600 GT. Which is a little better than a Radeon 9800 Pro, which are both dated.

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 08:15 PM
Most all of the hardware in my computer is dated. Thats not the issue. Like I said I know my PC isn't the fastest out there. And the Quad core Macs have 2 Dual-core proccessors. PowerPC chips, not Intel, you need to read up a little more before you start being a prick. I'm not trying to be specific or split hairs, and that's what you're doing. I obviously struck a nerve with you, and now you're trying to nitpick every little typo.

Caught me. ooooohhhh

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 08:30 PM
Most all of the hardware in my computer is dated. Thats not the issue. Like I said I know my PC isn't the fastest out there. And the Quad core Macs have 2 Dual-core proccessors. PowerPC chips, not Intel, you need to read up a little more before you start being a prick. I'm not trying to be specific or split hairs, and that's what you're doing. I obviously struck a nerve with you, and now you're trying to nitpick every little typo.

Caught me. ooooohhhh

I know they're PowerPC G5 chips. YOU said that they're Core Duo Quad core G5s. It's alright that YOU can't read. If you read and type correctly, then you wouldn't have someone "nitpick" on your typos. You typed in, "Ok. At work we have 2Ghz Core Duo Quad core G5s right?" Go figure. :p

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 08:32 PM
But obviously you like trolls, so I'll nitpick at everything you come back at. Especially since you don't know your processors. :rolleyes:

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 08:37 PM
Sorry I only truly follow AMD.
IBM and Intel can't suck it. Intel overcharged for far too long with their Pentium series. And the PowerPC has always been a joke of a proccessor in my opinion. I will say though, we got a Dell here recently that has a 3Ghz Xeon, and it's fast as hell.

oh and when I said, "Is Athlon better?" I was refering to the spelling...Ass

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 08:45 PM
Sorry I only truly follow AMD.
IBM and Intel can't suck it. Intel overcharged for far too long with their Pentium series. And the PowerPC has always been a joke of a proccessor in my opinion. I will say though, we got a Dell here recently that has a 3Ghz Xeon, and it's fast as hell.

It's cuz you're an AMD fanboy! I use processors of all kinds. I don't care what company it's made by, as long as it does what I want it to do. ALL AMD, Intel, and IBM make great processors. PowerPC isn't a joke of a processor. In fact, it's extremely great for gaming. Why do you think Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo have shifted to using PowerPC processors in their next-gen gaming consoles? Because they're efficient for gaming. Anyway, let's end the troll here. Adios. :rolleyes:

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 08:53 PM
Actually I was fairly surprised to see that the new consoles were made using PowerPC chips.
Was Microsoft going with nVidia for their graphics again?
I know Nintendo stayed with ATI

fiercetiger224
Nov 8, 2006, 09:01 PM
Actually I was fairly surprised to see that the new consoles were made using PowerPC chips.
Was Microsoft going with nVidia for their graphics again?
I know Nintendo stayed with ATI

Microsoft went with ATI. Sony is nVidia.

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 8, 2006, 10:02 PM
I've already seen the specs for the comparison against Intel and AMD. The Duo 2 Core is much faster than the fastest AMD chip, but this is the first proccessor in a long time that Intel has made that even compared to AMDs line up.

And going WAY back. I've always ignored overclocking. You run too much of a risk for instability or just plain frying something.

I do have a question though. Is the Duo 2 Core a true 64-bit chip?
Because I've noticed over the years that companies like to mislead people and say two 32-bit proccessors make it a 64-bit machine, because that's not true. No matter how many chips you have, if it's based on 32-bit technology, then it's 32-bit. Right?

balamw
Nov 8, 2006, 11:42 PM
No matter how many chips you have, if it's based on 32-bit technology, then it's 32-bit. Right?
You're really keen on making the wrong generalizations.

Here's another generalization, but one based in verifiable facts.

Once upon a time there were CISC processors that were hardwired to do complex tasks and RISC processors that only knew how to do a few things. Now a days all current processors are essentially RISC cores that expose a CISC instruction set. Thus, you can have lots of processors that use a 64 bit RISC-like core, but look for all intents and purposes like a 32 bit CISC processor on the outside. Essentially the difference between processor instruction sets is largely a matter of "programming" of the simple instructions into more complicated ones. CPUs with a 32 bit instruction set will be 32 bit, while the innards could be identical to its 64 bit counterpart.

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_design

Note that this is not a new phenomenon. The earliest Intel processors that gave us the PC in the first place were strange 8/16 bit hybrids. 16 bit processors, used for all intents and purposes as 8 bit.

The 8086 is a 16-bit microprocessor chip designed by Intel in 1976, which gave rise to the x86 architecture. It has 29,000 transistors. The Intel 8088 (released shortly afterwards) was essentially the same chip, but with an external 8-bit data bus, allowing the use of cheaper and fewer supporting logic chips[1]. That 8088 processor is notable as the processor used in the original IBM PC.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

And yes, to answer the question Core 2 Duo processors present themselves as 64 bit CPUs.

B

fiercetiger224
Nov 9, 2006, 12:02 AM
You're really keen on making the wrong generalizations.

Here's another generalization, but one based in verifiable facts.

Once upon a time there were CISC processors that were hardwired to do complex tasks and RISC processors that only knew how to do a few things. Now a days all current processors are essentially RISC cores that expose a CISC instruction set. Thus, you can have lots of processors that use a 64 bit RISC-like core, but look for all intents and purposes like a 32 bit CISC processor on the outside. Essentially the difference between processor instruction sets is largely a matter of "programming" of the simple instructions into more complicated ones. CPUs with a 32 bit instruction set will be 32 bit, while the innards could be identical to its 64 bit counterpart.

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_design

Note that this is not a new phenomenon. The earliest Intel processors that gave us the PC in the first place were strange 8/16 bit hybrids. 16 bit processors, used for all intents and purposes as 8 bit.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086

And yes, to answer the question Core 2 Duo processors present themselves as 64 bit CPUs.

B

Sweeeet I'm glad another person here knows what they're talking about. :D Simply put, Core 2 Duo knocks out the Athlon FX-62.

Nym
Nov 9, 2006, 04:27 AM
SBleed@mchsi.co, look, you have to understand that Mac users don't buy them for the same reason you buy a PC, it's just a different computer philosophy and you should leave us as we want. For my experience at work (I've worked with both PC and Mac) I can tell you that I prefer Windows over Mac OS 9.2.2, however, OSX kicks XP arse any day of the week. It's not meant for gaming IMO, so enough of showing framerates to people who (generally) could care less about gaming, if we do want to play, we install bootcamp and run Windows natively, then we'll compare frame rates.

You're saying that your always cleaning up the adware and spyware your friend downloads, well... if he had a Mac you wouldn't have to :)
And don't compare G5's to the Core 2 Duo, nor Native running applications to the ones who still run under emulation! Why do you say Adobe is turning over to PC, because CS2 is not Universal yet? that's just not true.
When CS3 comes out, we'll see which OS behaves better with it.
And of course, the main reason why people buy Mac's is simply: Mac OSX :)
and that you can't get in a PC (don't throw Hackintosh stuff at me, that's illegal) and by the way, I would race my Windows against yours with my 24" iMac, it's fast as hell running it, faster than my PC ever was :)

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 9, 2006, 07:40 PM
Thnx for the CISC, and RISC explination, very insightful. I always was wondering exactly what was the basis for labeling a chip 8/16/32/64-bit.

And yes I do realize that Macs are purchased by people for different reasons, than a PC. They are both superior in their own right.

Like I said I learned how to use a computer on a Mac. But I like the free will you have with Windows. Apple locks you out of a lot of things for security reasons, which is a good idea, but at the same time it really limits how far you can customize, and edit the way your mac performs. Well, until they made it Unix. But I'm not familiar with Unix, I've heard for years that it was better than Windows, and the Mac OS, but I never knew where to find it.

Oh and the Hacintosh comment. No one has been able to make a decent OS X emulator, trust me I've looked.

I guess that's my problem. I'm a gamer, when I look at computer hardware, I look at benchmarks, and graphics performance. I buy computers for gaming. Design apps come in second place.

From using InDesign CS2 at work on a Mac, and InDesign CS on my PC at home, there really is no difference aside from the launch screen. So when people say Mac is better for designers, it's b.s. The programs run the same on either OS, and I've bean able to cross platform from Mac to PC and haven't had any compatibility problems. As for speed. The only real difference I've noticed is that the launch screen hangs around a little longer on the Mac, about 30sec longer.

They just need to start making all apps Universal, you buy one box, and it works on either OS, like every Blizzard game ever made. People shouldn't have to buy two different computers just because one's good for media, and the other is good for gaming. Thats' where I sway towards the PC. Multimedia works just as well on either OS, and games run faster on WinXP. Ok? neither is better cause we've all got our opinions. **** Microsoft, and **** Apple, they both suck actually.

Oh and uh, computers can't race. If you want to race I've got a car for that. And it is fast.

fiercetiger224
Nov 10, 2006, 12:56 AM
Thnx for the CISC, and RISC explination, very insightful. I always was wondering exactly what was the basis for labeling a chip 8/16/32/64-bit.

And yes I do realize that Macs are purchased by people for different reasons, than a PC. They are both superior in their own right.

Like I said I learned how to use a computer on a Mac. But I like the free will you have with Windows. Apple locks you out of a lot of things for security reasons, which is a good idea, but at the same time it really limits how far you can customize, and edit the way your mac performs. Well, until they made it Unix. But I'm not familiar with Unix, I've heard for years that it was better than Windows, and the Mac OS, but I never knew where to find it.

Oh and the Hacintosh comment. No one has been able to make a decent OS X emulator, trust me I've looked.

I guess that's my problem. I'm a gamer, when I look at computer hardware, I look at benchmarks, and graphics performance. I buy computers for gaming. Design apps come in second place.

From using InDesign CS2 at work on a Mac, and InDesign CS on my PC at home, there really is no difference aside from the launch screen. So when people say Mac is better for designers, it's b.s. The programs run the same on either OS, and I've bean able to cross platform from Mac to PC and haven't had any compatibility problems. As for speed. The only real difference I've noticed is that the launch screen hangs around a little longer on the Mac, about 30sec longer.

They just need to start making all apps Universal, you buy one box, and it works on either OS, like every Blizzard game ever made. People shouldn't have to buy two different computers just because one's good for media, and the other is good for gaming. Thats' where I sway towards the PC. Multimedia works just as well on either OS, and games run faster on WinXP. Ok? neither is better cause we've all got our opinions. **** Microsoft, and **** Apple, they both suck actually.

Oh and uh, computers can't race. If you want to race I've got a car for that. And it is fast.

Well if you know that people have their own opinions, then don't come to another forum trying to sway people towards buying a PC. If they want to get a Mac, let them get a Mac.

Apple doesn't "lock" people out. Security is good, and that's another reason why there isn't any spyware or viruses out on the Mac platform. Windows Vista is following the same scheme, whether you like it or not. It's much more annoying in Windows, because in fact, it's still Windows.

As for design apps, the "work environment" is different for each OS. The great thing about a Mac is that each program isn't in its own window. It's much easier to navigate through several windows on a Mac than it is on Windows. Your taskbar gets cluttered, while in OS X you can use Expose, etc. And alt + tab does get much more annoying when you have a lot of windows opened in Windows. Windows also has a few problems with font management, especially if you're using Flash. These are just a few quirks, but nonetheless, they're all just quirks. It's not "BS" that Macs are for designers, because there's a lot more hotkeys and not as many "quirks" to deal with. This helps with productivity. But aside from those facts, yes programs do work the same on both platforms. They're made to be that way for cross-platform compatibility, aside from the OS environment. Who cares if a program "hangs" for 30 secs. It's all about the work environment.

As for universal apps, some companies do it, some companies don't. It's according to their business model, and how much of a demand there is for the market type. And people don't have to buy two types of computers. Because now you can get one, an Apple computer. :o And even that, if you don't need OS X, then you can get a PC. It's a computer. :rolleyes:

What kind of car do you have? :p

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 10, 2006, 03:13 AM
Well if you know that people have their own opinions, then don't come to another forum trying to sway people towards buying a PC. If they want to get a Mac, let them get a Mac.

Apple doesn't "lock" people out. Security is good, and that's another reason why there isn't any spyware or viruses out on the Mac platform. Windows Vista is following the same scheme, whether you like it or not. It's much more annoying in Windows, because in fact, it's still Windows.

As for design apps, the "work environment" is different for each OS. The great thing about a Mac is that each program isn't in its own window. It's much easier to navigate through several windows on a Mac than it is on Windows. Your taskbar gets cluttered, while in OS X you can use Expose, etc. And alt + tab does get much more annoying when you have a lot of windows opened in Windows. Windows also has a few problems with font management, especially if you're using Flash. These are just a few quirks, but nonetheless, they're all just quirks. It's not "BS" that Macs are for designers, because there's a lot more hotkeys and not as many "quirks" to deal with. This helps with productivity. But aside from those facts, yes programs do work the same on both platforms. They're made to be that way for cross-platform compatibility, aside from the OS environment. Who cares if a program "hangs" for 30 secs. It's all about the work environment.

As for universal apps, some companies do it, some companies don't. It's according to their business model, and how much of a demand there is for the market type. And people don't have to buy two types of computers. Because now you can get one, an Apple computer. :o And even that, if you don't need OS X, then you can get a PC. It's a computer. :rolleyes:

What kind of car do you have? :p
-----------------------------------------------
Ok! Fonts are a WAAAAAAAAAAAY bigger problem on the Mac OS X. Windows places fonts in ONE folder the Mac OS places fonts in so many different directories that it's hard to track down which font was used for what document. I deal with that **** every day at work. People don't do a propper collect, and they end up with corrupt fonts. All this can be avoided if people just outlined their fonts.
MasterJuggler helps though.

I won't comment on the start-up times because nothing can be done about that.

I am not concerned with flash. the few times I have run into macromedia programs in the printing industry it was not pretty. Flash is for web authoring, not printing. You can build a beautiful vector image in freehand then try to run it through RAMpage, & run into ********s of problems.

And that last comment. Yes, this is why I feel Apple should losen up a little. Let the Mac OS run on any hardware. Let the Mac OS become just as universal as WinXP. Stop them from forcing people to buy their overpriced systems.

I don't hate apple, just frustrated with them. I want you to all understand that.

MacBoobsPro
Nov 10, 2006, 03:37 AM
-----------------------------------------------
Ok! Fonts are a WAAAAAAAAAAAY bigger problem on the Mac OS X. Windows places fonts in ONE folder the Mac OS places fonts in so many different directories that it's hard to track down which font was used for what document. I deal with that **** every day at work. People don't do a propper collect, and they end up with corrupt fonts. All this can be avoided if people just outlined their fonts.
MasterJuggler helps though.



Yes OSX does put fonts in a few locations but if you manage them all through FontBook then you wont have a problem at all. Its like iTunes if you look in your music folder its a complete mess but because you are managing your music through iTunes you never notice it.

As for collecting fonts as long as FontBook knows which font is which then it will collect the right one.

Im a graphic designer and have had no problems at all with fonts in OSX.

EDIT: Not aimed at anyone in particular but I hate it when people needlessly install Suitcase or something similar to manage fonts in OSX. They never give FontBook a try. Then they piss and moan that Fonts dont work in OSX. The reason why they dont work is because installing Suitcase just adds more things that can go wrong in the equation.

Fonts work flawlessly with FontBook. It comes free with OSX what more do people want?

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 10, 2006, 03:45 AM
Of course you haven't had problems, your a designer, not a printer. Things look great on screen, but don't always come out on paper the same way. Fontbook wont do **** for you in a printshop.

And MasterJuggler does a better job of managing fonts than Fontbook.

I didn't know this till recenetly, but RAMpage is very particular as to what files are being used.

Nym
Nov 10, 2006, 04:54 AM
You're missing the point :( Apple probably will never take the step towards having Mac OSX run on every hardware, and if it did, most of us would probably stop buying from them. The truth is that Apple is a strong company, with a very powerful brand and identity (if you work in graphic design you know what corporate identity is I presume), they sell you a package, for ex:

Apple's iMac, beautiful, unique and breakthrough design, quality hardware (not the fastest, but the most reliable and inter-compatible), the built-in iSight, the remote for enjoying FrontRow and all your media, the applications that most people would need to manage music, photos, videos, create dvd's, publish content to the web etc...
It operates seamlessly with every iPod and external hardware that they themselves sell (carrying the same breakthrough design and brand), you get home, see the unbelievable packaging, remove the iMac, plug it in, and Tiger is running perfectly, it even prompts you to take your user account picture with the iSight all in a beautiful 3D cube animation, you enter the OS and goddamn! it's like the extension of what the hardware looks like! No other company in the world offers you this kind of strong branding and they really believe in their products and identity, I respect that, as a company I like their philosophy. They're unique in their way of doing thing, by only giving you the option to run OSX on a Mac they're making sure that you see their OS as it's supposed to be and freeing you of all the Viruses that flood the web. You wanna customize it? like visually? or on a hardware level? if visually, get shapeshifter and candybar, if hardware, get a Mac Pro :)

Truth is, in my mac, I have both XP and OSX, and only this advantage is enough for me to choose for a mac. And games look great in a 24" display, F.E.A.R plays 100% fluid and it's awesome, and it only takes me 15 seconds to boot back to OSX.

PS - I work in a Design company, and we have only 1 PC for the odd file that appears, the rest are all Macs, and we never had a problem with fonts, sharing Internet and Folders, none of us has Anti-virus or firewall, the only time we lost work because of a computer shutdown was when the lights went off. Before I forget, "racing" serves for everything, even dog's and horses can race, and they're not cars.

Passante
Nov 10, 2006, 05:20 AM
Uhh, no. There was NEVER any 2 Ghz Quad Core G5 Power Macs. There was ONLY 2.5 Ghz Quads. By the way, you mixed up Core Duo in it. A G5 is a G5. A Core Duo is a Core Duo. Get your processors right.

And I'd like to ask, what OS are these games running on? C'mon, ports are never going to run as fast as natively developed games. By the way, F.E.A.R. was NEVER and NEVER will be, ported to Mac. So if you're saying that you ran F.E.A.R. on a G5, you're still wrong. Because you can't run Windows on a PowerPC based system. Halo was ported to Mac, and yes it does run slower than the PC version.

Looks like YOU don't know anything about computers. YOU should take the time to learn about computers and how to manipulate them. :p Can I ask if you know how to use Linux? :rolleyes:

Please stop your silly troll. :p

And the winner is...:rolleyes: ;)

Am3822
Nov 10, 2006, 05:56 AM
Disregarding the shooting match that goes on here for a moment -- given all that has been said, am I right in understanding that you think that people who are not into design but, rather, number crunching, should consider other options?

Nym
Nov 10, 2006, 06:21 AM
IMO, Mac's are good and suited for everything and anyone :)

Mord
Nov 10, 2006, 06:38 AM
I could call various people out on being silly in this thread but it would just add to the flames. but let me say this, I have four computers, one with an IBM G3, one with a motorola G4 one with an athlon 64 one with a core duo. Each was the best buy at the time, you choose your budget, then you choose your OS then you buy what's best for the money it's simple as.

Being an AMD fanboy or an intel fanboy or a RISC freak is stupid it's what does the job best for the money spent and right now apple is firmly in the right camp.

eXan
Nov 10, 2006, 07:33 AM
IMO, Mac's are good and suited for everything and anyone :)

Not true. The only group of people IMO Macs are not suited for is gamers.

Oh and BTW, as I've seen in someones signature, some people deserve the torures of Windows!

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 10, 2006, 01:20 PM
Each OS is good, K I like using either one, and yes we have 1PC also in our lab for the occational PC File, which since Quark 7 came out PC files have been more and more common.

As for packaging. The designs Apple comes up with are (Aside from the G5s) very feminine in design. And I'm not a girl or gay, so it doesn't really appeal to me at least.

No more bashing ok? Not from me or anyone else, this argument is going nowhere. I apologize to you & it just keeps going.

The only reason I feel the way I do is because of loyalty. I'm loyal to AMD because they gave Intel a run for their money for a long time. I like microsoft because their OS runs games and emulators perfectly. I'm really into oldschool gaming so having SNES emulators, and Genesis emulators is important. And don't suggest any Mac emulators, I've looked long and hard, their all really buggy ports of older PC versions of the emulators. Also Nintendo. Rather off subject a bit, but I've supported Nintendo, and only Nintendo since I was like 5years old. My loyalties run deep, and a pretty box or pretty OS isn't gonna change the way any of us feel. You Mac guys are touchy you know that? I said a couple of things wrong and it's just snowballing. Drop it, & let it go. I think the origional question was answered already. Let's let this thread die K?

nitynate
Nov 10, 2006, 01:28 PM
IMO, Mac's are good and suited for everything and anyone :)

Blasphemey!!!!!

Think about the children!

(gamers)

Nym
Nov 10, 2006, 03:16 PM
Mac's are good for everything else, not OSX, I run my games in Windows via Bootcamp and they run great :) it's still a Mac...

I'm not flaming you, we're just having a conversation, it's healthy to discuss different points of view IMO, one chould choose what he likes best, so if you like AMD then go for it, it's good that we all have a choice :)

And as a designer, I see Apple's work as "brilliant" in every way, I don't think it's feminine in any way :O It's the perfect "form follows function" rule in every little thing they do.
I bought a book from Taschen named "Designing the 21st Century" (which is a book about the greatest contemporary designers) and with no surprise, Jonathan Ive and the Apple Design Team are there, and believe me, it's not that easy to get your name in that book.
Do you know any other company that offers the simplicity that Apple does? I like the Apple Design crew because they leave out everything that you don't need, look at the iMac, it's one of the most well designed objects I've ever seen :O

fiercetiger224
Nov 10, 2006, 04:12 PM
Each OS is good, K I like using either one, and yes we have 1PC also in our lab for the occational PC File, which since Quark 7 came out PC files have been more and more common.

As for packaging. The designs Apple comes up with are (Aside from the G5s) very feminine in design. And I'm not a girl or gay, so it doesn't really appeal to me at least.

No more bashing ok? Not from me or anyone else, this argument is going nowhere. I apologize to you & it just keeps going.

The only reason I feel the way I do is because of loyalty. I'm loyal to AMD because they gave Intel a run for their money for a long time. I like microsoft because their OS runs games and emulators perfectly. I'm really into oldschool gaming so having SNES emulators, and Genesis emulators is important. And don't suggest any Mac emulators, I've looked long and hard, their all really buggy ports of older PC versions of the emulators. Also Nintendo. Rather off subject a bit, but I've supported Nintendo, and only Nintendo since I was like 5years old. My loyalties run deep, and a pretty box or pretty OS isn't gonna change the way any of us feel. You Mac guys are touchy you know that? I said a couple of things wrong and it's just snowballing. Drop it, & let it go. I think the origional question was answered already. Let's let this thread die K?

Macs designs are not "feminine," but more "elegant" or "charming" if you will. Well, if you don't wanna get bashed all the time, then don't come to a Mac forum stating that Apple sucks, etc. This is a Mac Forum, NOT a PC forum.

It's funny how you support Nintendo. They're like the Apple of the gaming world. :D As for the emulators, Windows does have better emulators. But you wanna know why? It's because more people have developed emulators on the platform. I guarantee you if more people developed emulators for Mac OS X than Windows, then you'd see the same thing.

cherfizzle
Nov 10, 2006, 05:46 PM
I just received my new 20" iMac 2.16 Core 2 Duo. I love it, or want to love it, but I've noticed that it's really quite slow when doing things like switching applications, starting new ones, and sometimes just completing basic tasks like opening a file from Word or getting the print window to open. It took no less than 15 seconds to switch over to Dreamweaver, for example, and all I had open was Word, iChat, and Entourage. That's really not a lot.

The hard drive seems to be running constantly as it completes these tasks. This was one of the reasons I bought the computer - I hated these annoying little slow downs that occurred when doing basic tasks. (don't get me wrong, when I'm encoding video, this machine blows my old eMac away).

Is this because I'm still at 1 gig? My eMac had 768 MB and wasn't this slow. Does the Intel processor demand more RAM? I was hoping to hold off a bit.

Any ideas?

its rosetta like everyone else said
rosetta got a performance boost in 10.4.8 so make sure your updated

xPismo
Nov 10, 2006, 05:54 PM
As for packaging. The designs Apple comes up with are (Aside from the G5s) very feminine in design. And I'm not a girl or gay, so it doesn't really appeal to me at least....my loyalties run deep... Drop it, & let it go.

Yup. :rolleyes:

Oh man, why do I have to be 'a girl or gay' to like clean design? I never get those kind of comments. The G5's were a mess anyway. Apple really needs to look at the size of the MP's, as they ate the whole cake while we wern't looking.

SBleed@mchsi.co
Nov 10, 2006, 06:16 PM
Macs designs are not "feminine," but more "elegant" or "charming" if you will. Well, if you don't wanna get bashed all the time, then don't come to a Mac forum stating that Apple sucks, etc. This is a Mac Forum, NOT a PC forum.

Elegant and charming sounds pretty girly to me sry.
And uh, I'm trying not to bash Apple K? I have said in the majority of my posts that both OS's are good in their own right.

[QUOTE]
It's funny how you support Nintendo. They're like the Apple of the gaming world. :D As for the emulators, Windows does have better emulators. But you wanna know why? It's because more people have developed emulators on the platform. I guarantee you if more people developed emulators for Mac OS X than Windows, then you'd see the same thing.

I kinda like to root forthe underdog, and I remember when Nintendo was on top so I want those days to come back again. ****it whatever.

eXan
Nov 11, 2006, 12:30 AM
Mac's are good for everything else, not OSX, I run my games in Windows via Bootcamp and they run great :) it's still a Mac...

I said Mac arent for gamers, I didnt say it could not run games.

Gamers are people who consatnly change/upgrade their computers when faster components are released. They need a fast single/dual core CPU and a wicked fast video card (both to be upgrabable). They also like to overclock. Mac isnt built for such things, getting a Mac Pro for gaming is even worse than getting a PC with Windows for creative work. You dont need two $1000 dual-core CPUs, 8 RAM slots, 4 hard drive bays and two Gigabit Ethernet to run games. A waste of money.

Sequence
Nov 11, 2006, 03:41 AM
If you guys are using Photoshop alot on an Intel Mac, I suggest running it in Boot Camp so it runs natively... At least until Adobe releases CS3.

My 2 cent...

bousozoku
Nov 11, 2006, 04:34 AM
If you guys are using Photoshop alot on an Intel Mac, I suggest running it in Boot Camp so it runs natively... At least until Adobe releases CS3.

My 2 cent...

That's a lot of cost to buy Windows and Photoshop for Windows or for you to transfer your Photoshop licence to Windows and then, Adobe asks why you're transferring it back to Mac OS X later.