PDA

View Full Version : Tried an imac today... highly disappointed!


goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 08:22 AM
I'm not a Mac owner and normally do not have access to a store to try out products. I'm seriously considering the new emac 1.25ghz for home use... mainly the iphoto, itunes, and garageband apps. But after trying an imac recently in a store, I now have serious concerns about performance.

I was at a retail store yesterday and was able to try out an imac for the first time. It was a 15" 800mhz model with 256MB and Panther 10.3.2 OS. I was very impressed with the responsiveness of the UI and found it very easy to navigate.

So I proceeded to plug up my flash card reader with four high resolution (4 megapixel) photos on it to test iPhoto. iPhoto 2 came up. The import went flawlessly. Scrolling around and previewing the pictures worked great. When I tried out Edit mode, however, things really bogged down. Moving from one image to the next took 2-3 seconds. Adjusting the contrast and brightness was similarly sluggish. iPhoto was the only application running on the machine.

My question is, if I do go for the emac, is it going to be substantially faster doing these iPhoto edit operations? Will 512MB RAM also improve the performance? I understand that iPhoto 4 improved performance for large albums, but I was only dealing with 4 pictures here. I was really unimpressed with the 800mhz G4. So what it boils down to is... will a 1.25ghz G4 be substantially faster, or should I go for a low end G5?

Thanks for everyone's input.

Bear
Apr 21, 2004, 08:32 AM
If the machine had iPhoto 2, what version of Mac OS X did it have on it? I'd guess 10.2.x probably.

10.3 (Panther) and iTunes 4 improves performance in a lot of areas. I'd suggest you find a store that has a 1.25GHz iMac or eMac and try your test there.

Another difference between what you used and the 1.25GHz (both iMac and eMac) is the speed of the system bus. The 800MHz system had a 100MHz bus and the 1.25GHz have a 167MHz bus and uses DDR ram. The L2 cache on the eMac is twice the size, so that will help as well.

wrldwzrd89
Apr 21, 2004, 08:32 AM
I'm not a Mac owner and normally do not have access to a store to try out products. I'm seriously considering the new emac 1.25ghz for home use... mainly the iphoto, itunes, and garageband apps. But after trying an imac recently in a store, I now have serious concerns about performance.

I was at a retail store yesterday and was able to try out an imac for the first time. It was a 15" 800mhz model with 256MB and Panther 10.3.2 OS. I was very impressed with the responsiveness of the UI and found it very easy to navigate.

So I proceeded to plug up my flash card reader with four high resolution (4 megapixel) photos on it to test iPhoto. iPhoto 2 came up. The import went flawlessly. Scrolling around and previewing the pictures worked great. When I tried out Edit mode, however, things really bogged down. Moving from one image to the next took 2-3 seconds. Adjusting the contrast and brightness was similarly sluggish. iPhoto was the only application running on the machine.

My question is, if I do go for the emac, is it going to be substantially faster doing these iPhoto edit operations? Will 512MB RAM also improve the performance? I understand that iPhoto 4 improved performance for large albums, but I was only dealing with 4 pictures here. I was really unimpressed with the 800mhz G4. So what it boils down to is... will a 1.25ghz G4 be substantially faster, or should I go for a low end G5?

Thanks for everyone's input.
How much RAM did that 800 MHz iMac have? If it had only 128 MB, I could understand it being slow. Mac OS X likes RAM - I'd bet that if you made no other change to that iMac other than putting 512 MB of RAM in it, the performance would increase quite a bit. The same goes for the eMac you're thinking of getting - 512 MB of RAM will help any Mac go faster. The processor speed will make a difference, but the difference with adding RAM may actually equal or be greater than the boost you would get from processor speed alone.

mikeyredk
Apr 21, 2004, 08:34 AM
right now the emac rocks the imac by just a bit

the emac is using the new g4 processors while the imacs are still using the ones in the powermacs

if you want an imac wait until they get updated with a g5 :D or a better g4 :(

wrldwzrd89
Apr 21, 2004, 08:35 AM
If the machine had iPhoto 2, what version of Mac OS X did it have on it? I'd guess 10.2.x probably.

10.3 (Panther) and iTunes 4 improves performance in a lot of areas. I'd suggest you find a store that has a 1.25GHz iMac or eMac and try your test there.

Another difference between what you used and the 1.25GHz (both iMac and eMac) is the speed of the system bus. The 800MHz system had a 100MHz bus and the 1.25GHz have a 167MHz bus and uses DDR ram. The L2 cache on the eMac is twice the size, so that will help as well.
Bear - Did you read the original post thoroughly? It says the iMac had 10.3.2 on it. I agree with you about the system bus and L2 cache - both of those factors will increase the performance difference as well.

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 08:39 AM
right now the emac rocks the imac by just a bit

the emac is using the new g4 processors while the imacs are still using the ones in the powermacs

if you want an imac wait until they get updated with a g5 :D or a better g4 :(

The main attraction of the emac is price. $999 including an 8x SuperDrive is awesome. I do not want to spend $1800 or so on an imac.

I repeat... I do not have access to a store to try these products out.

Can anyone here confirm that a 1.25Ghz imac (should be similar to in performance to the new emacs) can do these iPhoto edit operations on 4 megapixel pictures in a responsive manner?

Lucky736
Apr 21, 2004, 08:46 AM
You were trying to scroll b/t 4 megapixel photos on 256MB RAM? It should take a few seconds as each photo is probably what, 2megs or so give or take? Those arnt small photos its not like you had 640x480 webshots.

Mike

Rincewind42
Apr 21, 2004, 08:50 AM
Can anyone here confirm that a 1.25Ghz imac (should be similar to in performance to the new emacs) can do these iPhoto edit operations on 4 megapixel pictures in a responsive manner?

I can't, but I can confirm that you can smoothly edit 5MP photos on a TiBook 1Ghz with iPhoto 4. The TiBook has a slower system bus, slower CPU, but has 1GB of RAM. You can probably extrapolate from there.

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 09:00 AM
I can't, but I can confirm that you can smoothly edit 5MP photos on a TiBook 1Ghz with iPhoto 4. The TiBook has a slower system bus, slower CPU, but has 1GB of RAM. You can probably extrapolate from there.
Great! Exactly what I needed to know. I had a hunch that the 256MB on my test machine was the bottleneck.

I was thinking of ordering an emac 1.25ghz with 512MB. Do you think that is enough to eliminate the problem?

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 09:10 AM
The main attraction of the emac is price. $999 including an 8x SuperDrive is awesome. I do not want to spend $1800 or so on an imac.

I repeat... I do not have access to a store to try these products out.

Can anyone here confirm that a 1.25Ghz imac (should be similar to in performance to the new emacs) can do these iPhoto edit operations on 4 megapixel pictures in a responsive manner?

goatsniper,

I love my 1 GHz iMac with 768 MB RAM and running Panther. I'm sure anyone using this computer would be happy- it's a great machine. However, I have to be completely honest with you here: iPhoto runs brutally on my machine.

Last week, I tried compiling photos of my kids in one of the Kodak photo albums (a neat option) but I just got fed up. iPhoto is a great app for organizing your photos (I have 3300) and finding the one you need quickly BUT whenever I try editing something in iPhoto, it simply takes too long. My preferences are now set up to automatically open PhotoStudio X when I hit the "edit" button.

Macs are great and iPhoto is a handy tool but I don't think it's meant to do major editing.

Squire

edit: I timed certain actions.

loading (3347 pictures) 5.12 seconds
scrolling top to bottom (@12 pics/page) 2 seconds
edit/PhotoStudio opening (2.6 MB pic) 5.78 seconds
edit to B&W (2.6 MB pic)* 5.90 seconds
edit to Sepia (2.6 MB pic)* 4.97 seconds
enhance (2.6 MB pic)* 5.27 seconds

(* Asterisks indicate editing actions performed by iPhoto.)

Actually, I'm sort of impressed. These times seemed like nothing compared to the Kodak Photo Album fiasco the other day. I hope this helps. Cheers.

tristan
Apr 21, 2004, 09:14 AM
It's the RAM. With 128 or 256 megs (what the systems in most stores have) OS X is slower than an Emma Thompson movie. 512 should be considered a minimum.

Also, if I bought that machine and took it home, after I put in the RAM, I'd probably reinstall the OS. You never know what they did to that poor eMac, so you'd want to start fresh to make sure you're getting the most out of it.

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 09:24 AM
Now I'm confused.

I have one person who claims to smoothly edit 5MP photos on a TiBook 1Ghz with 1GB and another who claims that editing in iPhoto is "brutal" on a 1Ghz imac with 768MB.

Which is it? :confused:

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 09:26 AM
Please see my edited post above.

Squire

wrldwzrd89
Apr 21, 2004, 09:26 AM
Now I'm confused.

I have one person who claims to smoothly edit 5MP photos on a TiBook 1Ghz with 1GB and another who claims that editing in iPhoto is "brutal" on a 1Ghz imac with 768MB.

Which is it? :confused:
Maybe one has iPhoto 4 and the other iPhoto 2? That would make a difference if that was the case, given the numerous performance improvements made to iPhoto 4 over iPhoto 2.

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 09:29 AM
Maybe one has iPhoto 4 and the other iPhoto 2? That would make a difference if that was the case, given the numerous performance improvements made to iPhoto 4 over iPhoto 2.

I'm running iLife '04.
Panther
1 GHz iMac
768 MB RAM


Squire

wrldwzrd89
Apr 21, 2004, 09:31 AM
I'm running iLife '04.
Panther
1 GHz iMac
768 MB RAM


Squire
Now I'm confused too. :confused: Why such a big performance difference? Does Rincewind42 have a photo album of significantly different size from Squire's 3347?

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 09:34 AM
Sorry for the double post here.

goatsniper,

I have iPhoto open right now. Are there any other operations you'd like me to try out for you? I'd be more than happy to do so. (By the way, I have a Canon PowerShot G2.) Nothing too tricky, though, as I'm no expert at computing or photography. ;)

Squire

Edit: I'm going to backtrack a little here. You claimed that moving from one hi-resolution pic to another took 2-3 seconds. I just tried it and it was almost instantaneous. Tell me what you think of the numbers I posted. They seemed okay to me. My biggest beef was with the Kodak Photo book exercise. It was truly brutal. I'm patient, but it was almost too much for me. Now, here, with my stopwatch in hand, the rest of iPhoto's functions seem okay.

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 09:39 AM
I'm running iLife '04.
Panther
1 GHz iMac
768 MB RAM

loading (3347 pictures) 5.12 seconds
scrolling top to bottom (@12 pics/page) 2 seconds
edit/PhotoStudio opening (2.6 MB pic) 5.78 seconds
edit to B&W (2.6 MB pic)* 5.90 seconds
edit to Sepia (2.6 MB pic)* 4.97 seconds
enhance (2.6 MB pic)* 5.27 seconds


Yikes! Now I'm really re-thinking the emac decision. I also have about 3000 pictures in my collection. Those edit operations are not what I would call responsive.

Another question, do you have to open/close PhotoStudio to edit each picture or can you do a batch of them at once?

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 09:45 AM
Yikes! Now I'm really re-thinking the emac decision. I also have about 3000 pictures in my collection. Those edit operations are not what I would call responsive.

Another question, do you have to open/close PhotoStudio to edit each picture or can you do a batch of them at once?

I can't answer that. Perhaps there's a way to "batch" edit. Keep in mind, though, that my system preferences are set to open PhotoStudio when I click the "edit" button. This feature can be disabled so that all editing is done right within iPhoto.

Squire

7on
Apr 21, 2004, 09:49 AM
Now I'm confused.

I have one person who claims to smoothly edit 5MP photos on a TiBook 1Ghz with 1GB and another who claims that editing in iPhoto is "brutal" on a 1Ghz imac with 768MB.

Which is it? :confused:

The person with that 1Ghz iMac never stated that he had iPhoto4, which would come with any new Mac. iPhoto 4 is at least 30-50% faster than earlier versions.

http://www2.truman.edu/~jps137/web/iphoto.avi (requires DivX and sorry, I couldn't find a way to change the video size in QT Pro compressing it to divx, recorded with an iSight)

encro
Apr 21, 2004, 09:50 AM
Bear - Did you read the original post thoroughly? It says the iMac had 10.3.2 on it. I agree with you about the system bus and L2 cache - both of those factors will increase the performance difference as well.

Same for you wrldwzrd89!!! :rolleyes: It mentions in the original post that the iMac has 256Meg yet you ask how much memory it had ( and assumed it only had 128Meg ). The original TFT iMac was released with 256Meg of Ram by default anyway :p :D

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 09:51 AM
I can't answer that. Perhaps there's a way to "batch" edit. Keep in mind, though, that my system preferences are set to open PhotoStudio when I click the "edit" button. This feature can be disabled so that all editing is done right within iPhoto.
Well, I already have a copy of PhotoShop Elements for Mac. That was the reason for asking. It seems kinda tedious to open/close an app 20 or 30 times to edit a batch of pictures.

cait-sith
Apr 21, 2004, 09:52 AM
is it really worth the extra 2 to 3 000$ just to change loading times for image ops by 2 seconds?

it's not like we are talking 1 minute versus 10 seconds -- it's 5 versus 2.5 seconds.

the emac breaks the triangle -- it's fast, cheap, and good. just make sure you have >=512M ram in it.

wrldwzrd89
Apr 21, 2004, 09:56 AM
Same for you wrldwzrd89!!! :rolleyes: It mentions in the original post that the iMac has 256Meg yet you ask how much memory it had ( and assumed it only had 128Meg ). The original TFT iMac was released with 256Meg of Ram by default anyway :p :D
Oops, silly me :o I guess I need to read the post more carefully, too. I should have checked http://www.apple-history.com/ to see how much RAM that particular iMac came with (I have it bookmarked).

MacAficionado
Apr 21, 2004, 09:59 AM
An Apple Store that has iPhoto 2 still in their machines does not sound right at all.
You have to realize that the computers in the store will be slower due to people opening up many apps, their hard drives are nearly full with demos for many applications, and if the staff is not updating their software, then that makes it even worse.

I've seen iMacs that have nearly every app in the dock open including an iSight windows showing video. Needless to say it was sloooooooow to the point I had to quit every application. It should have crashed right there. I thought it was going to freeze. But it did not. Once I closed every app, everything was good.

Do not think that the iMac is that slow, it probably isn't. I know Garage Band is slow also on the in store demos on the iMacs, but when I installed it at home (2x867) it was nice and responsive.

My 2



:)

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 10:04 AM
An Apple Store that has iPhoto 2 still in their machines does not sound right at all.
You have to realize that the computers in the store will be slower due to people opening up many apps, their hard drives are nearly full with demos for many applications, and if the staff is not updating their software, then that makes it even worse.

I've seen iMacs that have nearly every app in the dock open including an iSight windows showing video. Needless to say it was sloooooooow to the point I had to quit every application. It should have crashed right there. I thought it was going to freeze. But it did not. Once I closed every app, everything was good.

Do not think that the iMac is that slow, it probably isn't. I know Garage Band is slow also on the in store demos on the iMacs, but when I installed it at home (2x867) it was nice and responsive.

:)

In this case, the machine was turned off when I got there. The person in the store powered it on and I literally sat down and hooked up my flash card reader to try iPhoto.

He also claimed that they had just reloaded the box a couple days before when they installed Panther. I have no idea why iPhoto 2 was on there, but he did offer to install version 4 for me. I just didn't have enough time to wait and try it out.

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 10:07 AM
Good point, MacAficionado. There are only two operations that really bother my Mac: One is the iPhoto Book problem mentioned above and two is playback of one of my GarageBand tunes (23.5 MB with 14 tracks).

Squire

Edit: I recall trying to edit stuff on iPhoto 2 (just simple B&W changes, for example) and having to scroll back one pic, then forward to see the result. No, I'm quite happy with my 5 seconds. ;)

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 10:11 AM
The person with that 1Ghz iMac never stated that he had iPhoto4, which would come with any new Mac. iPhoto 4 is at least 30-50% faster than earlier versions.

http://www2.truman.edu/~jps137/web/iphoto.avi (requires DivX and sorry, I couldn't find a way to change the video size in QT Pro compressing it to divx, recorded with an iSight)

Awesome video! That helps a lot. You guys are extremely helpful and I appreciate all the input.

From this, I have finally concluded that half of the problem (the scrolling issue) was a memory bottleneck. 256MB is not enough to smoothly move between 4MP pics. It seems the editing features (b/w, sepia, enhance) are processor bound. I'm looking at 4-6 seconds response time here.

brhmac
Apr 21, 2004, 10:13 AM
Have we become that impatient?

Does 5 seconds to manipulate almost 3 megabytes of data really rise to the level of "brutal"?

Krizoitz
Apr 21, 2004, 10:26 AM
iPhoto 2 came up. The import went flawlessly. Scrolling around and previewing the pictures worked great. When I tried out Edit mode, however, things really bogged down. Moving from one image to the next took 2-3 seconds. Adjusting the contrast and brightness was similarly sluggish. iPhoto was the only application running on the machine.

First you are talking about not one but two generation old software. And performance is one of the things they have really focused on improving with iPhoto upgrades, especially version 4.

Second, I'm not sure how this time compares to other applications so I can't give you a good gauge but I'm running an 800mhz iMac 17" with iPhoto 3 and moving between images in the edit mode (4 megapix images) takes less than a second. Similarly brightness and contrast are snappy too. Black and White takes a couple seconds as does the auto-enhance feature. Oh and I have Folding@Home running in the background plus eyeTV is recording a show.

blackfox
Apr 21, 2004, 10:29 AM
Perhaps this is ignoring the problem, but iPhoto 2 was god awful and I have long switched to iView MediaPro...a better program than iPhoto in almost every way...although I cannot comment on how it compares with v.4...The eMac is a great looking machine, if this is all that is holding you back, you may want to consider this alternative...here is a link:
http://www.iview-multimedia.com/products/mediapro/profeatures1.html

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 10:29 AM
Have we become that impatient?

Does 5 seconds to manipulate almost 3 megabytes of data really rise to the level of "brutal"?

Whoa! Please reread what I posted earlier.

I specifically mentioned that working with the Photo Book aspect of iPhoto was brutal and then went on to say that the 5 seconds for completing the other commands was okay. I'll gladly show you what I call "brutal" performance.

1) I have a 40-page photo album set up. To move the scroll bar from page one to the last page takes 5 seconds. It's not even a fluid 5 seconds- it jumps over an inch, stops, and moves over 2 more inches, then ends up at the end.

2) To move a page location (say switching the locations of pages 37 and 38) takes 8 seconds. I got the beachball and, in the end, the page didn't go where i wanted it to go.

I could go on, but I think you see my point. The performance of iPhoto 4 on the Kodak Photo Book tasks is brutal. Make a full album (40 pages), load it with 40-60 fairly high quality shots, and play around with it. The 5 seconds is not a problem editing a pic to B&W. The 8 seconds that it took to NOT get the location of my photo book pages correct was not acceptable.

Squire

wrldwzrd89
Apr 21, 2004, 10:30 AM
First you are talking about not one but two generation old software. And performance is one of the things they have really focused on improving with iPhoto upgrades, especially version 4.

Second, I'm not sure how this time compares to other applications so I can't give you a good gauge but I'm running an 800mhz iMac 17" with iPhoto 3 and moving between images in the edit mode (4 megapix images) takes less than a second. Similarly brightness and contrast are snappy too. Black and White takes a couple seconds as does the auto-enhance feature. Oh and I have Folding@Home running in the background plus eyeTV is recording a show.
No, it's only one generation behind. Did you see the keynote where Steve Jobs introduced iPhoto 4? If you didn't, he said he was going straight from iPhoto 2 to iPhoto 4, skipping 3. So there is no such thing as "iPhoto 3".

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 10:31 AM
Have we become that impatient?

Does 5 seconds to manipulate almost 3 megabytes of data really rise to the level of "brutal"?

My main concern is to not take a step backward in performance. My current setup is a dual 733 PIII / 256MB machine running Win XP.

To compare, the one-click auto enhance feature in Photoshop Elements is nearly instantaneous on my box with 4MP pics. Sepia and B/W filters work likewise.

Not to compare PSE with iPHoto, but yes, I could get impatient waiting 5 seconds to enhance a photo on a new machine when I have 100 of them to do.

From an earlier post, I learned that I could still use PSE to edit from iPhoto, but I still need to launch the app EVERY TIME I want to edit a new pic. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but that sucks too. :mad:

wrldwzrd89
Apr 21, 2004, 11:02 AM
My main concern is to not take a step backward in performance. My current setup is a dual 733 PIII / 256MB machine running Win XP.

To compare, the one-click auto enhance feature in Photoshop Elements is nearly instantaneous on my box with 4MP pics. Sepia and B/W filters work likewise.

Not to compare PSE with iPHoto, but yes, I could get impatient waiting 5 seconds to enhance a photo on a new machine when I have 100 of them to do.

From an earlier post, I learned that I could still use PSE to edit from iPhoto, but I still need to launch the app EVERY TIME I want to edit a new pic. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but that sucks too. :mad:
There is another way...don't go through iPhoto at all! Open Photoshop (or whatever editing application you want to use), then navigate to the iPhoto library folder, and inside there, find the picture you want to edit. This saves you from needlessly launching and relaunching your editor app. It has one downside, though - you may not know which photo is which in your iPhoto library folder. That's what the Preview column in Column view (used in Open & Save dialogs) (if enabled) is for, right?

ingenious
Apr 21, 2004, 11:13 AM
I'm not a Mac owner and normally do not have access to a store to try out products. I'm seriously considering the new emac 1.25ghz for home use... mainly the iphoto, itunes, and garageband apps. But after trying an imac recently in a store, I now have serious concerns about performance.

I was at a retail store yesterday and was able to try out an imac for the first time. It was a 15" 800mhz model with 256MB and Panther 10.3.2 OS. I was very impressed with the responsiveness of the UI and found it very easy to navigate.

So I proceeded to plug up my flash card reader with four high resolution (4 megapixel) photos on it to test iPhoto. iPhoto 2 came up. The import went flawlessly. Scrolling around and previewing the pictures worked great. When I tried out Edit mode, however, things really bogged down. Moving from one image to the next took 2-3 seconds. Adjusting the contrast and brightness was similarly sluggish. iPhoto was the only application running on the machine.

My question is, if I do go for the emac, is it going to be substantially faster doing these iPhoto edit operations? Will 512MB RAM also improve the performance? I understand that iPhoto 4 improved performance for large albums, but I was only dealing with 4 pictures here. I was really unimpressed with the 800mhz G4. So what it boils down to is... will a 1.25ghz G4 be substantially faster, or should I go for a low end G5?

Thanks for everyone's input.

Yes, I the eMac will be faster. iPhoto 2 had some speed issues that iPhoto 4 cleared up. It will come with your new computer.

vouder17
Apr 21, 2004, 12:53 PM
Ok well i have a 233mhz imac 384MB RAM, and have iPhoto 4, it took only 11 seconds to convert a 5megapixel picture to black and white with 4 other apps open. Which compared to everyone else i think it is quite fast!!

But that is just what i think. I reckon you wll be more than happy with the 1.25Ghz emac, and i think you should perhaps fill it up with RAM, and i don't think you will notice any problems with the new eMac's

rueyeet
Apr 21, 2004, 01:02 PM
From an earlier post, I learned that I could still use PSE to edit from iPhoto, but I still need to launch the app EVERY TIME I want to edit a new pic. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but that sucks too. :mad:Edit the photos directly in Photoshop first, then import. iPhoto is mostly meant as an organizer, not a full-featured image editor. Sure, the functions are there, but they're intended more for the average Joe who takes a dozen or so moderate-resolution shots and then just wants a quick touch-up, not a pro or power-consumer who wants to batch-edit hundreds of hi-res photos.

And yes, definitely the more memory the better for OS X.

learthur
Apr 21, 2004, 01:11 PM
I think the REAL question is "Is a 1.25 Ghz G4 fast enough for casual use?" It most certainly is fast enough for all the iLife apps, especially iLife '04 which comes now standard with Panther (10.3.3).

Don't even hesitate. Having switched from the PC world myself 20 months ago, I can tell you, in the store your first impressions and skeptical attitude (like mine) may in some areas leave you wondering about the speed. Once you get the machine home and use it for a couple weeks, all your fears, concerns, and skepticism will vanish--guaranteed! In fact, you will probably join the tribe of Mac zealots.

In general, I think anything slower than 1GHZ G4 runs a bit sluggish. Once you get to 1GHZ and for sure at 1.25GHZ, things run VERY smooth. Remember that a 100MHZ speed bump in a G4 is A LOT more speed bump (as far as your UI perception anyway) than 100MHZ in a Pentium 4.

There is no doubt in my mind the new eMac is a great machine.
Enjoy it!

cdp788
Apr 21, 2004, 01:50 PM
Great! Exactly what I needed to know. I had a hunch that the 256MB on my test machine was the bottleneck.

I was thinking of ordering an emac 1.25ghz with 512MB. Do you think that is enough to eliminate the problem?

you may want to order it with stock memory and then get the additional mem. stick from crucial. apple's markups are near 100%. for what you'd pay apple, you could have 786 mb.

learthur
Apr 21, 2004, 02:08 PM
Mac OS X handles memory very efficiently. Much smoother than Windows (as far as user perception is concerned).

I routinely put at least 1GB RAM in all my Macs. Most applications will never need this. In fact you can run a dozen applications at once and do just fine in most instances with just 512MB.

The problem is those few apps which use LOTS of memory. Examples include AmadeusII (I use for audio recording), and Combine PDFs, and I think iDVD uses lots of memory when encoding (not sure), perhaps iMovie does too.

I agree with above, order as little memory as possible from Apple then use Crucial memory. Order your Mac with as many free memory slots available as possible. Then try it at 512MB and then upgrade to 1GB if you aren't happy. Mac OS X comes with a simple and neat ACTIVITY MONITOR utility which will show you in real time how much memory you are using.

MacAficionado
Apr 21, 2004, 02:22 PM
My main concern is to not take a step backward in performance. My current setup is a dual 733 PIII / 256MB machine running Win XP.

To compare, the one-click auto enhance feature in Photoshop Elements is nearly instantaneous on my box with 4MP pics. Sepia and B/W filters work likewise.

Not to compare PSE with iPHoto, but yes, I could get impatient waiting 5 seconds to enhance a photo on a new machine when I have 100 of them to do.

From an earlier post, I learned that I could still use PSE to edit from iPhoto, but I still need to launch the app EVERY TIME I want to edit a new pic. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but that sucks too. :mad:


The iMacs in the store should have Photoshop installed. Maybe you should try using PS instead. PS Elements I believe are in there too, should have better perfromance that iPhoto for editing.

I never saw iPhoto as an editor, more like an organizer that with time developed more "capabilities". Try Photoshop Elements, you will not be disappointed!

I hope! :)

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 02:29 PM
I think the REAL question is "Is a 1.25 Ghz G4 fast enough for casual use?" It most certainly is fast enough for all the iLife apps, especially iLife '04 which comes now standard with Panther (10.3.3).

Don't even hesitate. Having switched from the PC world myself 20 months ago, I can tell you, in the store your first impressions and skeptical attitude (like mine) may in some areas leave you wondering about the speed. Once you get the machine home and use it for a couple weeks, all your fears, concerns, and skepticism will vanish--guaranteed! In fact, you will probably join the tribe of Mac zealots.

In general, I think anything slower than 1GHZ G4 runs a bit sluggish. Once you get to 1GHZ and for sure at 1.25GHZ, things run VERY smooth. Remember that a 100MHZ speed bump in a G4 is A LOT more speed bump (as far as your UI perception anyway) than 100MHZ in a Pentium 4.

There is no doubt in my mind the new eMac is a great machine.
Enjoy it!
Ok, I'm convinced. I'm probably overanalyzing the iPhoto issues anyway. Like someone else said, the editing features are just for casual use. I still have PhotoShop Elements for the really tough jobs.

So I think I'll order the $999 emac and upgrade the standard 256MB with a $120 512MB stick from Crucial for a total of 768MB. That should do fine.

Thanks again to everyone for the input.

carbonmotion
Apr 21, 2004, 02:30 PM
if you want to edit photos, get the dummy version of adobe photoshop...enough said

zaphoyd
Apr 21, 2004, 03:15 PM
667 DVI TiBook
1GB of ram
10.3.3
iPhoto 4.0.1
Photoshop 7.0.1

scrolling and switching pictures is instant 5-6 seconds for black and white/sepia 1-2 seconds for enhance.

if I set photoshop as the iPhoto editor, double clicking a photo opens in photoshop. you do NOT have to relaunch photoshop each time. It takes a few seconds to load the photo in photoshop, same as regular photoshop load from its open command. Change to black and white from photoshop is instant. saving in photoshop saves it back to iPhoto.

if you select a group of photos in iphoto then double click on one, it opens ALL selected photos in photoshop automaticly. You can then hit B&W save close window very quickly.

I have all normal operatting apps running. mail, ichat, safari, itunes, preview, terminal, bbedit, text edit, launch bar etc.



-Peter Thorson

goatsniper
Apr 21, 2004, 03:33 PM
667 DVI TiBook
1GB of ram
10.3.3
iPhoto 4.0.1
Photoshop 7.0.1

scrolling and switching pictures is instant 5-6 seconds for black and white/sepia 1-2 seconds for enhance.

if I set photoshop as the iPhoto editor, double clicking a photo opens in photoshop. you do NOT have to relaunch photoshop each time. It takes a few seconds to load the photo in photoshop, same as regular photoshop load from its open command. Change to black and white from photoshop is instant. saving in photoshop saves it back to iPhoto.

if you select a group of photos in iphoto then double click on one, it opens ALL selected photos in photoshop automaticly. You can then hit B&W save close window very quickly.

I have all normal operatting apps running. mail, ichat, safari, itunes, preview, terminal, bbedit, text edit, launch bar etc.

That's great news regarding Photoshop editing from iPhoto. I assume the same goes for PS Elements. I thought the open/close repeat cycle sounded a bit bone-headed.

Thanks for replying. Now I'm definitely going for the emac 1.25!

oingoboingo
Apr 21, 2004, 05:47 PM
That's great news regarding Photoshop editing from iPhoto. I assume the same goes for PS Elements. I thought the open/close repeat cycle sounded a bit bone-headed.

Thanks for replying. Now I'm definitely going for the emac 1.25!

Goatsniper, I think you'll be happy with the new 1.25GHz eMac. Just for comparison, I did a quick test with iPhoto 4 and PhotoShop 7.0.1 on my 1GHz 12" PowerBook, with 768MB RAM. Converting a 2 megapixel colour image to black&white using iPhoto took approximately 3 seconds. Doing a sepia conversion took around the same length of time...roughly 3 seconds.

When using PhotoShop 7, the same image took approximately 0.5 seconds to convert to B&W. There's a world of difference between iPhoto image processing performance and PhotoShop performance. It's not necessarily the hardware's fault...as others have pointed out, iPhoto is a basic photo library application, with some simple image editing thrown in. It's not a speed demon with these kinds of tasks, but that doesn't mean that other software on your Mac won't be, and also as pointed out, you can use iPhoto's organisational abilities and PhotoShop's editing power hand-in-hand.

By the way, your 1.25GHz eMac should be a fair amount faster than my PowerBook...25% higher core clock speed and a 167MHz bus (I think), so you should be experiencing half-second, but most likely, less than that, processing speeds (for a 2MP image anyway) in PhotoShop.

Let us know when you have your new eMac! :)

realityisterror
Apr 21, 2004, 07:10 PM
if you want to B&W a 100 or so at a time, just use iphoto's batch edit...
select the pictures and Photos --> Batch Change... from there set it to B&W the images and hide iPhoto. do some macrumor'ing and wait till it's done...
in all seriousness, you will have no problem with the eMac and iPhoto. even if it is slow, remember that it (unless you're making a book apparently) works right and makes sense. and that's the most important thing right??

reality

Dave00
Apr 21, 2004, 07:56 PM
I would agree that iPhoto in its current iteration is not meant as a full-featured editor, but more as an organizer/viewer. If you want to edit/batch-edit photos quickly, the best app is Graphic Converter (http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/graphcon.htm). It's shareware, $30 to register, and very, very fast on my Pismo (with 400Mhz G3 and 320MB ram). Some features are still in development - red eye reduction still isn't that good, I use Canon software for that - but other features are top-notch. There's no better/faster way to say, convert 50 photos into a web-optimized format.

iPhoto is better for organizing your "finished product" photos (although Graphic Converter also has a very nice browser). For each of my photos, I have the original unedited version from the camera, an optimized version (crop, color balance, etc.), and then any modified versions (web optimized, area crops, sepia version, etc.).

-Dave

Squire
Apr 21, 2004, 08:28 PM
if you want to B&W a 100 or so at a time, just use iphoto's batch edit...
select the pictures and Photos --> Batch Change... from there set it to B&W the images and hide iPhoto. do some macrumor'ing and wait till it's done...
in all seriousness, you will have no problem with the eMac and iPhoto. even if it is slow, remember that it (unless you're making a book apparently) works right and makes sense. and that's the most important thing right??

reality

Hear, hear! ;)

I hope you enjoy your new purchase. Probably the best thing that comes with Macs (besides the OS) is the community of people willing to help. These forums are a life-saver.

Squire