First Impressions of Intel iMac Core Duo

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

More scattered reports have been coming in from users who have started receiving their Intel iMacs. While there's already been a disassembly (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060114205422.shtml) there have been limited first hand reports.

Macintouch posted (http://www.macintouch.com/) their first impressions of the 2.0GHz Core Duo Intel iMac and ran some early Xbench 1.2 benchmarks compared to a 1.8GHz G5 iMac. The results are difficult to interpret, however. While Xbench is a Universal Binary (http://guides.macrumors.com/Universal_Binary), it is not entirely multiprocessor aware. As a result, it does not generally test both cores of the Dual Core Intel processor. Also, graphics cards are different between the machines, making their graphical performance difficult to compare.

As expected the Intel iMac's OpenGL Graphics test (140.4) bested the G5 iMac's (90.4). The Thread Test which is multiprocessor aware showed a dramatic advantage (198.3 vs 49.75) in the Intel iMac, as expected. The other tests were quite variable, making these results difficult to interpret.

Meanwhile, a side-by-side Intel iMac vs G5 iMac video has been making the rounds (http://www.youtube.com/?v=zmaAZwkhYeQ) showing the Intel iMac booting much faster. The video has spawned some debate about accuracy of the G5 iMac's startup in this particular video. Regardless, another user (http://forums.macnn.com/showpost.php?p=2838333) timed the 1.83GHz Intel iMac's startup at approximate 18 seconds -- users can compare this value to their own machines.

Readers will be interested to know that at least a casual attempt (http://forums.macnn.com/showpost.php?p=2838910) at booting Windows XP has been unsuccessful.

Based on Macintouch's impressions as well as this user's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=173843):

- Intel iMacs are quiet.
- Same startup sound as previous Macs
- Same RAM access slots at bottom under removable panel as the iSight G5 iMac

A reminder that we have running Mac Guide page (http://guides.macrumors.com/Intel_iMac) for the Intel iMac, that will reflect any new information.

[arn]

http://homepage.mac.com/ravenzachary/PhotoAlbum1.html

Handbrake encoding into h.264 at ~30fps.

reportedly more optimization is possible. early intel version.
arn

[beatle888]

Its supprising that the dual intel is "difficult to compare". i would think it would be a hands down victory for the intel dual core.

off topic. how long do you think the G5 will be able to run future updates of pro apps? is it unlikely that a G5 will be able to run the latest version of PhotoShop in the year 2009?

[celaurie]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but do the new Intel macs still have the 'Classic' environment available on them?

~cel

[Nermal]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but do the new Intel macs still have the 'Classic' environment available on them?

No. OS 9/Classic is now totally dead.

Handbrake encoding into h.264 at ~30fps.

reportedly more optimization is possible. early intel version.

HandBrake is essentially a GUI that sits on top of many other apps. I suspect that some of these apps are still PowerPC, and better performance should come soon enough :)

[arn]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but do the new Intel macs still have the 'Classic' environment available on them?

~cel

no classic on Intel machines

arn

[arn]

Its supprising that the dual intel is "difficult to compare". i would think it would be a hands down victory for the intel dual core.


Part of it is that I'm not sure how good a test XBench is.

arn

[Fiveos22]

Based on Macintouch's impressions as well as this user's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=173843):

- Intel iMacs are quiet.
- Same startup sound as previous Macs
- Same RAM access slots at bottom under removable panel as the iSight G5 iMac




Wow, that says absolutely nothing.

[Abstract]

Lets wait until the big apps are all totally universal binaries. Then some random dude on another website can discredit any test done by all the Mac sites and make up some sort of Photoshop test and compare the results from each machine.

[faintember]

That is the first time that i have seen the intel iMac vs. the G5 iMac bootup time video. Is it just me or is the G5 iMac sloooooow? Both my G4 700mhz iMac, my 1ghz Ti PB and our schools 2ghz PM all boot faster than the G5 iMac in the test.

[NewbieNerd]

That is the first time that i have seen the intel iMac vs. the G5 iMac bootup time video. Is it just me or is the G5 iMac sloooooow? Both my G4 700mhz iMac, my 1ghz Ti PB and our schools 2ghz PM all boot faster than the G5 iMac in the test.

Certainly not just you. Many agree that there seem to be issues with the G5, but I have heard that at least one user has experienced such boot delays. Either way, just take from it that the Intel booted pretty quickly. That itself is pretty useless since people should be leaving their macs on most of the time if possible.

[BRLawyer]

Certainly not just you. Many agree that there seem to be issues with the G5, but I have heard that at least one user has experienced such boot delays. Either way, just take from it that the Intel booted pretty quickly. That itself is pretty useless since people should be leaving their macs on most of the time if possible.

My G5 iMac boots really fast, at roughly 20 sec (apart from hard boots, of course) in most times...as an aside, it's good to know that the new iMacs are quiet screamers...at least this should put the whining crowd to rest a little bit.

[beatle888]

Wow, that says absolutely nothing.

well, as a mac collective its all we got right now.

[JoeG4]

That G5 iMac boots slower than my G4 PowerMac, and my G4 PowerMac is 4 years old!

WTF?

the "iMac" boot time: 40 seconds by my count (from the word go)
the "iMac G5" boot time: Well over a minute

We have a Dual 2GHz G5 that does it in 38 seconds. my PB boots considerably faster than the iMac G5 there did.. wow.

Sometimes I wonder if Apple did something to OpenFirmware to make that perform REALLY poorly or what, because I've not seen a mac boot that slow in a long time.

[nagromme]

* Bench schmench... I want a table chock full of side-by-side real-word real-task app tests :)

* Bootup times? Who reboots a Mac anymore? They keep going, and going, and going....

* I never noticed how the iSight iMacs provided RAM access. Now I know!

* No performance options in System Prefs? Is that the case with MacBooks too? (If so, I think it must be temporary. You'd at least need the option for whether to shut down a core while on battery.)

* "The initial configuration process offers to snap a photo of you, using the built-in microcamera, to use as your account picture." Cool :) That's a very Apple touch.

* "All ports are inconveniently located on the back of the computer." Well... it's hard to imagine any computer having an easier-to-get to back, but if you want cords spilling out the front, I guess this isn't your machine :)

[plastique45]

Certainly not just you. Many agree that there seem to be issues with the G5, but I have heard that at least one user has experienced such boot delays. Either way, just take from it that the Intel booted pretty quickly. That itself is pretty useless since people should be leaving their macs on most of the time if possible.

Yes, it is not normal. I have seen such long boot times in Macs quite a few times. They are usually indicative of either a system-related issue or an upcoming hard drive issue.

[sw1tcher]

There is definitely something wrong with that G5 iMac. My friends g4 iBook boots up faster than that.

[arn]

A few Intel iMac owners are floating around. If you want any particular tests done, you could ask.

The problem is many of the apps aren't universal yet, so we don't exactly know what we're testing. :)

arn

[beatle888]

that guy circulating the intel vs. G5 startup test should of ran more than ONE test. thats rediculous. he should of realized that the startup time of ANY mac would be faster than THAT.

[ksgant]

That itself is pretty useless since people should be leaving their macs on most of the time if possible.

Why?

I've heard the pros and cons to this for years. I used to leave my computers on all the time, but now I just shut them off at night unless they're actually doing something like rendering or downloading. The stress the computer has from being turned on and off is about equal to the stress of the components/fans from being left on all the time.

In the old days this may have been true about the stress, but computers aren't built like that today and they're tough little buggers. Yes yes...for every horror story someone will tell me about the evils of turning your computer on and off I can tell them a horror story of leaving them on all the time. It all equals out in the end...save the electricity that's being wasted.

[faintember]

that guy circulating the intel vs. G5 startup test should of ran more than ONE test. thats rediculous. he should of realized that the startup time of ANY mac would be faster than THAT.Yep, me smells either a Intel Mac fanboy or a clueless person that had access to the computers and a camera.

[beatle888]

Why?

I've heard the pros and cons to this for years. I used to leave my computers on all the time, but now I just shut them off at night unless they're actually doing something like rendering or downloading. The stress the computer has from being turned on and off is about equal to the stress of the components/fans from being left on all the time.

In the old days this may have been true about the stress, but computers aren't built like that today and they're tough little buggers. Yes yes...for every horror story someone will tell me about the evils of turning your computer on and off I can tell them a horror story of leaving them on all the time. It all equals out in the end...save the electricity that's being wasted.


actually, the amount of energy to BOOT the computer is probably MORE than what the computer uses in sleep mode.

[Evangelion]

The problem of not being able to boot any of those Linux-distros on the Mac is due to the fact that they do not support EFI. The distros that do support EFI are meant for Itaniums so they wouldn't work either.

But I think that it wont take long for distros to become EFI-aware on x86-hardware. I would say that we will have Linux booting on the iMac in about.... 1-2 weeks. Windows will boot on the iMac when Vista ships, which is about 12 months away ;).

[Evangelion]

Why?

I've heard the pros and cons to this for years. I used to leave my computers on all the time, but now I just shut them off at night unless they're actually doing something like rendering or downloading. The stress the computer has from being turned on and off is about equal to the stress of the components/fans from being left on all the time.

It's actually more stressful for the computer to spin the fans up and down, and power the component up and down, than to have them constantly running. Usually if your computer breaks down, it happens when you are starting it up.

In the old days this may have been true about the stress, but computers aren't built like that today and they're tough little buggers.

I would bet that computers of yesteryear are MORE durable than the ones we have today. Sadly, it's not in the best interest for companies to make products that last forever.

One example: keyboards. The IBM Model M is built like a tank. I have one built in 1985 and it still works like a charm. Keyboards built today are weak and flimsy. But if they lasted forever, people wouldn't have any reason to buy new keyboards.

[jacobj]

I have never really understood the XBench results. All I care about is how fast my MBP will be compared to my PB on the processes that I run:

-Photoshop
-iPhoto
-iMovie
-iDVD
-Handbrake
-Safari
-iTunes

and will Dashboard still run like a paralysed snail? Is Java better on the net, because my PB is rubbish at that?

[iMeowbot]

We still need for someone to discover the magic keystrokes to get into the EFI shell and see what features are really lurking in there.

[nagromme]

I used to leave my computers on all the time, but now I just shut them off at night unless they're actually doing something like rendering or downloading.

Or curing cancer with folding@home? :)

http://folding.stanford.edu
(NOTE: not Intel-ready quite yet.)

[iJaz]

* Bootup times? Who reboots a Mac anymore? They keep going, and going, and going....


...until those annoying Software Updates! :)

[GregA]

A few Intel iMac owners are floating around. If you want any particular tests done, you could ask.Good idea. Where can we ask?

I'd like to know the comparitive time compressing a 1-2hr iMovie onto a DVD image (in iDVD).... anyone in a position to know? :)

[kugino]

i was listening to TWIT's podcast recorded right after the keynote...and they argued a bit about benchmarks and speed tests and leo laporte commented that it "felt" faster, to which everyone agreed. it's not "scientific," but i understand what he means. when i played around with the MB Pro, it "felt" fast...at least for day to day things, that's good enough for me.

but i agree - i want some real world tests of handbrake conversions, mp3/aac encoding, etc. supposedly, iSquint's latest version is a universal binary that converts to mpeg really quickly. that's the kind of info i want, not necessarily benchmark stuff.

[bdkennedy1]

Anyone who knows Steve Jobs and follows Apple's history knows that OSX was built for Intel. Why would a company keep a secret like this for 5 years? It's all about building everyone up, then suprising them and I fell for it.

[lo5co]

I'd like to know if printer drivers can be installed under rosetta...i don't think so....

[oingoboingo]

XBench has never been a particularly reliable or consistent way of benchmarking a Macintosh. The wacked-out user interface scores are highly suspicious, and are almost certainly an indication of something not working quite right in the UB version of XBench rather than the Intel iMac being mysteriously slow at displaying the GUI, while lightning fast at all sorts of other tasks.

As others have suggested, perhaps something like a scripted suite of benchmarks using common software like the iLife suite (using a freely downloadable standard set of photo, video and music content) would be a far better indication of system performance than Xbench. There are also benchmarks like PSBench (for Photoshop) and Cinebench for professional-level applications.

So could the launch of the Intel Macs be a good time to bid a not-so-fond farewell to Xbench forever?

[beatle888]

sounds good to me. i dont know anyone who relys on it.

[groovebuster]

It's actually more stressful for the computer to spin the fans up and down, and power the component up and down, than to have them constantly running. Usually if your computer breaks down, it happens when you are starting it up.
When you put your computer to deep sleep, there is no big difference to fresh boot. HDs and fans have to spin up as well.

The other components couldn't care less about booting. The failure of a system does not happen more often during start up than during normal use. One of my customers I have already for more than 5 years in a row and I am buddies with the system administrator. They have quite a few PCs and servers running. Some of them 24/7, some of them only a few hours a day. So I am witnessing what is going on there.

Statistically component failure there occurs not more often during start up than during normal use. Of course a component blows-up, when it had a problem already before when starting up the computer. So how do we define a failure?

But what I definately noticed is that the fans become pretty noisy after a while when the computer runs 24/7. First, the bearings wear faster when having the computer on 24/7. The spin-up for a fan doesn't matter much, it is all about the hours the hours of operation. Second, the fans collect dust over the time which makes them more noisy as well.

I would bet that computers of yesteryear are MORE durable than the ones we have today. Sadly, it's not in the best interest for companies to make products that last forever.
Personally I am still waiting for a computer in my posession to completely break down. From the beginning (starting in 1985) I had single components in my computers which didn't last long, but the overall systems lasted pretty much "forever"... means until they got retired by me.

My oldest system at the moment is a highly customized G4 Quicksilver from 2001. It's still in a very good condition and when I changed or added components, it was never because of failure, but because of making the overall system faster.

We will see how long my new G5 quad will last... :)

One example: keyboards. The IBM Model M is built like a tank. I have one built in 1985 and it still works like a charm. Keyboards built today are weak and flimsy. But if they lasted forever, people wouldn't have any reason to buy new keyboards.
And what did this keyboard cost back then when even regarding inflation? You get what you pay for. You still get keyboards like this, but they cost a fortune of course. You won't get it for 10$. And in most cases an expensive keyboard doesn't make sense for the average user. With a rate of one keyboard every 2 years it would take him several years to reach the break-even.

It may be a waste of resources, but as long as raw materials are that cheap it just doesn't make sense economically.

But it makes sense to switch of your computer when you are not using it. Leaving it on costs you several dollars per month and wastes energy which causes extra pollution. Estimated 1 kWh a day of wasted energy makes 365kWh a year. One liter of gasoline produces about 9.75 kWh of energy. So it equals 38 liters of gasoline. But 1kWh per day is already a low estimate. It is probably way more than that... And don't forget, it is just how much energy is in 38 liters of gasoline. You could never produce 365kWh of electricity with it. The average efficiency of power plants in the US is about 33%. So you better think of 114 liters of gasoline... or 31 gallons.

Interesting calculation, isn't it? Especially since we are reminded of the limited resources we have on this planet on a daily basis again it should be everybodies responsibility to use them wisely...

groovebuster

[beatle888]

i still think it takes more energy to BOOT than it does to sleep the computer.

[Daz777777]

I've just done a test on my imac G5 rev B for start up time, this is with 2 users and 2 GB of RAM and it took exactly 90 seconds.

[beatle888]

I've just done a test on my imac G5 rev B for start up time, this is with 2 users and 2 GB of RAM and it took exactly 90 seconds.


can you post an average of 5 restarts?

[snowdog]

ARS has a review up right now - http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars

[inkswamp]

There's something very hokey about the start up comparison video. My iMac (700 Mhz G4) and my iBook (500 Mhz G3) both start up more quickly than the G5 iMac in the video and my dual 2 Ghz G5 PowerMac at work starts up about the same speed (maybe faster) than the Intel iMac. I'm not sure what to make of that. I think there is something wrong with the G5 iMac in the video.

[jacobj]

I'd like to know if printer drivers can be installed under rosetta...i don't think so....


Do we have any intel iMac owners here. Is there an issue with Printers. This never even occurred to me... OMG

[inkswamp]

...until those annoying Software Updates! :)

Yep. I would measure the uptime on my Mac at work in months if it weren't for that. Oh well. I've always thought that was a spazzy thing to worry about.

[groovebuster]

i still think it takes more energy to BOOT than it does to sleep the computer.
Might be... depends on how long your booting takes and how much the maximum power consumption is. Deep sleep also uses elictricity. 300W for 30 seconds is still less than (e.g.) 5 Watts for 8h! So it definetely makes sense to completely shut down a computer during the night.

300W/3600sec*30sec=0,0025kWh

5W*8h=0,04kWh

Deep sleep is only for convenience. As you can see it only would make sense regarding the absolute power consumption when you would have it in deep sleep for less than 30 minutes...

groovebuster

[Daz777777]

Just done a second test and it was virtually identical at 88 seconds, not sure how would delay is caused by having 2 users. I would also add my computer is very slow when the screen saver comes on and you come back to the machine, it seems to pause for about 10 seconds then I get the spinning ball for a period!!!! Apart from that everything else is great.

[beatle888]

300 Watts for 30 seconds? no way. i doubt it.

its like 35 Watts in sleep mode. but i think im wrong about starting it up uses more power.

[TBi]

i still think it takes more energy to BOOT than it does to sleep the computer.

The "extra" energy used in booting over running a computer normally is the extra power needed to spin up the disks and fans and charge all the capacitors initially. This takes the about twice the power as keeping them spinning.

However, when you wake a computer from sleep then it also has to spin up everything again so in essence it uses the same power but just means you get to a usable interface quicker.

Now that means you take out the power needed to spin up everything in both cases as it is for all intents and purposes equally. That means you are left with the energy taken while the computer is booting up and you can't use it versus the energy used all night while the computer is sleeping. For instance the energy needed to charge a cap is less than the energy over time needed to keep the cap charged all night (Cap's are quite lossy).

I'd hazard a guess (from how much my battery goes down in my iBook over night) that sleep mode is more wasteful than turning off the computer.

[groovebuster]

300 Watts for 30 seconds? no way. i doubt it.

Be more specific please! What are you doubting?

[beatle888]

it just sounds strange that a computer would run at 300 watts. i always thought it would be way less. thats all.

[ijbond]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Based on Macintouch's impressions as well as this user's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=173843):

- ...
- ...
- Same RAM access slots at bottom under removable panel as the iSight G5 iMac



That is not true.

iMac G5 iSight: one RAM chip 512 MB onboard, one free RAM access slot,
maximum RAM 2.5 GB

iMac Intel: two SODIMM RAM access slots, maximum RAM 2GB (or 4GB??)

HTH,
ijbond

[BakedBeans]

That is not true.

yes it is - it say same ram ACCESS - not number of slots

[FadeToBlack]

Every Mac I've used has booted faster than that iMac G5. My friend's B&W G3 is WAY faster to boot up. As others have said, there's something seriously wrong with that G5.

[mymacluvsme]

My G3 800 iBook, with nearly a full HDD, running 10.4.4, and auto-launching Meteo, Adium, and iClock boots faster than that G5 iMac.... sheesh.

[joelypolly]

i still think it takes more energy to BOOT than it does to sleep the computer.
What you say is true but on average the spike is only a few seconds with maybe a 10~20% difference to normal. So if your computer runs at 150W which is probably what an iMac runs at you looking at max of ~180W for a few seconds while the drives spin up and the backlighting comes on. Thats about 30W difference for say 5 seconds which is 150J. Leaving your iMac on for the night doing nothing will at even say 40W on minimal load with display off for 8 hours (28800 seconds) will consume about 1152000J.

Sleep for 8 hours will consume about 5W/h so it will work out to about 144,000J.
Booting at even 200W for 90s will only take 18,000J

So really is it worth it?

[groovebuster]

it just sounds strange that a computer would run at 300 watts. i always thought it would be way less. thats all.

From the tech specs of the iMac G5:

Maximum continuous power: 180W

That means that peaks can be way higher.

From the tech specs of the PowerMac G5 quad:

Maximum current: At least 10A (low-voltage range) or 5A (high-voltage range)

That means peaks can reach 1,150W!!! Unfortunately they are very unspecific about the typical power consumption of PowerMac G5.

So I guess 300W is a good guess for the average computer during start-up.

But considering that an iMac only draws 180W, it even emphasizes my argument, that shutting down the computer comletely is better...

groovebuster

[Evangelion]

When you put your computer to deep sleep, there is no big difference to fresh boot. HDs and fans have to spin up as well.

Well, I don't put my computer to sleep that often. It scales the speed and voltage of the CPU, so power-consumption is reasonable. Of course, the machine is too noisy to be left running, but other than that, I would propably keep it running for long periods of time.

You still get keyboards like this, but they cost a fortune of course.

50 bucks is "a fortune"? For a device that is practically indestructable?

You won't get it for 10$.

poor people can't afford cheap things. Sure I could get some POS keyboard for few bucks. But is it worth it in the end? I don't think so.

And in most cases an expensive keyboard doesn't make sense for the average user. With a rate of one keyboard every 2 years it would take him several years to reach the break-even.

I have used PC's for close to 15 years now. One keyboard for every two years would mean 7 keyboards. If those keyboards cost something like 10 - 20 bucks, it would mean 70 - 140 bucks on keyboards alone. And then we have the issue of using the kayboard. Are those cheap keyboards as pleasant to use as Model M is?

It may be a waste of resources, but as long as raw materials are that cheap it just doesn't make sense economically.

There are more to these things than mere "economics". I dislike this whole "disposable" culture we have these days. I would prefer quality products that last. And I'm prepared to pay for such a products.

But it makes sense to switch of your computer when you are not using it. Leaving it on costs you several dollars per month and wastes energy which causes extra pollution.

I turn off my display, my CPU scales it's speed, as do the fans, the voltage gets lowered etc. etc. While it consumes more than it would if it weren't running (naturally), it's not THAT bad.

[Hattig]

Hmm, my iBook lasts about 4 days in sleep mode before draining.

I don't know what battery it has, I know it is 4400mAh (well mine now says it has 4514mAh of capacity, and AbsoluteMaxCapacity of 4400mAh), but how many Watt-hours is it? 50Wh?

4 days is 96 hours. So in sleep my iBook must be using 50/96W, which is around 0.5W continuously.

Of course, that's with the lid closed. With the lid open it doesn't last anywhere near that long - I don't know for sure, but it doesn't look like it enters the same level of sleep.

The real reason to turn a computer off at night is if you can hear it where you sleep, or if you won't be using it for a while (>3 days, say), or if it doesn't have a lower-power mode.

[ReanimationLP]

My computer draws about 320w when it first powers on since it has to spin up 6 internal 7200RPM hard disk drives, plus then the DVD-RW and CD-RW, and the Athlon 64 and Radeon 9600, plus all the fans. o.O

My iMac G3 350 boots in like a half minute. O.o

Someone take that G5 and restore his software! :(

[Mr Brownstone]

If one of the reasons for the switch to Intel is due to cheaper processors and chipsets, then why hasn't Apple reduced the price of the iMac and Macbook Pro? I was a Mac user for 7 years then switched to Windows. I have been holding out for 3+ years waiting for a decently priced Mac to be released. I know that the prices will never match the prices in the Wintel world, but I hope they can come closer. Currently the top range Macbook lists for $4000AUD, which is very expensive. I can get a good quality Wintel laptop for $3400AUD (with similar specifications).

I think now that there are never ending security/virus problems with Windows and coupled with the fact that everyone is talking about Apple, it's the perfect time to reduce prices and make a grab for increased market share. If prices were reduced accordingly, I ***would not*** hesitate to buy a Mac, and I could think of at least 20 other people who would do the same. After all, what's more important, margins or market share?

[BornAgainMac]

iLife is universal. Why doesn't someone just encode a iMovie that is about 5 minutes using H.264 and compare that. That would be a good test for speed. Who cares how fast it boots up. Encoding H.264 or MPEG-4 will help me determine if I wanted to upgrade or even replace my Powermac G5 with Intel based Mac. I am sure the Photoshop crap is fast when it uses universal binaries if something really difficult like encoding is faster. Most likely Photoshop CS 3 will use Core Image anyways.

Off Topic: The iMac G5 sounded really slow if it takes over a 1 minute to boot up, I wonder if it is a network issue that it is hung up on or something.

[Fabio_gsilva]

Or curing cancer with folding@home? :)

http://folding.stanford.edu
(NOTE: not Intel-ready quite yet.)


Thanks for the tip.

I'm downloading the software right now.

Cheers.

[GregA]

Currently the top range Macbook lists for $4000AUD, which is very expensive. I can get a good quality Wintel laptop for $3400AUD (with similar specifications).I was just looking for similar spec laptops - what did you find?

I notice Dell australia doesn't sell the core duo, so you have to pick a single core processor. Same goes for HP. I'd like to compare it fairly so any links or thoughts would be appreciated!

[javiercr]

Anyone who knows Steve Jobs and follows Apple's history knows that OSX was built for Intel. Why would a company keep a secret like this for 5 years? It's all about building everyone up, then suprising them and I fell for it.

Do you know Steve Jobs? is he your mate?? cool! I only know a bit from keynotes and the odd interview, I think you are just assuming things, may be the official version of having it as a back up is actually true!

[stockscalper]

The initial test results aren't surprising at all. I really don't think the results for any of the first dual core Intels are going to be anything but ho hum. It's going to take continued engineering to maximize efficiency before you see better results in subsequent models. Remember the first G5's? Apple basically bolted the G5 onto a G4 motherboard. It was somewhere down the road before engineers learned to tweek all the components where the computer was operating more efficiently. They never totally utilized all the efficiencies that were possible, but that's another story.

The dual intel chip is not 4 times faster than previous imacs, not even the old G4's. And it's not even twice as fast. The dual core G4 from Freescale would be a very impressive chip to see pitted against this Intel chip.

[javiercr]

Most likely Photoshop CS 3 will use Core Image anyways.



Actually i think probably now, have you seen the Lightroom beta? it does not use Core and it is much faster with Raws than Aperture. Also abobe has their own algorithms that do things with the level of quality they know and understand, they cannot just let a core library do their sharperning. Also the mode common code they can keep betwen win and mac the easier, optimizing for Core would create differences.

With the new powerfull graphics cards and processors they will still perform very well without Core, so why bother.

[kainjow]

If one of the reasons for the switch to Intel is due to cheaper processors and chipsets, then why hasn't Apple reduced the price of the iMac and Macbook Pro? I was a Mac user for 7 years then switched to Windows. I have been holding out for 3+ years waiting for a decently priced Mac to be released. I know that the prices will never match the prices in the Wintel world, but I hope they can come closer. Currently the top range Macbook lists for $4000AUD, which is very expensive. I can get a good quality Wintel laptop for $3400AUD (with similar specifications).

I think now that there are never ending security/virus problems with Windows and coupled with the fact that everyone is talking about Apple, it's the perfect time to reduce prices and make a grab for increased market share. If prices were reduced accordingly, I ***would not*** hesitate to buy a Mac, and I could think of at least 20 other people who would do the same. After all, what's more important, margins or market share?
Not sure where you've been the last few years (:p) but Macs ARE NOT priced more than PCs. This has been proven over and over again - search the forums. :)

The thing about Windows booting is we need someone who knows how to use EFI to test it out. I really doubted that it would boot "out of the box", and that's now been proven true. If Apple's EFI has BIOS support, there are probably some commands needed to force it to boot from an XP disk.

Update: found this over at Apple's website: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1528326&#1528326
Apple's implementation of EFI has no user-accessible shell.
But it appears you may be able to create an EFI boot disk or something like that..

[bigandy]

Windows currently has no EFI support. Vista has limited support. Full support won't come until Blackcomb.

And it needs a standard EFI. A custom implementation, such as Apple's, won't work because they've probably only used what they need.

[gotohamish]

Every Mac I've used has booted faster than that iMac G5. My friend's B&W G3 is WAY faster to boot up. As others have said, there's something seriously wrong with that G5.

Seriously dude, then go use a frickin B&W G3. Why is this even important. Turn your computer on, and oh, 18 seconds, or 2 minutes later. Who cares if your friends is faster.

Here's some fun for you...

You get your new iMac G5, next to his B&W G3. Have a race. Turn them on, open Photoshop CS2, and do a 30 filter action (ie, some work). Then see who wins. I think you'll be happy then (even in Rosetta).

[ThomasM]

Not sure where you've been the last few years () but Macs ARE NOT priced more than PCs. This has been proven over and over again - search the forums.

uh ?
lets go ahead and compare some prices then.
macbook pro, 1,86 ghz, 1gb ram, x1600,15,4" screen, no dual layer dvd burner and only 4x.

norwegian price = 23400

dell 9400
intel core duo 1,86ghz,1gb ram, geforce 7800go, 17" screen,dual layer dvd burner and 8x instead of 4x.

norwegian price = 14900

[dr_lha]

If one of the reasons for the switch to Intel is due to cheaper processors and chipsets, then why hasn't Apple reduced the price of the iMac and Macbook Pro?

Do you honestly think that a brand new Intel Core Duo and accompanying motherboard costs less than a G4? I don't think so!

[Randall]

Windows currently has no EFI support. Vista has limited support. Full support won't come until Blackcomb.

And it needs a standard EFI. A custom implementation, such as Apple's, won't work because they've probably only used what they need.Why do you think that Apple's EFI implementation is customized? I would assume that it's the generic x86 EFI implementation that is used by all of intel's hardware. After all, intel were the ones that came up with EFI for the x86 architecture that they design.

I am willing to bet that we will see Windows XP being dual boot with OS X on a Mactel sometime shortly after the MacBook Pros are available. It seems to me that more people probably ordered the MacBook then they did iMac, and therefore we'll get a much larger test base of people ready and willing to try to get Windows going on the nardware natively.

[Lacero]

Every Mac I've used has booted faster than that iMac G5. My friend's B&W G3 is WAY faster to boot up.
Every Mac you've ever used booted into Tiger?

I'm assuming the iMac G5 is running OSX 10.4.3 or later.Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

[Stridder44]

Is it just me or are all the links here reverting back to the MacRumors main page?

[Randall]

Well that video of the booting comparison may have been slightly exaggerated, but the point was that intel Core Duo is indeed faster then the G5. For a true comparison they should have reformatted the G5 and reinstalled a brand new copy of Tiger (same version that the iMac intel was running) and then compared them. It did indeed look like the G5 was looking for something that wasn't there and gave up, or might be missing critical files. My old Pentium II 266MHz could boot Windows 95 faster then that.

[Sunrunner]

If one of the reasons for the switch to Intel is due to cheaper processors and chipsets, then why hasn't Apple reduced the price of the iMac and Macbook Pro? I was a Mac user for 7 years then switched to Windows. I have been holding out for 3+ years waiting for a decently priced Mac to be released. I know that the prices will never match the prices in the Wintel world, but I hope they can come closer. Currently the top range Macbook lists for $4000AUD, which is very expensive. I can get a good quality Wintel laptop for $3400AUD (with similar specifications).

I think now that there are never ending security/virus problems with Windows and coupled with the fact that everyone is talking about Apple, it's the perfect time to reduce prices and make a grab for increased market share. If prices were reduced accordingly, I ***would not*** hesitate to buy a Mac, and I could think of at least 20 other people who would do the same. After all, what's more important, margins or market share?


Apple may, and likely will, eventually reduce the price point of its hardware based on the lower cost and increased commoditization of many system components as a result of the Intel move. This will likely not come until 8-12 months down the line, however, as the company will want to recoup the money spent on system redesign and engeneering in the short term.

[Sunrunner]

Well that video of the booting comparison may have been slightly exaggerated, but the point was that intel Core Duo is indeed faster then the G5. For a true comparison they should have reformatted the G5 and reinstalled a brand new copy of Tiger (same version that the iMac intel was running) and then compared them. It did indeed look like the G5 was looking for something that wasn't there and gave up, or might be missing critical files. My old Pentium II 266MHz could boot Windows 95 faster then that.


Of course the Windows 95 OS files consumed a whole 30 Mb of space, while OS X edges in at about 1.5 gigs... but THAT couldn't make a difference... :rolleyes:

[zac4mac]

I've seen my G5DP2.0 take close to two minutes sometimes. Biggest culprit seems to be fonts, but I'm to lazy to do a real culling to find out. I only restart my Macs after updates, the rest of the time they are looking for aliens and a solution to the Unified Field Theory(Einstein@home).
Currently running 3 OS X Macs on an AirPort mini-network - moved recently and have not set up any older Macs.
Waiting for my new MBP to ship - 1.83 w/ 100GB 7200 rpm HDD... mmmm new toy.

Z

[gwangung]

Apple may, and likely will, eventually reduce the price point of its hardware based on the lower cost and increased commoditization of many system components as a result of the Intel move. This will likely not come until 8-12 months down the line, however, as the company will want to recoup the money spent on system redesign and engeneering in the short term.

I rather think it will go down once the supply and demand get back into equilibrium; if Apple is still getting the higher prices, why in heaven's name would they lower them?

[longofest]

Why do you think that Apple's EFI implementation is customized? I would assume that it's the generic x86 EFI implementation that is used by all of intel's hardware. After all, intel were the ones that came up with EFI for the x86 architecture that they design.

I am willing to bet that we will see Windows XP being dual boot with OS X on a Mactel sometime shortly after the MacBook Pros are available. It seems to me that more people probably ordered the MacBook then they did iMac, and therefore we'll get a much larger test base of people ready and willing to try to get Windows going on the nardware natively.

Apple has implemented Open Firmware commands into EFI, so that you can still hold down the 'C' key at startup to start from CD, or hold down option to get startup disks, or hold down 'T' to go into target disk mode, mouse to eject CD, etc... Indicates custom EFI setup or SOMETHING along those lines. May explain why Vista can't boot, because I would think that it should...

[Sunrunner]

Apple has implemented Open Firmware commands into EFI, so that you can still hold down the 'C' key at startup to start from CD, or hold down option to get startup disks, or hold down 'T' to go into target disk mode, mouse to eject CD, etc... Indicates custom EFI setup or SOMETHING along those lines. May explain why Vista can't boot, because I would think that it should...


Im sure some harware-level programmer will have a haxie out within the next couple of months that will solve the compatability issue.

[longofest]

It's good to see Ars's review pitting the new iMacs vs. the PowerMac Dual 2.5. The Dual 2.5 still cleaned the iMac's clock on almost all of the benchmarks and tests (except some 'flukes' like disk stuff which were explained as fragmentation).

Basically, I think Apple is once again doing what PC manufacturers always do. They inflate the scores of their most current computers. They inflated the G5's scores when it was the hot commodity. Now they are inflating the iMac's scores. I mean, the scores might not be THAT inflated, but still should be taken with a grain of salt. One look at Ars's review and you can see that the new iMac is not 2-3x faster as advertised, but it does have substantial speed improvements.

Those of us who have recently bought G5 Macs can rest assured, we got what we paid for! PowerPC is still a good chip. The Intel macs may save you on your power bill and still get a speed boost, but otherwise this is just a standard speed boost with a twist (maybe a bit more than a twist, since it is a major architecture switch. meh...)

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

iLife is universal. Why doesn't someone just encode a iMovie that is about 5 minutes using H.264 and compare that. That would be a good test for speed. Who cares how fast it boots up. Encoding H.264 or MPEG-4 will help me determine if I wanted to upgrade or even replace my Powermac G5 with Intel based Mac. I am sure the Photoshop crap is fast when it uses universal binaries if something really difficult like encoding is faster. Most likely Photoshop CS 3 will use Core Image anyways.
THANK YOU! i was thinking the exact same thing. I'd be willing to help bench mark the H.264 encoding if someone needs help. I have the iMac G5 rev that was RIGHT before they put in the iSIght.

[longofest]

Im sure some harware-level programmer will have a haxie out within the next couple of months that will solve the compatability issue.

Lets hope, but might not be that easy. Remember, EFI has been out for a while, as well as WindowsXP, and still there hasn't been a solution. The problem is not with the MacOS, but with Windows operating with EFI (or Vista seeing the customized EFI). Granted, EFI use has been limited, as major PC manufacturers have kept with BIOS, but still. You'd think with all those programmers out there, that there would be a fix already if it was something relatively easy.

[Sunrunner]

It's good to see Ars's review pitting the new iMacs vs. the PowerMac Dual 2.5. The Dual 2.5 still cleaned the iMac's clock on almost all of the benchmarks and tests (except some 'flukes' like disk stuff which were explained as fragmentation).

Basically, I think Apple is once again doing what PC manufacturers always do. They inflate the scores of their most current computers. They inflated the G5's scores when it was the hot commodity. Now they are inflating the iMac's scores. I mean, the scores might not be THAT inflated, but still should be taken with a grain of salt. One look at Ars's review and you can see that the new iMac is not 2-3x faster as advertised, but it does have substantial speed improvements.

Those of us who have recently bought G5 Macs can rest assured, we got what we paid for! PowerPC is still a good chip. The Intel macs may save you on your power bill and still get a speed boost, but otherwise this is just a standard speed boost with a twist (maybe a bit more than a twist, since it is a major architecture switch. meh...)


The iMac and the PowerMac are two completely different computer lines geared towards completely different end users. Its like comparing the latest model of Honda Civic to the last years Mustang GT. OF COURSE the Mustang is still going to win. The real comparison will be the new desktop when it comes out.

[SiliconAddict]

*shrugs* Windows will boot on it eventually. I'm not worried. In the mean time there will be a ton of lost sales opertunities for Apple. *shrugs*

[Peace]

iLife is universal. Why doesn't someone just encode a iMovie that is about 5 minutes using H.264 and compare that. That would be a good test for speed. Who cares how fast it boots up. Encoding H.264 or MPEG-4 will help me determine if I wanted to upgrade or even replace my Powermac G5 with Intel based Mac. I am sure the Photoshop crap is fast when it uses universal binaries if something really difficult like encoding is faster. Most likely Photoshop CS 3 will use Core Image anyways.

Off Topic: The iMac G5 sounded really slow if it takes over a 1 minute to boot up, I wonder if it is a network issue that it is hung up on or something.

Ya know I did just that with my DTK and my Powermac G5
the DTK has a P4 3.6ghz with 1gig memory and 128 megs onboard shared video
the dual G5 2.3 has 4gigs memory and ATI Radeon 9600 128 megs

Here's what I got :
Using i'Life 0'6
Imported native widescreen DV video from my camera via firewire 400
3 minutes worth..

I then exported the video in its native *.dv and iPod format using iMovie HD on both my DTK and my dual G5 2.3 rev b.
For .dv format:
the dual rev b took about 2 minutes
the DTK took about 5 minutes
I then exported using the default iPod format H.264 320X240
the dual took about 4 minutes
the DTK took only 3 minutes..

Keep in mind that when I had iLife'05 on my DTK ( using Rosetta) it would have taken at least 30 minutes to do the same under 10.4.3 8f1111g.

This isn't an Intel iMac test but if the dual-core Intels are faster like I think they are encoding will probably be faster..

Now..
One More Thing....

XBench 1.2 was built July 2005
This was before OS X 10.4.3 was even out to developers..
Altivec wasn't supported under the Intel OS X until 10.4.38f1111g which came out November 2005.
Furthermore
Xcode tools 2.0 and 2.1 didnt come out till November also so XBench was built using older more buggy Xcode tools without native Altivec support.

I personally would not trust XBench marks until they build it using XCode 2.2 on 10.4.4..

[odedia]

I build things, break things and catch things on fire. I love my job.

Z

Hey man, if that's what you do, then I love you job too :)

Oded S.

[Macmaniac]

Give the Windows Crackers two weeks and Windows will run on the Intel Macs. It was only a matter of time with the developer version, it should not take that long now that its in the open.

I hope game performance will improve on these new machines when the code is UB. The specs are decent! Come on Blizzard where is the UB of WoW?

[UberMac]

I was using a new iMac earlier, sorry didn't do any fancy comparisons *whoops* BUT...the thing that really struck me was...

Safari seems snappier™ :o

[Randall]

Apple has implemented Open Firmware commands into EFI, so that you can still hold down the 'C' key at startup to start from CD, or hold down option to get startup disks, or hold down 'T' to go into target disk mode, mouse to eject CD, etc... Indicates custom EFI setup or SOMETHING along those lines. May explain why Vista can't boot, because I would think that it should...Well that's just key mappings. You can control all the hardware from the EFI shell.

Windows XP will run on the intel Macs, it's just a matter of finding a way to hack XP to boot using EFI. The 64-bit version of XP already does, and Vista does as well. I don't think it will be too difficult for a hardware level programmer who's looking for "ultimate fame" to do.

[BOOMBA]

Looks like a quad G5 is still a good deal.

[Sunrunner]

I was using a new iMac earlier, sorry didn't do any fancy comparisons *whoops* BUT...the thing that really struck me was...

Safari seems snappier™ :o


Nice Sig!

[mark88]

Which part of finder was the reviewer referring to when he said FTFF?

[rxse7en]

I believe this first gen of Intel Macs is a great endeavor. Keep in mind, the switch was supposedly for the future processors--the ones that will leave the current crop of Intel procs and Power procs in the dust. Personally, I'll be waiting until next year, when all of the apps are UB and the speed gains are glaring.

B

[macwinuser]

That is the first time that i have seen the intel iMac vs. the G5 iMac bootup time video. Is it just me or is the G5 iMac sloooooow? Both my G4 700mhz iMac, my 1ghz Ti PB and our schools 2ghz PM all boot faster than the G5 iMac in the test.


What video are you talking about? I would like to see it. Do you have a link?

[weckart]

Well that's just key mappings. You can control all the hardware from the EFI shell.

Windows XP will run on the intel Macs, it's just a matter of finding a way to hack XP to boot using EFI. The 64-bit version of XP already does, and Vista does as well. I don't think it will be too difficult for a hardware level programmer who's looking for "ultimate fame" to do.


Ars Technica reports that Vista does not boot on the new Macs. It will take more than just a quick haxie.

[Peace]

OS X for Intel does not have an efi shell that I know of.I may be wrong.

[firestarter]

I believe this first gen of Intel Macs is a great endeavor. Keep in mind, the switch was supposedly for the future processors--the ones that will leave the current crop of Intel procs and Power procs in the dust. Personally, I'll be waiting until next year, when all of the apps are UB and the speed gains are glaring.


These are the future processors and this is the year!

It'll be Q2 before this technology reaches Intel desktop processors, but essentially this Yonah/Core duo is what we've been waiting for.

There will be improvements to these low power processors midyear too (with a switch to 64 bit), but there won't be anything siginificantly different around for another 18 months now.

[zoetropeuk]

That is the first time that i have seen the intel iMac vs. the G5 iMac bootup time video. Is it just me or is the G5 iMac sloooooow? Both my G4 700mhz iMac, my 1ghz Ti PB and our schools 2ghz PM all boot faster than the G5 iMac in the test.

This is not directed at you personally but so what if it takes 60 seconds to boot, get a life. Just get out of bed 60 seconds earlier and by the time you go to bed you'll be even again.

Just can't believe some of the benign issues people on this forum worry about. :(

[Randall]

These are the future processors and this is the year!

It'll be Q2 before this technology reaches Intel desktop processors, but essentially this Yonah/Core duo is what we've been waiting for.

There will be improvements to these low power processors midyear too (with a switch to 64 bit), but there won't be anything siginificantly different around for another 18 months now.Bingo, wait for 64-bit Merom, and then you will have the ultimate laptop. :cool:

[corywoolf]

I've seen my G5DP2.0 take close to two minutes sometimes. Biggest culprit seems to be fonts, but I'm to lazy to do a real culling to find out. I only restart my Macs after updates, the rest of the time they are looking for aliens and a solution to the Unified Field Theory(Einstein@home).
Currently running 3 OS X Macs on an AirPort mini-network - moved recently and have not set up any older Macs.
Waiting for my new MBP to ship - 1.83 w/ 100GB 7200 rpm HDD... mmmm new toy.

Z

didn't they shut down SETI?

[Randall]

Ars Technica reports that Vista does not boot on the new Macs. It will take more than just a quick haxie.I could be wrong, but I believe that the early versions of Vista only had BIOS compatibility. I think it would depend on what version of Vista beta they had tried to boot from. Does anybody know more specifics about this?

[Randall]

didn't they shut down SETI?Don't be silly. http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ I want to believe!

[ncoffey]

Bingo, wait for 64-bit Merom, and then you will have the ultimate laptop. :cool:

You know quad core chips will be out about six months after Merom right?

[TBi]

This is not directed at you personally but so what if it takes 60 seconds to boot, get a life. Just get out of bed 60 seconds earlier and by the time you go to bed you'll be even again.

Just can't believe some of the benign issues people on this forum worry about. :(

If they all take 60 seconds to boot then yes you have a point. If however you have a computer and all your friends have the EXACT same one yet their's only takes 20 seconds to boot i'm guessing you'd be a tad bit annoyed by it. If not, more power to you. However it would bug the crap out of me and i'd return it if it wasn't a software issue.

[Randall]

You know quad core chips will be out about six months after Merom right?yeah, but what's the point? There will always be something better in the pipeline. Sooner or later you gotta take the plunge. You only live once. Meanwhile I am perfectly content in waiting for what I feel will be a signifigent advancement of architecture in 64-bit. Even if software takes a long time to catch up, the benefits of 64-bit computing will show up eventually. :D

[TBi]

You know quad core chips will be out about six months after Merom right?

That's what eBay is for :)

[mdavey]

I only restart my Macs after updates, the rest of the time they are looking for aliens and a solution to the Unified Field Theory(Einstein@home).

Anyone else found that BOINC is a great way to tell when your machine needs a reboot? If I see SETI, Einstein and Rosetta stats all start to take a nose-dive, I know that an Apple Software Update must be about due ;).

[Church]

Lets hope, but might not be that easy. Remember, EFI has been out for a while, as well as WindowsXP, and still there hasn't been a solution. The problem is not with the MacOS, but with Windows operating with EFI (or Vista seeing the customized EFI). Granted, EFI use has been limited, as major PC manufacturers have kept with BIOS, but still. You'd think with all those programmers out there, that there would be a fix already if it was something relatively easy.

Windoze windoze windoze... big deal, let's get something worth while, like WINE, on these computers so we can play some games already. CS: SOURCE, HERE I COME! (battlefield 2 too, hopefully :eek: )

[SiliconAddict]

me smells either a Intel Mac fanboy

Oh god. *collapses onto his keyboard* Only in the Mac world. :(

[Randall]

Windoze windoze windoze... big deal, let's get something worth while, like WINE, on these computers so we can play some games already. CS: SOURCE, HERE I COME! (battlefield 2 too, hopefully :eek: )Emulation sux0rs. Hence the whole discussion on dual booting.

[Church]

Emulation sux0rs. Hence the whole discussion on dual booting.

Um..... the intel thing is basically an emulation machine until universal binaries are the norm. So, if you're going to emulate one thing (powerpc programs under rosetta), why not something else (games under wine)?

[Randall]

Um..... the intel thing is basically an emulation machine until universal binaries are the norm. So, if you're going to emulate one thing (powerpc programs under rosetta), why not something else (games under wine)?That is the main reason why I didn't jump in right away. Not until software catches up to the Universal Binaries. I want to avoid Rosetta whenever possible. Emulation... especially WINE(X) for gaming... is particulary SLOW. WINE has been around for 9+ years and it still sucks. There is something to be said about that.

[Church]

That is the main reason why I didn't jump in right away. Not until software catches up to the Universal Binaries. I want to avoid Rosetta whenever possible. Emulation... especially WINE(X) for gaming... is particulary SLOW. WINE has been around for 9+ years and it still sucks. There is something to be said about that.

I never really heard that it was slow, but then again, I haven't ever really heard all that much about it. Either way, the games need to start coming to macs and run halfway well, it's rediculous how bad some of them suck because no one cares enough to get them to run the right way. Hopefully Intel and universal binaries will help that problem.

[kjs862]

Is it just me or does anyone else think it is weird that the core duo chip is in the imac. I'm under the impression that the core duo is suppose to be a mobile processor with remarkable performance per watt hence the reason why they put it into a powerbook. Since the imac is plugged into the wall and doesn't run off a battery and is not a mobile computer but rather a desktop just seems weird to me that the imac is using the core duo.

[Jovian9]

21 Seconds to boot the iMac G5 in my sig......
with 8 widgets going.......
2 partitions:
38GB of 90GB free on boot partition
92GB of 143GB remaining on 2nd partition

This thing flies. I have issues with people constantly talking about how slow the iMac G5's boot and how slow they run dashboard............I don't see it. This machine does everything fast.

[BlizzardBomb]

I've just done a test on my imac G5 rev B for start up time, this is with 2 users and 2 GB of RAM and it took exactly 90 seconds.

Well let's compare against the Rev. B in my sig with 1x 1GB RAM, 160GB HD, ATI 9600 128MB. I measured from the second I pushed ON to the second the dock popped up.

Trial 1 - 38 secs
Trial 2 - 36 secs
Trial 3 - 39 secs
Trial 4 - 34 secs
Trial 5 - 35 secs

Average - 36.4 secs

Interesting. What looked really odd to me is that the G5 iSight seemed to take ages to get to the Apple logo load screen, it only takes a few seconds after the start-up sound for the Apple logo screen to appear for me. Any other iMac users want to try this out?

[topgunn]

Is it just me or does anyone else think it is weird that the core duo chip is in the imac. I'm under the impression that the core duo is suppose to be a mobile processor with remarkable performance per watt hence the reason why they put it into a powerbook. Since the imac is plugged into the wall and doesn't run off a battery and is not a mobile computer but rather a desktop just seems weird to me that the imac is using the core duo.
There is much to be said for using "mobile" processors in desktops.
1. Use less power.
2. Quieter.
3. Cooler.

My gaming Desktop PC is based on the Pentium M and it beats the "top-o-the-line" Pentium 4's and Athlon FX's in most all games.

[p0intblank]

Well let's compare against the Rev. B in my sig with 1x 1GB RAM, 160GB HD, ATI 9600 128MB. I measured from the second I pushed ON to the second the dock popped up.

Trial 1 - 38 secs
Trial 2 - 36 secs
Trial 3 - 39 secs
Trial 4 - 34 secs
Trial 5 - 35 secs

Average - 36.4 secs

Interesting. What looked really odd to me is that the G5 iSight seemed to take ages to get to the Apple logo load screen, it only takes a few seconds after the start-up sound for the Apple logo screen to appear for me. Any other iMac users want to try this out?

I just did a quick trial run on my dad's iMac G5 (1.8 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 10.4.4):

1:06.056

[Randall]

Is it just me or does anyone else think it is weird that the core duo chip is in the imac. I'm under the impression that the core duo is suppose to be a mobile processor with remarkable performance per watt hence the reason why they put it into a powerbook. Since the imac is plugged into the wall and doesn't run off a battery and is not a mobile computer but rather a desktop just seems weird to me that the imac is using the core duo.It's probably not just you, but there is something to be said for portable chips in a desktop config. Especially this revolutionary intel chip, the Core Duo. Being a 65nm process, and being based off of a little of the best aspects of Pentium III and Pentium 4, it's already better then the P4 in most respects. Then throw in the lesser power consumtion, less heat given off, and greater overall performance. Then you have a stong canidate for any slim fitting case for a desktop computer. (e.g. iMac, Mac Mini, etc.) A "mobile" processor like the Core Duo will run in any form factor that supports it's chipset and socket, so shouldn't be considered "laptop only". It's lower power consumtion and higher performance makes it ideal for laptops however. :cool:

[p0intblank]

Here's an interesting comparison... I just did a trial run on my PowerBook G4 (see sig for specs) and this is how long it took:

58.798 seconds

That's FASTER than my dad's iMac G5. :eek: Do you think this is because of my RAM upgrade?

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by nagromme
Or curing cancer with folding@home? :)

http://folding.stanford.edu
(NOTE: not Intel-ready quite yet.)

Thanks for the tip.

I'm downloading the software right now.

Cheers.

Note that Folding@Home contribution stats are tracked by "teams" just for fun, and there are many Mac teams--you just enter the # of the team you wish to have your stats be part of:

http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/team_list.php?s=

I fold with Team Mac OSX, but the MacRumors team is # 3446 (almost ranked in the top 20).

For anyone interested in Folding on an Intel Mac, here's a thread to watch:
http://forum.folding-community.org/viewtopic.php?p=120099&sid=b34f4801c54cc2063c4d76e0193f7ddc#120099

[Malcster]

I find the benchmarks dubious because the PowerMac has 4.5 Gigs of RAM, the G5 imac 1 Gig and core duo 512 meg?? Memory in macs makes a HUGE difference.. Another 512 meg in the core duo would have made quite a difference i feel and a much better comparison.

Especially on the non-native stuff like photoshop.

[Airforce]

Memory in macs makes a HUGE difference..

Remember, it's no longer the Mac you use to know; Just a PC in a nice wrapper :p

but the memory might might a big difference...512 1gb and 4 gb? Not really a fair benchmark.

[BlizzardBomb]

Here's an interesting comparison... I just did a trial run on my PowerBook G4 (see sig for specs) and this is how long it took:

58.798 seconds

That's FASTER than my dad's iMac G5. :eek: Do you think this is because of my RAM upgrade?

Yes! I ordered my iMac with stock config so it would be shipped out faster. With only 512MB it took a lot longer to boot up. I don't have any specific times though.

[DavidLeblond]

That is the main reason why I didn't jump in right away. Not until software catches up to the Universal Binaries. I want to avoid Rosetta whenever possible. Emulation... especially WINE(X) for gaming... is particulary SLOW. WINE has been around for 9+ years and it still sucks. There is something to be said about that.

Wine Is Not an Emulator.

[Randall]

Wine Is Not an Emulator.cute

So I guess a total re-write of the Windows API outside of the Windows environment is not technically an "emulator", but whatever it is, it sucks the bone.

[kukito]

Is it just me or does anyone else think it is weird that the core duo chip is in the imac. I'm under the impression that the core duo is suppose to be a mobile processor with remarkable performance per watt hence the reason why they put it into a powerbook. Since the imac is plugged into the wall and doesn't run off a battery and is not a mobile computer but rather a desktop just seems weird to me that the imac is using the core duo.

Despite being a chip designed for portables, the Core Duo matches (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=1) the performance of the fastest desktop x86 chip around, the Athlon 64 X2.

[ppnkg]

I watched the video with the two imacs, and I think this is by far *not* accurate. I think that my imac G5 boots even faster than the intel imac shown on the video!

[mulletman13]

That is the main reason why I didn't jump in right away. Not until software catches up to the Universal Binaries. I want to avoid Rosetta whenever possible. Emulation... especially WINE(X) for gaming... is particulary SLOW. WINE has been around for 9+ years and it still sucks. There is something to be said about that.

I'm very sorry but I need to point out a few things wrong with this post.

There is no actual emulation going on right now! Rosetta is a universal translator for PPC code to x86 code, it isn't running a software based PPC machine (which is what emulation would be... running software to emulate hardware... very cpu intensive and rather slow). Rosetta simply translates the instructions on the fly and does it rather well.

As for your comments about Wine for OS X, of course it has been bad -- translating Windows programs to run on Darwin on a completely different architecture is a bit challenging -- plus they never got a ton of support. It was a giant undertaking, and we should be happy they got this far. But now that OS X uses the same exact hardware that Windows based programs run on, no code has to be translated, and it is SIGNIFICANTLY easier to run these programs. Again, AFAIK Wine is not an emulator, but simply a way to bypass the OS and run small portions of Windows code that make these programs boot. It will be much easier for the Wine team to do this now that we're on x86, and the speed should be very, very quick.

[gauriemma]

That is the first time that i have seen the intel iMac vs. the G5 iMac bootup time video. Is it just me or is the G5 iMac sloooooow? Both my G4 700mhz iMac, my 1ghz Ti PB and our schools 2ghz PM all boot faster than the G5 iMac in the test.

I can't believe that was a legitimate start-up. That kind of start-up time is more indicative of my Mac following a kernel panic--and even THAT is faster.

[rxse7en]

These are the future processors and this is the year!

It'll be Q2 before this technology reaches Intel desktop processors, but essentially this Yonah/Core duo is what we've been waiting for.

There will be improvements to these low power processors midyear too (with a switch to 64 bit), but there won't be anything siginificantly different around for another 18 months now.

My point was, that it's pretty impressive that they were able to switch architectures and have a significant speed bump (laptop side) right off the bat. We are now in transition and the switch was made based on the fact that G5 was in slow/no development mode. In 18 months, where will Intel and Moto be?

B

[Randall]

Best Features of the iMac...

1) Doubles as reading lamp
2) Automatically emails fan letter to Steve Jobs during start up
3) If you cup your palms over the domed base, your hair will rise in air
4) Sprouts set of cybernetic insectoid legs and scutters away when threatened
5) Perfectly matches the iBlouse
6) Screen is flat, which is good for some reason
7) Special drool tray catches saliva from enthralled technogeeks
8) Communications directly with human pineal gland by firing information-rich beam of pink light
9) Wuvs you

Stolen from The Onion of about 4 years ago but still true today. :p ;)

[topgunn]

RAM is not real important in boot times. 512MB should be the same as 1GB, 2GB, 4GB etc. The main hardware component that affects boot times is the old hard drive. The Rev A iMac G5 had a bum SATA controller that really limited the drives performance. If it was a Rev A G5 used in these benchmarks, that says a lot to me about the slow boot times, although it should still be faster than a G4 Powerbook.

[BlizzardBomb]

RAM is not real important in boot times. 512MB should be the same as 1GB, 2GB, 4GB etc. The main hardware component that affects boot times is the old hard drive. The Rev A iMac G5 had a bum SATA controller that really limited the drives performance. If it was a Rev A G5 used in these benchmarks, that says a lot to me about the slow boot times, although it should still be faster than a G4 Powerbook.

Well as I said I didn't have any specifics. I think that I got my 1GB stick on the same day 10.4.2 was released so maybe that helped boost the start-up time too, but I'm still pretty sure it had a noticable effect.

[nagromme]

Comments on http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/1 ...

* Great review! And as thorough as we expect from Ars.

* Looks like the MacBook Pro and iMac both have optical digital output, and both have analog audio input and output too... but only the MacBook has digital input, the iMac doesn't. (Both have mics and speakers built-in.)

* "small iSight camera with a tiny microphone next to it" ... I THINK that's the iSight's "on air" light. The Mic is hidden in the speaker grille on the underside last I heard. Maybe that's changed?

* "the power cord threads through a hole in the middle of the stand and into the back of the iMac" ... or better yet, be tidy: thread ALL your cables through the hole :)

* The easy self-service internal design of the original iMac G5 was great. I hope that philosophy returns--the PowerMac still has it. Meanwhile, at least they made the thing thinner!

* Ars refers to changing internal components as "all the things that PC users take for granted"--but that's talking about PC towers, not thin all-in-ones. And Mac tower are the same as PCs that way, or even easier in fact. Mac tower uses can "take it for granted" too.

* Front Row has "giant icons for iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD, and a picture of a DVD" ... well, no, that's not iDVD, that's the iMovie icon :) And it just means "movies" in general.

* Question: can you navigate Front Row by mouse if you choose? To get through long lists of songs for instance? A BT mouse would be a nice companion to the Front Row remote. (Or maybe Apple should build the IR remote INTO an optional BT Mighty Mouse?)

* Front Row "doesn't really have a reason to exist" unless your Mac is in your living room? That's not the only room people watch movies in--what about the bedroom? Basement rec room? Dorm room? Even... computer room with a couch? And music even more so--your screen distance doesn't matter for music. I've almost bought a remote for my PowerBook many times, just for DVD player and iTunes. With a MacBook I'd be all set.

* They seem to forget that the iMac can output to TV, just like all other Macs--with a simple adapter. No need to limit yourself to 17-20" for movies or games.

* Taking casual snapshots is just a "a toy"? Pretty common need if you ask me! To say nothing of videos: your iMac is a camcorder ready for iMovie, in essence. And if PhotoBooth's filter effects are a toy... well they're a really fun one! :)

* "To my eye, the iSight in the iMac seems to be a bit sharper than my old one. The picture is sharp, and it does a good job with autofocus." Good to hear.

* Re OS X live window resizing in the past: "In early versions, one could click and drag on the corner of a Finder or application window and be rewarded by having said window move or resize some time later." That's exaggerated. Correction: it would resize without delay, but at a poor framerate--annoying but not hard to use, even on slower Macs from ages past. And it was Finder and iTunes more specifically than apps in general--most apps resized smoothly all along.

* "verall, I'm very impressed with Rosetta. Aside from Unreal Tournament 2K4, I've not run into a single application that was unusable on the iMac." Note that UT 2004 has a Universal Binary--awaiting final iMac testing before release :) Lots of other games--new and old alike have had their publishers announce UB's on the way. And some games--like Quake 3 engine games--reportedly run great in Rosetta (according to the developer of Alice for Mac.)

* "using applications such as Microsoft Office felt so smooth that I really didn't get the feeling that there was some sort of translation at work." Excellent.

* Re Photoshop filter speed. People aren't upgrading from a PowerMac G4 dual to a Core Duo iMac for the most part. They're probably upgrading from some G4. How does Rosetta Photoshop compare in THAT case? Are you at least getting comparable G4 performance while awaiting Universal Photoshop?

* "Some reportedly won't launch at all, like Final Cut Pro 5 and Logic 7." Universal versions are due soon.

* "Overall, I'd have to say it's one of Apple's quieter machines, which is a relief given Apple's history with loud fans." He must not have listened to many PCs :D Nor to Apple's many super-quiet models.

* Re detailed Xbench tests... take with salt. They're very artificial and not always fair comparisons. (Note how reviewers say the new iMac feels faster and more responsive, yet Xbench says the UI is slower.) Look at real-world apps for your tests.

* A lot of Photoshop users--like me--aren't doing big 45 MB print files. I do web-resolution work. I'm sure I'd be satisfied with Rosetta performance.

* UT 2004 Rosetta demo. What test was done exactly? Those framerates seem atypically low for 1024x768 even on the G5 machines. (And note that the newest UT2004 demo is NOT yet patched to the level of the retail game, if that matters. And did he even have the newest demo? There have been many demo patches.)

* Windows on Mac: it will happen, and before Vista. XP will run. I feel sure that some enterprising hacker will get it going eventually. And Virtual PC will be along anyway--now at full speed.

* "fix the ********** Finder" Yes--please do improve it. It has some quirks that show the need for a scrap-and-rewrite. And yet the Tiger Finder with Column View, slideshows/contact sheets, and Spotlight has been VERY productive for me, far more so than any other file manager I've used. I would go so far as to call the Finder a great app--with some flaws.

* "this machine stacks up quite favorably in terms of price and features with Pentium D desktops." No surprise--it has been a while since you could easily buy a name-brand PC cheaper than a similar Mac--not if it truly matched ALL (not just a selected few specs) of what the Mac includes.

* "Some dislike having all the ports in the back. I don't mind." Me neither. Yes, they're in back, but hardly difficult to get to. It's not like the iMac is tricky to turn, the way a tower is.

* Good roundup at the end:

Pros

Speed and performance of Intel-native apps
Rosetta performance
Built-in iSight
Value
Bright, vibrant display
Finally a decent video card (ATI Radeon X1600) on the consumer Mac
True dual display support
Quiet

Cons

Lack of user-serviceability
Short list of Intel-native applications available at launch
No support for shared iTunes playlists in Front Row

[kskill]

i just got my 20inch intel imac [w/ 2 gigs of ram] in the mail yesterday. i've been waiting to get a mac for a long time and am delighted with my new purchase. prior to this i had a intel pentium 4 3.2ghz sony vaio w/ 1.536 gb of ram. the imac boots faster and seems to do web surfing faster as well. i'm excited for final cut to come out for intel, that's the main reason i bought this. anyhoo, i do have one gripe that no one has mentioned yet:
i cannot get wmv files to function using flip2mac. i get an error saying that i need a newer version of quicktime [6/.1 or greater], whereas my imac came with quicktime 7.0. any suggestions?

thanks guys, i'm happy to finally be a member of the mac community.

[Nermal]

I mean, the scores might not be THAT inflated, but still should be taken with a grain of salt. One look at Ars's review and you can see that the new iMac is not 2-3x faster as advertised

Even Apple's own bar graphs don't show the system as being 3x faster. The biggest bar, for Modo, is 1.6x longer than the Baseline bar (although the bar actually says "2.6x faster" on it, typo or deliberate misleading?)

[Performa 600]

Hi guys, I'm a long time reader of these forums and I finally decided to chime in with a few ideas for getting XP to run on an Intel Mac.

First I'll tell you that I by no means am an expert in these things only that I have a few ideas that may be worth looking into.

#1

Has anyone tried booting from a Tiger disc and then trying to install from an alternate drive? In OS9, I used to use this method as a work-around but I'm not sure if this would apply to newer machines.

#2

Why not just install XP on an alternate HD on a standard PC, then taking that drive out and adding it to the chain inside Intel Mac?

Sorry, if the above ideas sound stupid to anyone but I'm just as curious as the next guy. ;-)

~Performa 600

[aristobrat]

i get an error saying that i need a newer version of quicktime [6/.1 or greater], whereas my imac came with quicktime 7.0. any suggestions?
Click on the Apple in the upper left hand corner of your screen. On the menu that pops down, click on Software Update. QuickTime 7.0.4 should be one of the updates available.

[nagromme]

i cannot get wmv files to function using flip2mac.
In addition to updating QuickTime if needed, also make sure you have the latest Flip2Mac version: on their own site I think they recently posted a newer version than the one Microsoft linked to.

[javiercr]

I think the days of the 'install OSX on a PC' were so much better than the 'install Windows on a Mac'... oh the good old days.

Hopefully soon we'll get to the 'the mac just works, just enjoy it'

[kjs862]

I'm curious if Apple is ever stop writting their OS for powerpc and jus write for x86.

[jouster]

I'm curious if Apple is ever stop writting their OS for powerpc and jus write for x86.

At some point they will. After all, they no longer support 680x0 procs. It'll be a while before all the PPC-based Macs are retired but it'll happen at some point.

[kskill]

Click on the Apple in the upper left hand corner of your screen. On the menu that pops down, click on Software Update. QuickTime 7.0.4 should be one of the updates available.

hey thanks for the advice, but i've done that already and it still won't work for me. i get this error message:
QuickTime version 6.5.1 or later is required to run Flip4Mac WMV Player.

in another thread, 12thgear told me to try "try forcing Quicktime Player to launch in Rosetta. You can do that via a checkbox in the Get Info window (highlight Quicktime, Control-click, select Get Info from the contextual menu)." but being the noob that i am i couldn't quite figure out how to do that. any other suggestions? aside from this, the intel imac is pretty siiiick.

[Randall]

I'm curious if Apple is ever stop writting their OS for powerpc and jus write for x86.My guess is they'll be done with supporting PPC within 5 years. Eventually death will come to the PPC in the Mac OS, but for the time being they plan on full support. I would almost guarantee by the time OS 11 rolls out that the PPC will be dead. It took what 5 years for them to completely kill off OS 9 "Classic" support in OS X? The time will come. People need time to adjust and upgrade accordingly. Forced upgrades are not fun, and typically 5 years is a fair lifespan for a computer.

[MartinAyla]

hey thanks for the advice, but i've done that already and it still won't work for me. i get this error message:
QuickTime version 6.5.1 or later is required to run Flip4Mac WMV Player.

in another thread, 12thgear told me to try "try forcing Quicktime Player to launch in Rosetta. You can do that via a checkbox in the Get Info window (highlight Quicktime, Control-click, select Get Info from the contextual menu)." but being the noob that i am i couldn't quite figure out how to do that. any other suggestions? aside from this, the intel imac is pretty siiiick.

That error message appears because Flip4Mac isn't Universal Binary yet. It will be very soon though. Got this from Flip4Mac support.

So that's just a "random" error message.

Hang in there :)

[macidiot]

in another thread, 12thgear told me to try "try forcing Quicktime Player to launch in Rosetta. You can do that via a checkbox in the Get Info window (highlight Quicktime, Control-click, select Get Info from the contextual menu)." but being the noob that i am i couldn't quite figure out how to do that. any other suggestions? aside from this, the intel imac is pretty siiiick.


Basically he is telling you to right-click. You can also just select Quicktime player and do a command-i (apple-i) key combination or select quicktime player and go to the file menu->get info.

[macidiot]

Hi guys, I'm a long time reader of these forums and I finally decided to chime in with a few ideas for getting XP to run on an Intel Mac.

First I'll tell you that I by no means am an expert in these things only that I have a few ideas that may be worth looking into.

#1

Has anyone tried booting from a Tiger disc and then trying to install from an alternate drive? In OS9, I used to use this method as a work-around but I'm not sure if this would apply to newer machines.

#2

Why not just install XP on an alternate HD on a standard PC, then taking that drive out and adding it to the chain inside Intel Mac?

Sorry, if the above ideas sound stupid to anyone but I'm just as curious as the next guy. ;-)

~Performa 600


From what I've figured out, it won't work simply because BIOS is required for XP to boot. The iMac uses EFI to boot.

[Eric5h5]

big deal, let's get something worth while, like WINE, on these computers so we can play some games already. CS: SOURCE, HERE I COME! (battlefield 2 too, hopefully :eek: )

Why mess around with WINE trying to get Battlefield 2 to run, when you can just run the Mac version? (Well, not at the moment you can't, but it's being ported right now.)

--Eric

[Randall]

From what I've figured out, it won't work simply because BIOS is required for XP to boot. The iMac uses EFI to boot.We need an EFI enabled version of Windows XP, or a bootloader that can support EFI. But first it sounds like even Windows Vista isn't booting, which could possibly mean that the EFI shell isn't installed in full capacity. There are a lot of questions out there and not a lot of answers. All we know is that OS X86 doesn't support the legacy BIOS module for EFI (and why should it, there is no reason to) and we know that Windows XP 32-bit can only boot from BIOS at this point in time.

Somebody will figure this mess out, and it will work... eventually. :D

[Airforce]

Why mess around with WINE trying to get Battlefield 2 to run, when you can just run the Mac version? (Well, not at the moment you can't, but it's being ported right now.)

--Eric

Probably because he is tired of waiting around for a port ;)

[truz]

I seen a thread about apple saying all windows 64bit can be loaded on the intel imacs. Has someone tried booting the Windows XP Professional x64 yet?


http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

More scattered reports have been coming in from users who have started receiving their Intel iMacs. While there's already been a disassembly (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060114205422.shtml) there have been limited first hand reports.

Macintouch posted (http://www.macintouch.com/) their first impressions of the 2.0GHz Core Duo Intel iMac and ran some early Xbench 1.2 benchmarks compared to a 1.8GHz G5 iMac. The results are difficult to interpret, however. While Xbench is a Universal Binary (http://guides.macrumors.com/Universal_Binary), it is not entirely multiprocessor aware. As a result, it does not generally test both cores of the Dual Core Intel processor. Also, graphics cards are different between the machines, making their graphical performance difficult to compare.

As expected the Intel iMac's OpenGL Graphics test (140.4) bested the G5 iMac's (90.4). The Thread Test which is multiprocessor aware showed a dramatic advantage (198.3 vs 49.75) in the Intel iMac, as expected. The other tests were quite variable, making these results difficult to interpret.

Meanwhile, a side-by-side Intel iMac vs G5 iMac video has been making the rounds (http://www.youtube.com/?v=zmaAZwkhYeQ) showing the Intel iMac booting much faster. The video has spawned some debate about accuracy of the G5 iMac's startup in this particular video. Regardless, another user (http://forums.macnn.com/showpost.php?p=2838333) timed the 1.83GHz Intel iMac's startup at approximate 18 seconds -- users can compare this value to their own machines.

Readers will be interested to know that at least a casual attempt (http://forums.macnn.com/showpost.php?p=2838910) at booting Windows XP has been unsuccessful.

Based on Macintouch's impressions as well as this user's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=173843):

- Intel iMacs are quiet.
- Same startup sound as previous Macs
- Same RAM access slots at bottom under removable panel as the iSight G5 iMac

A reminder that we have running Mac Guide page (http://guides.macrumors.com/Intel_iMac) for the Intel iMac, that will reflect any new information.

[Airforce]

I seen a thread about apple saying all windows 64bit can be loaded on the intel imacs. Has someone tried booting the Windows XP Professional x64 yet?

The chip is not 64bit so that wouldn't work.

[illegalprelude]

There is much to be said for using "mobile" processors in desktops.
1. Use less power.
2. Quieter.
3. Cooler.

My gaming Desktop PC is based on the Pentium M and it beats the "top-o-the-line" Pentium 4's and Athlon FX's in most all games.

wooo. a good laugh is always appreciated. do you mean the top of the line of 4 years ago?

[iSee]

I have never really understood the XBench results. All I care about is how fast my MBP will be compared to my PB on the processes that I run:

-Photoshop
-iPhoto
-iMovie
-iDVD
-Handbrake
-Safari
-iTunes

and will Dashboard still run like a paralysed snail? Is Java better on the net, because my PB is rubbish at that?

The latest versions of iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Safari, and iTunes are all univeral binaries, so they should run great--a lot faster than on an old powerbook.

Others mentioned handbrake

Photoshop may be a problem, since the universal binary is not ready yet, and it's just the kind of thing that won't run under Rosetta well. Also, I was reading a developer article on Rosetta, and it said that an app, along with all of its plugins have to run as translated PCC, or all intel native. So you need to get universal versions of any plugins you want to use to run PS natively, in addition to a universal version of PS.

Still, the new MBP has a lot of horsepower compared to an older powerbook, so it may run just as well. And once the universal binaries start coming out, it will get a lot faster.

The Java runtime has got to be universal, right? Since it's included with the OS. If so, that will run a lot faster than on your old powerbook. I guess someone who actually has his hands on one of these things could check pretty easily...

[kjs862]

The latest versions of iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Safari, and iTunes are all univeral binaries, so they should run great--a lot faster than on an old powerbook.

I have the latest versions of OSX (10.4.4) and have ilife 06 installed and when I click get info just the ilife 06 apps are showing up as universal and programs like safari and system preferences are showing up as powerpc. I thought Steve said during macworld that 10.4.4 is fully universal.

[Church]

Why mess around with WINE trying to get Battlefield 2 to run, when you can just run the Mac version? (Well, not at the moment you can't, but it's being ported right now.)

--Eric

What? Being ported right now? If you link up an article or some other proof of that sort, you'll be my friend forever. And yes, Airforce , I do get tired of waiting. ;)

[bondjw07]

My question is, is that a guy or a girl in the space suit? Discuss..

~Bond

[Marvy]

I'm very sorry but I need to point out a few things wrong with this post.

There is no actual emulation going on right now! Rosetta is a universal translator for PPC code to x86 code, it isn't running a software based PPC machine (which is what emulation would be... running software to emulate hardware... very cpu intensive and rather slow). Rosetta simply translates the instructions on the fly and does it rather well.

As for your comments about Wine for OS X, of course it has been bad -- translating Windows programs to run on Darwin on a completely different architecture is a bit challenging -- plus they never got a ton of support. It was a giant undertaking, and we should be happy they got this far. But now that OS X uses the same exact hardware that Windows based programs run on, no code has to be translated, and it is SIGNIFICANTLY easier to run these programs. Again, AFAIK Wine is not an emulator, but simply a way to bypass the OS and run small portions of Windows code that make these programs boot. It will be much easier for the Wine team to do this now that we're on x86, and the speed should be very, very quick.

There are a few things wrong about your post as well.
First of all, although you are right that an emulator does more than just translate instructions, I think it's still fair to call Rosetta an emulator. Every emulator translates instructions on the fly, and there are loads of emulators out there (called emulators) that do code translation and caching at runtime as well. I think SNES9X is an example for one, though I'm not absolutely sure.

Secondly, WINE is not about running windows apps on darwin. (A port specifically for that is DarWINE). WINE on the other hand has been around quite some time, and mainly emulates the Windows API / Function calls under linux. And even though under linux (on x86 platforms) this involves no instruction emulation, WINE still proved to be rather slow. So it is doubtful whether the mac port of WINE for x86 will be much faster.

[ramuman]

The chip is not 64bit so that wouldn't work.

Also, as far as I know, x86-64 Windows XP doesn't support EFI. I use it on my A64 PC and have not found anything indicating it supports EFI. I think this has been reported in the past - it was the Itanium version that supported EFI, not x86-64. Also, like Airforce said, we would have to wait until Merom to know anyway.

[nagromme]

wooo. a good laugh is always appreciated. do you mean the top of the line of 4 years ago?
Actually, the Pentium M (ancestor of Yonah/Core Duo) DOES come pretty close to high-end desktop Pentium performance. "Beats?" Maybe not always, but with a top GPU it could outrun a LOT of people's desktop gaming rigs. I don't have trouble believing that claim, having read the Pentium M review and head-to-head benchmarks at Tom's Hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/25/dothan_over_netburst/index.html

"we were able to raise the FSB from 133 to 160 MHz without any trouble at all. The result was that our 2.13GHz Pentium M 770 ended up running at 2.56 GHz! At this clock speed, our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!"

Now, even ONE Yonah core is faster than a Pentium M--and the iMac/MacBook Pro have two cores.

[killr_b]

uh ?
lets go ahead and compare some prices then.
macbook pro, 1,86 ghz, 1gb ram, x1600,15,4" screen, no dual layer dvd burner and only 4x.

norwegian price = 23400

dell 9400
intel core duo 1,86ghz,1gb ram, geforce 7800go, 17" screen,dual layer dvd burner and 8x instead of 4x.

norwegian price = 14900


The Dell 94 w/ 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM(2!! dimms), NO gigabit ethernet, Wireless a/g- NO b(like it matters, but...), 100GB HD@5400 RPM and 17" (not WIDE) screen, 256MB video RAM(Not gonna get into the chipset argument), and an 8x DL DVD burner- listed here- http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/inspn_9400?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd IS $2,675- after $300 instant savings. So $2,975.00 US

The Apple Macbook Pro w/ 1.83Ghz, 1GB RAM(1!! dimm) 10/100/1000 ethernet, Wireless b/g RUMORED a support (unless I missed something), 100GB HD@5400 RPM, 15.4" widescreen, and a 4x DL DVD burner- ALSO HAS isight, scrolling trackpad, Sudden Motion sensor(Thank you GOD!), the magsafe connector(yessss!), Firewire 400, support for expanded desktop over DVI w/ 30" display support, and is only 1" thick/ 5.6lbs.- compared to 1.6" thick/ 7.94lbs. Dell- and its the everyday price of $2,499.

Upon greater inspection the Dell has 6 USB and the Apple has 2.
So, Windows has Stand-by and Hibernate- no sleep. (not the same)
Mac has Sleep, so does Vista- meaning its more efficient.
This is only relevant because were talking laptops.

But a Windude is a windude and a Machead is a Machead.

Personaly I think the Macbook is a greater value even vs. Dell's sale price.

B

[Airforce]

Now, even ONE Yonah core is faster than a Pentium M--and the iMac/MacBook Pro have two cores.

But lets not take that to mean its over twice as fast ;)

[illegalprelude]

Actually, the Pentium M (ancestor of Yonah/Core Duo) DOES come pretty close to high-end desktop Pentium performance. "Beats?" Maybe not always, but with a top GPU it could outrun a LOT of people's desktop gaming rigs. I don't have trouble believing that claim, having read the Pentium M review and head-to-head benchmarks at Tom's Hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/25/dothan_over_netburst/index.html

"we were able to raise the FSB from 133 to 160 MHz without any trouble at all. The result was that our 2.13GHz Pentium M 770 ended up running at 2.56 GHz! At this clock speed, our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!"

Now, even ONE Yonah core is faster than a Pentium M--and the iMac/MacBook Pro have two cores.

I dont doubt the power of the unit but I have a feeling my PC would have no trouble running against once with ease would be my first thought. My second thought is the type of people who "mod their honda civiic and say they beat a mustang" Great, you are now comparing apples and oranges, no longer stock vs stock

[Norse Son]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieNerd
That itself is pretty useless since people should be leaving their macs on most of the time if possible.

Why?

I've heard the pros and cons to this for years. I used to leave my computers on all the time, but now I just shut them off at night unless they're actually doing something like rendering or downloading. The stress the computer has from being turned on and off is about equal to the stress of the components/fans from being left on all the time.

In the old days this may have been true about the stress, but computers aren't built like that today and they're tough little buggers. Yes yes...for every horror story someone will tell me about the evils of turning your computer on and off I can tell them a horror story of leaving them on all the time. It all equals out in the end...save the electricity that's being wasted.
Most of the time I just put it to sleep. About once every couple of weeks I'll at least log out as user, so it has a chance to "clean up after me" when I log in next (takes the trashcan out to the curb, checks the mailbox, cleans the registry & dishes, scrubs away at the annoying ring in the bathtub, you know... that kind of stuff).

But about once a month I do try to do a cycle of Disk Utility/Toss Junk/Empty Trash/Shut-Down & Reboot... That usually gets rid of any mice & 'piders that set up house in my hard drive's dank cellars & hall closets...

[Norse Son]

I'd like to know if printer drivers can be installed under rosetta...i don't think so....
Uhm, I don't know about you - maybe you're running some totally exotic or totally ancient printer - but MacOS X PPC has included printer drivers in the System Library. I know that there were problems back in v.10.0 and 10.1, but I think most of those printing issues were solved by the time Jaguar (10.2) arrived.

What I'm saying is that MacOS X v.10.4.4 for Intel Macs should already contain drivers for most of the popular printer brands (Epson, HP, Canon, Brother, etc.).

Now, as to whether those are at least Universal Binaries, or (hopefully) Native drivers... You'll have to ask the experts. But printing tasks for most (all?) apps is usually "handed off" to Print Center, so I would expect it (as part of the System) to be Native.

[Kelvin]

uh ?
lets go ahead and compare some prices then.
macbook pro, 1,86 ghz, 1gb ram, x1600,15,4" screen, no dual layer dvd burner and only 4x.

norwegian price = 23400

dell 9400
intel core duo 1,86ghz,1gb ram, geforce 7800go, 17" screen,dual layer dvd burner and 8x instead of 4x.

norwegian price = 14900
Now lets compare featues:

Inspiron has (MBP has not):
*a D-sub VGA connector next to the DVI port
*S-video out
*6-in-1 MC reader
*56kbps modem jack
*lots and lots and lots of USB ports (why?)

MBP has (Dell has not):
*Dual-link DVI for powering a 30" display
*Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR + built-in antenna (Dell optional plug-in, no antenna)
*Built-in wifi + built-in antenna (Dell optional plug-in card, no antenna)
*Gigabit Ethernet

Other (Dell vs MBP)
*17" 2.3MP display vs 15.4" 1.29MP display
*Tray-Load 8x DVD+-RW/DL vs Slot-Load 4x DVD+-RW
*Analog minijack vs Digital Optical + Analog minijack
*80GB HD vs 100GB HD
*ExpressCard/54 vs ExpressCard/34
*53Wh (~3hr) batt vs 60Wh (~4.5hr) batt
*1.6" THICK vs 1.0" thin (37% thinner, 52% smaller by volume)
*7.94Lbs vs 5.6Lbs (30% lighter)

I'm not sure you realize just how much of a difference in weight and size that is. Or maybe you don't care. Maybe you justify it as "a desktop replacement". FYI: some of us give a damn about portability for a portable computer. I can, buy an iMac Core Duo with a bunch of external crap and a big battery and get better specs than that Dell Latitude for less, but what does that prove? Show me a 15" Dell with MBP specs and weight.

If you want to save money buying crap, fine. Don't try to make it look like a good deal though, that's just insulting.

[ucscc10]

I recently went down to the apple store in valley fair (san jose/santa clara) and played around and restared one of the intel macs- and they are pretty darn fast. it went from pushing the switch to useable in about 15 seconds, and then i opened every app on the dock and it was faster than my dual 2.0 g5. ars's review is slightly skewed in that the intel mac only had the stock 512 memory, whereas his other systems had way more. and the system i played with had 1 gig in there- remember, os x needs a lot of memory. but all said, these things are fast.

oh, and in response to all the java quesions- no dice. gmail, yahoo mail, and anything java related does not work. sorry to you dslreports.com fans.

[illegalprelude]

Now lets compare featues:

Inspiron has (MBP has not):
*a D-sub VGA connector next to the DVI port
*S-video out
*6-in-1 MC reader
*56kbps modem jack
*lots and lots and lots of USB ports (why?)

MBP has (Dell has not):
*Dual-link DVI for powering a 30" display
*Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR + built-in antenna (Dell optional plug-in, no antenna)
*Built-in wifi + built-in antenna (Dell optional plug-in card, no antenna)

Other (Dell vs MBP)
*17" 2.3MP display vs 15.4" 1.29MP display
*Tray-Load 8x DVD+-RW/DL vs Slot-Load 4x DVD+-RW
*Analog minijack vs Digital Optical + Analog minijack
*80GB HD vs 100GB HD
*ExpressCard/54 vs ExpressCard/34
*53Wh (~3hr) batt vs 60Wh (~4.5hr) batt
*1.6" THICK vs 1.0" thin (37% thinner, 52% smaller by volume)
*7.94Lbs vs 5.6Lbs (30% lighter)

I'm not sure you realize just how much of a difference in weight and size that is. Or maybe you don't care. Maybe you justify it as "a desktop replacement". FYI: some of us give a damn about portability for a portable computer. I can, buy an iMac Core Duo with a bunch of external crap and a big battery and get better specs than that Dell Latitude for less, but what does that prove? Show me a 15" Dell with MBP specs and weight.

If you want to save money buying crap, fine. Don't try to make it look like a good deal though, that's just insulting.

having worked in the retail side of electronics for a long time, I cannot agree with you more.
Customer "This sony and compaq almost have the same specs but the sony is $250 more. God I always hate paying for a name brand"
Me in my head "you get what you pay for"

6 months later
Same Customer "omg, you guys sell crap, computer crashed, so slow. Give me another compaq, their still cheaper then those sony's"

[Norse Son]

Windows currently has no EFI support. Vista has limited support. Full support won't come until Blackcomb.

And it needs a standard EFI. A custom implementation, such as Apple's, won't work because they've probably only used what they need.
MicroSLOW was originally supposed to ship LongSNORE/Vista back in 2003 (search the web for it's timetable). And their beta schedules have recently seen... hmm, how to put it non-snarkily... "experienced flux". And with the news today that XP SP3 has now been pushed to late 2007... Hmm, I smell another rat. I think they are throwing every programmer at Vista - even as they strip its chassis to bare components - just to make some kind of a release this year.

If I were a Windows user (never, ever, ever again!), I wouldn't want to shell out good coin for that rushed release.

And I think you'd be hardpressed to find recent references to Blackcomb's development. Which makes me think it won't see Alpha, let alone, Beta, until late 2010.

No, if people want to run Windows apps on an Intel/EFI Mac, I think the best bet is a "transparent", near-native emulator. And I wonder if Transitive (the company behind Apple's Rosetta?) couldn't come up with a similar emulator to Rosetta that would allow a MacOS X on Intel to run Windows apps without needing to have Windows installed on the Mac... THAT is the Holy Grail of emulation.

[Superhob]

My question is, is that a guy or a girl in the space suit? Discuss..

~Bond

You might be surprised!
Take a look at my post over in the mac ad thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2067902&postcount=101

[Norse Son]

Is it just me or does anyone else think it is weird that the core duo chip is in the imac. I'm under the impression that the core duo is suppose to be a mobile processor with remarkable performance per watt hence the reason why they put it into a powerbook. Since the imac is plugged into the wall and doesn't run off a battery and is not a mobile computer but rather a desktop just seems weird to me that the imac is using the core duo.
The iMac's mobo & innards are essentially what you'd find if you could inflate a laptop by 20% or so. Yes, it does use 3.5" drives, while the laptops use 2.5". But when Apple redesigned the iMac G5, from the "desklamp" G4 predecessor, they managed to fit it into a space occupied by many laptops. And that includes the display, too. That was what amazed people so much about the design. The same can be said about the guts of the mini, which does use 2.5" hard drives.

However, if you read the articles around the web about Yonah, and Intel's official info, you'll see that it's intended for laptops & consumer desktops. Chances are there are a number of PCs out there which have a Pentium M in them - I just lacked reason to look before (or is it because I "can reason" that I never had a reason to shop for Windows PCs)...

[Airforce]

Chances are there are a number of PCs out there which have a Pentium M in them - I just lacked reason to look before (or is it because I "can reason" that I never had a reason to shop for Windows PCs...

Nah, you won't find Pentium Ms in Desktops unless someone built it themselves for some unknown reason.

[rugonnaeatthat]

I have a newly bought REV B iMac G5, 2GHZ 1GB RAM - took 118 secs to boot

[seancusick]

Just played with a 1.83ghz imac for about 30 min- my real quick first impressions:

Boot up time- wow- much faster that ANY mac I have used. Very Very fast.

Screen is very bright and crisp.

So quiet- I could not tell that it was on.

I could feel warm air from the vent in the back after 5 min of use- it must heat up fast.

System seemed snappy. But, in my experiences, almost all mac have a snappy feeling at first that decreases with time and how you use the hard drive.

Apps:

imovie opened very fast and felt great in terms of speed.

Garage Band seemed to take as long to boot up as on my G5 1.6 at work. A little dissapointment started to sneak in...

iphoto- once pictures were converted, it seemed very smooth.

Ran word. Seemed very fast. I hope all "old" binaries work as well.

I was dying to try safari to see the speed that others have posted...
My experience- apple.com came in as chunks- over a 2 meg cable modem. Not as fast as I was hoping from reading posts. Not "instant" Those imacs at the show must have had some popular sites loaded (my guess)

Google.com (oviously much much less graphic) came in instantly- very fast...I only report this as I noticed the speed.

I went to play some videos off my .mac page- choppy at best...

I know network conditions could be playing most of the role here, but I was dissapointed.

The reason why I was playing with this, was a friend just had this shipped Monday and could not get the dhcp to auto detect anything.

I am not sure what the problem was, but out of the box, his imac did not pull in the settings. Actually, the text messege was buggy- two sent overlapping each other on the screen. Not sure if this was the OS, computer, or a mix- but it made me nervous that mabey this baby was rushed...

I was able to enter in his settings, and off he went. Anyone else has set up problems like this?

Well, not sure what this says about me, but I have a macbook on order. I love the powerbook design (except the heat reminds of James HOT PANTS!) I also think the diff between the lattest PB running G4's and the new Intel chips is going to be great. Like others- hate the name. I also hate Apple for always releasing cool things and making me spend money that I don't have.

[FadeToBlack]

I have a newly bought REV B iMac G5, 2GHZ 1GB RAM - took 118 secs to boot

Boot times don't matter to me a whole lot, but that is just TOO long. i've never timed my Dual 867, but I'd say it takes around 30 seconds.

[ffakr]

Why do you think that Apple's EFI implementation is customized? I would assume that it's the generic x86 EFI implementation that is used by all of intel's hardware. After all, intel were the ones that came up with EFI for the x86 architecture that they design.


One of the major selling points of EFI is that it's very modular and very customizeable. Intel has been pushing EFI, literally, for years. I think they were trying to push out EFI in the late 90's.

My understanding is, EFI could have been used for years but its a chicken and egg thing. No vendor would release an EFI motherboard without MS Windows support and MS won't add it without EFI hardware available.

I strongly suspect that Intel's ViiV platform will use EFI since it will allow vendors to differentiate their platforms more, especially when you are talking about Multimedia PCs that will essentially become AV components.
If that is, in fact the case.. We'll likely see an EFI compatible version of Windows XP (probably Windows Media Center first).. and it should come pretty soon.. hopefully.

As for Apple's EFI being too different to boot windows anyway.. I don't think that's realistic. OS Vendors won't have to make a custom OS profile for every implementation of EFI. EFI is a standard after all. You'll always be able to access CPU interrupts in the same way. Modular EFI is more about enabling extra, special features or not implementing optional features.
I strongly suspect that EFI enabled Windows should be able to boot an x86 mac just fine.

ffakr

[Nermal]

Boot times don't matter to me a whole lot, but that is just TOO long. i've never timed my Dual 867, but I'd say it takes around 30 seconds.

Time it. I thought my iMac took about 30, but it actually took 89! :eek:

[FadeToBlack]

Time it. I thought my iMac took about 30, but it actually took 89! :eek:

Wow! I'll time it the next time I reboot if I remember. I timed my eMac and I believe it took like 35 seconds. The thing with it was it would sit on a black screen for like 15 seconds before the Apple logo would pop up. I believe that's normal with the eMacs.

[Mac Dummy]

Hey everybody,

I know this is off the subject of Intel benchmarks but how well you think Rosetta will do translating old PowerPC apps to run on the Intel processors. I use Flash and Dreamweaver MX to build websites, and I like these versions; I don't really want to upgrade. Because Adobe like Macromedia will probably have software activation and anti-piracy measures in place just to screw with the honest user.:mad: Thanks Microsoft for teaching other companies how to screw the little guy! Idiots!

Sorry if I offended any Microsoft fan-boys or girls out there.

[nagromme]

I know this is off the subject of Intel benchmarks but how well you think Rosetta will do translating old PowerPC apps to run on the Intel processors. I use Flash and Dreamweaver MX to build websites, and I like these versions;
Since you're coming from a 1 GHz G4, I suspect you'll find those 2 perform just fine. Maybe not a huge improvement (other than UI elements responding faster) but I doubt many apps will be noticeably slower than your G4 for everyday use.

(However, I'm sure you'll notice Flash playing better in your browser, with Universal Flash player, than it does within Rosetta Flash.)

I'm keeping those same versions of both apps myself--until Universals are available.

[macosxuser01]

watch this video. iMac Intel is the one on the left

http://www.youtube.com/?v=zmaAZwkhYeQ

[Nermal]

Wow! I'll time it the next time I reboot if I remember. I timed my eMac and I believe it took like 35 seconds. The thing with it was it would sit on a black screen for like 15 seconds before the Apple logo would pop up. I believe that's normal with the eMacs.

I timed it from pressing the power button until everything had loaded (dock, desktop, menu bar, Adium). Some people would say that I should make a new account with nothing loading at startup, but that's hardly a real-world test.

[FadeToBlack]

I timed it from pressing the power button until everything had loaded (dock, desktop, menu bar, Adium). Some people would say that I should make a new account with nothing loading at startup, but that's hardly a real-world test.

Well last night, my power ended up going out and my UPS didn't keep my Mac running. Time to buy a more powerful UPS, I guess. My Power Mac must need more power than my UPS' battery can give it.

Anyway, I timed it and it took appromimately 37 seconds, including typing the password.

[JnrSeahorse]

Back on the topic of Rosetta, has anybody run Quark 6.5 on an Intel iMac yet?

I am about to order a new iMac and although I only rarely use Quark it is important that I can run it occasionally.

Thanks

JS

[topgunn]

Actually, the Pentium M (ancestor of Yonah/Core Duo) DOES come pretty close to high-end desktop Pentium performance. "Beats?" Maybe not always, but with a top GPU it could outrun a LOT of people's desktop gaming rigs. I don't have trouble believing that claim, having read the Pentium M review and head-to-head benchmarks at Tom's Hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/25/dothan_over_netburst/index.html

"we were able to raise the FSB from 133 to 160 MHz without any trouble at all. The result was that our 2.13GHz Pentium M 770 ended up running at 2.56 GHz! At this clock speed, our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!"

Now, even ONE Yonah core is faster than a Pentium M--and the iMac/MacBook Pro have two cores.
Tom got his up to 2.56GHz but others have gotten theirs as high as 3.8GHz. You can imagine the results. Mine is running at a mere 2.9GHz.
I dont doubt the power of the unit but I have a feeling my PC would have no trouble running against once with ease would be my first thought. My second thought is the type of people who "mod their honda civiic and say they beat a mustang" Great, you are now comparing apples and oranges, no longer stock vs stock
I am comparing oranges to oranges. Overclocked Athlon FX-57 to Overclock Pentium M Dothan. Stock vs. stock doesn't make sense here since the Pentium M is vastly underclocked to run on less voltage for less heat and power consumption. Yonah is basically a dual core Dothan.

[Randall]

Has anybody that currenly owns the new Intel-based iMacs had a chance to try dual booting with the latest beta of Windows Vista, which supposedly has EFI support? Paul Thurrott has written that he believes that the new Mactels can dual boot with Windows Vista in this article he wrote Intel-based Macs will run Windows Vista (http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/49045/windowspaulthurrott_49045.html). He says he has odered a new iMac and plans on trying this and posting the results on his website later this week. :D

I was just wondering if any of you own the new iMacs and have attempted to boot off the Windows Vista beta? I have read several reports of failed attempts at booting Windows XP on the iMac, but EFI-based Vista may have better results.

[aristobrat]

MacBytes linked to this blog:
http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

... where the guy noticed that the EFI doesn't appear to support UDF or El Torito volumes..

[MartinAyla]

Ran word. Seemed very fast. I hope all "old" binaries work as well.



When you scrolled a document in Word, was it as fast as the keynote demo?

[Sunrunner]

MacBytes linked to this blog:
http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

... where the guy noticed that the EFI doesn't appear to support UDF or El Torito volumes..


Help me out here: What is an "El Torito" volume?

[BigHat]

Think we might actually have post that addresses relative performance?

I'd help, but picking that 500gb HD upgrade added a 3-4 week delay.

[aristobrat]

Help me out here: What is an "El Torito" volume?
Check out this Wikipedia article -- it explains it a lot better than I ever could. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Torito_%28CD-ROM_standard%29

[Sunrunner]

Check out this Wikipedia article -- it explains it a lot better than I ever could. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Torito_%28CD-ROM_standard%29


Thanks for the assist :p

[Mac Dummy]

Since you're coming from a 1 GHz G4, I suspect you'll find those 2 perform just fine. Maybe not a huge improvement (other than UI elements responding faster) but I doubt many apps will be noticeably slower than your G4 for everyday use.

(However, I'm sure you'll notice Flash playing better in your browser, with Universal Flash player, than it does within Rosetta Flash.)

I'm keeping those same versions of both apps myself--until Universals are available.

Ok, I'm not worried about Flash Player itself, it really won't matter what version is used to open the file. As for creating that Flash movie file though, I sticking with MX, because there are no stupid licensing issues, at least as long as I can.

[mauly]

I have a newly bought REV B iMac G5, 2GHZ 1GB RAM - took 118 secs to boot

For me (and does it really matter!) it took 55sec... same machine cept 512 Ram

[generik]

Stock vs. stock doesn't make sense here since the Pentium M is vastly underclocked to run on less voltage for less heat and power consumption. Yonah is basically a dual core Dothan.

/me goes off to register a new domain.. macoverclockers.com :p

[theappleguy]

My iMac G5 2.1GHz with 512MB of RAM takes around 1:08 (about 20 seconds faster than the one in the video) to boot to the login screen. I haven't read this whole thread so these might have been mentioned, but here are a couple of factors that could be affecting the boot speeds:

1) The Intel iMac is obviously brand new, whereas the iMac G5 has been used for a while so the operating system installation is no longer a factory install.
2) Perhaps additional RAM has been put in the iMac G5 in that video? Doesn't the computer do RAM check every time you boot up?
3) The length of time it takes for the iMac to turn on the screen. Could this be attributed to the new graphics card or new architecture rather than the Intel processors?

You would expect the Intel iMac to boot faster, but I'm surprised it is well over twice as fast.

[BigHat]

Walt probably has the best assessment of the Intel iMac in today's Wall Street Journal.

Bottom line: marginally better. Does great in the new iLife apps and 15%-25% faster. Speed in other apps offset by Rosetta. Only normal consumer type work done. No monster Photshop projects.
AOL for OSX does not work. Access via the website make this a minor point in his view.

Still considers it the "gold standard" for PCs.

[theheadguy]

.

[sjk]

Shame on me for cross-posting this, but it's as relevant here as there (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2070154&posted=1#post2070154):

I'd like to hear specific times between the various stages of startup, from power-on to chime to Apple logo to login screen (or desktop, for auto-logins).

Also, my understanding is that more RAM and certain devices will increase startup time because of POST initialization (or whatever it's called on a Mac). The selftest-#megs Open Firmware NVRAM variable controls how much RAM is tested, too. And differences in system startup items will cause variance.

Without more objective testing with known system configurations the random reports of startup times seem pretty useless for genuinely meaningful comparison purposes.

[Nermal]

Anyway, I timed it and it took appromimately 37 seconds, including typing the password.

A Power Mac is of course going to be faster than an iMac, but that's still a huge difference! :eek:

[FadeToBlack]

A Power Mac is of course going to be faster than an iMac, but that's still a huge difference! :eek:

Yep, a pretty big difference. I believe my eMac was pretty close to the same time as my Power Mac to boot up as well. I'd say it took a bit longer, but not by much.

[robg3176]

What a crock of a video...my 1st generation iMac g5 with 10.4.4

(the one that's supposed to fry up because of its capacitors-but still hasn't)

boots up in less than 30 seconds; and boots up and loads up my desktop, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, and Safari, in less than 35 seconds!!!

I've only added 512mb of RAM; the iMac Intel Duo's come with 512mb. Something isn't consistent in his comparison. :confused:

:) :D

39091

[robg3176]

Why?

I've heard the pros and cons to this for years. I used to leave my computers on all the time, but now I just shut them off at night unless they're actually doing something like rendering or downloading. The stress the computer has from being turned on and off is about equal to the stress of the components/fans from being left on all the time.

In the old days this may have been true about the stress, but computers aren't built like that today and they're tough little buggers. Yes yes...for every horror story someone will tell me about the evils of turning your computer on and off I can tell them a horror story of leaving them on all the time. It all equals out in the end...save the electricity that's being wasted.


Agreed: Pluse the hard disk drives undergo undue stress of those metal platters continously spinning + heat = decreased lifespan.

[westsecond]

I expect I won't be the only person to receive the following e-mail from the Apple Store, which just arrived:

* * *

We appreciate your recent purchase through the online Apple Store.

The following is an update regarding the status of your order
W186xxxxx.

Due to an unexpected delay, we were unable to ship your product(s) by
the date originally quoted to you. We now anticipate shipping the
following item(s) as follows:

Z0CY, IMAC 20/2.0/SD CTO
will now ship by Jan 25, 2006
and deliver by Jan 30, 2006

We regret any inconvenience this delay may cause.

A shipment notification, with tracking information, will be emailed to
you as soon as your order is shipped. You may check the status
of your order any time by visiting our online order status website
at http://www.apple.com/orderstatus.

If you prefer, you may change or cancel your order anytime before it
is shipped. If you choose to cancel your order, Apple will issue a
prompt refund.

We are happy to answer questions or provide further status regarding
your order. You may reach us by calling 1-800-676-2775 ext-55150,
Mon-Fri 8am-6pm (Central).

If we do not hear from you, we will continue processing your order.

We appreciate your business and your patience. Thank you for shopping
at the Apple Store!

* * *

I had placed my order (iMac Core Duo 2.0, 1G RAM) an hour after the keynote on Jan. 10. Original shipping date had been Jan. 18.

[BigHat]

Agreed: Pluse the hard disk drives undergo undue stress of those metal platters continously spinning + heat = decreased lifespan.

You only need to look at the stress Tivos put on HDs to agree with this. My high def Tivo has gone thru 3 drives in two years. I've never had a hard drive failure in any PC. Been lucky I guess.

[aristobrat]

Agreed: Pluse the hard disk drives undergo undue stress of those metal platters continously spinning + heat = decreased lifespan.
Why would hard drives spin continously when the computer's not being actively used?

Most modern OSs default to putting the drive to sleep after XX minutes of inactivity, no?

[aristobrat]

You only need to look at the stress Tivos put on HDs to agree with this. My high def Tivo has gone thru 3 drives in two years. I've never had a hard drive failure in any PC. Been lucky I guess.
Weird.

My house has 4 DTiVo's (HDVR2s -- each coming up on being 3 years old) that (knock on wood) haven't had any drive failures. :confused:

[powerbook911]

Weird.

My house has 4 DTiVo's (HDVR2s -- each coming up on being 3 years old) that (knock on wood) haven't had any drive failures. :confused:

Same here. I have two 4+ year old DirecTiVos. Furthermore, I have a 5 and a half year old regular TiVo, and they still work so far (knock on wood). :)

[skunkworks]

I returned my new imac, didn't find the speed worth the price at this point in time. I think I will hold off till the next version of imac comes out possibly in june. I think apple just shot itself in the foot by announcing those ridiculous speed claims.

[TBi]

I returned my new imac, didn't find the speed worth the price at this point in time. I think I will hold off till the next version of imac comes out possibly in june. I think apple just shot itself in the foot by announcing those ridiculous speed claims.

And now apple loses money re-packaging your computer because you couldn't wait for real reviews of it to come out. I hate this "Oh if i don't like it i'll just return it" attitude. It drives up the cost for the rest of us. Unless you had a major problem or found some major flaw which meant the iMac could not do what you wanted (it could, just slower for the moment) then it was your decision to buy it and you shouldn't burden apple with the cost of you not being able to wait.

[skunkworks]

TBi,

you either work for apple or own apple stock...your comments surely reflect this.

Give me a break..... when someone promises something and they don't deliver i just don't buy it, period!

If you really feel bad about them repackaging perhaps you should send them a money transfer for me....dumb ass ! !

[TBi]

TBi,

you either work for apple or own apple stock...your comments surely reflect this.

Give me a break..... when someone promises something and they don't deliver i just don't buy it, period!

If you really feel bad about them repackaging perhaps you should send them a money transfer for me....dumb ass ! !

Don't wanna start any fights but it is just my opinion. I don't work for apple, never have either, and don't own any apple stock. I just believe in common courtesy.

Maybe you should take your own advice in future:
"when someone promises something and they don't deliver i just don't buy it, period! "

Why did you buy it if they didn't deliver? I know you didn't find out until after you bought it but you also would have found out in time from other users experiences. Instead now you are costing apple money which will be passed onto the consumer (or me if i paid that money transfer :eek: ) and stopping someone who actually wanted a new iMac from getting one (they are in short supply).

[skunkworks]

TBi

you really need to take a pill man and relax !!!

You are totalling out to lunch on this and really don't care for your stupid comments.

[skunkworks]

I've heard through a friend that 64bit macs will come but probably by years end and the graphics will blow you away ! ! This is a friend who has a friend that has some inside scoop.

[kbonnel]

I've heard through a friend that 64bit macs will come but probably by years end and the graphics will blow you away ! ! This is a friend who has a friend that has some inside scoop.

Really, I thought the G5 was already 64bit, guess they came early.

Kimo

[bluefire75]

I'm new to this forum, so to all of you Mac elites out there, bare with me. I switched to Mac computers about 5 years ago. To get to the point, I was just sick of Windows after 12 years. It's my own personal opinion that MS just doesn't seem to get it. Yesterday, I received my new iMac 20'. It's fully loaded. Upgraded the video card to 256, beefed up the HD to 500 GB, and last but not least upgraded the memory to 2 GB. To me, this thing 'screams' with speed. I also have my 20 inch cinema display hooked up as well and using the new extended display mode. It's just awesome. I, as a consumer, am very happy with this so far. Yes, I know it's not the fastest thing on the market, but I didn't purchase it thinking that it would be. Am I aware of the UB transition of software, yes. Am I patient, yes. Are my apps running in Rosetta going to lag, of course. Apple didn't set my expectations high and to me, they were honest about what they presented.

I don't own Apple stock nor am an employee of Apple. Just a satisfied customer.

[skunkworks]

I realize there is a difference between a mac and windows machine, but the price of the 20" is just too much to stomach, its almost the cost of dual core 2.3 in canadian dollars. ($2700). When I look at what I can get in the pc world for this price it just doesn't make economic sense. I hope apple releases a mac mini with dual core, I think I could stomach that. For you lucky enough rich people, damn I'm envious!

[TBi]

I've heard through a friend that 64bit macs will come but probably by years end and the graphics will blow you away ! ! This is a friend who has a friend that has some inside scoop.

That's all but a certainty. I bet they'll have upgraded graphics cards too. Oh and a bigger hard drive :)

[sjk]

Welcome, bluefire75. Glad to hear you're satisfied with your new iMac so far. Sounds like you've researched your purchase and have sensible expectations for current and future software functionality as the PPC->Intel transition progresses.

[wpwj40e]

I realize there is a difference between a mac and windows machine, but the price of the 20" is just too much to stomach, its almost the cost of dual core 2.3 in canadian dollars. ($2700). When I look at what I can get in the pc world for this price it just doesn't make economic sense. I hope apple releases a mac mini with dual core, I think I could stomach that. For you lucky enough rich people, damn I'm envious!

In the US - when they first announced the iMac, went and tried to configure a similar system at DELL/SONY/HP/Gateway...Was not able to get it under 2000(US). Sony was the closest as well as having the closest form factor. Having built a few windows machines (for my kids) had a pretty good idea of cost...

250 - MB/Chips
400 - 20" WS Monitor
300 - Graphics card
100 - 250 Gig 7200 HD
50 - DVD Writer
150 - Case/Power supply
150 - 2 gig RAM
100 - OS

Most of these prices require some shopping around and are not the "best" but would certainly suffice. Of course outside of OS - no software - assume you must have what you want.

I was surprised to see that the similarly equiped iMac was so competative. Did not feel like there was a premium for the Apple experience. Of course none of the configurations mentioned or the build it yourself are "budget" pc's - but it was interesting. And of course I was using US pricing....But to my eyes it looked like the iMac was a good value - if you were in the market for that level of a machine...

[ffakr]

I realize there is a difference between a mac and windows machine, but the price of the 20" is just too much to stomach, its almost the cost of dual core 2.3 in canadian dollars. ($2700). When I look at what I can get in the pc world for this price it just doesn't make economic sense. I hope apple releases a mac mini with dual core, I think I could stomach that. For you lucky enough rich people, damn I'm envious!

I can't comment on the canadian conversion and I'm used to Educational prices ('bout 10% less than retail) but the iMac really isn't a bad deal.

You just have to look at it in the right way. I can wait until I get stacked Dell coupons for a 20" LCD and I can build a biege box with sale parts from Frys and sale parts from the web. I'd get a LOT more computer for the money. On the other hand, I'd be waiting for half a year on rebates.. half of which I'd never send in on time. I'd also waste hours and hours of my time trying to find deals and going out to Frys (time I could spend doing side work for $50/hr for a mac if I needed the cash). Then I'd have to build the thing.. install it.. tweek it.. tweek it more (because it'd end up being loud).. and in the end all I'd have is a crappy box PC with a decent monitor.

With the iMac I get OS X. I get a very fast system (Core Duo really is a very nice processor). I get it all in ONE nice package. If it breaks, I deal with ONE vendor. It will 'just work'. I even get wireless, bluetooth, and a video camera.. things that are nice to have but things I typically don't spring for with my pieced together PC.

You might be getting 'extra screwed' in Canada.. I'm just too lazy to find the conversion rate right now.
For me, especially with EDU pricing.. the iMac isn't cheap but it's a pretty good deal for an all in one that actually works.
The closest comparison that I've found to the iMac so far is an all in one from MPC (they mainly do enterprise sales). We've installed several but even with the best pricing from our account rep (well below their retail) the MPC all in ones are basically the same price feature to feature as the iMac. That was before the Core Duo iMac. The Macs are, again, cheaper than MPC which is amazing because MPC pricing for us always compares favorably with Dell.

ffakr.

[johnnybluejeans]

I got my 20" iMac yesterday and I love it. I will make a few comments about the speed though: it is sluggish with 512Mb of RAM. Apple should have swallowed the extra cost and put 1Gb standard in all of these machines. I've found that nearly everyone who has complained about performance has only had 512Mb of RAM. I think they hyped the speed up a bit too much, however it is without a doubt faster than the G5s when running Universal apps.

So why complain about performance? They are faster and they are the same price as the iMac ever was. Soon the pro apps will have universal binaries (believe me, it won't be long) and then the power of these machines will really be apparent.

Moving to a new platform is a really big task, and I think Apple is doing an excellent job at making a nearly seamless transition.

[MacinDoc]

I realize there is a difference between a mac and windows machine, but the price of the 20" is just too much to stomach, its almost the cost of dual core 2.3 in canadian dollars. ($2700). When I look at what I can get in the pc world for this price it just doesn't make economic sense. I hope apple releases a mac mini with dual core, I think I could stomach that. For you lucky enough rich people, damn I'm envious!
What are you talking about? The 20" iMac is $1999, in Canadian dollars, very comparable to the U.S. price (something relatively new to Apple Canada).

Of course, you could buy the Dell 5150C, with a 17" monitor, slower graphics card and Ethernet connection for CAN $2277, if you wanted to save money versus the cost of buying an iMac.:rolleyes:

[sjk]

I've found that nearly everyone who has complained about performance has only had 512Mb of RAM.Have you noticed how much Rosetta is using?

[Gee4orce]

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, as some of you have already received your iMacs, but I had a chance to use one of them yesterday. I was underwhelmed, but in a good way - it was a Mac, and felt like a Mac. If someone had hacked the 'About this Mac' box to say 'G5' instead of Inte Core Duo, I wouldn't have been able to tell.

As far as speed goes - well, I run a Dual 1.8 G5 at home, and initial impressions were that the 2.0 GHz iMac felt as fast or faster. Certainly, I've never seen window resizing this smooth on Mac OS X before - it's even better than Windows PC's I've used. That's a far cry from the embarassing state of affairs from a couple of years ago when you had a 1/2 a second lag when resizing a window !

Beyond that, I didn't really get a chance to push the machine. Safari felt plenty fast, but I think the bottleneck was definitely the network connection, not the application or hardware. MS Word opened as quickly (quicker in fact) than on my home machine, and felt perfectly useable.

I'm thinking that the reason the iMac were update so soon after the recent refresh is that the performance is pretty much on a par with the old ones, except graphics performance which is leaps and bounds ahead (I wouldn't argue with the 2x faster claim there). It's pretty much a straight switch from the G5 to the Core Duo - for the same money you get a much more future proof machine, and a real but modest improvement in performance.

[skunkworks]

Hands down there's no question that the 17 inch model is a good deal while the 20" I feel is overpriced when you put in the extra memory and options.

The most important aspect of this whole thing to me is adobe. I really don't think adobe will be out with universal apps till end of year, Why? These new machines are for consumers and not pros, adobe caters mostly to pros so there is not incentive yet to switch, not to mention apple is treading in adobe's water with aperture. Secondly, still a lot of work to be done with software especially the fact that autodesk hasn't announced any universal libraries as well. Having said all of this I think the best 'deal' is the powerbook, having two cpus has got to rock!

[robg3176]

Why would hard drives spin continously when the computer's not being actively used?

Most modern OSs default to putting the drive to sleep after XX minutes of inactivity, no?

You are correct, and I have energy saver put mine to sleep after running processes if I have to be away for awhile or asleep. It's a statement, not literally. Yet some people do have to have their computers on constantly whether sharing or server.

My point is just that more usage 'may decrease' lifespan. Agreed that today most hardware is rock solid.

No problems against people running their computer 24 hours a day, except some do not utilize energy saver/sleep and consume more unecessary wattage while utilities usage goes up.

By the way, my old Digital Audio hard drive is still running 6 years strong in my brother's possesion. Knock on wood. My PC hard drive died after 4 years of hard usage, and attacks :mad: . That's why my PC is temporarily sedentary; and why I'm humming along with my g5 and 10.4.4. :D

Good Day.

[johnnybluejeans]

Have you noticed how much Rosetta is using?

Here is the best example I can come up with. I ran DeerPark (the Universal Binary beta version of Firefox 1.5) and then I ran Firefox for PPC:

Directly after launch, here are the memory usage stats from Activity Monitor:

Firefox (PPC) -- Real Mem: 59.71MB Virt Mem: 416.71MB
Deerpark (Intel) -- Real Mem: 32.51MB Virt Mem: 239.66MB

As you can see, the Universal binary uses just about half the memory as a PPC app because of Rosetta.

Photoshop really eats up memory. Photoshop 7 with 4 1.2Mb images open was using about 170Mb of Real Memory and over 700Mb of Virtual Memory.

[Peace]

The Rosetta "app" ( which it really isn't.More of a framework kinda sorta )under Intel OS X is called oach I think.Or something to that effect..You can see it in Activity Monitor on the new Intel Macs.

[BigHat]

cnx'd

[BigHat]

I expect I won't be the only person to receive the following e-mail from the Apple Store, which just arrived:

* * *

We appreciate your recent purchase through the online Apple Store.

The following is an update regarding the status of your order
W186xxxxx.

Due to an unexpected delay, we were unable to ship your product(s) by
the date originally quoted to you. We now anticipate shipping the
following item(s) as follows:

Z0CY, IMAC 20/2.0/SD CTO
will now ship by Jan 25, 2006
and deliver by Jan 30, 2006

We regret any inconvenience this delay may cause.

A shipment notification, with tracking information, will be emailed to
you as soon as your order is shipped. You may check the status
of your order any time by visiting our online order status website
at http://www.apple.com/orderstatus.

If you prefer, you may change or cancel your order anytime before it
is shipped. If you choose to cancel your order, Apple will issue a
prompt refund.

We are happy to answer questions or provide further status regarding
your order. You may reach us by calling 1-800-676-2775 ext-55150,
Mon-Fri 8am-6pm (Central).

If we do not hear from you, we will continue processing your order.

We appreciate your business and your patience. Thank you for shopping
at the Apple Store!

* * *

I had placed my order (iMac Core Duo 2.0, 1G RAM) an hour after the keynote on Jan. 10. Original shipping date had been Jan. 18.

Be glad you didn't order the 500GB option. 4 week delay. 15 Feb delivery...for now. We'll see if I get a "love note" like yours as we get closer.

Anyone know what gives on the 500GB HDs? Didn't think they were anything special.

[Photorun]

The most important aspect of this whole thing to me is adobe. I really don't think adobe will be out with universal apps till end of year, Why? These new machines are for consumers and not pros, adobe caters mostly to pros so there is not incentive yet to switch, not to mention apple is treading in adobe's water with aperture. Secondly, still a lot of work to be done with software especially the fact that autodesk hasn't announced any universal libraries as well. Having said all of this I think the best 'deal' is the powerbook, having two cpus has got to rock!

As an ex-Adobe employee very much still in their beta program with engineering peeps on Adobe's inside you'll be happy to know you're quite wrong, the next version of CS will have a simultaneous release for OS X and Windoze and it's due tentatively by 4Q 2006... this year.

What they may not be, however, is coded very well, then again, many people grouse that Adobe hasn't been coding it's software well for years.

PS Even with some Adobe loyalty I'm getting kinda tired of how fast Adobe's upgrade cycles are but CS3 for those with Intel Macs will wind up most likely being a must, unless you're willing to deal with the Rosetta hit.