Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases iMacs

Originally posted by drastik
Very few of the people on these boards are true Pro Graphics professionals or video editors.
Click to expand...

Hrm. I'm a developer. All I want is for Terminal.app to launch in under one bounce. Is that so much to ask?

(Oh, and could resizing my browser/iPhoto/iTunes/etc window also not grind my system to a halt?)

(Oh, and could emacs possibly launch anywhere near as fast as in X-windows (!!!))

Just checkin'
prat

P.S. I know, to some extent, I'm being flippant. A lot of the problems I site above are due to apples NIB format, which gains in abstraction and general coolness what it loses in speed. But really, if you want to pull off cool stuff like that, you need the hardware to back itup. A windows user will likely *not* notice the difference between a 500 mhz and 2 ghz machine unless they are doing serious work/development. But with OSX as resource hungry as it is, a mac user *will*. Trust me, when the 970's hit the street, we will all wonder how we lived without them. Hrm, howcome my P.S. has more content than my post? *shrugs*
 
Originally posted by cr2sh

My guess is we'll see a ppc970 with AND without altivec. After all, how many consumers understand the velocity engine? Wouldn't it be a better marketing strategy? And wouldn't many people argue that Mototrola is already using this method? What after all is the difference in the g3 and g4? I expect we'll get a 1gig g3 ibook by may, and maybe another power series update... but come fall news of the 970s (plural) will hit. :D

</speculation>
Click to expand...

doesn't the chip already have altivec on it? you think they would pull it just to make cheaper chips?
 
I'm probably wrong, Arn will say so if I am... but I thought that Ibm had said that the ppc970 was altivec compatible, meaning it could be added but wasn't built with it.
 
Re: Re: Re: not crap

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i was pretty consistently beating a 1.9 GHz p4 with my 1 GHz TiBook in photoshop....
Click to expand...

Well, I develop in Java, Python, lisp and, occasionally, when I'm feeling wacky, Objective-C. Dual Xeons are insanely fast. Check-and-make-sure-it-really-compiled fast. OMFG-I-can't-believe-emacs-compiled-already fast. Java-swing-actually-is-usable fast.

Can't speak much about Photoshop. Suppose if I was big into it, I'd be less annoyed at the current state of the mac hardware. But I'd still avoid resizing my browser window... <wink/>

Hell, I'm posting too much,
prat
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: not crap

Originally posted by praetorian_x


Well, I develop in Java, Python, lisp and, occasionally, when I'm feeling wacky, Objective-C. Dual Xeons are insanely fast. Check-and-make-sure-it-really-compiled fast. OMFG-I-can't-believe-emacs-compiled-already fast. Java-swing-actually-is-usable fast.

Can't speak much about Photoshop. Suppose if I was big into it, I'd be less annoyed at the current state of the mac hardware. But I'd still avoid resizing my browser window... <wink/>

Hell, I'm posting too much,
prat
Click to expand...

darn, i forgot about compiling.

i compiled all of KDE in 12 hours on my G4 powerbook. do you think that's impressive for a portable?

sorry for being off topic.
 
Originally posted by cr2sh
I'm probably wrong, Arn will say so if I am... but I thought that Ibm had said that the ppc970 was altivec compatible, meaning it could be added but wasn't built with it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the integer unit (Altivec Compatible) is designed into the unit. You aren't just going to make one with and without it.
 
Originally posted by praetorian_x


Hrm. I'm a developer. All I want is for Terminal.app to launch in under one bounce. Is that so much to ask?

(Oh, and could resizing my browser/iPhoto/iTunes/etc window also not grind my system to a halt?)
Click to expand...

What machine are you running? My Dual/GHz/DDR PowerMac start terminal in less then one bounce and though window resizing isn't absolutely fluid it doesn't affect system speed.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not crap

Originally posted by Shadowfax


darn, i forgot about compiling.

i compiled all of KDE in 12 hours on my G4 powerbook. do you think that's impressive for a portable?

sorry for being off topic.
Click to expand...

OK, *last post* and I'm going to friggen bed:

No, that's insanely slow. (I'm getting a complex: do I use the word insanely too much? Maybe I've been listening to apple marketing too long...) In fact, I'm very, very suprised. But with a big compile like KDE you are often disk and FSB limited. The FSB issue with g4's has been beaten to death, and laptops in general have very slow hard-drives.

It would be a lot faster on a p4 with true DDR and a fast disk. Of course, you'd have to have it plugged in.

Cheers,
prat
 
Originally posted by MacBandit
Sorry, the integer unit (Altivec Compatible) is designed into the unit. You aren't just going to make one with and without it.
Click to expand...

Bandit knows the ****, but offers no speculation...

Back to the topic at hand, but I'm done with this thread. :)
Carry on...
 
Originally posted by MacBandit


What machine are you running? My Dual/GHz/DDR PowerMac start terminal in less then one bounce and though window resizing isn't absolutely fluid it doesn't affect system speed.
Click to expand...

i have a single GHz G4 Tibook; terminal resizes with great "fluidity." so do most apps, barring Chimera, iMovie, and iPhoto, and a few others. but then, resizing has never really been a very impressive thing on any OS... unless you make it not show the contents. in a browser, i think it's because of all the realigning that has to be done on pages. can't speak for iMovie and iPhoto. i never use them anyway. Photoshop, especially with the G4 update a few weeks ago, runs way better than i ever saw on a PC, resizes and all.

by the way, praetorian, i dunno how your computer slows to nothing during a resize, i have never seen anything THAT bad on mine, except when i try to resize iMovie as it is loading, lol.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not crap

Originally posted by praetorian_x


OK, *last post* and I'm going to friggen bed:

No, that's insanely slow. (I'm getting a complex: do I use the word insanely too much? Maybe I've been listening to apple marketing too long...) In fact, I'm very, very suprised. But with a big compile like KDE you are often disk and FSB limited. The FSB issue with g4's has been beaten to death, and laptops in general have very slow hard-drives.

It would be a lot faster on a p4 with true DDR and a fast disk. Of course, you'd have to have it plugged in.

Cheers,
prat
Click to expand...

really? you are talking about every little think, KOffice, all the games, the whole 150 MB or whatever it is of source code for the base and all the addons?
 
Originally posted by Shadowfax


i have a single GHz G4 Tibook; terminal resizes with great "fluidity." so do most apps, barring Chimera, iMovie, and iPhoto, and a few others. but then, resizing has never really been a very impressive thing on any OS... unless you make it not show the contents. in a browser, i think it's because of all the realigning that has to be done on pages. can't speak for iMovie and iPhoto. i never use them anyway. Photoshop, especially with the G4 update a few weeks ago, runs way better than i ever saw on a PC, resizes and all.

by the way, praetorian, i dunno how your computer slows to nothing during a resize, i have never seen anything THAT bad on mine, except when i try to resize iMovie as it is loading, lol.
Click to expand...

I agree completely that any empty window will resize very fluidly but where's the fun in that?:)

The real power is resizing dynamic text like on a web page and in that I haven't seen any systeem that could do it extemely fluidly. My Dual does it very very well but it still makes small jumps nothing that cuts the system down where it stands though.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not crap

Originally posted by Shadowfax


really? you are talking about every little think, KOffice, all the games, the whole 150 MB or whatever it is of source code for the base and all the addons?
Click to expand...

Depends. Are you compiling QT as well? Even if you were doing a whole gentoo linux system, 12 hours is a loooooong wait. Could I recommend fink?

Damn, I posted again.
prat
 
Originally posted by MacBandit


I agree completely that any empty window will resize very fluidly but where's the fun in that?:)

The real power is resizing dynamic text like on a web page and in that I haven't seen any systeem that could do it extemely fluidly. My Dual does it very very well but it still makes small jumps nothing that cuts the system down where it stands though.
Click to expand...

yeah, that's what i am saying. the "live" resize is the hard one, and it is rough on a browser. mine does it ok, but not perfect like when i move a window. THAT is fluid.

i doubt there is much difference in our systems' window serving, considering we have QE and probably similar video cards, but i don't know :)
 
Re: Expensive RAM?

Originally posted by jettredmont

I looked up PC2700 DDR memory at crucial.com and found that a do-it-yourself memory upgrade (assuming 2 DIMM slots available) from 256MB to 1GB would run about $180 ($120 for a 512MB DIMM and $60 for a 256MB DIMM, both guaranteed to work on the MDD PowerMacs, although I suspect the slot in the iMac is identical ...)
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to go to 1 GB, wouldn't you need two 512s, one for each slot?
 
Re: Re: Expensive RAM?

Originally posted by Nermal


Correct me if I'm wrong, but to go to 1 GB, wouldn't you need two 512s, one for each slot?
Click to expand...

he means 2 available with the 256 already there... in other words, 2 DIMM slots total.
 
Originally posted by iAndy
In a word - BUMMER !

I was in the market for a new iMac - but the new limited range and pricing structure seems a joke !

How the h#ll is Apple going to win over more switchers with a price performance range like this !?!

Bad move Apple - you could (and should IMHO) have made this a much more attractive upgrade.

Although I will still be holding onto my shares, I now don't expect next quarters sales figures to be too hot again....
Click to expand...

It's wise not to expect next quarter's sales figures to be "hot" considering that Apple itself has openly forecasted steady [at best] earnings through at least 3rd quarter of this year.

However, I don't see how people, especially Switchers, who have been eating these 17" iMacs up since fall of last year are NOT going to be inclined to save $200.

IMO, Apple could have added all of these features and kept the price the same [at $1,999] and consumers, Switchers in particular, would still continue to buy them.
 
Re: Disappointment

Originally posted by bbarnhart
I'm disappointed that there is not a 17" version for $1499.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly. Or at least a 15" SuperDrive at that price. The line-up seems awkward without a mid-level contender.

Originally posted by bbarnhart
And, only a 200 Mhz upgrade?
Click to expand...

I think 1 Ghz is reasonable for a consumer model. If Apple introduced a 1.25 Ghz iMac, it would cannibalize it's entry level [1Ghz single processor] PowerMac sales.

Originally posted by bbarnhart
I don't know what else to say except that Apple is extracting a lot of profit from the 17" model.
Click to expand...

And that's a bad thing? How else will Apple remain 1 of the only 2 profitable computer manufacturers [the other being Taco-Dell] in this economy.

At least their doing what they said, which was to continue to invest into product innovation rather than sit on their a$$es. That way, when the economy turns around, Apple will be far ahead.
 
Originally posted by bbarnhart
I'm disappointed that there is not a 17" version for $1499.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly. Or at least a 15" SuperDrive at that price. The line-up seems awkward without a mid-level contender.

Originally posted by bbarnhart
And, only a 200 Mhz upgrade?
Click to expand...

I think 1 Ghz is reasonable for a consumer model. If Apple introduced a 1.25 Ghz iMac, it would cannibalize it's entry level [1Ghz single processor] PowerMac sales.

Originally posted by bbarnhart
I don't know what else to say except that Apple is extracting a lot of profit from the 17" model.
Click to expand...

And that's a bad thing? How else will Apple remain 1 of the only 2 profitable computer manufacturers [the other being Taco-Dell] in this economy.

At least their doing what they said, which was to continue to invest into product innovation rather than sit on their a$$es. That way, when the economy turns around, Apple will be far ahead.
 
Re: Lackluster

Originally posted by jgp
I am surprised and disappointed. Why they did not put the buss at 133 for both I do not know.
Click to expand...

The 15" combo is the same machine with a $200 price drop.

Originally posted by jgp
Why they did not allow the monitors to twist from landscape to portrait, I do not know.
Click to expand...

Maybe because when monitor manufacturers [like Radius] manufactured these in the early-mid 90's they failed miserably?

Originally posted by jgp
Why they did not give better graphics on these consumer machines to support gaming, I do not know.
Click to expand...

On the 17", 64vram vs. 32vram is not better? PLUS, composite & s-video out...
 
Originally posted by MacBoyX


Let's all say it...eMac eMac eMac.

It's obvious that Apple is integrating the eMac (read CHEAP iMac) into it's consumer desktop line. I kind of expected this. You can get a good cheap Mac. 999 for a G4 700 MHz G4? Add a little ram and you got a work horse and a half. The screen bugs have been worked out as Apple has admitted and offered to fix the screen! If you want cheap then you aren't going to get a FP. I don't think it matters. I am still using my G4 TiBook 667 with 512 MB or RAM and truthfully I am hardly maxing it out. One thing I learned when I switched a year ago was that like V8's and old American Muscle bigger isnt always better. My G4 667 SMOKES my P4 1.8GHz Thinkpad...they even have the same amt of memory. The truth is no one really needs a 1Ghz G4 to run OS X and it think it's damn nice that Apple gave us one. I wont be upgrading my TiBook ever because of speed, it will be because something cooler and more envious comes out. Isn't that the way it is with Apple users? I think too many POWER HOGS are making to much noise. It is further more obvious that the 15' iMac is going the way of the dinosaur. In 6 months we'll see 17" only iMacs.

AND why is it that everyone keeps forgetting the awesome thing Apple did today with the eMac? A 17" G4 Mac for 999? Weren't we all asking a year ago for just that? Maybe if Apple would have called the eMac the the iMac II you'd all stop complaining.

And if i hear one more person complain about how apple is floundering especially APPLE PEOPLE i am going to go postal. Apple is doing the best it can while waiting for the 970 or G5 or what ever else will come out.

Again we caused this ourselves. We all wanted more power G4's in every model line MORE POWER! and now we got what we asked for. 4 model lines basically identical in every way.

Ask you self are you really using this much power or do you want bragging rights? Who cares if the PC idiot next to you has a 2.2 GHz P4? Why isn't it enuff to have a more efficent, more elegant, more unique computer?


Ok...now off my soap box...I got splinters from standing on it so long!
Click to expand...

True, oh so true.
I think that's one of the best post in a long time...

Way to go my man, go back on your soap box, some people really need a reality check.

NicoMan
 
Re: Re: Re: Not good.

Originally posted by yosoyjay
I don't even think a 7200rpm hard drive with a 8MB cache can saturate ATA-100 during bursts so ATA-133 is not a problem.
Click to expand...
That's exeactly what I said.

To go back to the hard drive speed. It doesn't ALWAYS make a difference. But it CAN (depending on your system). And if there is a difference, it will be even more noticeable if you have low memory, because your system uses the hard drive for virtual memory so OSX pages constantly from RAM to HD and back. So the overall performance and responsiveness is impacted.

NicoMan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back