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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
First Impressions of Intel iMac Core Duo
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.beatle888 said:
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?
beatle888 said:
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
groovebuster said:
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.
50 bucks is "a fortune"? For a device that is practically indestructable?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
My iMac G3 350 boots in like a half minute.
Someone take that G5 and restore his software!
My iMac G3 350 boots in like a half minute.
Someone take that G5 and restore his software!
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?
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?
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.
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.
nagromme said:
Thanks for the tip.
I'm downloading the software right now.
Cheers.
I was just looking for similar spec laptops - what did you find?Mr Brownstone said:
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!
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.
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.
BornAgainMac said:
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.
Not sure where you've been the last few yearsMr Brownstone said:
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�
But it appears you may be able to create an EFI boot disk or something like that..
FadeToBlack said:
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).
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
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.bigandy said:
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.
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.
Mr Brownstone said:
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.