Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

weckart said:
Ars Technica reports that Vista does not boot on the new Macs. It will take more than just a quick haxie.
Click to expand...
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?
 
zoetropeuk said:
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. 🙁
Click to expand...

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.
 
ncoffey said:
You know quad core chips will be out about six months after Merom right?
Click to expand...
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. 😀
 
zac4mac said:
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).
Click to expand...

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 😉.
 
longofest said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 😱 )
 
Church said:
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 😱 )
Click to expand...
Emulation sux0rs. Hence the whole discussion on dual booting.
 
Randall said:
Emulation sux0rs. Hence the whole discussion on dual booting.
Click to expand...

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)?
 
Church said:
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)?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Randall said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Daz777777 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
kjs862 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BlizzardBomb said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
kjs862 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. 😎
 
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. 😱 Do you think this is because of my RAM upgrade?
 
Folding@home

Fabio_gsilva said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/...9&sid=b34f4801c54cc2063c4d76e0193f7ddc#120099
 
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.
 
Malcster said:
Memory in macs makes a HUGE difference..
Click to expand...

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

but the memory might might a big difference...512 1gb and 4 gb? Not really a fair benchmark.
 
p0intblank said:
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. 😱 Do you think this is because of my RAM upgrade?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Randall said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wine Is Not an Emulator.
 
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