imac 2.8 w 4GB no change in speed?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by nph, Sep 5, 2009.

  1. nph macrumors 6502a

    Feb 9, 2005
    Were my expectations too high? I expected some speed increase but didn't see one, rather a little slowdown in some cases.

    I did the normal upgrade, would a clean install have made a difference do u think?

    Anyone else with -08 imac 2.8 upgrade to SL and saw any major changes?
  2. philqc macrumors newbie

    Jun 28, 2009

    I did a clean install on mine and I have one word: STABILITY
    it's not "way faster" but it don't lag at all for me (Photoshop,
    Safari, Mail...)

  3. armoguy94 macrumors 6502

    Nov 9, 2007
    I did an upgrade and then a clean install on a 250gb Hitachi Deskstar drive. No noticeable speed increase for me then. Just did a clean install on my new 1TB WD Caviar Black...still no noticeable speed difference from Leopard, however gaming is worse in SL than before.

    2.4GHz 4gb ram
  4. definitive macrumors 68000


    Aug 4, 2008
    i have a newer and a faster imac, and saw no speed increase either. overall it looks and performs the same for me as leopard did, but at least i'll have several years of support on this os compared to leopard which will get phased out.
  5. Scottsdale macrumors 601


    Sep 19, 2008
    Another member informed me that OpenGL is running at half the capability of Leopard. And xBench reflects it in the score easily. Supposedly a fix is coming later. In the meantime gaming will be heavily negatively affected.

    Another of many SL problems. I am really NOT impressed with Apple or Snow Leopard. Are 64-bit CPUs, 64-bit EFIs, and 64-bit drivers aren't being used to boot into 64-bit kernel. In fact Apple has disabled 64-bit support for consumer Macs.

    Throw into this all of the hardware and software compatibility problems.

    And there are no apps taking advantage of the new OpenCL or Grand Central Dispatch. Basically there is no reason to "downgrade" to Snow Leopard.
  6. nph thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Feb 9, 2005
    I just started MS Word and it took 12 bounces (for lack of better measurement) for it to start.

    Is that higher than expected?

    However I get exactly the same performance in WoW as before, 79fps.
  7. Drag'nGT macrumors 68000


    Sep 20, 2008
    That's what I got and I think it's zippier than before. I also did a clean install. What I see so far is faster with the items and apps that we saw and were demo'd at the DC.

    What we are all waiting to see, and the reason that the press say you may want to hold off, is the updates from Apple and from our 3rd party apps. The next iLife and iWork programs will be 64 bit and run on the OpenGL. iTunes may get that bump next week. CS5 from Adobe may get full 64 bit and OpenGL.

    At that point you will hear how much faster Snow Leopard truly is. But when apps that I use, like 1Password, Times, and Delicious Library get updates to run 64 bit you never notice much because there wasn't much to make faster. The devs will eat me for saying that but it's true. The login with 1P isn't faster in Snow Leopard than Leopard.
  8. A Macbook Pro macrumors 6502

    Aug 22, 2009
    My Macbook Pro has the same specs as your iMac, and I'm noticing a lot less lag in iPhoto. Which is great, because I have been fixing up my photos waiting less for my photos to enhance and do other little edits saves alot of time.
  9. baypharm macrumors 65816


    Nov 15, 2007
    Upgrading memory doesn't "speed" up the processing mechanism. Rather, it allows more data to be utilized at once. For example, you can open and execute multiple programs at once with no failure, hangups, hickups, or instability issues. When members here claim that graphics processing time is reduced that doesn't translate into greater speed. Rather, it means that by increasing RAM, the "bottlenecks" are reduced or eliminated and therefore rendering appears to be faster. For most applications including common graphics processing programs, 2gb is adequate. For editing uncompressed high def media, for example, you would want to have at least 32gb RAM, and a couple quad core processors. Most of us however handle video in the compressed state, which requires less RAM, less raw processing power, but with a huge reduction in quality. Hope this helps.

Share This Page