I think the distinction depends on how much money are you losing while waiting for the machine to process your media/work.milozauckerman said:
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.
Intel iMac Sales Sluggish?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I stated in another topic, for all UK members John Lewis now has them in stock, (Nottingham has one for purchase, one on display), and more are available from our central warehouse, with more orders on their way.
This means if you give your branch a call, you might find they have one there, if not, they should be able to deliver one out to you within about a week, or you could collect from store within three days of purchasing over the phone.
This means if you give your branch a call, you might find they have one there, if not, they should be able to deliver one out to you within about a week, or you could collect from store within three days of purchasing over the phone.
QCassidy352 said:
Why is that surprising? I'm actually considering picking up another iBook before they transition THEM over to the Intel chips. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not planning on buying all new software to run on the new architecture, and the alternative--running my current apps at 1/3 to 1/2 speed under the 'Rosetta' emulator--simply isn't an option.
That is it in a nutshell!ChrisA said:
I would be a mac book pro owner right now if the apps i needed ran natively or if at least adobe and other vendors gave some kind of expected date. I am thinking by the time adobe and microsoft release their UBs another rev of mac book pros will have come out or at least the currents will have been updated.
As far as I am concerend the intel macs are expensive paper weights at this point.
I went to CompUSA tonight and used a 20" intel and a g5 imac. Theyt sat right next to each other, less than 4 feet apart.
I shut down all applications.. opened cpu monitor and opened safari, itunes, iphoto, imovie, garagband and quicktime... one after another.
Then I sat back and watched the cpu chart get thick and heavy on the g5. The intel blipped on both cpus, not pegging as high on either and then shallowed out. The g5 continued to lag behind as the intel went right back to normal.
This is hardly a scientific measurement.. but it did, without a doubt, provide the answer to which machine I should buy.
On a side note, I asked two seperate employees why they didn't have photoshop or something on the machine and from both I got "it's too expensive..."
I shut down all applications.. opened cpu monitor and opened safari, itunes, iphoto, imovie, garagband and quicktime... one after another.
Then I sat back and watched the cpu chart get thick and heavy on the g5. The intel blipped on both cpus, not pegging as high on either and then shallowed out. The g5 continued to lag behind as the intel went right back to normal.
This is hardly a scientific measurement.. but it did, without a doubt, provide the answer to which machine I should buy.
On a side note, I asked two seperate employees why they didn't have photoshop or something on the machine and from both I got "it's too expensive..."
ChrisA said:
Just to quote this again because it hasn't been quoted enough already
Exactly. Professional users looking for a machine now with both software and longevity are screwed.
Or anybody who spends the majority of the time on their computer not using anything in iLife.
whywhywhy! You don't know what your talking about when you say intel imacs are crap. You don't own one and personally I wouldn't pay attention to all test scores out there.
I can personally tell you that intel macs are screamers with at least 1 gig of memory. You're also forgetting that every dual processor machine out there is noisy as hell, intel macs are whisper quiet, its unbelievable. You should spend some time at an apple store before you speak!
I can personally tell you that intel macs are screamers with at least 1 gig of memory. You're also forgetting that every dual processor machine out there is noisy as hell, intel macs are whisper quiet, its unbelievable. You should spend some time at an apple store before you speak!
They can't be as hot as the G5 imac.
The x86 imacs are not as hot or as loud! I took my G5 imac apart, and literally burned my hand on the hard drive- it was that hot.
That could not be good for longevity of anyone's valuable data!
These will sell fast. Apple needed to avoid a shortage of them and they did!
The x86 imacs are not as hot or as loud! I took my G5 imac apart, and literally burned my hand on the hard drive- it was that hot.
That could not be good for longevity of anyone's valuable data!
These will sell fast. Apple needed to avoid a shortage of them and they did!
Firstly- Eric_n_dfw nice avatar! Bear down!
I've ordered my new 20" iMac Core Duo because my 1.67GHz powerbook G4 is slow...DAMN slow compared to the iMac when tested in the store. Granted I did NOT test photoshop, I know it's going to be hella slow for a while - but once the UBs are released it is going to fly. We are in a delay - but the hardware is NOT crap, the hardware is amazing - the software simply hasn't caught up to it
I've ordered my new 20" iMac Core Duo because my 1.67GHz powerbook G4 is slow...DAMN slow compared to the iMac when tested in the store. Granted I did NOT test photoshop, I know it's going to be hella slow for a while - but once the UBs are released it is going to fly. We are in a delay - but the hardware is NOT crap, the hardware is amazing - the software simply hasn't caught up to it
These intel macs are fast especially multitasking, you can really feel the difference even with 512 mb. Wait until pro apps go universal then you will start to feel the rush ! !
Rendering in modo is wickedly fast almost 3x.....
G5's, its too bad it was a nice life together !
Rendering in modo is wickedly fast almost 3x.....
G5's, its too bad it was a nice life together !
jhu said:
true that. I like AMD64 huge fan of it. That what I have in my desktop. I will admited I will never buy an apple desktop computer now there laptops are another story those I like.
I personlly have been thinking that apple should of moved over to X86 for the longest time just for standards. For a while PPC was better then lets face it X86 cought up and then got better. They where hitting the brick wall in PPC. X86 and x86-64 chips where running faster and colder and still gaining speed at a fast rate. the G5 rate of increase was slowing down and they run very hot (needing liquired coloring to keep up.)
Also I think apple choose a really good time to switch off PPC because the entire industisty is in the middle of doing a huge change and x86 is more than likely be phased out over the next 10 or so years and go over to x64. But the change going the past few years is everything is going from 32bit to 64 bit. That is a huge change and software and everything is currently adpating and changing over to 64 bit. Even stuff for PPC was slowly being remade and redone to be 64 bit complaint. Now changing over now the pains of it are smaller because the entire industing is in the middle of a huge evelotionany change (including apple before the switch) So apple switches over to x86 while they are in the middle of a adapting and changing so apple own stuff can adpted and change with them.
Now if Apple had oh waited until after everything went 64 bit (software included) it would of been much more painful and would of hurt a lot more than doing it now. They are taking advatage of everything being in a state of flux right now changing to 64 bit
I think that we are in a transitional stage here and things will get serious for apple.
Buyers are too afraid to use a brand new mac using a new processor architexture. They will wait until Intel architecture is more suported by developers, since now we only have to do with a hardware still in its infant stages.
But customers will not obtain a new PowerPC based Mac, since they know that the transition to Intel Processors is already happening.
So, things will get difficult for Apple, until Intel Macs have an established support from developers, and have surpassed the hardware problems that will definitely occur with the new architecture.
Buyers are too afraid to use a brand new mac using a new processor architexture. They will wait until Intel architecture is more suported by developers, since now we only have to do with a hardware still in its infant stages.
But customers will not obtain a new PowerPC based Mac, since they know that the transition to Intel Processors is already happening.
So, things will get difficult for Apple, until Intel Macs have an established support from developers, and have surpassed the hardware problems that will definitely occur with the new architecture.
wasimyaqoob said:
Not really "enough said". You haven't justified your comment or provided any supporting information to validate your claim. Provide some reasoning behind your claims and perhaps people will take you more seriously.
Here ya go:
"PowerPC are crap - Enough said."
Guess I'm right, who needs to substantiate that claim?
Why no Classic emulation?
Classic has numerous pieces of scientific software, games, education stuff etc. If macintel sales are slow, perhaps it is partly because of the lack of Classic support. This is a business decision by Apple not to support Classic, and it is likely a stumbling block keeping many longtime Apple users from upgrading. Therefore, likely a poor business decision. Apple has a culture of Mac going for it, and part of this culture are loyal users. By turning their back on them (or at least waiting to announce Classic emulation), they are in turn perhaps selling fewer macintels.
Please don't respond with 'I'm glad Classic is dead.' (why would you be glad?)
or 'those long time users don't buy anything' (they want to buy new macintels!)
or 'Just buy an iMac G5' (why should one be stuck buying a slower machine that costs the same?)
Krevnik said:
Classic has numerous pieces of scientific software, games, education stuff etc. If macintel sales are slow, perhaps it is partly because of the lack of Classic support. This is a business decision by Apple not to support Classic, and it is likely a stumbling block keeping many longtime Apple users from upgrading. Therefore, likely a poor business decision. Apple has a culture of Mac going for it, and part of this culture are loyal users. By turning their back on them (or at least waiting to announce Classic emulation), they are in turn perhaps selling fewer macintels.
Please don't respond with 'I'm glad Classic is dead.' (why would you be glad?)
or 'those long time users don't buy anything' (they want to buy new macintels!)
or 'Just buy an iMac G5' (why should one be stuck buying a slower machine that costs the same?)
Any thoughts that Intel machine sales are slow, are silly.
The intel Macs are the top selling machines on Amazon, and the Intel machines are the only computers in the top sellers list at Apple's online store. These machines, if anything, are about the only computers Apple is selling right now.
The intel Macs are the top selling machines on Amazon, and the Intel machines are the only computers in the top sellers list at Apple's online store. These machines, if anything, are about the only computers Apple is selling right now.
daveslc said:
I was playing Duke Nukem 3D this afternoon on my PB. It ran just as fast as it did on my Performa 6400.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if these applications haven't been updated in 5+ years then they won't be able to take advantage of current hardware anyway. People running OS9 titles won't need a new computer.
daveslc said:
Personally [as a new mac user] I am impressed that these machines and applications are still in use! I understand Apple stopping support for Classic, as you day it's a business decision. Is it a poor one? The market will decide. I'm not certain how long ago Apple stopped selling machines with OS9 on it, but I guess 4 or so years ago? It does feel about right to end-of-life something around that time.
Are there still classic only releases of those classic mode only apps? If not then at least you can still use your current machine.
Are there os-x version of those classic mode apps? If so then at least you can upgrade.
The loyalty point is a strong one, but I guess being selfish I would like Apple to focus its resources on ensuring Vista does not allow Microsoft to "steal a march" on Apple. Only through long term competitive success will apple maintain, and grow its market share (and btw, I don't think Apple will ever dominate the market, nor particually want it to, but it does need to be large enough to provide the economies of scale to continually challenge Microsoft).
I'm an "ex" Amiga boy. I still think of myself that way even though I "switched" to windows with Win95 and pretty much left my Amiga's behind 11 years ago, I get the whole loyalty thing, I was there until the bitter end (i.e. the 3rd re-selling of the Amiga brand). But sometimes, you have to move on.