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.
New Intel Core Duo iMac 2X SLOWER than Old iMac G5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Apple!Freak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Startup time MEANS NOTHING.
Please don't use it as a way to judge the performance of a computer.
There are way too many factors that change the time.
RAM, for instance, could change a 58 second startup time to 28 seconds.
Using the iMac Core Duo and the iMac G5 in the Apple Store, the iMac CD is many times faster.
Please don't use it as a way to judge the performance of a computer.
There are way too many factors that change the time.
RAM, for instance, could change a 58 second startup time to 28 seconds.
Using the iMac Core Duo and the iMac G5 in the Apple Store, the iMac CD is many times faster.
For me, before and after adding 2GB RAM to my iMac (20" Core Duo) made no discernible impact on the startup time. In both instances, iMac was very quick to boot (25 to 30 seconds). As others have pointed out, my guess is faulty migration, which has been known to cause problems.
As convenient as that feature maybe, do a clean install on the new iMac, install applications you need, and manually copy your user directories over.
As convenient as that feature maybe, do a clean install on the new iMac, install applications you need, and manually copy your user directories over.
nutmac said:
Will doing that make it run faster or just startup faster? If it would just startup faster it's not worth the effort. But if it would run faster I might be inclined.
admanimal said:
Yes, but that's only when those programs are open. They have nothing to do with the startup.
This may sound silly but, would the power cord have anything to do with it, would it? I decided to use my old power cord that I used for my iMac G5 for my new Intel iMac because it was already wired through my desk.
I mean power is power right??
it's a little ontopic (according to thread) but have you noticed how slow regular-use apps like safari, quicktime are? i mean, i know they're run under rosetta and all, but sometimes it feels that my 2.4ghz/768ram PC is faster with the maxthon and wmp than safari and quicktime. rosetta ruins the speed of safari and quicktime for me, being that i am a first-time mac user. full screen in quicktime is a bitch.
I second this comment. Render some movie files and let us know how the speeds compare.appleretailguy said:
Apple!Freak said:
Well, I'm not sure exactly how many applications you copied over from the G5, but if any of them are run in the background at startup (things that you don't ever see and can't control), then yes it could.
If you did copy all of your applications over from the G5, you really need to install the Universal ones from the install DVDs properly anyway, so you'd certainly be better off just doing a proper clean install.
Philberttheduck said:
That's weird, my Flash plugin says it's universal...
EDIT: looks like you figured that out...and P.S. there is a beta quicktime divx Universal plugin
well i edited the post, figuring that it was working. i googled up some info on safari/flash conflict. it didn't help (and others were experiencing the same problems), as its a intel conflict probably.
i used espn.com and nba.com to test the flash when run without rosetta. and it popped up the same problem.
yeah, i downloaded the divx beta for intel and it works flawlessly. so the fullscreen aint that ugly no more.
so in the end, i edited the wrong part of my post. SAFARI STILL REQUIRES ROSETTA if you want to view flash-related materials. Quicktime is chill now..(fullscreen is on-par with ppc now)
i used espn.com and nba.com to test the flash when run without rosetta. and it popped up the same problem.
yeah, i downloaded the divx beta for intel and it works flawlessly. so the fullscreen aint that ugly no more.
so in the end, i edited the wrong part of my post. SAFARI STILL REQUIRES ROSETTA if you want to view flash-related materials. Quicktime is chill now..(fullscreen is on-par with ppc now
)
OK, well i found the solution to the safari deal. i guess i answered my own problems (i'll give some credit to admanima, even though i already installed the beta like 3 days ago, and forgot about it until i made the posts..)
the stock flash component installed in intel imacs(/others?) is the only true universal flash (10.4.4). so if you decide to update your flash (or 10.4.5 update), youre pretty much screwed. Apple and Macromedia can point fingers at each other for this cuz iono who to choose.
if you have an intel unit and is experiencing this problem with flash-safari, i suggest downloading this and installing into your "internet plug-ins" to run with true intel speed.
link
fixed the majority of my problems. i have encourntered one problem, but i forgot the link in which it said "required flash 8". possibly a flash movie?
the stock flash component installed in intel imacs(/others?) is the only true universal flash (10.4.4). so if you decide to update your flash (or 10.4.5 update), youre pretty much screwed. Apple and Macromedia can point fingers at each other for this cuz iono who to choose.
if you have an intel unit and is experiencing this problem with flash-safari, i suggest downloading this and installing into your "internet plug-ins" to run with true intel speed.
link
fixed the majority of my problems. i have encourntered one problem, but i forgot the link in which it said "required flash 8". possibly a flash movie?
Philberttheduck said:
Ahhh now it all makes sense. I had heard about the problems people were having with flash, but I didnt get it cause mine always just worked (since I never tried to upgrade). My Mini came from the factory with 10.4.5, but maybe they also put the correct version of flash on there too. Thanks for clearing it up.
Apple!Freak said:Okay guys, talk about a disappointment! I just picked up a new 20" Intel Core Duo iMac from the Apple Store and after transfering everything over from my old 20" iMac (still keeping all the data on my old iMac though) I ran a startup test.
The Core Duo iMac clocked in at 75 seconds exactly from desktop to login screen restart.
The iMac G5 clocked in at 38 seconds (!!!!!) exactly from desktop to login screen restart.
What in the hell is going on here? The only thing I could think of that would be in the G5's favor is the 2GB of RAM it has over the 512MB in the Intel iMac. Would this really make that big of a difference and actually make the Intel iMac start up in its touted 18-second time if it has 2GB of RAM?
This really makes me want to return my new iMac right now and go back to the G5.
You are kidding right? The amount of time it takes to start up makes you want to return the iMac?
Dumbest thing I have heard in a while , really.
Arcus said:
I'll second that. When I first got my Dual 1.8 G5 Rev. B it booted in 20 seconds flat originally. Now it boots a bit over 45 I'd guess. Don't see me bitching over 15 stupid seconds. Like really, it's the end of the whole wide world as we know it, heaven forbid a computer takes longer than a minute to boot.
Give the iMac a friggen chance already. Thread topic title is very misleading, thought someone did some well thought out benchmarks comparing the iMac G5 vs the Core Duo in real world tests. Guess the whole '!!!!!!!!!!' should have been a giveaway.
Did you even time it's boot before loading all your old stuff onto it anyway? 512 MB of ram isn't exactly very roomy to begin with either...
There ...
... could be two issues only, in my opinion:
1. You have plugins or other startup software pieces, which are transferred to your intel imac, but not yet universal binary. Therefore they run in rosetta compatibility mode, which is emulation and therefore slow.
2. Spotlight, after a installation, does process a new index file, which heavily slows down startup, too, until indexing is finished. Depending on the amount of readable data this might take one to four hours.
... could be two issues only, in my opinion:
1. You have plugins or other startup software pieces, which are transferred to your intel imac, but not yet universal binary. Therefore they run in rosetta compatibility mode, which is emulation and therefore slow.
2. Spotlight, after a installation, does process a new index file, which heavily slows down startup, too, until indexing is finished. Depending on the amount of readable data this might take one to four hours.
admanimal said:
Just so you understand, the startup I'm talking about is the part where the computer first turns on. Not when you enter your password and login and it enters your account to your desktop.
Login programs have NOTHING to do with the way a computer starts up before you get to the LOGIN screen. Get it, Login programs, Login screen.
My MBP started up slowly the first time I restarted it to, but it got faster everytime and now it's insanely fast. I can be using my MBP, restart it, and be back up and running before my 3.2ghz HT P4 comes out of sleep.
Apple!Freak said:Okay guys, talk about a disappointment! I just picked up a new 20" Intel Core Duo iMac from the Apple Store and after transfering everything over from my old 20" iMac (still keeping all the data on my old iMac though) I ran a startup test.
The Core Duo iMac clocked in at 75 seconds exactly from desktop to login screen restart.
The iMac G5 clocked in at 38 seconds (!!!!!) exactly from desktop to login screen restart.
What in the hell is going on here? The only thing I could think of that would be in the G5's favor is the 2GB of RAM it has over the 512MB in the Intel iMac. Would this really make that big of a difference and actually make the Intel iMac start up in its touted 18-second time if it has 2GB of RAM?
This really makes me want to return my new iMac right now and go back to the G5.
Just because G5 boots faster doesnt mean its a faster computer. Install more RAM in the CoreDuo and watch the results