OS X and Celeron, Friends at last....

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
So, since you did it... tell us about your personal feel. None of that seemed astonishingly faster than my G4/800.... But enough people have commented that OS X seems fast on Intel hardware to make me take the comments seriously.
 

ohcrap

macrumors 6502a
Aug 12, 2005
548
0
Videos didn't seem any faster than my PB G4 1.5, in fact, startup seemed slower. But that's just my opinion I guess.
 

terkwong

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 3, 2005
9
0
speed

I think its difficult to compare with existing PPC systems.. but the Celeron isn't a speed winner anyway.... this is just a 2GHz system with 128kb L2 cache!
 

DeathChill

macrumors 68000
Jul 15, 2005
1,657
77
ohcrap said:
Videos didn't seem any faster than my PB G4 1.5, in fact, startup seemed slower. But that's just my opinion I guess.
Think of it this way: the Celeron is a low-end chip that is not supposed to be fast, and you think your PB is just a little faster? Intel is really kicking ass on OS X, 3.6 GHz is faster then dual G5's xD
 

greatdevourer

macrumors 68000
Aug 5, 2005
1,996
0
I'll be able to get back to you on this tomorrow (my bro's having an early night, and it's 11:30 here anyway :p, and it's his PC)
 

Chaszmyr

macrumors 601
Aug 9, 2002
4,266
76
I can deal with the concept of OSX on Intel processors in general, but OSX on a Celeron makes me want to vomit.
 

gekko513

macrumors 603
Oct 16, 2003
6,302
1
DeathChill said:
Think of it this way: the Celeron is a low-end chip that is not supposed to be fast, and you think your PB is just a little faster? Intel is really kicking ass on OS X, 3.6 GHz is faster then dual G5's xD
As much as I would like to believe the hype, there is no way that a 3.6GHz P4 can be said, in general, to be faster than dual G5 2.7GHz. For that to be true, OS X must be a so efficient OS that it makes the same hardware run several times faster than under Windows and Linux. That isn't the case at all.
 

homerjward

macrumors 68030
May 11, 2004
2,745
0
fig tree
are you finding 640mb of ram to be a disadvantage? that's really cool...

im gonna be trying that as soon as my copy finishes downloading! got my ubuntu live cd ready to do the raw copy thang , got my hard drive ready, now all i need to do is figure out how to format my ipod as ntfs...
 

mym6

macrumors newbie
Aug 14, 2005
4
0
Fargo ND
I got this up and running on my main P4 system but it crashes on a PIII system I have sitting around. I also have problems running some software on my P4 system like iTunes. I can't get FireFox to run at all. Despite all that it's impressive to see OS X running on an Intel box.
 

ohcrap

macrumors 6502a
Aug 12, 2005
548
0
DeathChill said:
Think of it this way: the Celeron is a low-end chip that is not supposed to be fast, and you think your PB is just a little faster? Intel is really kicking ass on OS X, 3.6 GHz is faster then dual G5's xD
lol ok? And your comparing a 3.6ghz P4 to a dual G5, why again?
 

Jedi128

macrumors 6502
Jul 7, 2005
274
0
New York, NY
alex_ant said:
Ugh... OS X on a Smelleron. I feel dirty just thinking about it.
Thats exactly how I feel......

And there is no way that a 3.6Ghz P4 is better than dual2.7Ghz's. I think that the M's will be way better than the G4's as in the powerbook and iBook's will feel faster, but the G5 is still a great processor. Remember, we're not switching becuase PPC is slow, its becuase it sucks too much power....
 

sambo.

macrumors regular
Jun 2, 2004
242
0
outback, far from the surf
dude....

Chaszmyr said:
I can deal with the concept of OSX on Intel processors in general, but OSX on a Celeron makes me want to vomit.
i'm currently stuck with a 500Mhz & a 1.4Ghz celeron win '98 KakBoxes.

if i could get OS-X to run on them, i would lurve them.

i couldn't give a toss about my 'puter being a boring box rather than a groovy fashion statement, i like Apple 'coz the OS just works.....
 

kalisphoenix

macrumors 65816
Jul 26, 2005
1,231
1
I installed OS X native on an Athlon 64 3000+/1024MB RAM. It ran like crap. I'm not saying that to preserve Apple's reputation or anything... it really, really, really ran like crap. The lag was atrocious and app startup was wretchedly slow. My G3/366 iBook ran it faster than the A64 did, and that's the honest truth.
 

BornAgainMac

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2004
6,422
3,344
Florida Resident
This is strange. Some say that it is faster on Intel/AMD and others say PPC is faster. Next year the facts will be known and software will have FAT binaries so that the tests are more fair.

I would like to see a Mac Mini in the Airport Express form factor running Intel.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.