the airport antenna was a lot smaller than I thought it would be. In some of the past pictures they looked a little big, but they really aren't. They're pretty small.
Also, some say that the g5 looks "WAY BETTER" in person ....
I ran some of the applications on the machine [system preferences, safari, photoshop, iCal, iSync, Airport Admin, etc.] just to get a "feel" for the responsiveness of the system [for daily, general usage].......
it didn't seem as "fast" as I was hoping [though, I'm sure the dual 2.0ghz is a different story].........
the responsiveness was on par to the latter G4s.
Nothing "extraordinary" I'm afraid.
Some applications opened in one bounce [safari, address book, etc.] but some took multiple bounces to open [system preferences, airport admin, iCal, etc.].....
... I do know that's not the most effective means to measure responsiveness that's the best reference I could come up with at the moment to measure general system/g5 feedback ....
Well, badtz, thanks for the report and I feared as much. I'm sure Panther though will bring total GUI Snappiness® on the whole G5 line. The 256MB RAM doesn't help any either.
Look at us, a Bruin and a Trojan brought together by the Mac platform!
On an additional note, it wasn't as "huge" as I thought it was going to be.
It's definitely do-able.
The fans are also decent/do-able, though not "ultra quiet" as I was hoping [maybe I was hoping too much? ]
It still makes that "clap" noise when you open the drive bay. Same sound as the past couple G4s [i was hoping they would implement something quieter somehow].
The build quality on the outside is definitely top notch though.
Apple's goal for Smeagol is to deliver Mac OS X performance at least "on par" with what Jaguar could achieve on Motorola G4 chips running at the same speed
Quote:
Part of the issue with OS compatibility lies with Mac OS X's compiler, GCC 3, which lacks scheduling support for the PowerPC 970. Apple and IBM are reportedly working to add 970-specific support to the latest version, GCC 3.3.
Exactly. And what are people complaining about? The G5 only appears to have a clock-for-clock increase in performance. It is amazing how accurate the eweek article was. But wait for panther. On my 1 ghz tibook, Panther flies. It is much faster. Apps finally open the way they did in OS 9.
Opening applications just stresses the rotational speed of the hard drive and the VM of OS X, which sucks anyway. You can't make that go faster without going to faster (rotationally, not burst transfer) hard drives.
Don't complain about speed for things that didn't change between the G4s and the G5s, or will only scale with clock speed (for instance, simple AltiVec programs that fit in cache). Think about what your test is actually testing. At first launch of the program, it's gotta be mapped into memory, right? And possibly the system will swap out pages to make room for it, and that invokes more rotational delay on the HD.
Comments
Even if there were, I wouldn't have bought one. I'm waiting for maybe one or two [or three?] more revisions.
To be honest
But I do wonder what it'd be like with Panther.
the airport antenna was a lot smaller than I thought it would be. In some of the past pictures they looked a little big, but they really aren't. They're pretty small.
Also, some say that the g5 looks "WAY BETTER" in person ....
to me, it was exactly what I thought it'd be.
We'll leave it at that
Originally posted by badtz
To be honest
How so? Please elaborate.
P.S. Thanks for the pics.
it didn't seem as "fast" as I was hoping [though, I'm sure the dual 2.0ghz is a different story].........
the responsiveness was on par to the latter G4s.
Nothing "extraordinary" I'm afraid.
Some applications opened in one bounce [safari, address book, etc.] but some took multiple bounces to open [system preferences, airport admin, iCal, etc.].....
... I do know that's not the most effective means to measure responsiveness
Look at us, a Bruin and a Trojan brought together by the Mac platform!
I'm an x-anteater [UCI] ....
transferring to ucla now that I'm in LA
* fyi : I was just on campus because of the computer, and nothing else! haha.
It's definitely do-able.
The fans are also decent/do-able, though not "ultra quiet" as I was hoping [maybe I was hoping too much?
It still makes that "clap" noise when you open the drive bay. Same sound as the past couple G4s [i was hoping they would implement something quieter somehow].
The build quality on the outside is definitely top notch though.
All minor quibbles for those who are super picky.
Originally posted by badtz
Actually, I'm NOT a trojan.
I'm an x-anteater [UCI] ....
transferring to ucla now that I'm in LA
* fyi : I was just on campus because of the computer, and nothing else! haha.
Whew! That's a relief! A fellow Bruin (to be) after all.
I don't think even a G5 could get me onto the USC campus.
P.S. Zots!
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121736,00.asp
Apple's goal for Smeagol is to deliver Mac OS X performance at least "on par" with what Jaguar could achieve on Motorola G4 chips running at the same speed
Part of the issue with OS compatibility lies with Mac OS X's compiler, GCC 3, which lacks scheduling support for the PowerPC 970. Apple and IBM are reportedly working to add 970-specific support to the latest version, GCC 3.3.
Whew! That's a relief! A fellow Bruin (to be) after all.
No, but I'm a Trojan and you'd better watch out!
Originally posted by cooop
No, but I'm a Trojan and you'd better watch out!
don't worry guys.. another bruin checking in here
so far we outnumber those trojans 3 to 1
p.s. the G5 should be in the ucla bookstore sometime this week (if it's not already by now)
Opening applications just stresses the rotational speed of the hard drive and the VM of OS X, which sucks anyway. You can't make that go faster without going to faster (rotationally, not burst transfer) hard drives.
Don't complain about speed for things that didn't change between the G4s and the G5s, or will only scale with clock speed (for instance, simple AltiVec programs that fit in cache). Think about what your test is actually testing. At first launch of the program, it's gotta be mapped into memory, right? And possibly the system will swap out pages to make room for it, and that invokes more rotational delay on the HD.
Originally posted by Eugene
Holy shit, I hope you didn't pay extra for that "camera" functionality.
I paid for a cell phone that happened to have a camera.