AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iMac Dual-Core review comment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iMac Dual-Core review comment

post #1 of 21
2/6/06 at 11:47am
Thread Starter 
I received my 20" dual-core at the weekend, and sold my 20" G5 2.0Ghz to a friend of mine. I noticed the increased speed of native apps immediately and the system is much more responsive.

I have 2GB RAM in mine, and Rosetta performs just fine. I wouldn't dream of Running Photoshop on it though - that's just not possible at a really acceptable speed - but everything else, and I mean everything except for graphically-intensive apps - works like a dream whether a native app or via Rosetta.

read this: ROSETTA IS JUST FINE - so long as you have at least 1GB - preferably 2GB - of RAM. Apple should never have let these go out of the factory with less than 1GB. I think this was a huge mistake. The reviews would have been far more favourable had they kitted out the machines with more RAM where purchasers hadn't opted to add any more when they ordered. But in the greater scheme of things, people should realise the machine is simply awesome - its the fastest Mac you could want to use outside of a quad-G5. At least, when you've got plenty of RAM
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 21
2/6/06 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Increasing the RAM from the stock configuration could help with the sluggishness, but one would expect Apple would have included enough RAM to cover such basic tasks, especially when many new users will have no idea that half of their applications are running in emulation.

This review includes several redundant examples citing what happens if you try to run a computer with insufficient RAM for the chosen tasks, and doesn't answer the obvious next question of performance evaluation once the RAM problem is addressed.

When it became clear that the computer was not performing nearly as expected with the chosen load, the sensible course of action would be to increase the memory and then re-evaluate, making it clear what was required in order to achieve an acceptable level of performance (while taking Apple to task for not including that much to begin with, if appropriate). As it is, it leaves too many unanswered questions to be considered a well-rounded, informative review.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 21
2/6/06 at 12:39pm
Sorry, but that review was a complete disservice to most readers.

Frontrow, rosetta, photoshop... all ran sluggishly because of insufficient RAM. If the iMac deserves criticism, it's for having too little RAM. It isn't slow if you put in the right ammount of memory for running those applications.

Was the reviewer clueless or did he just have an axe to grind? I mean really, this review was a disservice to anyone who doesn't know how much about computers. Those who do know about memory requirements probably just shook their heads in amazement.

I'm not claiming a conspiracy or anything here... just holding the author accountable for the quality of their work.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 21
2/6/06 at 2:25pm
Thread Starter 
The review was simply appalling, just to add further to my initial post. I am shocked that the site would publish garbage like that. It is so blantantly narrow and obtuse in its examination of the Mac's capabilities that it makes me wonder if AI are deliberately trying to create bad press simply to add to the pressure on Apple's chare price, a bit like it might easily seem the boys at thinksecret did a few weeks ago when they came out with that blatantly rigged report about imacs not selling well - when one look at amazon.com shows them to be the top sellers of all desktops there.

Bizarre review... I have even less time for AI and thinksecret than ever before.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 21
2/6/06 at 2:41pm
When you say this, "I wouldn't dream of Running Photoshop on it though - that's just not possible at a really acceptable speed."

Are you speaking of editing 300, 50, 2 MB files? And or is it that the interface is just pokey slow compared to when running on a PowerPC chip no matter what type of file is open? Moreover, what is the issue that you are seeing?

I use PS and AI daily 'professionally' and I seem to see this claim the PS is unusable everywhere, but it is never mentioned what kind of files are being edited.

Even when Steve said it wasn't really up to pro use in the keynote, was he talking about hi res (80+ MB) photo retouching for design mags.. Or was he stipulating that for multi layered 72 dpi use (eg. webdesign), it wasn't up to snuff as well??

I'm in desperate need of a new laptop. And I think along with many other, this ambiguity IS the nagging issue..
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 21
2/6/06 at 2:55pm
Thread Starter 
I've actually run Adobe CS on my Dual-Core now. It isn't fast.. but it isn't much slower than my old Powerbook G4 1.25Ghz, which was pretty cutting edge 2 years ago

If you're editing large fils with multiple layers you'll want a G5. If you're editing pictures of your cat and getting rid of red-eye, or doing basic editing, then you'll be just fine - you're unlikely to be on a production deadline anyway
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 21
2/6/06 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by LGnome

Even when Steve said it wasn't really up to pro use in the keynote, was he talking about hi res (80+ MB) photo retouching for design mags.. Or was he stipulating that for multi layered 72 dpi use (eg. webdesign), it wasn't up to snuff as well??

I haven't had any problems using Photoshop CS in that manner. It's rather slow to launch, but once open it works fine for general web development use. Not as snappy as native for sure, but sufficient so long as it's not your primary app (I'd be annoyed if my sole job was photoshop use).
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 21
2/6/06 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by LGnome
I'm in desperate need of a new laptop. And I think along with many other, this ambiguity IS the nagging issue..

If you are concerned about the performance of the Macbook Pro, you have nothing to worry about.

Look at it this way: The CoreDuo iMac is 30-40% faster than iMac G5 (2.1) for Universal apps. and it is 40-50% the speed in Rosetta.

Using this data and some guesstimation, I'd say that the MacBook Pro will be nearly double the speed of the current 1.67GHz Powerbook for Universal apps and run at 70% the speed in Rosetta.

If the Mac that you currently own is slower than a 1.25 GHz G4, then the Macbook Pro will be faster than you current machine even when running Rosetta.
Sold my beige.
Reply
Sold my beige.
Reply
post #9 of 21
2/6/06 at 4:50pm
Heh, damnit... everyone keeps using the 1.25 as the line breaker... I have a 1.25 15" alum... what about me eh!? Upgrade or no =P...

I use photoshop for pretty complex web design stuff... I think the biggest is 10mb though.... should I wait? I'm safe for everything else cept bbedit maybe... should be out soon though. I use fireworks once in a while... but I can live with slow speeds there.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #10 of 21
2/6/06 at 5:09pm
I want to echo memory sentiment. Please followup after upgrading.

In addition "Buy this iMac for only $1449.99 from Amazon.com through February 7th." is wrong. Amazon offers $150 rebate off of $1699.99, or $1549.99. (Nevermind that its rebate fulfillment website is currently broken, but that's another topic.)
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 21
2/6/06 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Heh, damnit... everyone keeps using the 1.25 as the line breaker... I have a 1.25 15" alum... what about me eh!? Upgrade or no =P...

I use photoshop for pretty complex web design stuff... I think the biggest is 10mb though.... should I wait? I'm safe for everything else cept bbedit maybe... should be out soon though. I use fireworks once in a while... but I can live with slow speeds there.

If you use any of the already-universal apps (e.g. iLife 06), then you will benefit tremendously from the upgrade. If all of your apps are still PPC, then you could wait until the apps become universal.

Or...

If you want a brighter and higher-resolution screen, you will also benefit from the upgrade. Of course, Apple seems to consistently have problems when they switch LCD screens (e.g. 23" Cinema Displays, the most recent Powerbook screens etc.) I haven't heard any owner feedback from Macbook Pro owners yet so you might want to wait for that.
Sold my beige.
Reply
Sold my beige.
Reply
post #12 of 21
2/6/06 at 10:35pm
If you have a Mac more than 2 years old you will benefit even if you use Rosetta. Remember an iMac CD 2.0 isn't designed to be a replacement for a late model PowerMac.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #13 of 21
2/7/06 at 10:29am
I believe the reason apple came out with a macbook pro so early in the game, wasn't for consumers. I believe this move was 100% for developers. Developers weren't going to waste their time buying an iBook or an iMac...so a professional intel computer needed to be released. This would be the machine to test all of the new software on. I think they made the correct move if you look at it that way. It just would have prolonged developers releasing their software IF a macmini and iBook were released... *shrugs*. If I was still doing cocoa programming I'd snatch one up in an instant.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #14 of 21
2/7/06 at 3:55pm
Pee on you photoshop clones, what about InDesign. The program that really counts.

That review made me cry and shed any hopes of getting a 15" MacBook Pro soon to run InDesign on. If it runs like a 1.2 GHz iBook G4, I'll be fine. I would be fine on a ~900 MHz G4.

I will have to remember to max the ram.

Perception is a funny thing...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #15 of 21
2/8/06 at 2:38am
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub

That review made me cry...

Am I the only one who still cannot see what review are you talking about? The now famous Macworld one perhaps?
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 21
2/8/06 at 4:11am
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Am I the only one who still cannot see what review are you talking about? The now famous Macworld one perhaps?

You mean infamous?

Anyways...no, he's talking about the AI one.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 21
2/8/06 at 5:02am
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
You mean infamous?

Yeah, I meant "famous". Or infamous as you say.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Anyways...no, he's talking about the AI one.

I did not realise that AI too had a review. Up there to read it now.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 21
2/8/06 at 5:21am
OK, this is an interesting article, although it does not go into much detail and it seems somewhat rushed. The Rosetta complaints are valid, but up to some point. I hear that Rosetta is very aggressive in caching and needs huge amounts of RAM to run to full potential, so having the 512 MB iMac as an example is rather misleading. Not totally pointless though, since this is the standard configuration and this will be the experience for the vast majority of users.

I think the same applies to the Front Row case.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 21
2/8/06 at 5:26am
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
OK, this is an interesting article, although it does not go into much detail and it seems somewhat rushed. The Rosetta complaints are valid, but up to some point. I hear that Rosetta is very aggressive in caching and needs huge amounts of RAM to run to full potential, so having the 512 MB iMac as an example is rather misleading. Not totally pointless though, since this is the standard configuration and this will be the experience for the vast majority of users.

I think the same applies to the Front Row case.

Yeah, it is a valid review no doubt. Every computer ships with 512 mb ram. However, I bet most active posters on here have more than the standard. Maybe we can get another review going with max'd ram.

I bet the iMac steve used had max'd out ram and photoshop didn't appear to bad on it.

There is hope but I am seriously considering just buying a 15" G4 PB instead now. Especially if it is going to be a year until Adobe gets the CS universal binary. I have to put together a product catalog and I don't know how well resetta would handle that.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #20 of 21
2/9/06 at 11:41am
How would you guess something like Corel Painter 9 would run in Rosetta? Would someone mind downloading the trial demo from Corel's site?
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satelli...=1047023647703

Pretty please?
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 21
2/9/06 at 11:52am
Probably better of waiting for COREL to compile the Universal Binary.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › iMac Dual-Core review comment