I got the MBP 2.16ghz with 2gb ram, but its not THAT fast...

Last time I checked, MS Office for mac hadn't been recompiled for Intel.

Basically, the MacBooks, Intel Minis, and Intel iMacs are fundamentally different in the ways they run software than the PPCs, and applications need to be compiled using Apple's latest compiler in order to run at full speed. Some software developers have yet to do this.

I donno how long you've been using a mac, but this is like running a 68K Application on a PPC: It's slow because it must be emulated. FYI, the emulation of running PPC apps on x86 is called "rosetta."

If they indeed have released an x86 version of Office for Mac, you should get it immediately.

Also check the rest of your software for updates. It's EXTREMELY easy to make an app universal, but that doesn't mean everyone's done it yet.

Only if the application is written to take advantage of multithreading will it see any advantage of Core Duo. There really isn't much need for Office to be a multithread application.

I also don't see how Office will get much noticeably faster. I suppose it can become more responsive. It doesn't really do anything processor intensive.

Dude, it's a MICROSOFT application

Mulithreading (what makes multiple processors useful in each application) is not related to the way you compile. (as stated by tenobell)

I'll do this in algebra so hopefully you can understand:
Unthreaded code:
A = 1; B = 2; C = 3;
D = B + A;
E = A + C;

// E is now 4, D is now 3

Threaded code (both threads are run at once):
A = 1; B = 2; C = 3;
// Thread 1 (goes to processor 1):
D = B + A;
// Thread 2 (goes to processor 2):
E = A + C;

// E is now 4, D is now 3, but the calculations were done in half the time.

Some code can't be threaded, because it requires an answer from a previous calculation:
A = 1; B = 2; C = 3;
D = B + A;
// This can't be figured out until the computer knows what "D" is:
E = A + D;

When running 2 unthreaded programs at once, neither program requires anything from the other program. Therefore, both programs will run in their own processor, and will not suffer any speed loss from running simultaneously.

NOTE: this is a VERY simplistic way of explaining it, the computer figures out the best way to run each thread. Often they'll run on the same processor, for instance. I'm just trying to simplify this for the lamen

I actually prefer unthreaded code most of the time, even though I have a dual processor 2.5Ghz G5.. This is simply because infinite loops are limited to one processor, so I still have 1 processor left to run a program to shut down the offending program.

This is very important when debugging my PHP scripts. Load the page locally, look at the proc monitor, if one of the procs is at 100%, you know you messed up. At this point, you use activity monitor (which I have hot-keyed) to shut down the offending process.

It really depends on what you're doing. At the moment I have both a PB and MBP and for the most part I'm underwhelmed. Not knocking the MBP, but really it depends on what you want to do with it.

None of the heavyweight Adobe apps will be fat binaries, or whatever Apple is calling the NeXT thing, um, oh, duh, yeah, Universal Binaries, until 2007. Right now all image-editing stuff runs ... slower, or about the same on both boxes.

The MBP rocks, it's a nice machine. Wait a year until the 64bit Merom is the CPU, there's some reasonable amount of ram like 4-8GB (2GB doesn't cut it, it was taxed on the PB and isn't much better on the MBP, faster ram and FSB notwithstanding; subjectively speaking, same old, same old), and native binaries are released, then grab one.

Of course if someone else is buying the hardware for you, or it's going to pay for itself because you're upgrading from something truly slow and awful, well knock yourself out.

The MBP had to be released, the entire PB line managed to crawl from 1.25GHz to 1.67GHz with a few added bells and whistles like motion sensors added to the hard drives, in what, 2+ years. The rest of the world didn't stand still.

I have a Core Duo Mini with 2 GB ram and a MBP 2.0 GHz with 2 GB ram and both are faster than my iBook 1.2 GHz, two G4 mini's. Hands down the Intels are faster at almost every task in Adobe and Office.

Comparing it to my iMac G5, well, it's close for those app's. I even believe my MBP may be a touch faster but that is pure opinion...

faster can mean responsive

All this talk about compilation and optimizations. Too tired now, but I'll be back with details.

sternone,

"Optimized" is a bad word. Not only is Microsoft Office not "optimized" for the Intel processor yet, it's not even speaking the same language.

Programs that haven't been written as "Universal" applications yet are running through emulation software on an Intel-based Mac. Essentially, your MacBook Pro is translating PowerPC code to Intel code on the fly as fast as it can. It's like when a translator is listening to someone speaking French and repeating it in English - there's going to be a delay. Once Microsoft Office is rewritten as a Universal application it will contain both the PowerPC and Intel code, and thusly no delay. All of the Apple applications that came with your MacBook Pro are already Universal, including all of the iLife applications. But iLife apps don't take as much advantage of dual cores as say the Apple pro apps, at least that's the impression I've gotten.

Yup!

I bought a MBP last week because I thought that with two cores vs. one, 667MHz FSB vS. 167MHz, SATA vs. ATA & X1600 vs. 9700 it would at least be fairly close to my PB.

InDesign launches in 58 bounces.

58 bounces is G3 speed people. The screensaver actually came on when I was trying to launch Illustrator the other day.

SO it's going back in its box. Now all I need to find is a store selling the last revision of the PB G4 before they all dry up...

Oh don't be ridiculous!

If you didn't read the consumer advice beforehand and somehow managed to miss all the reviews and even Steve's own keynote where it was mentioned repeatedly and clearly that the Adobe Creative Suite was not optimised for Intel yet and would run slower than previous machines, then more fool you.

The fact is that you have a blindingly fast, state of the art machine, and in 6 months or so there will likely be optimised versions of most software you are likely to want to use, however in the mean time you will have to make do with slow (but for the most part acceptable) performance for certain applications.

If your work is so critical that you can't make do with 'G3 performance' (which was state of the art only 4 years ago, and seemed fine at the time) for a few months while the software catches up then you are clearly a real power user, and as such I'm struggling to understand how you could possibly have done so little research before purchasing.

No comment.

i love my new MacBook Pro, 17", it is so super fast, I am in HD heaven, personally. I have had this EyeTV 500 for the past year, and not been able to record or watch video without dropping frames and stuttering. Tonight, watching Veronica Mars finale, was an amazing revelation.

Dashboard is now really convenient in loading instantly and getting rid of it instantly. I opened Photoshop and it ran as slow as it ever has, but I was not expecting anything great to occur, I figured it would just be like it was.... slow.

Safari is the fastest improvement, I feel, by far from upgrading from the PowerBook.

Screw Office... use iWork

Wow, instant Dashboard! Actually sounds useful! I can't wait to get a MacBook!

Well the problem I had was that nobody was able to give me any concrete idea of how CS2 would perform on the MBP. Most of the shops hadn't received any stock yet, and those who had either couldn't or wouldn't install CS2 to let me see how it performed. This included the two authorised dealers in the area. Reviews and benchmarks are one thing, but as a I say the reviews I read were very wooly when it came to hard facts.

So what could I do?

I bought the MBP from a retailer on the basis that I could return it withing 28 working days if I wasn't entirely satisfied and that's all I'm doing. I thought it might be worth sharing my experience because I guess there might be other people in the same boat who are wondering what to do.

The first night I had the machine I installed CS2, and ran the MBP and the PB side by side. It was a no brainer. The two machines booted in the same length of time, and the iApps seemed to perform the same. The iApps certainly weren't any quicker on the MBP (contrary to all the reviews). But when it came to CS2 I figured that there must be something wrong.

I'll probably buy a MBP again when CS3 arrives, but between now and then there's £24ks worth of work at stake...

Just out of interest, Chucker and Socrates, do you own MBPs?

Nebagakid, I've been using Migilia's MiniTV here in the UK (with eyetv 2.1) and it's been great - but on my PB 1.5ghz it seems to stutter now and then too... But the biggest problem is when I've recorded a programme that I wish to keep and then export to an avi file (I do not wish to lose too much quality though) - example: 6gig file of the European Grand Prix (Sunday 7th May) - I wish to export to a dvix file... will finish up at @ 1.8gigs for the 3hrs programme - I started exporting the file on Sunday at @ 3.30pm GMT and it's STILL going now... this PB hasn't been switched off! I alternate between highest/auto and reduced so as not to do too much damage (I hope) to the logic board...

How long does exporting take with the eyetv 2.1 universal software on your MacBook Pro when compared to your previous G4? Apologies if you haven't tried this yet... but if it's a sizeable step up I'll be tempted! But I'm thinking also to hang on for the Merom later this year...

Congrats on your new purchase!

Yes, mine arrived just last Friday. Best computer I've ever owned.

What I do is take the eyeTV recording, and run it through iSquint, because the eyeTV export settings make files too large for me.

However, this thing is really fast. It is hard to describe. If you want me to take some HD show and convert it for you at a certain setting, I can do that for you all.

Who gives a rat's ass how many bounces it takes to launch a non-Universal program. That shows a decided lack of knowledge as to what is going on. And who quits apps anymore anyway???

All those extra bounces while launching a non-Universal application are Rosetta working away to translate and cache those translations so the CPU won't have to do as much translation on the fly as you are actually using that program.

If you are a max-speed needing professional user a laptop is aleady a less than optimized choice no matter how you cut it. Going to a G4 laptop will launch you apps a little quicker, but almost always run them slower, the exception being some Altivec heavy plugins. Even those are fewer and farther between than originally thought because the Core series has an upgraded SSE implementation that fixes most of its bottlenecks in comparison to Altivec, and that allows Rosetta to handle those instructions too.

So fore the vast majority of what you use a MBP for it will be at worst comprable or slightly faster than a AluPB, today. Six to twelve months from now the vast majority of what you use a MBP for will be at worst 2x-3x faster than a AluPB.

If I was your competitor I would be hoping you bought that AluPB.

My MBP isn't as fast as I'd have hoped, but very few of my apps are Universal. I'm using primarily Dreamweaver 2004, Photoshop 7 and Office 2004 and they run fast enough to be very usable.

What I do think is that running ANY Rosetta app slows the entire system down. Running just Universal apps seems a lot faster, dare I say, snappier?

I have no complaints though.

Something is wrong. We are doing our new catalog (200+ pages) in InDesign on a Intel Mini Duo and Mac Book Pro 2 Ghz and G4 Mini. It is faster on the Intel's than using a G4 mini.

You must not have max'd your RAM out. We run max'd out ram on all machines.

No, as a heavy Photoshop user I decided to wait until Adobe release an Intel compiled version.

I made a bad assumption about your amount of RAM installed (megabytes). You have a problem because our Intel machines are opening InDesign as fast our G4 mini and slightly slower than my G5.

HMmm

I opened Photoshop on a Core Duo Mac mini and it took like 5 bounces

sounds like you've got something else goin on

OR - it could be your 5400rpm drive is just draggin'

I don't know, I tried an Intel Imac Core Duo in a store and some apps were very slow. Itunes took 30 seconds to launch and the library was nearly empty. I wouldn't have said anything was all that snappy. That machine only had 512MB Ram though but even so, my Mini runs some of the apps faster.

Maybe it's to do with system version or something. I don't know but I was very disappointed with it. Even Garageband and iphoto went slower than I expected.

It is the 512 ram. When I got my Intel duo mini, it was a dog. After I maxed out the ram, it is lighting fast compared to my G4 mini IMHO.

sternone:

Ok, do this test:

Get Handbrake (Universal Binary) and rip the same DVD to H.264 Baseline Profile, 384 bitrate, 320x240, on your Powerbook and the Mackbook. See which one takes longer. That will give you a better idea of how much faster the Macbook is.

Either that or some ya-hoo set the apps to open up under Rosetta which can be done via the Get Info window. I've seen that before.

Actually, I thought about that after I left the store because the performance was so bad, they had to have done something to it. It is a PC oriented store and Apple have now given them an easy way to make Macs look bad next to PCs.

If I had walked into that store and played with the imac and a PC, I certainly wouldn't have opted for the imac. The Ram thing is something else they do. They put the base amount in the Macs and soup up the PCs a bit.

Very strange. CPU-bound operations are SIGNIFICANTLY faster on my Macbook Pro than on my Powerbook G4 1.5 GHz with the same amount of RAM. Now, if you're doing stuff that's disk limited, of course there won't be much of a difference...

-- Mark