Well I can't help it if reading comprehension is a weakness of yours. How is that my fault?
Those are some pretty clear examples of times when additional cpu performance benefits the user immensely. Some of those tasks are so cpu intensive that you will not use your machine for anything else until that task is done. Others can take HOURS to complete. Why wouldn't you want a faster if not the fastest possible machine possible (within reason of course) to do that?
If you don't 'get' it, I don't know what to tell you.
If you really use your computer and know or keep yourself up to date with Mac news as I do think you do since you are here. You should now that all this new hardware including the entire MacBook lines had been prepared to support Snow Leopard and all the improvements regarding processing.
You can buy one now and buy Snow Leopard later or wait until Snow Leopard is released and it is included on every new Mac computer.
People come to the forums to look for information, clear doubts and share their knowledge.
It will be nicer and responsible if your post where closer to reality.
So snow Leopard will work faster on these than last year's model? Why is that? He stated a whole slew of items that take forever-NOW.
Geekbench doesn't test graphics performance, which should be increased substantially for both machines over their predecessors. Both the 9400M vs the GMA 950 and the Radeon 4850 vs the pseudo-8800GS in the iMac should be no contest at all.
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.
But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.
I've used my iMac to make movies in iMovie, used iMovie to export them in different formats, used iDVD to make a few movies and even used handbrake a few times. Yes, I wait for encoding times and all but I've mostly felt the wait times were reasonable. Handbrake seems to takes the most time. Still I just go watch a TV show or something while it works. Honestly, I'm not going to be that impressed with loosing a few minutes waiting for the encode until it's down to 15 min or so.
I know many people with Mac's and PC's that most only use them for iTunes, email, internet and basic photo stuff. That's just the way most people use their machines I think.
Okay, the top of the line machine isn't as damned fast as you'd like it to be. I still think the processor and graphics are a good buy, especially given the price on the mac.
and can yall stop freaking complaining about how bad the low-end imacs are? or how bad the mini's are? chirst, the imacs and mini's aren't supposed to be top-of-the-line machines. especially the low-end ones. and has anyone noticed the low-end imacs are CHEAP. 24" screen for cheap!!!! These machines will move very quickly, simply because they offer a lot at a low price. These aren't cheap by PC standards, but by apple standards these computers are rock bottom.
The high-end are pretty good too (not mac pro, but still good), so stop the whining! Buy a low-end mac pro if you want quad core that badly. quad-core is simply not affordable in an imac. it has nothing to do with cooling.
Also, remember when Jobs kept stressing that PowerPCs were better, faster, blah, blah? Remember the keynotes with sections all about CPU speed? Apple got caught at its own game, once more. Only difference here, they were not limited by their partner (intel this time, not IBM/Moto), they limited themselves...
In that time there was nothing comparable to Power PC, the main reason Apple changed them for Intel was the lack of support from IBM.
You can't have a partner that is not marching at your pace. Look at all the products Apple released since Intel/Apple partnership begun. Apple TV, TimeCapsule, iPhone & iPod touch and the entire computer line.
The change came as natural it could be, Apple was not anymore the Computer brand, it has another channel called iPod and expanded it to make 4 mayor businesses.
In some way was IBM lost, but who can blame them... They thought they had more future making processors for consoles and car computers. Many of the top car brands use even up to 12 PPC chips on their cars like BMW, Mercedes Benz and many others.
In my opinion the PPC chip was way better than what it was offered by AMD and Intel at that time. Worked with so many high end software that was ridiculous fast on Power Macs and sluggish on windows.
As a consultant and support asset I seen so many changes in both worlds (Windows & Mac) and I still prefer Mac for the whole experience. (sorry HP)
All kidding aside, I appreciate your responding with ideas. But you really have to understand that many of us are frustrated that we have waited so long for this and it's simply not delivering. How can you call that a complaint. It's a criticism -that's all.
Fair enough. Sorry my temper got a little carried away in my first post. It does that, and it's not terribly productive.
And I do understand, somewhat ? but I'm not so sure that they aren't delivering, at least not yet. I fully reserve the write to have my optimism here proven wrong, but I just think that the improvements are of the "oh, the clock speed is higher!" variety that all of us here can easily get excited about immediately.
I think once we see some thorough benchmarks ? and, really, more importantly, once we see Snow Leopard ? I think these machines will look better. If not "great," necessarily.
I've used my iMac to make movies in iMovie, used iMovie to export them in different formats, used iDVD to make a few movies and even used handbrake a few times. Yes, I wait for encoding times and all but I've mostly felt the wait times were reasonable. Handbrake seems to takes the most time. Still I just go watch a TV show or something while it works. Honestly, I'm not going to be that impressed with loosing a few minutes waiting for the encode until it's down to 15 min or so.
I know many people with Mac's and PC's that most only use them for iTunes, email, internet and basic photo stuff. That's just the way most people use their machines I think.
I made a movie with iMovie and encoded with iDVD. The movie was 1-2 minutes long but I encoded with iDVD to play on my TV. With my C2D MBP (2.16ghz) it took 20 minutes! I want an ATV just to avoid this hassle.
2 hour handbrake rips take about 2.5 hrs to complete. A friend has a last gen octo core MP and says 2 hr movies take him 20 minutes.
I can easily use a more powerful Mac. Alas, the only one that really offers the performance I desire is the Mac Pro and its not in my budget.
Pot, meet kettle. To suggest that gaming is the only thing that really benefits from the improved graphics over the previous version is misleading or ignorant on your part. Anything that is core image or core video enabled should be a lot faster, and that's now, in current operating systems. Not to mention OpenCL, Grand Central and any other enhancements in Snow Leopard.
A faster CPU, bigger stock memory would have been better, but to say it isn't faster isn't quite right, it's just not measured using a benchmark that reflects what OS X is about.
The comment about me being ignorant is no too smart on your part, but let's not start a cat fight.
I still maintain that for most tasks, there won't be any speed increase, period. Core image/video? Am I really talking to someone who understands these things? Do you know how many Mac Apps REALLY leverage the graphic card for processing? Put the list together, and you'll quickly realize they're not exactly targeted at users using a mini or even an iMac (to set the record straight, I see one app benefiting from it, quicktime will actually benefit from the H.264 hardware decoder on the mini now, but hey, H.264 hardware acceleration has been available for years, even the 5+ years old nVidia GPUs can do it).
OpenCL still has to prove itself as no-one has really played with it. Plus it may simply die after this new generation of nVidia powered Macs as nVidia is being sued by Intel (I suggest you read the news).
It's simply the reflection of what's going on at Apple: major shift of resources from the OS/hardware to consumer products like the iPhone (and please don't argue with me on that one, I live in the bay, every Apple employees from the Cupertino campus you can meet around here will tell you the same thing, most of them are actually pissed by that shift).
I think once we see some thorough benchmarks ? and, really, more importantly, once we see Snow Leopard ? I think these machines will look better. If not "great," necessarily.
Leopard already utilizes dual core machines efficiently. Grand Central is for more than 2 core machines. It is supposed to facilitate the use of machines with 4 cores or more. Open cl may be useful for machines with the current gpus. We'll know more as it gets closer to release.
In that time there was nothing comparable to Power PC, the main reason Apple changed them for Intel was the lack of support from IBM.
You can't have a partner that is not marching at your pace. Look at all the products Apple released since Intel/Apple partnership begun. Apple TV, TimeCapsule, iPhone & iPod touch and the entire computer line.
The change came as natural it could be, Apple was not anymore the Computer brand, it has another channel called iPod and expanded it to make 4 mayor businesses.
In some way was IBM lost, but who can blame them... They thought they had more future making processors for consoles and car computers. Many of the top car brands use even up to 12 PPC chips on their cars like BMW, Mercedes Benz and many others.
In my opinion the PPC chip was way better than what it was offered by AMD and Intel at that time. Worked with so many high end software that was ridiculous fast on Power Macs and sluggish on windows.
As a consultant and support asset I seen so many changes in both worlds (Windows & Mac) and I still prefer Mac for the whole experience. (sorry HP)
Not arguing about the IBM CPU, I loved my PPC macs, and still use one! What I meant is that at that time Apple was all about speed, all about bashing intel for lack of it, and Apple was crying because IBM couldn't keep up with its needs. Now, things are quite reversed, they have all the power they need, but they choose not to use it. I don't get it.
Well I can't help it if reading comprehension is a weakness of yours. How is that my fault?
Those are some pretty clear examples of times when additional cpu performance benefits the user immensely. Some of those tasks are so cpu intensive that you will not use your machine for anything else until that task is done. Others can take HOURS to complete. Why wouldn't you want a faster if not the fastest possible machine possible (within reason of course) to do that?
If you don't 'get' it, I don't know what to tell you.
it looks like you only took a look at the first lines of my post, but again...
Computer power in these days don't relay on the processor only, it has to do more with the total of components and how they work and communicate together. In the case of Apple computers with the OS, you should know that Mac OS X is another kind of beast and use the whole components in its particular way, with Snow Leopard the user experience will be exponentially boosted.
I have customers that edit HD for local tv in their iMacs, it could be faster on a Mac Pro but is darn faster than some of the offering on windows world. Not to mention the hundreds running Adobe's suites. They use their equipment for profit and depend on speed to do stuff.
They just not complain cause their Macs are up to the task and KNOW how to use them.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
Dave
The retail costs for a faster CPU is rather high...otherwise I would be thinking about it.
It's so disappointing to come here to read helpful insight from users and all I read in almost every post is someone bitching that they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas. I'm certain these machines are more than marginally better than the last machines even if it's GPU vs CPU. Apple does not have a track record of releasing crap. I personally think they probably should have waited for Snow Leopard as this will show the true power of these and recent machines.
Is there a part where "Nehalem isn't here yet" that confuses people about this minor iMac speed bump? Yes, it was almost worth of a stealth bump that the MBP got but Apple is skipping the quad penryns. Could be heat, could be they're expecting to get the mobile Nehalms before anyone else like the Nehalem-EPs from Intel...although that's less likely given the volumes that HP and Dell push out.
Not arguing about the IBM CPU, I loved my PPC macs, and still use one! What I meant is that at that time Apple was all about speed, all about bashing intel for lack of it, and Apple was crying because IBM couldn't keep up with its needs. Now, things are quite reversed, they have all the power they need, but they choose not to use it. I don't get it.
I loved those machines, I still have a quicksilver I got second hand and still works pretty well as a server.
Change is good, I think we got benefit from Apple switch to Intel, more products, more ways to use your computer and running multiple OS.
Overall the whole computer industry changed a lot compared of what they was 10 years ago.
Do you remember those Power Mac TV spots? The one with the tanks and the kid that blows away part of the house with his G5?
Computer power in these days don't relay on the processor only, it has to do more with the total of components and how they work and communicate together..
The benchmarks show that the new machines aren't going to be any faster than the ones they replace.
If you're happy with the current performance of the iMac and mini then fine. I'm not.
I expect more for the premium price that Apple demands with its products. I don't mind paying more but I don't want less for my money.
And you better read up on Snow Leopard because it's designed to leverage the power of machines with more than 2 cores. Leopard utilizes 2 cores rather well thank you. So don't make out SL to some magic code that'll turn dual core Macs into performance beasts because it likely will not.
My opinion is that apple is just restuffing the same old stuff to show those products are still alive before a real update when Snow Leopard comes out..
It's so disappointing to come here to read helpful insight from users and all I read in almost every post is someone bitching that they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas. I'm certain these machines are more than marginally better than the last machines even if it's GPU vs CPU. Apple does not have a track record of releasing crap. I personally think they probably should have waited for Snow Leopard as this will show the true power of these and recent machines.
Hello there, I know is hard sometimes to find information.
I think you must pay attention that all the computers are basically oriented for Snow Leopard that will take advantage out of the GPU.
If you consider that just a little.... you will discover that not only gamers got better cards for play, all mac users that upgrade to Snow Leopard will have an entire new and better experience.
Comments
I don't get your point, I really don't.
.
Well I can't help it if reading comprehension is a weakness of yours.
Those are some pretty clear examples of times when additional cpu performance benefits the user immensely. Some of those tasks are so cpu intensive that you will not use your machine for anything else until that task is done. Others can take HOURS to complete. Why wouldn't you want a faster if not the fastest possible machine possible (within reason of course) to do that?
If you don't 'get' it, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't get your point, I really don't.
If you really use your computer and know or keep yourself up to date with Mac news as I do think you do since you are here. You should now that all this new hardware including the entire MacBook lines had been prepared to support Snow Leopard and all the improvements regarding processing.
You can buy one now and buy Snow Leopard later or wait until Snow Leopard is released and it is included on every new Mac computer.
People come to the forums to look for information, clear doubts and share their knowledge.
It will be nicer and responsible if your post where closer to reality.
So snow Leopard will work faster on these than last year's model? Why is that? He stated a whole slew of items that take forever-NOW.
Hell yes!
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.
But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.
I've used my iMac to make movies in iMovie, used iMovie to export them in different formats, used iDVD to make a few movies and even used handbrake a few times. Yes, I wait for encoding times and all but I've mostly felt the wait times were reasonable. Handbrake seems to takes the most time. Still I just go watch a TV show or something while it works. Honestly, I'm not going to be that impressed with loosing a few minutes waiting for the encode until it's down to 15 min or so.
I know many people with Mac's and PC's that most only use them for iTunes, email, internet and basic photo stuff. That's just the way most people use their machines I think.
and can yall stop freaking complaining about how bad the low-end imacs are? or how bad the mini's are? chirst, the imacs and mini's aren't supposed to be top-of-the-line machines. especially the low-end ones. and has anyone noticed the low-end imacs are CHEAP. 24" screen for cheap!!!! These machines will move very quickly, simply because they offer a lot at a low price. These aren't cheap by PC standards, but by apple standards these computers are rock bottom.
The high-end are pretty good too (not mac pro, but still good), so stop the whining! Buy a low-end mac pro if you want quad core that badly. quad-core is simply not affordable in an imac. it has nothing to do with cooling.
Also, remember when Jobs kept stressing that PowerPCs were better, faster, blah, blah? Remember the keynotes with sections all about CPU speed? Apple got caught at its own game, once more. Only difference here, they were not limited by their partner (intel this time, not IBM/Moto), they limited themselves...
A little history:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/power-mac-g5.html
IBM processors, do you really want to go there?
In that time there was nothing comparable to Power PC, the main reason Apple changed them for Intel was the lack of support from IBM.
You can't have a partner that is not marching at your pace. Look at all the products Apple released since Intel/Apple partnership begun. Apple TV, TimeCapsule, iPhone & iPod touch and the entire computer line.
The change came as natural it could be, Apple was not anymore the Computer brand, it has another channel called iPod and expanded it to make 4 mayor businesses.
In some way was IBM lost, but who can blame them... They thought they had more future making processors for consoles and car computers. Many of the top car brands use even up to 12 PPC chips on their cars like BMW, Mercedes Benz and many others.
In my opinion the PPC chip was way better than what it was offered by AMD and Intel at that time. Worked with so many high end software that was ridiculous fast on Power Macs and sluggish on windows.
As a consultant and support asset I seen so many changes in both worlds (Windows & Mac) and I still prefer Mac for the whole experience. (sorry HP)
All kidding aside, I appreciate your responding with ideas. But you really have to understand that many of us are frustrated that we have waited so long for this and it's simply not delivering. How can you call that a complaint. It's a criticism -that's all.
Fair enough. Sorry my temper got a little carried away in my first post. It does that, and it's not terribly productive.
And I do understand, somewhat ? but I'm not so sure that they aren't delivering, at least not yet. I fully reserve the write to have my optimism here proven wrong, but I just think that the improvements are of the "oh, the clock speed is higher!" variety that all of us here can easily get excited about immediately.
I think once we see some thorough benchmarks ? and, really, more importantly, once we see Snow Leopard ? I think these machines will look better. If not "great," necessarily.
I've used my iMac to make movies in iMovie, used iMovie to export them in different formats, used iDVD to make a few movies and even used handbrake a few times. Yes, I wait for encoding times and all but I've mostly felt the wait times were reasonable. Handbrake seems to takes the most time. Still I just go watch a TV show or something while it works. Honestly, I'm not going to be that impressed with loosing a few minutes waiting for the encode until it's down to 15 min or so.
I know many people with Mac's and PC's that most only use them for iTunes, email, internet and basic photo stuff. That's just the way most people use their machines I think.
I made a movie with iMovie and encoded with iDVD. The movie was 1-2 minutes long but I encoded with iDVD to play on my TV. With my C2D MBP (2.16ghz) it took 20 minutes! I want an ATV just to avoid this hassle.
2 hour handbrake rips take about 2.5 hrs to complete. A friend has a last gen octo core MP and says 2 hr movies take him 20 minutes.
I can easily use a more powerful Mac. Alas, the only one that really offers the performance I desire is the Mac Pro and its not in my budget.
Pot, meet kettle. To suggest that gaming is the only thing that really benefits from the improved graphics over the previous version is misleading or ignorant on your part. Anything that is core image or core video enabled should be a lot faster, and that's now, in current operating systems. Not to mention OpenCL, Grand Central and any other enhancements in Snow Leopard.
A faster CPU, bigger stock memory would have been better, but to say it isn't faster isn't quite right, it's just not measured using a benchmark that reflects what OS X is about.
The comment about me being ignorant is no too smart on your part, but let's not start a cat fight.
I still maintain that for most tasks, there won't be any speed increase, period. Core image/video? Am I really talking to someone who understands these things? Do you know how many Mac Apps REALLY leverage the graphic card for processing? Put the list together, and you'll quickly realize they're not exactly targeted at users using a mini or even an iMac (to set the record straight, I see one app benefiting from it, quicktime will actually benefit from the H.264 hardware decoder on the mini now, but hey, H.264 hardware acceleration has been available for years, even the 5+ years old nVidia GPUs can do it).
OpenCL still has to prove itself as no-one has really played with it. Plus it may simply die after this new generation of nVidia powered Macs as nVidia is being sued by Intel (I suggest you read the news).
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...cts_apple.html
It's simply the reflection of what's going on at Apple: major shift of resources from the OS/hardware to consumer products like the iPhone (and please don't argue with me on that one, I live in the bay, every Apple employees from the Cupertino campus you can meet around here will tell you the same thing, most of them are actually pissed by that shift).
I think once we see some thorough benchmarks ? and, really, more importantly, once we see Snow Leopard ? I think these machines will look better. If not "great," necessarily.
Leopard already utilizes dual core machines efficiently. Grand Central is for more than 2 core machines. It is supposed to facilitate the use of machines with 4 cores or more. Open cl may be useful for machines with the current gpus. We'll know more as it gets closer to release.
IBM processors, do you really want to go there?
In that time there was nothing comparable to Power PC, the main reason Apple changed them for Intel was the lack of support from IBM.
You can't have a partner that is not marching at your pace. Look at all the products Apple released since Intel/Apple partnership begun. Apple TV, TimeCapsule, iPhone & iPod touch and the entire computer line.
The change came as natural it could be, Apple was not anymore the Computer brand, it has another channel called iPod and expanded it to make 4 mayor businesses.
In some way was IBM lost, but who can blame them... They thought they had more future making processors for consoles and car computers. Many of the top car brands use even up to 12 PPC chips on their cars like BMW, Mercedes Benz and many others.
In my opinion the PPC chip was way better than what it was offered by AMD and Intel at that time. Worked with so many high end software that was ridiculous fast on Power Macs and sluggish on windows.
As a consultant and support asset I seen so many changes in both worlds (Windows & Mac) and I still prefer Mac for the whole experience. (sorry HP)
Not arguing about the IBM CPU, I loved my PPC macs, and still use one! What I meant is that at that time Apple was all about speed, all about bashing intel for lack of it, and Apple was crying because IBM couldn't keep up with its needs. Now, things are quite reversed, they have all the power they need, but they choose not to use it. I don't get it.
Well I can't help it if reading comprehension is a weakness of yours.
Those are some pretty clear examples of times when additional cpu performance benefits the user immensely. Some of those tasks are so cpu intensive that you will not use your machine for anything else until that task is done. Others can take HOURS to complete. Why wouldn't you want a faster if not the fastest possible machine possible (within reason of course) to do that?
If you don't 'get' it, I don't know what to tell you.
it looks like you only took a look at the first lines of my post, but again...
Computer power in these days don't relay on the processor only, it has to do more with the total of components and how they work and communicate together. In the case of Apple computers with the OS, you should know that Mac OS X is another kind of beast and use the whole components in its particular way, with Snow Leopard the user experience will be exponentially boosted.
I have customers that edit HD for local tv in their iMacs, it could be faster on a Mac Pro but is darn faster than some of the offering on windows world. Not to mention the hundreds running Adobe's suites. They use their equipment for profit and depend on speed to do stuff.
They just not complain cause their Macs are up to the task and KNOW how to use them.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
Dave
The retail costs for a faster CPU is rather high...otherwise I would be thinking about it.
Apple is starting to smell...
Not arguing about the IBM CPU, I loved my PPC macs, and still use one! What I meant is that at that time Apple was all about speed, all about bashing intel for lack of it, and Apple was crying because IBM couldn't keep up with its needs. Now, things are quite reversed, they have all the power they need, but they choose not to use it. I don't get it.
I loved those machines, I still have a quicksilver I got second hand and still works pretty well as a server.
Change is good, I think we got benefit from Apple switch to Intel, more products, more ways to use your computer and running multiple OS.
Overall the whole computer industry changed a lot compared of what they was 10 years ago.
Do you remember those Power Mac TV spots? The one with the tanks and the kid that blows away part of the house with his G5?
hehe!
Computer power in these days don't relay on the processor only, it has to do more with the total of components and how they work and communicate together..
The benchmarks show that the new machines aren't going to be any faster than the ones they replace.
If you're happy with the current performance of the iMac and mini then fine. I'm not.
I expect more for the premium price that Apple demands with its products. I don't mind paying more but I don't want less for my money.
And you better read up on Snow Leopard because it's designed to leverage the power of machines with more than 2 cores. Leopard utilizes 2 cores rather well thank you. So don't make out SL to some magic code that'll turn dual core Macs into performance beasts because it likely will not.
oh wait thats probably just me fantasizing again
It's so disappointing to come here to read helpful insight from users and all I read in almost every post is someone bitching that they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas. I'm certain these machines are more than marginally better than the last machines even if it's GPU vs CPU. Apple does not have a track record of releasing crap. I personally think they probably should have waited for Snow Leopard as this will show the true power of these and recent machines.
Hello there, I know is hard sometimes to find information.
I think you must pay attention that all the computers are basically oriented for Snow Leopard that will take advantage out of the GPU.
If you consider that just a little.... you will discover that not only gamers got better cards for play, all mac users that upgrade to Snow Leopard will have an entire new and better experience.