I've had three friends, who I would describe as "experienced Mac users" comment independently, and without prompting, that their new G5s are really slow.
I'd like to know what specifically they're judging to be slow.
I've been on a friend's custom-made-for-gaming PC with 3.2 GHz P4, a $300 video card, something like 2-3 GB RAM -- and still found some things that were slow. Go to launch an application... pause pause pause... er... okay. There's your app. Open a browser window.... chug chug chug. Window opens.
At other times, such things will be nearly instantaneous. Performance is variable. I see the same mix of performance on my dual 2.0 G5, but generally find my G5 more responsive than my friend's PC.
Are your friends judging millisecond differences in how much faster an Explorer window opens compared to a Finder window?
I keep hearing people gripe about web browsing being slow on a Mac, but seldom do I ever run into a situation where actual browser performance even matters compared to network and server response times, neither of which have a thing to do with whether you're running a Mac or PC.
I'd like to know what specifically they're judging to be slow.
I've been on a friend's custom-made-for-gaming PC with 3.2 GHz P4, a $300 video card, something like 2-3 GB RAM -- and still found some things that were slow. Go to launch an application... pause pause pause... er... okay. There's your app. Open a browser window.... chug chug chug. Window opens.
Hard disk intensive tasks operate at a speed that is largely independent from main memory/CPU.
Opening apps on windows requires loading dlls into memory which is independet of CPU speed. The more dlls, the slower the app load.
IE on windows loads quickly because (being part of the OS) it never really leaves memory.
Hard disk intensive tasks operate at a speed that is largely independent from main memory/CPU.
Opening apps on windows requires loading dlls into memory which is independet of CPU speed. The more dlls, the slower the app load.
IE on windows loads quickly because (being part of the OS) it never really leaves memory.
I'm aware of the various reasons for slow or fast responses, my point is merely that, whatever the cause, sluggishness occurs on PCs and Macs alike, often regardless of gigahertz and gigabytes and other specsmanship, and -- perhaps it has to do with the kinds of software I tend to run and activities I perform -- I personally find my Mac generally -- not universally, but generally -- more response than a supposedly faster PC.
Have any of you guys upgraded to a G5 and been disappointed by its performance?
I've had three friends, who I would describe as "experienced Mac users" comment independently, and without prompting, that their new G5s are really slow.
I have to admit that my experience with G5s hasn't really blown me away, but I'm guilty of sitting on boards like these and reading all about the "next big thing" and generally working myself into a frenzy about the next generation of machines that are going to be released.
It's only to be expected that the machines rarely live up to my unrealistic expectations. But these three friends aren't like that. They couldn't care less what kind of machines they are running. They're all running between 1GB to 2GB of RAM, so that's not the problem.
Just wondering if anybody else has had the same experience with their G5?
Here is the splinter stuck in the mind of the collective Mac community: the "seemingly" low speed bump the last few processor revisions have brought to real world performance.
603/4 to G3 - amazing jump in speed
G3 to G4 - Zzzzzzz
G4 to G5 - a bit better
603/4 to G3 > G3 to G5
Let that sink in for a minute.
I'm sure people who encode audio and video have seen bigger improvements in the speed of their tasks, but for print production, the speed improvements have been less-than-stellar. The best upgrade points since 1994 have been:
1. any 603/604 to a 300 G3
2. 300 G3 to a 500 G3
3. 500 G3 to a 1.2 G4
4. 1.2 G4 to a ...
We are all just waiting for the NEXT BIG JUMP(TM). The kind of jump that compells us to upgrade. The kind of jump that you'd be crazy not to own.
As far as OSX goes: don't forget that OS9 doesn't run natively on new hardware simply because they want to migrate the userbase to OSX. They won't let it run on new equipment because it's speed would be embarrassing. Embarrassingly fast. It was "leave-OSX-in-the-dust fast" on the last G4 to support OS9 booting. The only thing wrong with OS9 was that is crashed all the time. I'm just waiting for the day that the Finder and feel of the system is that fast again.\
I have a Dual 2Ghz G5 with 2.5Gigs of RAM and dual monitors. One at 1680x1050, the other at 1600x1024, both running off of one video card.
The machine seems to be perfectly fast for me. It always runs very smooth. I sometimes do large Fink compiles in the background, I keep about 10-20 tabs open in Firefox and use Mail.app to manage 2 mail accounts with about 2gigs of email data. I keep about 6-10 applications open at all times, with 4(2) virtual desktops using Desktop Manager.
The other machines I compare with are a 2.4Ghz P4 with 2gigs of RAM, and a Sun Blade 2000 with dual processors and 4gigs of RAM. For me, I'd take the Dual G5 over these other machines anyday. I also run a 12" Powerbook G4 1.33Ghz with 1.25Gigs of RAM and it also seems up to par for me. Definitely not anywhere near as fast the Dual G5 of course, especially when doing multiple strenous tasks.
Well I guess that you're always going to get that when there's such a difference in the hardware. I should think that someone using a Quadra would also be blown away by an eMac but that doesn't mean that the eMac is a screamer.
So you've made a good point there ? that disappointment/contentment depends on where you're coming from.
I wonder if someone who had used a Dual 1.42GHz MDD would be blown away by a G5 however?
*raises hand* oh oh oh... pick me...!
i had a MDD dualie 1.25ghz. Pushed it to the max on the software synth music program Reason 2.5. CPU meter was full, in the red, music started clogging up.
exact same file, now on SINGLE G5 1.6ghz. CPU meter barely breaks a sweat at 10-20%. i was floored. then i had to sell my G5 because i was running out of money :-(
CPU-focused intense tasks, you will see a hella lot of improvement. seriously.
If you want to play the "how fast does word start up" game, then yeah, maybe you'll get a 25-50% boost in speed compared to the 40000% increase you are expecting
Comments
Originally posted by Messiah
I've had three friends, who I would describe as "experienced Mac users" comment independently, and without prompting, that their new G5s are really slow.
I'd like to know what specifically they're judging to be slow.
I've been on a friend's custom-made-for-gaming PC with 3.2 GHz P4, a $300 video card, something like 2-3 GB RAM -- and still found some things that were slow. Go to launch an application... pause pause pause... er... okay. There's your app. Open a browser window.... chug chug chug. Window opens.
At other times, such things will be nearly instantaneous. Performance is variable. I see the same mix of performance on my dual 2.0 G5, but generally find my G5 more responsive than my friend's PC.
Are your friends judging millisecond differences in how much faster an Explorer window opens compared to a Finder window?
I keep hearing people gripe about web browsing being slow on a Mac, but seldom do I ever run into a situation where actual browser performance even matters compared to network and server response times, neither of which have a thing to do with whether you're running a Mac or PC.
Originally posted by shetline
I'd like to know what specifically they're judging to be slow.
I've been on a friend's custom-made-for-gaming PC with 3.2 GHz P4, a $300 video card, something like 2-3 GB RAM -- and still found some things that were slow. Go to launch an application... pause pause pause... er... okay. There's your app. Open a browser window.... chug chug chug. Window opens.
Hard disk intensive tasks operate at a speed that is largely independent from main memory/CPU.
Opening apps on windows requires loading dlls into memory which is independet of CPU speed. The more dlls, the slower the app load.
IE on windows loads quickly because (being part of the OS) it never really leaves memory.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Hard disk intensive tasks operate at a speed that is largely independent from main memory/CPU.
Opening apps on windows requires loading dlls into memory which is independet of CPU speed. The more dlls, the slower the app load.
IE on windows loads quickly because (being part of the OS) it never really leaves memory.
I'm aware of the various reasons for slow or fast responses, my point is merely that, whatever the cause, sluggishness occurs on PCs and Macs alike, often regardless of gigahertz and gigabytes and other specsmanship, and -- perhaps it has to do with the kinds of software I tend to run and activities I perform -- I personally find my Mac generally -- not universally, but generally -- more response than a supposedly faster PC.
Originally posted by Messiah
Have any of you guys upgraded to a G5 and been disappointed by its performance?
I've had three friends, who I would describe as "experienced Mac users" comment independently, and without prompting, that their new G5s are really slow.
I have to admit that my experience with G5s hasn't really blown me away, but I'm guilty of sitting on boards like these and reading all about the "next big thing" and generally working myself into a frenzy about the next generation of machines that are going to be released.
It's only to be expected that the machines rarely live up to my unrealistic expectations. But these three friends aren't like that. They couldn't care less what kind of machines they are running. They're all running between 1GB to 2GB of RAM, so that's not the problem.
Just wondering if anybody else has had the same experience with their G5?
Here is the splinter stuck in the mind of the collective Mac community: the "seemingly" low speed bump the last few processor revisions have brought to real world performance.
603/4 to G3 - amazing jump in speed
G3 to G4 - Zzzzzzz
G4 to G5 - a bit better
603/4 to G3 > G3 to G5
Let that sink in for a minute.
I'm sure people who encode audio and video have seen bigger improvements in the speed of their tasks, but for print production, the speed improvements have been less-than-stellar. The best upgrade points since 1994 have been:
1. any 603/604 to a 300 G3
2. 300 G3 to a 500 G3
3. 500 G3 to a 1.2 G4
4. 1.2 G4 to a ...
We are all just waiting for the NEXT BIG JUMP(TM). The kind of jump that compells us to upgrade. The kind of jump that you'd be crazy not to own.
As far as OSX goes: don't forget that OS9 doesn't run natively on new hardware simply because they want to migrate the userbase to OSX. They won't let it run on new equipment because it's speed would be embarrassing. Embarrassingly fast. It was "leave-OSX-in-the-dust fast" on the last G4 to support OS9 booting. The only thing wrong with OS9 was that is crashed all the time. I'm just waiting for the day that the Finder and feel of the system is that fast again.
The machine seems to be perfectly fast for me. It always runs very smooth. I sometimes do large Fink compiles in the background, I keep about 10-20 tabs open in Firefox and use Mail.app to manage 2 mail accounts with about 2gigs of email data. I keep about 6-10 applications open at all times, with 4(2) virtual desktops using Desktop Manager.
The other machines I compare with are a 2.4Ghz P4 with 2gigs of RAM, and a Sun Blade 2000 with dual processors and 4gigs of RAM. For me, I'd take the Dual G5 over these other machines anyday. I also run a 12" Powerbook G4 1.33Ghz with 1.25Gigs of RAM and it also seems up to par for me. Definitely not anywhere near as fast the Dual G5 of course, especially when doing multiple strenous tasks.
-M
Originally posted by Messiah
Well I guess that you're always going to get that when there's such a difference in the hardware. I should think that someone using a Quadra would also be blown away by an eMac but that doesn't mean that the eMac is a screamer.
So you've made a good point there ? that disappointment/contentment depends on where you're coming from.
I wonder if someone who had used a Dual 1.42GHz MDD would be blown away by a G5 however?
*raises hand* oh oh oh... pick me...!
i had a MDD dualie 1.25ghz. Pushed it to the max on the software synth music program Reason 2.5. CPU meter was full, in the red, music started clogging up.
exact same file, now on SINGLE G5 1.6ghz. CPU meter barely breaks a sweat at 10-20%. i was floored. then i had to sell my G5 because i was running out of money :-(
CPU-focused intense tasks, you will see a hella lot of improvement. seriously.
If you want to play the "how fast does word start up" game, then yeah, maybe you'll get a 25-50% boost in speed compared to the 40000% increase you are expecting