Am I the only one that HATES my Intel Mac?

[MacBoobsPro]

Ive not read all the posts coz im supposed to be busy at work but basically you will get poor performance until Adobe releases a universal binary version of photoshop. Then you will see a BIG difference. Just stick with it and you will be very happy later on.

More Ram will help but not much.

 

[Dunepilot]

I think you all got played. Maybe a spiteful Windows user logging in here to get a rise out of the Mac freaks? I really doubt the OP was serious. If he was serious, then I think it was stupid to have struggled for as long as he has, just to prove a point.

No, he's got 'member' status, so has made a fair number of posts. I think his points are genuine, but he got the heckles up through the slightly aggravated nature of the post. I feel for the guy, but he's been a bit naive, that's all.

And, for the record, he may well be a decent designer, with a less than exemplary understanding of computers. You have to remember that most of the posters here have a very good understanding of the Mac and computers in general, compared with the general populace.

 

[Passante]

hellodon

Would you check you page ins/outs in activity monitor before and after you add the ram. I would be interested is seeing those numbers from a stock configuration.

Hope you start enjoying your iMac soon

 

[Core Trio]

..I'm not happy with this thing. [/B]

So...how much do you want to sell it for

 

[dr_lha]

For universal apps: No, not necessarily. Most day-to-day surfing, mail, iCal, text editing/word processing, iPhoto etc. runs seem to run very well with 512 MB RAM, just don't run ALL at the same time. (I base this on comments here at MR and first hand experience).

I based my comments on first hand experience as well and I respectively disagree with what you're saying. Still if you're happy with 512Mb then great.

 

[conditionals]

This thread is measuring a 32 on the fanboy-Richter scale.

It's a respected scale.

The only problem with it, however, is the ridiculously arbitrary numeric ranking system. They're still working out the kinks with that one.

 

[makku]

Some people are using the word "consumer" too easily on this board. The iMac is a computer targeted for the consumer market but it is not really that underpowered. If you look at the specs of Intel iMacs they are pretty decent computers.

If it was really the "consumer" computer many of you are trying to make it seem it should have came with Celeron processors. The iMacs have the Core Duo processors, which I have had a success overclocking it faster than any Pentium D processor on the market now.

At stock clock rate it should be able to run 'Pro' application at decent speed.
As for application running under Rosetta that is another problem. It will probably not matter if you increase your RAM to 2 GB. Sure it will speed things up and give you more stability but it are trying to get real work done it will be much better if you used a PPC Mac or boot into Windows and run Adobe Suite from there.
I do graphic works for a technology magazine. I tried once to compare how fast I could finish one of the projects given with a MacBookPro and similarly spec-ed custom made pc. This was done using Adobe PS, Illustrator, and the same scanner and camera attached. On the pc, I finished in about 20 minutes but on the Mac it took about 50 minutes. The time difference mostly comes from time waiting for the CPU to finish processing.

What people are saying about more RAM will run the system faster is true. But it will probably not solve your problem this time.

 

[hellodon]

I honestly am thinking about selling it.

I can get a 20" G5 imac and a 12" G4 powerbook for the value. Plus i have the ram on the way. i just think i may be better off. If anyone has those 2 things to trade, let me know.

 

[uberfoto]

FWIW, I am using an intel mac and use CS2 and DW8 on a regular basis. With 2Gb of RAM, it seems to hold up really well. The processing time for camera RAW images is a little long when opening multiple files but I can get by. I am usually running iTunes, mail, safari, iCal and a few Finder windows with external drives attached and updating my iPod all at the same time.

 

[zap2]

i know why does my Mac Mini Core Solo not run hardcore PPC games end highest settings at 256Mbs RAM? Apple is suck a rip

 

[RainForRent]

My Experience

My MBP was awful until I upgraded the RAM.
From 512 to 1.5 GB made an IMMENSE difference.
Adobe needs to get off their haunches and put out something Universal.
And Quark for that matter.

 

[balamw]

I honestly am thinking about selling it.

For your current needs you will be better served by the PPC boxes, and thus will be happier in the interim. When the apps you use go Universal, you may wish you had kept the Intel iMac.

The latest and greatest isn't always the best choice. I, for one am quite happy with my 17" iMac as it fulfills it's WWW+iLife+Boot Camp mission in life quite adequately. However the "advantages" of the MacBook are not yet enough to make me give up my iBook G4: it's not sufficiently smaller or lighter and has significantly poorer battery life. Maybe when Merom rolls around the performance boost will be worth it, but for now the G4 suits its purpose very well.

B

 

[26139]

Huh?

In fact, I hesitate to upgrade the RAM because I've read that it makes the computer run even warmer and quite frankly, I don't need extra RAM for my 'book uses.

Where did you read this?

I've never heard that the amount of installed ram has ANYTHING to do with a heat increase, unless that heat increase is caused by more processor intensive applications running because of that extra ram.

 

[makku]

Where did you read this?

I've never heard that the amount of installed ram has ANYTHING to do with a heat increase, unless that heat increase is caused by more processor intensive applications running because of that extra ram.

The chips on the RAM does heat up. That is why some of them has heat spreaders. They do not get too hot like processors though.

 

[ingenious]

Man does this make you sound like a whiner.

But he has a right to be upset if his US$1200-$2000 or so machine doesn't work almost flawlessly (hopefully dropping the almost) out-of-the-box. It isn't ridiculous to expect a marketed "miracle technology" like Rosetta to be able to run applications without crashing.

Thank you for being so honest, hellodon[/d]. I think that the Intel machines sound awesome, and hope to get one someday. I hope yours works out better for you.

Now, here's to they off chance that I don't get flamed...

 

[rhsgolfer33]

I do graphics work, if I open photoshop and illustrator at the same time, the first one opened will crash. Either one open on its own runs like absolute crap.

Want to use dreamweaver? OH.....well good luck.

I know the first thing everyones going to ask is "how much ram is in it, Rosetta needs ram...." well....

It was sold to me with 512 ram, it should run on 512...and it doesnt. So i've been told "get more ram"......why sell a product if it's going to run like crap on what you've included? Plus how much improvement am I looking at by spending 240 on 2GB? My G5 at work runs perfect on 512.

I'm seriously on edge with this thing. I think i may want to sell it and get a G5....go back to what made Apple a solid product worth buying.

LITERALLY, my 667 G4 powerbook ran better and faster than my intel imac and never had problems. I'm not even joking. i regret more than anything selling that thing. It has haulted my freelance work, and basically cost me money buying into the intel mac.

Basically what I get from this post is that youre some form of graphic designer/web developer who didnt consult one or more of the following: 1) the universal binaries list, 2) Macrumors for photoshop, illustrator, and dreamweaver performance under rosseta, or 3) Fellow desktop publishers. I dont know any graphic designers who have upgraded to Intel, why bother if theres no UB for the programs they need? I also dont know any professional graphic designers who run with 512mb of ram. I know designers who run on 800mhz G4 powermacs, but theyve all got a heck of alot more than 512mb of ram. Expecting a pro program to run with 512mb under rosetta is a joke, I wouldnt run CS2 with 512mb of ram without the emulating software.

Expecting a pro program to run on 512mb of ram under rosetta is like expecting you're Ferrari to run flawlessly with 87 octane fuel rather than 100 octane racing gas. Sure, the 87 is only $3.30 a gallon while the racing gas is $6 but you get what you pay for when it comes to performance. The same is true of ram, sure the standard 512mbs of ram runs, but the 2gb of ram flys.

Trying to pawn your mistake off on apple is ludicrous. You clearly didnt do you're research and that's not something you can blame Apple for. Almost any professional designer would have told you to wait, and if it ran so well on your 667mhz powerbook then there was obviously no hurry to upgrade. You could have waited to see the benchmarks and what people were saying about CS2 and Dreamweaver performance under rosetta, but you obivously didnt. The intel transition has been great for programs that have UBs out already, Ive heard pretty much all good things about FCP, Logic and the other apple UBs that are out. The new Macbook Pros and iMacs benchmark on levels close to the PowerMac 2.0ghz G5, thats unheard of for a laptop. When CS3 comes out youll be kicking yourself for not running a dual core processor, either intel or powermac(ppc).

 

[Flowbee]

Trying to pawn your mistake off on apple is ludicrous. You clearly didnt do you're research and that's not something you can blame Apple for.

He's admitted this several times already. Please read the thread before posting replies... especially when there are 5 pages of posts.

 

[thegreatluke]

No, it doesn't. But it makes you sound like an Apple fan boy. I agree with him. If Apple is selling this with 512 then it should work pretty well with that. Apple always skimps on the RAM. These are pro machines so they should ship with more than 512 anyway since even the low end Macbook comes withe 512. I'd return it and let them know why.

By the looks of it, Apple is edging into 1 GB standard across the line.
Just look at the upper 15" MBP or the 17" MBP.

If I had to bet on it, I'd say the Mac Pro or whatever it'll be called will have 1 GB standard.

 

[hellodon]

Just an update...I installed my 2GB today and it seems to be running much faster. I appreciate the help.

Also, it was so easy to install! Was it always a plate on the bottom like that for imacs? i was pretty sure that the back had to come off on the G5's?

 

[peterparker]

Just an update...I installed my 2GB today and it seems to be running much faster. I appreciate the help.

Also, it was so easy to install! Was it always a plate on the bottom like that for imacs? i was pretty sure that the back had to come off on the G5's?

I believe that location of the RAM was first on the Intel iMacs. I was also pleased by the easy install.

Glad to see the additional memory helps.

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

First of all, RAM only helps w/ some processes/ uses. Maybe you were doing different tasks w/ your PB?

Even if you were running Adobe software-- that software has been finely tuned specifically for the PPC architecture! It's been optimized. So you can't even begin to make that comparison.
Then do what we've all been saying; cut your losses. Sell the Intel iMac. Buy a PPC machine.

So if the non universal apps run slower on an intel mac which apps run faster?

 

[Bunsen Burner]

So if the non universal apps run slower on an intel mac which apps run faster?

No, not all non universal apps runs slower. PowerPC apps run slower. Intel binaries (those that will not run on PowerPC machines) and universal binaries (those that will run on both architectures) run without the emulation overhead associated with PowerPC binaries launched on Intel Macs.

Here is a list of universal and Intel binaries that is continually updated as more of them appear.

BB

 

[roland.g]

Graphics!

Excuse me, I'm sure this has been said, and I am glad that it is running better now that you upped the RAM but,

Photoshop & Illustrator are not meant to run well on stock configurations. Graphics work is RAM intensive and if you are going to run Pro apps, you need to approach the machine that way. Just think of your file size and the number of undo's and redo's you want at your disposal.

Second, we all know, or should if you do graphics, that Adobe has not gone universal, and even with the appropriate amount of RAM, those apps will run slower in the Intel world than PPC.

I have a 6 1/2 year old G4 450mhz with 768mb RAM that runs CS2, and while it runs, let me tell you it is slow when I work on a 275mb file with 75+ layers, but it still runs, though I'm sure slower than your iMac in Rosetta.

One thing that a lot of people forget is that as OS's have evolved over the last 10 years, they use more RAM just to run the base OS, no apps even open. Besides the cost of RAM decreasing, that is one reason computers come with more, just to load the OS and run primary apps. Stock configurations are not designed for power users, they are designed for consumers, every day people who don't spend as much or more as they did on their computer on things like CS2, Studio MX, or FCP Studio.

 

[crees!]

Excuse me, I'm sure this has been said, and I am glad that it is running better now that you upped the RAM but,

Photoshop & Illustrator are not meant to run well on stock configurations. Graphics work is RAM intensive and if you are going to run Pro apps, you need to approach the machine that way. Just think of your file size and the number of undo's and redo's you want at your disposal.

Second, we all know, or should if you do graphics, that Adobe has not gone universal, and even with the appropriate amount of RAM, those apps will run slower in the Intel world than PPC.

I have a 6 1/2 year old G4 450mhz with 768mb RAM that runs CS2, and while it runs, let me tell you it is slow when I work on a 275mb file with 75+ layers, but it still runs, though I'm sure slower than your iMac in Rosetta.

One thing that a lot of people forget is that as OS's have evolved over the last 10 years, they use more RAM just to run the base OS, no apps even open. Besides the cost of RAM decreasing, that is one reason computers come with more, just to load the OS and run primary apps. Stock configurations are not designed for power users, they are designed for consumers, every day people who don't spend as much or more as they did on their computer on things like CS2, Studio MX, or FCP Studio.

Exactly as I said earlier, but politely put this time: post #77

No. People who use this "creative software" should be intelligent enough to know what specs are needed for their machine to run such software well. Besides, if the person doesn't know this I don't want them designing anything for me.

 

[Chrispy]

Adobe needs to get off their haunches and put out something Universal.
And Quark for that matter.

Agreed. Adobe used to be so faithful to Apple users but now they just seem like they are on the Microsoft bandwagon. Even our grahics designer at work has started using his windows PC with CS2 over the mac with CS2 because it seems more responsive... granted his PC did just get upgraded