Anyone received their Intel iMac?

[RomanXP]

Don't believe anyone who tell Intel Mac is slow!

Osx86 10.4.3 on my P4/3.0 very attractive. All run well. Photoshop under Rosetta ONLY two times slower than on my WinXP! iTunes and other universal apps run fast! UI is too fast even w/o CoreImage and Extreme (don't work an my old ATI 9200SE).

 

[BakedBeans]

Osx86 10.4.3 on my P4/3.0 very attractive. All run well. Photoshop under Rosetta ONLY two times slower than on my WinXP! iTunes and other universal apps run fast! UI is too fast even w/o CoreImage and Extreme (don't work an my old ATI 9200SE).

erm

i presume thats the developer version (which sucks)

 

[Flowbee]

thanks, i am waiting for my iMac and was really worried reading previous post. My major concern is how good MS Office runs on rosetta.

One thing to keep in mind is that the machines at Macworld were all loaded with 2 gigs of RAM. It will be interesting to see how having less RAM might affect Rosetta's performance.

 

[Morn]

People already know the answer...Windows XP will not run because it does not support EFI (the BIOS replacement that Intel Macs have). Windows Vista does support this, however.

Yes I've been saying that for the last few months as I expected apple to use EFI. But the thing is it appears that media centre edition supports EFI, and apparently EFI does infact have a mode for legecy operating systems, not sure if apple's version has that however.

 

[savar]

Source from actual users

I'm really worried - so this might be why they are continuing to sell PPC

Edit: Misunderstood your comment, you're referring to the PPC iMac that's still on sale? Yeah that is a little sketchy since its not a pro mac, but I really believe that these machines must be screamers.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

thanks, i am waiting for my iMac and was really worried reading previous post. My major concern is how good MS Office runs on rosetta.

I've used the x86 form of OS X on a development machine and on a hacked Dell Pentium-M laptop including running Office through Rosetta on them. It was slick, super slick and felt faster for non-Rosetta apps on a single core Pentium M 1.6Ghz machine than on a G5 iMac. This was months ago too. Considering the current x86 iMacs and MacBook Pros are over twice as fast as those chips I've used I have no doubt that the 'slowness' that some people are reporting is bs. Office was lovely to use, absolutely lovely.
The slowness some users have been experiencing is probably due to incorrect power settings. My Windows Centrino laptop is slow as hell when set to certain power settings because it spins it down to 500 or 600 Mhz instead of 1.7Ghz. Not really noticeable if your browsing the net but if you're sifting through loads of MP3s or movies you do notice it.


Spanky

 

[Platform]

One thing to keep in mind is that the machines at Macworld were all loaded with 2 gigs of RAM. It will be interesting to see how having less RAM might affect Rosetta's performance.

It will....they wanted to max the all out, too make people as impressed as they could be.

Maybe Rosetta is another Dashboard...RAM hog...altough my iMac is great 1.5gig and normally with 1gig free with iTunes, Firefox, 16 widgets, and transmission all running with 3 days uptime...

Oh well I will not be switching to Intel for a few years anyway, so then it will all be native.

 

[truz]

I really hope this is not the issue. I ordered a iMac INTEL 20" on the 10th or 11th and its still not shipped yet but I already ordered a iMac g5 a week before the INTELs came out from amazon.com that was a very good deal plus there was no tax unlike apple.com they charged tax ($135). Regardless I already had the G5 shipped and right as UPS came to the door I asked him to ship it back (return to sender) and he did just that so if this INTEL turns out to be a slow POS I will be returning this to apple and exchange it for a G5. =/ hope all these posts are bull. How did you guys get a INTEL so fast? I was told none have even shipped yet and its going to be about 3-4 days before anyone sees anything shipped. That was from a apple tech on the phone. As I asked for overnight shipping and she said I would not get it until monday or tuesday next week which would be coming up (16th, 17th).

 

[tivoboy]

macs at MWSF

Well, yes all the imacs I tried at MWSF were 2 GB ram versions, but they did seem to be quite snappy.

As for photoshop, I opened it up and played around a BIT, it took I would say 20 seconds to open. so, six minutes is just not accurate.

Things like iphoto and others were very fast, don't know if that was the new code or mac, or memory.

We will really start to see only next week, right.

 

[Flowbee]

so if this INTEL turns out to be a slow POS I will be returning this to apple and exchange it for a G5.

C'mon everyone... thousands of people have already used the Intel Macs at Macworld. If they were slow, the internet would be flooded with detailed reports. It remains to been seen how much of an improvement the Intel Macs are over their G4 and G5 counterparts, especially under Rosetta, but I don't think anyone needs to be worried that these machines will be a "slow POS".

 

[Bubbasteve]

I just got my intel iMac (2 ghz dual core duo)... I don't really know how to "test" every thing but I timed iTunes and iPhoto

with 3700 songs, it took iTunes 2 seconds to load

and with 4019 photos it took roughly 6 seconds for iPhoto to load initially and then if I restart iPhoto it took about 2 seconds to load all my photos.

I will admit, last night all of my programs were running rather slow but I blame that on: Rosetta, the act that I was uploading all of my photos to iPhoto, downloading an update to WOW, and only having 512 MB of RAM

Let's just see what day 2 brings with the mighty iMac

 

[jhero]

512MB of ram is the culprit most likely since my ibook stank at 512 and flew at 1gb+

 

[BakedBeans]

from what ive read on other forums this is total crap - probably a windows user spreading crap.

one user discribed surfing as "faster than my QUAD" on macnn forums

 

[liquidh2o]

I just got my intel iMac (2 ghz dual core duo)... I don't really know how to "test" every thing but I timed iTunes and iPhoto

with 3700 songs, it took iTunes 2 seconds to load

and with 4019 photos it took roughly 6 seconds for iPhoto to load initially and then if I restart iPhoto it took about 2 seconds to load all my photos.

I will admit, last night all of my programs were running rather slow but I blame that on: Rosetta, the act that I was uploading all of my photos to iPhoto, downloading an update to WOW, and only having 512 MB of RAM

Let's just see what day 2 brings with the mighty iMac

ladies and gentlemen, we have our guinea pig

 

[Bubbasteve]

ladies and gentlemen, we have our guinea pig

Feel free to ask questions and i'll try to answer them

 

[ksgant]

....downloading an update to WOW,

Bubbasteve can you give us an update on how well WoW runs on Rosetta? They also said in the WoW forums that a Universal Binary for WoW will be out in like 2 or 3 weeks.

 

[Bubbasteve]

Bubbasteve can you give us an update on how well WoW runs on Rosetta? They also said in the WoW forums that a Universal Binary for WoW will be out in like 2 or 3 weeks.

As far as WOW is concerned I've experienced little upgrade w/ Rosetta... I get about 23-28 FPS (but that is on the widest screen aspect and all the details on low)

Definitely can't wait for the new patch

 

[Flowbee]

from what ive read on other forums this is total crap - probably a windows user spreading crap.

Or bitter Mac users who just bought a G5 and are trying to make themselves feel better.

 

[Kelson]

Feel free to ask questions and i'll try to answer them

Can you run the XBench 1.2 from http://www.xbench.com and post the full results?

Thanks!

- Kelson

Yeah, I know XBench is not very good, but it's the best we have really to compare any kinda numbers back against the PPC boxen.

 

[BakedBeans]

bubba steve - GET MORE RAM

Seriously, you will see your performance go through the roof

 

[Bubbasteve]

bubba steve - GET MORE RAM

Seriously, you will see your performance go through the roof

Alright maybe I will order some up from datamed

 

[BakedBeans]

Alright maybe I will order some up from datamed

even if it is just bumping up with another 512 to add up to 1gb - that will be good enough to make a large improvement

 

[Bubbasteve]

Well this all lost me after Physical RAM, but WOW was the Graphics tests a rush...

Results 58.39
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.4 (8G1165)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model iMac4,1
Drive Type WDC WD2500JS-40NGB2
CPU Test 77.26
GCD Loop 259.78 13.69 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 90.92 2.16 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 45.03 1.49 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 67.95 11.83 Mops/sec
Thread Test 199.31
Computation 180.39 3.65 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 222.66 9.58 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 96.93
System 110.31
Allocate 111.66 410.06 Kalloc/sec
Fill 108.41 5271.18 MB/sec
Copy 110.92 2290.92 MB/sec
Stream 86.44
Copy 73.49 1517.82 MB/sec
Scale 73.10 1510.29 MB/sec
Add 105.78 2253.41 MB/sec
Triad 104.91 2244.24 MB/sec
Quartz Graphics Test 72.30
Line 66.73 4.44 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 60.97 18.20 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 63.24 5.15 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 87.51 2.21 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 95.02 5.94 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 141.32
Spinning Squares 141.32 179.28 frames/sec
User Interface Test 18.31
Elements 18.31 84.02 refresh/sec
Disk Test 62.20
Sequential 93.62
Uncached Write 113.29 69.56 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 102.44 57.96 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 64.80 18.97 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 114.86 57.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 46.57
Uncached Write 17.30 1.83 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 120.86 38.69 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 83.75 0.59 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 126.93 23.55 MB/sec [256K blocks]

 

[XIII]

from what ive read on other forums this is total crap - probably a windows user spreading crap.

one user discribed surfing as "faster than my QUAD" on macnn forums

Guess so. I know the guy who told me this pretty well though. Oh well.

 

[law guy]

Making Sense of that XBench Run

Hmmm. Isn't the higher a number is, the better in Xbench? I looked up my last G4 PM run from awhile ago and found I had a score of 160.something. Xbench says that it is now (1.2) a test for the Intel mac machines as well. Why the lower score? Or am I misinterpreting something about the Xbench results? (my last complete test: http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=113414)