Review on AppleInsider sucks

[maclamb]

http://www.appleinsider.com/review.php?id=4

I notice he's running with 512M and in that case it's true - rosetta is an issue. I run with 1.5G of ram and don't expereicne any of the slowdowns he talks about, although having PS, Illustrator and Quark all running, there is some delay swtiching between them.
But, if that is your main staple (doesn't happen to be mine - I'm just learning) then I would say to wait on the new intel imac.

 

[MacMyDay]

I'm glad to hear that. I was slightly concerned about that, yet did order mine with 1.5GB RAM, so hopefully there won't be any problems or anything slightly annoying.

 

[Josh396]

I notice he's running with 512M and in that case it's true - rosetta is an issue. I run with 1.5G of ram and don't expereicne any of the slowdowns he talks about, although having PS, Illustrator and Quark all running, there is some delay swtiching between them.
But, if that is your main staple (doesn't happen to be mine - I'm just learning) then I would say to wait on the new intel imac.

I agree the added RAM helps out a lot with Rosetta. I have 2 GB in my 20" and it runs great even when I use programs under Rosetta. However, if you use these programs on daily basis then I would wait on an Intel Mac just as Maclamb said.

 

[maclamb]

I waited for the imacs and (being an expereicned IT person) knew what I was getting into. I purchased it as an "investment" - knowing that with OS updates and UB versions of office, CS and such it will just get faster.
It's already faster than the PB 1.67 work gives me....

 

[Gordy]

http://www.appleinsider.com/review.php?id=4

I notice he's running with 512M and in that case it's true - rosetta is an issue. I run with 1.5G of ram and don't expereicne any of the slowdowns he talks about, although having PS, Illustrator and Quark all running, there is some delay swtiching between them.
But, if that is your main staple (doesn't happen to be mine - I'm just learning) then I would say to wait on the new intel imac.

To be fair to the reviewer he tested it as it comes and thats how all reviews should be done. I can't imagine joe bloggs in off the street wanting to upgrade the ram.

Really apple should provide a gig of ram at least with all their machines as anything less is too little really for full os x enjoyment.

 

[SiliconAddict]

http://www.appleinsider.com/review.php?id=4

I notice he's running with 512M and in that case it's true - rosetta is an issue. I run with 1.5G of ram and don't expereicne any of the slowdowns he talks about, although having PS, Illustrator and Quark all running, there is some delay swtiching between them.
But, if that is your main staple (doesn't happen to be mine - I'm just learning) then I would say to wait on the new intel imac.

Yah everyone is doing this crap. Macworld is as well. These people need to get a clue that 512MB is not enough RAM for Rosetta. Its barely enough RAM for the system to operate at a decent clip. There is a reason why I maxed out my upcoming MacBook with 2GB of RAM. Rosetta NEEDS it.

 

[SiliconAddict]

To be fair to the reviewer he tested it as it comes and thats how all reviews should be done. I can't imagine joe bloggs in off the street wanting to upgrade the ram.

Really apple should provide a gig of ram at least with all their machines as anything less is too little really for full os x enjoyment.

Just like tests were done when Apple was shipping with 256MB of RAM? Almost all the reviews for previous Macs were done with 512MB because everyone knew that 256MB was asinine for system RAM. And for those that weren’t (Mac Mini as an example) the author generally stated that “oh by the way you can probably get better performance by dropping another stick into the system.”
The problem here is that people are treating these new systems like the old ones where 512MB was enough. This isn’t the case anymore. Rosetta changes things a bit.

 

[MacSA]

I don't see how an Intel mini or iBook could possibly cope with Rosetta - they're are likely to have far less powerful Intel processors and graphics cards and have a limit on the amount of RAM you can install. Upgrading a mini to 2GB would probably double it's original selling price too.

 

[Gordy]

Just like tests were done when Apple was shipping with 256MB of RAM? Almost all the reviews for previous Macs were done with 512MB because everyone knew that 256MB was asinine for system RAM. And for those that weren’t (Mac Mini as an example) the author generally stated that “oh by the way you can probably get better performance by dropping another stick into the system.”
The problem here is that people are treating these new systems like the old ones where 512MB was enough. This isn’t the case anymore. Rosetta changes things a bit.

Yeah the system needs more ram but thats down to apple, it would be like reviewing an external hard disc and sticking a bigger drive in?

The first rule of reviews is to review exactly what the customer gets not what he could get otherwise its pointless reviewing it.

 

[maclamb]

agreed -
and apple's ram pricing is grotesque.
my 2 Gig of ram cost me $240 at OWC (and I go $60 back selling the 512 on board to a friend who bought one), so 180 net. and it SCREAMS. No delays swapping windows...

Same ram at apple would have added $300 to the price.