intel Macs - surprisingly good

Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:10 pm

A mate of mine just picked up one of the new iMacs, and y'know what? Its a hell of a lot better than I expected. Not least, Halo runs under Rosetta with surprisingly little slowdown. Most office apps act like they're running natively. It's one of the most impressive examples of emulation I've seen yet.

Post by **mik0rs** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:19 pm

So since they're standard intel jobbies you can chuck Windows on them? Or is the architecture different so that it's not possible? Just curious.

Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:29 pm

Nah, not as yet. Wine-type solution is likely to arrive sooner.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:31 pm

you were expecting them to not be good? probably not as fast as Stevie boy boasts, but i'm sure it's a bit better than the old.

Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:40 pm

I'm fairly resistant to the RDF by now

The emulation speed is amazing though, especially for those of us who've had to deal with microsoft's Virtual PC

Post by **Canis** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:43 pm

I'm wondering how emulators will run? I'm guessing VPC will be right up there with the speed of the mac.

Post by **BlueGene** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:31 pm

According to a couple of sources Intel-iMacs have very disappointing results as far as performance.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/23/ ... rformance/

performance is only between 10 to 25 percent faster than its IBM PowerPC-based counterpart, far lower than the doubling in throughput widely claimed by Apple.

It's all hype.

Post by **BlueGene** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:35 pm

Also take a look at this, some guy is running a contest to get Windows XP running on Intel-iMacs.

http://winxponmac.com/The%20Contest.html

The Contest
My MacBook is shipping on the 15th of February. I told my boss that this would replace my IBM desktop and I could boot Windows XP on it. I am still confident it can be done. I am pledging $100 of my own money and offering anyone else who would like the instructions on how to Dual boot these two operating systems the ability to donate some of their money into the pot as a reward for the person / group that can make dual-booting Mac OS X and Windows XP happen on an Intel Mac. Good Luck

I have a feeling it will be cracked and Windows XP will run on these machines.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:48 pm

I don't see any reason at all that XP can't run on it. It's the same i386 architecture, all you need are drivers for the proprietary hardware, right? It's not like you need a new HAL or anything.

What's the big deal here? Am I missing something?

Post by **Canis** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:49 pm

BlueGene wrote:According to a couple of sources Intel-iMacs have very disappointing results as far as performance.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/23/ ... rformance/

performance is only between 10 to 25 percent faster than its IBM PowerPC-based counterpart, far lower than the doubling in throughput widely claimed by Apple.
It's all hype.

The performance gains were tested using software that was built for the intel chips. Much of the software out there is engineered around the PPC architecture, even though it can be compiled to run on intel. It will take much optimization before the intel chips are fully optimized for.

Post by **BlueGene** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:04 pm

Canis wrote:
BlueGene wrote:According to a couple of sources Intel-iMacs have very disappointing results as far as performance.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/23/ ... rformance/

performance is only between 10 to 25 percent faster than its IBM PowerPC-based counterpart, far lower than the doubling in throughput widely claimed by Apple.
It's all hype.
The performance gains were tested using software that was built for the intel chips. Much of the software out there is engineered around the PPC architecture, even though it can be compiled to run on intel. It will take much optimization before the intel chips are fully optimized for.

Exactly that's why the results made by Apple showed twice better performance while in reality it was only 10-25%. Basicly Apple cheated on their own benchmarks, the iMac aren't all that fast as hyped by Apple.

Optimization will come with time and it will make a bit faster, still not twice as fast as the older Macs.

Post by **BlueGene** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:05 pm

R00k wrote:I don't see any reason at all that XP can't run on it. It's the same i386 architecture, all you need are drivers for the proprietary hardware, right? It's not like you need a new HAL or anything.

What's the big deal here? Am I missing something?

Yeah you can't run Windows XP because of the bootloader, Apple went out of the way to prevent people from running XP.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:17 pm

Wow, that's retarded.

Have they not thought it might be nice to sell just their hardware alone?

Anyway, isn't OSX just *NIX? XP has no problem dual-booting with *NIX, so they must have really gone out of their way to prevent that.

I am a PC person myself, but since Apple has crossed over, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of them just to try it out, if I can put XP on it.

So it would seem to me like Apple is throwing away revenue by not allowing people to load whatever they want easily.

Post by **BlueGene** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:24 pm

I found the specific problem why iMac's won't run XP.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware ... eduo.ars/7

With Apple's pronouncement that the company "didn't mind" if people tried to run Windows on their Intel-based Macs, it was only natural to try to install Windows on this iMac. The biggest problem is that with the exception of the Itanium version, Windows XP doesn't support Extensible Firmware Interface, which is what the new iMac uses in lieu of Open Firmware on the PowerPC platform and BIOS in the x86 world

Still it's a matter of time, imo.

More info about performance issues:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=2461&tag=nl.e550

The problem isn't the raw speed of Apple's 2.0 Ghz Intel-based dual-core iMacs. According to CNET Anchordesk's Rafe Needleman, it's the inability of buyers to get at that performance through natively written applications. Wrote Needleman in a recent Anchordesk newsletter:

Intel-powered iMac fails performance tests: This is an awkward time for Mac buyers. If you buy an Apple iMac Core Duo today, you'll get a machine that will be a great all-around performer–eventually. While it runs new applications (such as the iLife suite) quickly, existing applications run slowly. We won't be able to recommend the iMac for general use until apps such as Photoshop are released for the new design. For workstation-class performance today, check out the Power Mac G5 Quad, but know the architecture will soon be obsolete.

Post by **Geebs** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:40 pm

R00k wrote:Wow, that's retarded.

Have they not thought it might be nice to sell just their hardware alone?

Anyway, isn't OSX just *NIX? XP has no problem dual-booting with *NIX, so they must have really gone out of their way to prevent that.

I am a PC person myself, but since Apple has crossed over, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of them just to try it out, if I can put XP on it.

So it would seem to me like Apple is throwing away revenue by not allowing people to load whatever they want easily.

It's a problem with intel's EFI. They may be able to handle Vista more easily.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:59 pm

Hmm, apparently MS has supported EFI since at least 2001:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=303956

Microsoft supports Extensibile Firmware Interface as the only firmware interface to boot Windows XP. Because the 64-bit version of Windows will not boot with BIOS or with System Abstraction Layer (SAL) alone, Extensibile Firmware Interface is a requirement for all Intel Itanium-based systems to boot Windows.

So is this just a completely new implementation of EFI that Windows just hasn't been updated to support yet?

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:14 pm

Geebs wrote:
R00k wrote:Wow, that's retarded.

Have they not thought it might be nice to sell just their hardware alone?

Anyway, isn't OSX just *NIX? XP has no problem dual-booting with *NIX, so they must have really gone out of their way to prevent that.

I am a PC person myself, but since Apple has crossed over, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of them just to try it out, if I can put XP on it.

So it would seem to me like Apple is throwing away revenue by not allowing people to load whatever they want easily.
It's a problem with intel's EFI. They may be able to handle Vista more easily.

indeed
the anti apple hype will tell you LOL APPLE DID THEIR BEST TO MAKE A WIN INSTALL IMPOSSIBLE LOL ! while its just ms not being compatible again

Post by **Canis** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:14 pm

BlueGene wrote:
Canis wrote:
BlueGene wrote:According to a couple of sources Intel-iMacs have very disappointing results as far as performance.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/23/ ... rformance/
It's all hype.
The performance gains were tested using software that was built for the intel chips. Much of the software out there is engineered around the PPC architecture, even though it can be compiled to run on intel. It will take much optimization before the intel chips are fully optimized for.
Exactly that's why the results made by Apple showed twice better performance while in reality it was only 10-25%. Basicly Apple cheated on their own benchmarks, the iMac aren't all that fast as hyped by Apple.

Optimization will come with time and it will make a bit faster, still not twice as fast as the older Macs.

There's no cheating at all. Dont be so narrow minded. The iMacs are as fast as apple stated, provided you use the software in those benchmarks. Apple has mentioned over and over that developers need to get on the ball with their intel binaries, but Apple cannot control this. If developers do things properly, the machines do run at the speed increases posted by apple. If the developers fuck around and dont optimize their code, the software will run slowly. Sure Apple will round up when advertising their new product, but the fact is this new platform/architecture combination will take time before the speeds are up to par. Apple just advertised that "par", which is accurate and true.

Post by **Doombrain** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:24 pm

A bit shite for pro use tho. I can't convert some RAW files in aperture ang photoshop hangs when using low pass filter, wank.

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:25 pm

how often did quark hang when the yosemite's were introduced?

Post by **Doombrain** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:54 pm

err, quark's still fucking hanging

Post by **BlueGene** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:58 pm

Canis wrote:
BlueGene wrote:
Canis wrote: The performance gains were tested using software that was built for the intel chips. Much of the software out there is engineered around the PPC architecture, even though it can be compiled to run on intel. It will take much optimization before the intel chips are fully optimized for.
Exactly that's why the results made by Apple showed twice better performance while in reality it was only 10-25%. Basicly Apple cheated on their own benchmarks, the iMac aren't all that fast as hyped by Apple.

Optimization will come with time and it will make a bit faster, still not twice as fast as the older Macs.
There's no cheating at all. Dont be so narrow minded. The iMacs are as fast as apple stated, provided you use the software in those benchmarks. Apple has mentioned over and over that developers need to get on the ball with their intel binaries, but Apple cannot control this. If developers do things properly, the machines do run at the speed increases posted by apple. If the developers fuck around and dont optimize their code, the software will run slowly. Sure Apple will round up when advertising their new product, but the fact is this new platform/architecture combination will take time before the speeds are up to par. Apple just advertised that "par", which is accurate and true.

Acctually a good point, I'm starting to see what mean. I guess it's just that most people assumed all the software will run faster.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:07 pm

BlueGene wrote:
Canis wrote:
BlueGene wrote: Exactly that's why the results made by Apple showed twice better performance while in reality it was only 10-25%. Basicly Apple cheated on their own benchmarks, the iMac aren't all that fast as hyped by Apple.

Optimization will come with time and it will make a bit faster, still not twice as fast as the older Macs.
There's no cheating at all. Dont be so narrow minded. The iMacs are as fast as apple stated, provided you use the software in those benchmarks. Apple has mentioned over and over that developers need to get on the ball with their intel binaries, but Apple cannot control this. If developers do things properly, the machines do run at the speed increases posted by apple. If the developers fuck around and dont optimize their code, the software will run slowly. Sure Apple will round up when advertising their new product, but the fact is this new platform/architecture combination will take time before the speeds are up to par. Apple just advertised that "par", which is accurate and true.
I guess it's just that most people assumed all the software will run faster.

yes. when you're told that the hardware is XX times faster than before, that's exactly what most people assume.

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:39 pm

Doombrain wrote:err, quark's still fucking hanging

hmm point

ok how often did quark 3 hang

new systems always bring in new quirks in old software.
fun stuff when yer bar code generator stops working

Post by **Canis** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:51 pm

BlueGene wrote:
Canis wrote:
BlueGene wrote: Exactly that's why the results made by Apple showed twice better performance while in reality it was only 10-25%. Basicly Apple cheated on their own benchmarks, the iMac aren't all that fast as hyped by Apple.

Optimization will come with time and it will make a bit faster, still not twice as fast as the older Macs.
There's no cheating at all. Dont be so narrow minded. The iMacs are as fast as apple stated, provided you use the software in those benchmarks. Apple has mentioned over and over that developers need to get on the ball with their intel binaries, but Apple cannot control this. If developers do things properly, the machines do run at the speed increases posted by apple. If the developers fuck around and dont optimize their code, the software will run slowly. Sure Apple will round up when advertising their new product, but the fact is this new platform/architecture combination will take time before the speeds are up to par. Apple just advertised that "par", which is accurate and true.
Acctually a good point, I'm starting to see what mean. I guess it's just that most people assumed all the software will run faster.

That's a perception that has been addressed by the architecture differences, and was presented in the keynote address. They showed photoshop running and claimed "while its not as fast as professionals may need, for now it works for most of us" and indicated that updates would be necessary for applications to run at their full potential.