Post #242,059
1/21/06 8:53:21 PM
|
New beret will have Intel inside
My present home machine is a B&W G3 tower tricked out with a 500 MHz G4 upgrade card and a gig of (alas!) apparently non-spec RAM, to judge from my last disastrous attempt to advance the system iteration. Ah, well. It's given me three years good service, and for its used price was far and away the best Mac value I've ever purchased. Until recently I was prepared to bear with it another year, since the cost of another desktop machine was so high, and since the processor transition was an element, and yet...and yet...
I've been thinking, why do I need another tower? I've been concerned these latter years with my legacy SCSI input channels, in particular my 250MB Zip drive and my 640MB Fujitsu MO drive (a lovely technology that was the cat's pyjamas until the cost of CD-R drives dropped under $200 and the cost of CD-R media dropped under a buck and kept dropping), but these days I have USB solid-state transports of >1GB the size of a stick of gum. Do I really need the expandability of a present-generation dual-core G5 cheese grater? No, I concluded.
I have accordingly decided this evening to go back to my roots, and purchase an all-in-one unit directly from Apple for the first time since 1984: specifically a 20" iMac with an Intel heart and a couple of extras. The deed is done and the credit card debited; the hardware should arrive in the coming week. A report will be forthcoming.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #242,060
1/21/06 9:03:32 PM
|
Whew! You're brave.
I'm chicken about being the first to buy such a new generation of hardware. I'd worry about emulation speed for old programs unless you're fortunate enough to be able to have new binaries available.
Please do report back on how well it works.
Best of luck with it! It does sound like a screamer.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #242,061
1/21/06 9:57:48 PM
|
Not so brave as all that
Consider; I'm presently running the PPC-based software on a 500mhz G4 transplant. I'll shortly be running it emulated on a 2.0ghz Intel dual-core chip. Could it possibly be slower? If that's the case you won't have to wait for my report here: just listen for screams from the west.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #242,063
1/21/06 10:45:29 PM
|
Should be fast enough
[link|http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/6|iMac 17" Core Duo] the [Rosetta] performance of the iMac Core Duo seemed to be on par with a 1GHz Power Macintosh G4 That's twice as fast as he's used to now - plus the G4 they're talking about would have had a faster bus than his system with the upgraded CPU. Darrell Spice, Jr. Trendy yet complex\nPeople seek me out - though they're not sure why\n[link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass] [link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare]
|
Post #242,073
1/22/06 12:24:17 AM
|
Sweet. Enjoy!
Two out of three people wonder where the other one is.
|
Post #242,162
1/22/06 8:22:10 PM
|
Set your expectations to, at best, G5 + 20 percent..
[link|http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29136|Inquirer]: Macworld.com has the first lab test of the Intel-based iMacs - I thought I'd never say that. On average, the 2.0GHz core duo iMac was [link|http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php|20% faster than the G5 iMac] and that was even worse if your applications were not Intel's native, i.e. if you went through a code-translator software. Right now though, apart from the geek status that Dual core Intel Apples have, there's not much to it that previous generation Apple machines couldn't do and do better. You'd probably be better off waiting for truly optimised and stable version of your software designed for that new platform. Alex
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #242,165
1/22/06 8:36:21 PM
|
Wonder how multithreaded code performs
I wonder if most programs are only 20% faster because they're running on a single thread and don't take advantage of the 2nd core.
Darrell Spice, Jr. Trendy yet complex\nPeople seek me out - though they're not sure why\n[link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass] [link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare]
|
Post #242,277
1/23/06 9:01:15 PM
|
expectations are a moving target
In 1994, following one of the rare eruptions of institutional funds to my little skunkworks, we got a pair of 8100s (near-twins: one with 144MB RAM and one with 208—a fortune in those days), and let me tell you, after what we were accustomed to (a Mac SE running 1MB RAM @ 8MHz and a Mac II running 5MB—four-fifths of these purchased on my dime at $45/MB—@ 16MHz), those babies screamed. The 8100/144 died late last year, and its bigger sibling is seldom used; when it is in operation I can practically eat lunch while it runs a Photoshop 3.0 filter, not that it's been asked to do so in living memory. Likewise the workplace 400MHz G3, with half a gig of RAM, pinned me to my swivel chair the first time I took it round the course. Today it's still an OS 9.2 workhorse, and will likely remain so until its noble, much-thrashed hard disk finally falters, but it pulls my brewery wagons, and I do not think of it and the Triple Crown in the same chain of free association.
And so the home machine—thou good and faithful servant; Nunc dimittis indeed!—which I welcomed here three years ago this very month with its processor upgrade and its gig of (ahem!) non-spec RAM (treacherous Panther! Treacherous Apple!), which once made my eyes water with its speed and responsiveness, will be decommissioned early in the coming month. In place of a 500MHz processor transplant I will have a 2GHz dual-core jobbie; in place of a 100MHz system bus I will see 667MHz. The RAM will be faster and doubled (I ordered with 1GB/1 module; have ordered from Crucial Tech a second module). The OS, and most of the applications I'll be running from home (the various Apple "i" suites), will be "Universal Binary," so Rosetta emulation will not be an issue. The others—Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive— will likely perform at least as well on the new hardware under Rosetta as they did on this elderly G4 processor with its tissue rejection issues. Universal Binary editions of the Adobe suite should arrive presently, and will cost me about as much as I would have paid had I not stopped at (respectively) 7, 10, 2 and 6, suspecting even then that the beloved B&W was within sight of its end. I consider myself to have saved two generations of Adobe upgrades (the "CS-1" and "CS-2" suites), regarding which I'd formerly been quite conscientious over the years since 1987, which at about US $600 a pop may certainly be regarded as offsetting a significant fraction of the cost of the new machine.
And of course, given Apple's track record, and notwithstanding all the soothing words—charms against the dreaded "Osborne Effect"—you know and I know that Steve Jobs, that heartless rake, will [adult content follows, and as you know I rarely do this sort of thing, but the context does not merely permit but actually requires it] fuck his G4/G5 user base in the ass with a barbed-wire broomstick as soon as he thinks he can get away with it, so it seems prudent for the sake of my hemorrhoids to shimmy across that bridge-to-the-late-whatever-the-hell-we're-calling-this-decade before those first rectococcygeal thrusts draw blood, know what I'm sayin'?
I trust that I have explained my position (intended to minimize dorsal exposure).
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #242,286
1/23/06 10:19:09 PM
|
Easy for you to say.
But, once you load that sucker up and take it for a spin, give us a report.
Alex
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #242,301
1/24/06 1:15:35 AM
|
Yeah...
...but it's not like every current long-time Mac user doesn't know what's coming.
And it's for the best. IBM weren't taking the G5 in the directions Apple needed it to go.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #242,184
1/22/06 11:05:41 PM
|
short rations indeed
I should have such rations. sigh
ah well. enjoy.
Have fun,
Carl Forde
|
Post #242,281
1/23/06 9:25:31 PM
|
shorter than you think
Possibly debauched by Bush, I'm purchasing this on credit: I haven't hauled home a Mac burdened with the murderous arithmetic of compound interest since 1990. This expenditure doesn't send the debt needle into the red tickmarks, but it climbs discernibly closer. I'd like to have this paid down by summer.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #242,283
1/23/06 10:00:33 PM
|
ouch! I really need an upgrade myself
the 750 imac with 256k ram has a bad flicker in the top 3rd of the screen, drive sits at 97% but will await potential tax refund for the mac mini I have in mind, Found a servicable 21inch apple monitor of humongous girth but brilliant colors for $5 from a co-workers garage sale. That and a $40 keyboard and mosue should get me back to snuff,
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #242,363
1/24/06 8:54:50 PM
|
Ouch!
[link|http://geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Jan/bch20060123034350.htm|http://geek.com/news...0060123034350.htm] Still, the Core Duo and Core Solo processors are just out of the gates, and this high number of immediate errata should leave one a little chilled, I'd say. Releasing a brand new processor with 34 known errors seems almost criminal to me, especially with some of the more obnoxious ones highlighted above. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #242,501
1/25/06 9:11:43 PM
|
The number of "show stoppers" is disgusting!
Shame, Intel, shame!
Alex
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #242,504
1/25/06 9:18:56 PM
|
Shame on Apple too.
They should have gone with AMD for multiple reasons.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #242,511
1/25/06 9:55:30 PM
|
AMD has issues too
[link|http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf|60+ Errata] for the Athlon 64.
Darrell Spice, Jr. Trendy yet complex\nPeople seek me out - though they're not sure why\n[link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass] [link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare]
|
Post #242,512
1/25/06 10:03:19 PM
|
Over what period of time?
The Intel has power consumption, heat, and cost issues as well.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #242,513
1/25/06 10:08:51 PM
|
In laptops?
I haven't done much reading on this recently, but my gut feeling is that AMD is still catching up with Intel on laptop CPU power consumption, chipsets, and functionality. Laptops are very important to Apple, so it's not surprising that they went with Intel (notwithstanding AMD's desktop performance and headroom advantages at the moment).
[googlie-goo]
[link|http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28624|Charlie seems to agree.]
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #242,514
1/25/06 10:11:17 PM
|
True, I was thinking more of the desktops.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #242,555
1/26/06 12:27:59 PM
|
The way I've heard it...
...is that Apple is more interested in Intel due to the chips Intel makes that are used in the IPod - that those represent a much more lucrative market than Apple's computers do.
When somebody asks you to trade your freedoms for security, it isn't your security they're talking about.
|
Post #242,586
1/26/06 3:35:12 PM
|
Your sources are dreaming
and need to do some real research.
I don't know of any Intel chips that are currently used in the iPod. First, this doesn't make sense: the only thing Intel currently makes that might be used in an iPod is the Xscale processor, which is frankly overkill. No surprise, iPods don't use XScale, and probably never will.
Second, tear down analysis shows no sign of any Intel chips:
[link|http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=172303152|http://www.eetimes.c...ticleID=172303152]
[link|http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171100335|http://www.eetimes.c...ticleID=171100335]
[link|http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/technology/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=171100127|http://www.eetimes.c...ticleID=171100127]
[link|http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60403270|http://www.eetimes.c...rticleID=60403270]
The only chips likely to go into future iPods are flash memory from the joint Micron/Intel deal (which Apple prepaid something like $1.25 billion), and there's no reason for Apple to use Intel x86 processors just to get (currently non-existent) Intel NAND flash, which Samsung and Toshiba are quite happy to supply.
--Tony
|
Post #242,525
1/26/06 1:46:00 AM
|
34 is pretty low, actually.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #242,531
1/26/06 8:24:06 AM
|
Immediately after release?
Because that's the crux of the article: not that the number is high, but that it's that high only 20 days after the chip was first released.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #242,547
1/26/06 10:55:01 AM
1/26/06 10:55:51 AM
|
before, actually
from the [link|http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/24/1537231|discussion at /.] it appears that the errata is found before hand by Intel so the compilers and/or microcode can have the "work arounds" built into them. 20 days?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24, @10:32AM (#14548983)
It's a little disohnest to use the phrasing "Core Duo chip has 34 known issues found in the 20 days since the launch of the iMac Core Duo."
Most of these bugs were found well before the release of Core Duo. Many of the bugs are listed as having been observed by Intel only. That means the verficiation teams did hit these issues, either with very bizarre code setup, or doing something that's probably not technically legal anyway. Odds of seeing most of it in an end-user platform are very unlikely.
It's normal to not fix silicon bugs
(Score:5, Informative)
by Theovon (109752) Alter Relationship on Tuesday January 24, @10:48AM (#14549160)
As an ASIC designer, I have produced my fair share of silicon bugs. Chips are expensive to produce, making bugs expensive to fix. As a result, chip designers (even ones with deep pockets like Intel) do not look at bugs as something to FIX, but rather as something to MASK. I don't mean to hide it from people (although that does happen), but to make it not a bug by working around it.
Unless the bug is so fatal that you can't work around it, or the bug could potentially cost lives, the primary solution is to work around it. Either you write driver code to avoid the bug, or you find some other cheap solution. Sometimes, it's a simple matter of removing a feature from your marketing literature.
Intel's typical means to mask processor bugs is microcode. This hurts performance, but they can typically create a workaround that routes everything around the bug. I can't read the article (it's slashdotted), but I'm sure that by saying they won't fix some bugs, they're saying that they won't respin the silicon but rather mask the bug in some other way.
Listing the bugs (and not fixing them in this version) is an appropriate thing for Intel to do.
(I'm no Intel fanboy. I think they're bastards. But this is NOT an example of them being bastards.) Darrell Spice, Jr. Trendy yet complex\nPeople seek me out - though they're not sure why\n[link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass] [link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare]
Edited by SpiceWare
Jan. 26, 2006, 10:55:51 AM EST
|
Post #242,884
1/28/06 8:45:38 PM
1/29/06 4:00:00 PM
|
Slow boat from China
Hmmm...
The Apple site said "3-5 days shipping" for this goodie, which I ordered one week ago (01/21/06). On 01/25/06 I received an email from Apple to the effect that the bauble had shipped. The FedEx tracking site tells another story, with "Package data transmitted to FedEx" posted for that date early in the AM, and "At local FedEx facility" about 17 hours later. Thence, stalled: "left origin," "picked up," "Package received after FedEx cutoff," "At local FedEx facility," this last for the past 48 hours. At one point the FedEx page delivery was stated as 01/30/06; following the missed cutoff this became 02/06/06. Not a biggie, but I wonder whether I might have been better advised to order directly from the SF Apple store.
I'm starting to feel sentimental about this soon-to-be-mothballed B&W tower...
UPDATE 012906: As I read the FedEx tracking data the coveted iMac, after spending a couple of days in a dingy Shanghai joss house, apparently overnighted in Subic Bay before being smuggled onto a San Francisco-bound tramp steamer early this AM invoiced as a consignment of raw jute. Details as they break.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Edited by rcareaga
Jan. 29, 2006, 04:00:00 PM EST
|
Post #242,979
1/30/06 2:19:34 PM
|
Care to try out the HD samples when you get it?
My iMac G5 can play [link|http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/|Hi Def QuickTime] up to 720p. I'm curious if the new iMac will play 1080p as the [link|http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/recommendations.html|system specs] don't yet mention Core Duo models
Darrell Spice, Jr. Trendy yet complex\nPeople seek me out - though they're not sure why\n[link|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass|Artistic Overpass] [link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare]
|
