1.83 per core, but........it doesnt work out double by having "Dual Core". Intel's own web site, and even Apple's web site (you can get a dual core G5 as well....but only on the Apple tower's), state that you dont get double the speed by having dual cores. I think Apple says that its a 67% gain on average. We have to remember that although you would need the latest "Universal" software on the Intel Mac's to get this (the current dual core G5's are fine with existing Mac software), Mac OS X is multi processor + multi core savy. It already takes advantage of the extra cores (or processors), and so do Mac applications. OS X determins what application tasks should be done on what core or processor. So in theory current Mac software on a dual core G5 should be using the extra cores right now. The same will be true of the Intel Mac's once you put the latest "Universal" software upgrades on them.
This should be better than a similar PC setup....Windows XP will use extra cores if they are installed, but pc applications need a re-write in order to take advantage of the extra cores.
Bear in mind....this is a faster and more efficient chip (performance per watt) than the Pentium 4.
So this is a dual core processor...where one of the cores (yes thats Just One!!) is actually faster than the G5 ...which is faster than the pentium 4. . . . . . basically its really fast!
(but probably not much noticable by the standard user...basically only if you use the pro applications.)
Not sure that I like the new "MiniStore" function launched in iTunes 6.02. The thought that data on my music library and listening habits is being sent to Apple smacks of spy/adware and is rather worrying. I understand that the feature can be turned off simply by hiding the MiniStore. The fact that Apple is able to send information from my copy of iTunes, along with cookie information that can identify me, as well as sending song information to give me further buying options seems to be a serious breach of trust.
I think the 'Mini Store' is the last thing that Apple needs to implement, as it really clutters the UI, and pushes the store in the user's face a little too much.
Personally, I'm not bothered about it sending info - everything I listen to goes to Last.fm anyway.
I did the same and turned it off straight away. It was like a big ad on the bottom of iTunes. I ordered iLife 06 today. I wasn't panning on it, but was very impressed with the new features.
is there an easy way to explain to my wife how this now means its essential that we replace our 2 yr old G4 1.25mhz powerbook with a new macbook pro?
Iain
Since the G4 is even older than the G5, and now Apple is moving to the new Intel chip, it (the G4) won't be supported by new software for much longer. So in the mid term, if you want to install some new "Mac" software (or even a device like a scanner, printer), you wont be able to in many cases - they will be needing a min of a G5 by then.
Even as a G5 user, I feel like its 1994, and running one of the last (top of the range) 68k Mac Quadra's while the first PowerMac's are what everyone wants.
true enough - you kind of forget that the powerbooks, even when we got one, was a bit behind. when did the G5s come out? as i guess that's a good benchmark as to the age of the PBs.
she won't necessarily see it like that - everything works just fine as it is. she only uses word, safari and mail really.
but i use it for work - website design, and some DVD authoring for wedding photographers. at the moment i just use iLife and final cut express, but would love to get DVD studio pro at some point. hopefully i can put a stash away from my work this year, and look to make a new purchase mid 2007 - when OSX 10.5 comes out might be a good time.
Since the G4 is even older than the G5, and now Apple is moving to the new Intel chip, it (the G4) won't be supported by new software for much longer. So in the mid term, if you want to install some new "Mac" software (or even a device like a scanner, printer), you wont be able to in many cases - they will be needing a min of a G5 by then.
What? Sorry, but this sounds like utter FUD. Do you mean that the software will need some feature of the G5 processor that isn't present in the G4, or are you just talking about speed?
I'm running Panther on an iMac G3 - it works, albeit slowly in places (iPhoto etc).
Seeing as Apple seem to be making software *more* performant over time, not less (eg the new iPhoto 6 runs faster than v5), I think you're talking, frankly, a load of cobblers
Bear in mind....this is a faster and more efficient chip (performance per watt) than the Pentium 4.
So this is a dual core processor...where one of the cores (yes thats Just One!!) is actually faster than the G5 ...which is faster than the pentium 4. . . . . . basically its really fast!
(but probably not much noticable by the standard user...basically only if you use the pro applications.)
I truely dont think its that much faster. Why?,,,,,
The Intel powered iMac is replacing a 2.1Ghz G5 powered iMac. But there are faster G5 processors - found in the latest Apple G5 towers. These run on Dual Core, dual processor technology with a higher Ghz rating as well. I can see the Intel iMac being quicker than the 2.1Ghz G5 iMac, but I can't see it being any quicker than the top line 2.5Ghz Dual core, dual processor, G5 tower. Obviously if you own a slower Mac like a G4 Mac Mini or G4 laptop, then yes you will see quite a jump in performance.
The other thing is hype. I went through the last processor change, 68k - PowerPC. I used a Mac Quadra 800 which had the 2nd fastest 68k processor ever used by Apple. I also used a first generation Power Mac 7100/66 with a 66Mhz PowerPC cpu. And the speed jump between them was not as big as we were told by all the reviews. My suspicions were raised when Apple quickly released updated Power Mac's (same design, but more speed). If the hardware was as quick as we were told, why did Apple need to speed bump these computers so early on? When I got my hands on the PowerMac 7100/66, I found it to be not much quicker than the Quadra 800. Emulation was a bigger problem back then (the OS back then had to be converted to be native on the new chip - a sort of "retro-fit" job that wasnt that great for some time). But even when we got our first "Power Mac native" software, things didnt feel much quicker. The reason was that the new software upgrades had more feature, and were bigger as a result. So even though these were running "native" mode, the increased size of the software resulted in much of the speed gain being lost.
A good example of Apple getting the power/weight ratio of software wrong is Garageband. It's an entry level music creation program so it ought to run on an entry level computer. In fact it's very sluggish on a G4 PowerBook which, until two days ago, was a high end computer. Apparently Logic Express is less demanding, yet it's a £199 semi-pro application.
The new garageband is apparently faster...however i do see what you mean, it can be quite sluggish at times!
I was just wondering could anyone answer a question of mine.
Has anyone used the Apple Store for Business?....My dad is the manager of a Bar, is this included in the term Business?....if it is what is the discount, because the price is not including tax on the shopping page and then when you get to checkout it is infact full price, so how exactly does it work?
Comments
im not quite with the dual core speeds. is it 1.83Ghz per core? (3.66Ghz total?)
Dinger
This should be better than a similar PC setup....Windows XP will use extra cores if they are installed, but pc applications need a re-write in order to take advantage of the extra cores.
Dave
So this is a dual core processor...where one of the cores (yes thats Just One!!) is actually faster than the G5 ...which is faster than the pentium 4. . . . . . basically its really fast!
(but probably not much noticable by the standard user...basically only if you use the pro applications.)
Iain
Im a switcher - it will be my first mac!
Dinger
Tell her it will go well with her shoes.
Personally, I'm not bothered about it sending info - everything I listen to goes to Last.fm anyway.
Dinger
unfortunately she's more sensible than that!
i don't actually have the spondoolies anyway, maybe in 18 months or so.
Iain
Since the G4 is even older than the G5, and now Apple is moving to the new Intel chip, it (the G4) won't be supported by new software for much longer. So in the mid term, if you want to install some new "Mac" software (or even a device like a scanner, printer), you wont be able to in many cases - they will be needing a min of a G5 by then.
Even as a G5 user, I feel like its 1994, and running one of the last (top of the range) 68k Mac Quadra's while the first PowerMac's are what everyone wants.
Dave
she won't necessarily see it like that - everything works just fine as it is. she only uses word, safari and mail really.
but i use it for work - website design, and some DVD authoring for wedding photographers. at the moment i just use iLife and final cut express, but would love to get DVD studio pro at some point. hopefully i can put a stash away from my work this year, and look to make a new purchase mid 2007 - when OSX 10.5 comes out might be a good time.
Iain
I'm running Panther on an iMac G3 - it works, albeit slowly in places (iPhoto etc).
Seeing as Apple seem to be making software *more* performant over time, not less (eg the new iPhoto 6 runs faster than v5), I think you're talking, frankly, a load of cobblers
I truely dont think its that much faster. Why?,,,,,
The Intel powered iMac is replacing a 2.1Ghz G5 powered iMac. But there are faster G5 processors - found in the latest Apple G5 towers. These run on Dual Core, dual processor technology with a higher Ghz rating as well. I can see the Intel iMac being quicker than the 2.1Ghz G5 iMac, but I can't see it being any quicker than the top line 2.5Ghz Dual core, dual processor, G5 tower. Obviously if you own a slower Mac like a G4 Mac Mini or G4 laptop, then yes you will see quite a jump in performance.
The other thing is hype. I went through the last processor change, 68k - PowerPC. I used a Mac Quadra 800 which had the 2nd fastest 68k processor ever used by Apple. I also used a first generation Power Mac 7100/66 with a 66Mhz PowerPC cpu. And the speed jump between them was not as big as we were told by all the reviews. My suspicions were raised when Apple quickly released updated Power Mac's (same design, but more speed). If the hardware was as quick as we were told, why did Apple need to speed bump these computers so early on? When I got my hands on the PowerMac 7100/66, I found it to be not much quicker than the Quadra 800. Emulation was a bigger problem back then (the OS back then had to be converted to be native on the new chip - a sort of "retro-fit" job that wasnt that great for some time). But even when we got our first "Power Mac native" software, things didnt feel much quicker. The reason was that the new software upgrades had more feature, and were bigger as a result. So even though these were running "native" mode, the increased size of the software resulted in much of the speed gain being lost.
Dave
I was just wondering could anyone answer a question of mine.
Has anyone used the Apple Store for Business?....My dad is the manager of a Bar, is this included in the term Business?....if it is what is the discount, because the price is not including tax on the shopping page and then when you get to checkout it is infact full price, so how exactly does it work?
Since the Minis still have the G4 in them, I suspect that the G4 chip will be supported by OSX for at least another 3-4 years if not longer.
There are millions of production dual G4s out there, a market that no sensible developer is going to ignore.