don't even bother reading the benchmarks. the memory configurations on each machine are so different, you can't make sense out of the results. dual g5 => 4.5GB memory, iMac g5 => 1GB memory, iMac intel => 512MB memory. just crazy.
"The larger question is why run Windows on a Mac? For me, the answer is simple: because you can"I can break bones in my leg reducing my mobility, but why would I want to?Why can't some mac people accept that running Windows could be a good thing?Below is an good comment from slashdot:TooMuchEspressoGuy (763203) on Tuesday January 17, @11:59AM (#14491294) But what about if someone wants to run games (and perhaps other software that runs only on Windows) *and* still get the superior OS/apps found in Macs? Why should they be forced to buy two computers just so that they can preserve their "entire Mac experience"?
Dual-boot is the reason to wet your panties... Windows on an Apple is not! It's like saying "Oh boy! I can wipe my new Xbox 360 and install the old crap from my Xbox so I can play my old games!" Needing to run Windows is only for the gamers and corporate policy followers of the world (for felchdonkey). Keep your PC, buy a Mac, increase Apples market share and maybe app/game developers will shift their focus! It won't be that hard now that Intel and ATI are inside. Game developers coding to a common gfx platform rather than 73 different graphics card specs would mean a lot more attention could be paid to the gameplay, environments, and AI rather than constantly trying to push more pixels. More pixels/polys do not a good game make!Yes, people want one machine to play Battlefield 2 and run OSX. Not gonna happen this year. Wipe your XP system, reinstall and setup Battlefield 2 (or your big-mother-game-of-choice) and then use your shiny new iMac in your living room to run everything else. XP for gaming... OSX for everything else.WIth regard to application performance, once Intel is in the full Mac lineup and everything is compiled to run on the new platform, speeds will be up. Besides, this is an iMac, not a high powered workstation. Do you really expect FCP or Photoshop to fly on an iMac? It's "the world?s best designed and easiest-to-use desktop" in the Apple lineup... not the "wicked-fast workstation" that is the Power Mac G5. Maybe the boys@ars could have splurged on some more RAM or popped out a few DIMMs from the Power machines to make the benchmarks mean something. As is, the machines are so ill matched the benchmarks are useless!Power users needing FCP, Photoshop, Quark etc already have workstations that run these things well enough. They aren't looking for an iMac to do these things for them. You can run these apps on the iMac, but Rosetta is not a speed-boosting technology. It works. It's a stop-gap. It won't be an issue in the next couple of months when the binaries are recompiled, the faster CPUs roll, and larger systems ship!Wait until a quad-Core-Duo tower is available if you want to benchmark FCP. Then you might have something to email home about!Besides, who would buy a first generation Intel mac anyhow? Wait for Rev.B The shiny white plastic is nice, but the first one out of the factory is bound to be a lemon. I'm drooling, but it's not because I'm stupid!
Closed AccountJan 17, 2006
Pretty cool. But I actually like the Mac hardware. :)www.gfx.com
kenoticJan 17, 2006
I was surprised that the Intel mac got beat in some areas. I got beat in the CPU bench mark and in the UI benchmark.
geekyJan 17, 2006
I would love to see the 20" iMac with real media center capabilities (PVR functionalities!!!)
iobuffaJan 17, 2006
don't even bother reading the benchmarks. the memory configurations on each machine are so different, you can't make sense out of the results. dual g5 => 4.5GB memory, iMac g5 => 1GB memory, iMac intel => 512MB memory. just crazy.
Closed AccountJan 17, 2006
"The larger question is why run Windows on a Mac? For me, the answer is simple: because you can"I can break bones in my leg reducing my mobility, but why would I want to?Why can't some mac people accept that running Windows could be a good thing?Below is an good comment from slashdot:TooMuchEspressoGuy (763203) on Tuesday January 17, @11:59AM (#14491294) But what about if someone wants to run games (and perhaps other software that runs only on Windows) *and* still get the superior OS/apps found in Macs? Why should they be forced to buy two computers just so that they can preserve their "entire Mac experience"?
mooserooJan 17, 2006
Dual-boot is the reason to wet your panties... Windows on an Apple is not! It's like saying "Oh boy! I can wipe my new Xbox 360 and install the old crap from my Xbox so I can play my old games!" Needing to run Windows is only for the gamers and corporate policy followers of the world (for felchdonkey). Keep your PC, buy a Mac, increase Apples market share and maybe app/game developers will shift their focus! It won't be that hard now that Intel and ATI are inside. Game developers coding to a common gfx platform rather than 73 different graphics card specs would mean a lot more attention could be paid to the gameplay, environments, and AI rather than constantly trying to push more pixels. More pixels/polys do not a good game make!Yes, people want one machine to play Battlefield 2 and run OSX. Not gonna happen this year. Wipe your XP system, reinstall and setup Battlefield 2 (or your big-mother-game-of-choice) and then use your shiny new iMac in your living room to run everything else. XP for gaming... OSX for everything else.WIth regard to application performance, once Intel is in the full Mac lineup and everything is compiled to run on the new platform, speeds will be up. Besides, this is an iMac, not a high powered workstation. Do you really expect FCP or Photoshop to fly on an iMac? It's "the world?s best designed and easiest-to-use desktop" in the Apple lineup... not the "wicked-fast workstation" that is the Power Mac G5. Maybe the boys@ars could have splurged on some more RAM or popped out a few DIMMs from the Power machines to make the benchmarks mean something. As is, the machines are so ill matched the benchmarks are useless!Power users needing FCP, Photoshop, Quark etc already have workstations that run these things well enough. They aren't looking for an iMac to do these things for them. You can run these apps on the iMac, but Rosetta is not a speed-boosting technology. It works. It's a stop-gap. It won't be an issue in the next couple of months when the binaries are recompiled, the faster CPUs roll, and larger systems ship!Wait until a quad-Core-Duo tower is available if you want to benchmark FCP. Then you might have something to email home about!Besides, who would buy a first generation Intel mac anyhow? Wait for Rev.B The shiny white plastic is nice, but the first one out of the factory is bound to be a lemon. I'm drooling, but it's not because I'm stupid!