Switching to a MacIntel? Consider…
Like a lot folks, I’ve been scouring the Net for benchmark results and general comments concerning the new Intel-based iMacs shipping from Apple. At some point, I know I’ll buy one. But the big question is when. That’s what I’m trying to answer.
Today, ARS Technica hosted a review. They have the best set of benchmarks anyone has yet produced, and the author used Photoshop CS for many of his benchmarking tests. He also used Cinebench. His reasoning ran along the same lines as mine when I wanted to perform the same tests, i.e., they would give one an idea of how well the big applications would run under Rosetta. It will be some time before Adobe releases universal binaries for the applications in its Creative Suites. (As I mentioned in a previous blog, I believe the market will not see Adobe applications sporting Universal Binaries until they release the next version of Creative Suite.) The test results showed that the Intel iMac sometimes performed as well as the G5 iMac but sometimes did much worse. Cinebench was also much slower on the Intel Mac than the G5 iMac. These results are what I expected and will remain this way until native code for the Intel based applications are released.
What makes this subject a bit difficult is that some Photoshop tests show that the Intel iMac is faster. That’s why it’s important to look at a series of different tests even when using one application to sort out the entire story. Once applications are ported over for them, the Intel iMacs can’t help but be faster than the current G5 iMacs just because they have two processors (in a single dye, yes, but two processors). But that is as much as a year away. In the interim, current Intel iMac users have to be content running what they have under Rosetta. So, it’s fair to measure how current applications perform under that technology.
Moreover, I’ve only seen one mention of the fact that current mouse and scanner drivers can be expected to break under Mac OS X for Intel. Worse, manufacturers have little incentive to write new drivers for older peripherals, meaning that your current mouse or scanner might have to be replaced to work with the new operating system. Most mice with right, left, and center (or scroll) buttons have native support in OS X as do many printers. Scanners are another story. I’d be very surprised to find my Epson Perfection 1660 would work at all with an Intel-based Mac. That’s a very strong reason to wait and see what the peripheral makers do before committing to this platform (at least with a desktop or a notebook one uses as a primary machine). While GIMP-PRINT can provide open source printer drivers for OS X, I haven’t found an equivalent for scanners and don’t think one would have been ported to Mac OS X Intel this early even if it did exist.
One buyer lamented that the new machines used SO-DIMM memory modules and noted they are more expensive than standard desktop modules. The Dual Core CPU being used in the iMac is a notebook CPU shoehorned into a desktop case; hence, the need for notebook (SO-DIMM) memory. And, as you may know, it’s the only thing you can replace. Even cracking the case on this new iMac is harder than the previous versions. So, if anything goes wrong with it, taking it to a certified Apple repair station or technician is what you must do.
None of these are absolute reasons not to buy one of the new machines. However, a careful assessment of one’s computing needs and the realities of where software development is for this new class of machines is necessary to prevent an immediate case of buyer’s remorse. And don’t take my word for any of this. Go surf the ‘Net yourself and find out what people with hands-on time with the computers are saying. Just don’t blindly accept Apple’s hype. That most certainly will need to trouble.
Today, ARS Technica hosted a review. They have the best set of benchmarks anyone has yet produced, and the author used Photoshop CS for many of his benchmarking tests. He also used Cinebench. His reasoning ran along the same lines as mine when I wanted to perform the same tests, i.e., they would give one an idea of how well the big applications would run under Rosetta. It will be some time before Adobe releases universal binaries for the applications in its Creative Suites. (As I mentioned in a previous blog, I believe the market will not see Adobe applications sporting Universal Binaries until they release the next version of Creative Suite.) The test results showed that the Intel iMac sometimes performed as well as the G5 iMac but sometimes did much worse. Cinebench was also much slower on the Intel Mac than the G5 iMac. These results are what I expected and will remain this way until native code for the Intel based applications are released.
What makes this subject a bit difficult is that some Photoshop tests show that the Intel iMac is faster. That’s why it’s important to look at a series of different tests even when using one application to sort out the entire story. Once applications are ported over for them, the Intel iMacs can’t help but be faster than the current G5 iMacs just because they have two processors (in a single dye, yes, but two processors). But that is as much as a year away. In the interim, current Intel iMac users have to be content running what they have under Rosetta. So, it’s fair to measure how current applications perform under that technology.
Moreover, I’ve only seen one mention of the fact that current mouse and scanner drivers can be expected to break under Mac OS X for Intel. Worse, manufacturers have little incentive to write new drivers for older peripherals, meaning that your current mouse or scanner might have to be replaced to work with the new operating system. Most mice with right, left, and center (or scroll) buttons have native support in OS X as do many printers. Scanners are another story. I’d be very surprised to find my Epson Perfection 1660 would work at all with an Intel-based Mac. That’s a very strong reason to wait and see what the peripheral makers do before committing to this platform (at least with a desktop or a notebook one uses as a primary machine). While GIMP-PRINT can provide open source printer drivers for OS X, I haven’t found an equivalent for scanners and don’t think one would have been ported to Mac OS X Intel this early even if it did exist.
One buyer lamented that the new machines used SO-DIMM memory modules and noted they are more expensive than standard desktop modules. The Dual Core CPU being used in the iMac is a notebook CPU shoehorned into a desktop case; hence, the need for notebook (SO-DIMM) memory. And, as you may know, it’s the only thing you can replace. Even cracking the case on this new iMac is harder than the previous versions. So, if anything goes wrong with it, taking it to a certified Apple repair station or technician is what you must do.
None of these are absolute reasons not to buy one of the new machines. However, a careful assessment of one’s computing needs and the realities of where software development is for this new class of machines is necessary to prevent an immediate case of buyer’s remorse. And don’t take my word for any of this. Go surf the ‘Net yourself and find out what people with hands-on time with the computers are saying. Just don’t blindly accept Apple’s hype. That most certainly will need to trouble.
posted by Andy Foster at
8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home