February 1st, 2006
The Intel iMac - Still Want One?
By Chief Gadgeteer, Gizmos for Geeks
Contributing Writer, RealTechNews
In case you’ve been hiding under a rock for the past month or so, you most certainly know about the launch of Apple’s new Macs with Intel Core Duo processors in them. So far, the iMac desktop is available in both 17″ and 20″ versions. The MacBook Pro notebook is due out this month. If you’ve been considering getting one of these new iMacs or perhaps the MacBook Pro, you may want to re-consider or at least wait for a few months. Why? Well, Apple essentially had to re-write applications to perform natively on the Intel iMac. Those that have not been re-written as of yet need to go through a software translator called Rosetta. This slows things down, especially for resource intensive applications (ex: Photoshop). And 3rd-party software vendors are still playing catch up to get their apps optimized for the new iMacs. There is a minor bit of controversy in Apple claiming that the new Intel iMacs are 2-3 times faster than an iMac G5, and while it’s not a complete lie, MacWorld made sure to get into raw performance numbers and show how things really pan out.
It’s funny how an Apple machine has really become a PC in a slick Apple-logo’ed box running MacOS. Think about it - Intel CPU, PCI, SATA drives, VGA… I’m not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. In fact, consumer demand for standards is what has propelled manufacturers to have common interfaces and hardware that interoperates well. But it is ironic that Apple users who prided themselves on having machines so distinct from PCs now only have the software to help them make that distinction. Don’t even get me started on the similarities between MacOS and Windows. 
Read on for links to lots of reviews.
Read the entire article over at GizmosForGeeks.com.
Justin says:
“The Intel iMac - Still Want One?”
Yup, my fiance’s 20″ runs great. Take a look at Anand’s review at http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2685 .
Basicly get at least a gig of RAM and make sure your not expecting miracles from Rosetta and you’ll be fine. It’s still the fastest, quietest iMac to date. Rosetta performance is the only possible complaint, but about the only thing I have had to run in it so far is Office, and it worked quick enough for the average home user (or at least for me).
February 1st, 2006 at 2:53 am
Justin says:
And Mac’s have always used “standard” parts. The only thing non PC-like has been the cpu architecture. While many Mac user’s may have prided themselves on using something other than x86, I think the majority of Mac user’s are content with an attractive, well thought out design, and an OS that has no equal in the desktop computer world (
February 1st, 2006 at 3:00 am
John Corliss says:
It should be apparent to everybody that if the Mac OS works better with Intel CPUs than does Windows, this will make Apple much more powerful as a competitor against Microsoft. In essence, what’s to stop the Mac OS from eventually being able to be installed in a regular PC-compatible? I myself would be very interested in such an option.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:51 am
Charles says:
I suspect that porting the OSX to PCs would kill Apple’s hardware sales. Even within the Mac fan base, some would buy non-Apple PCs because of the price savings. A PC user would never buy a piece of Apple hardware if they could run OSX on their existing PC or ThinkPad.
Now, if I I could run XP / Vista on a Mac laptop, that would be worth the premium price on the hardware.
February 1st, 2006 at 6:48 am
Lewie says:
No. I don’t want one. A couple of months ago I succumbed to the Mac hype and got a PowerBook G4. I messed with OS X for a while and discovered that it’s not nearly as intuitive as I was led to believe. I didn’t find it easierthan Windows — just different. Also s-l-o-w. And it never fully Borged into my Windows network. After putzing with it for a few weeks I gave it to my wife. She didn’t like it either, so I put the Mac in the closet. An interesting experiment, but I weep when I think of what a balls out PC I could have built with the money I spent on the Mac.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:48 am
Matt says:
Yet another anti-Mac rant on Real Tech News. How many times do we have hear Macs poo-poohed? I am certainly not a Mac nut; I started working in Unix systems in college and then developed software professionally for Windows for many years. But the elegance and stability of the Mac platform– and the added bonus of mechanical design elegance — does not warrant the negativity that they get on this site every time the topic is mentioned. Other than OS upgrades, I have had to reboot my G5 system once — ONCE — in the last year. My laptop travels back and forth to work with me every day, switching between networks effortlessly, and never needs a reboot or a shutdown. My colleagues continously complain about hardware problems. And virus problems. And OS reinstalls being needed. The platform is almost always a Dell. The rant here is ludicrous: because the parts are standardized, the platform is not worthy anymore. Any good machine is greater than the sum of its parts. Is it not reasonable for any manufacturer to be smart and utilize standardized components? If Apple should continue to use non-standard parts they might go out of business because they are fighting the currents of economy. They are too smart for that. OTOH, they have taken the lead on new technology for years. Some of it panned out, some of it didn’t. That’s the way it goes. I let my money speak for me: my office formerly full of PCs now has only one.
February 1st, 2006 at 7:54 am
David Johnston says:
Hardware problems? I can tell you about hardware problems on Macs… I do work on them all the time. From leaking capacitors in eMacs (VERY BAD) to dying motherboards in iMac G5’s to weak power connectors on Mac Minis to the sound problems on G4 Powerbooks I’ve seen enough of Mac’s excellent hardware. It’s absolutely not any better than PC hardware. If you buy a junky, cheap PC you get bad hardware. If you buy a nice PC (such as a Thinkpad) you’re most likely getting better hardware than you’d find in a Mac.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:55 am
Charles says:
Matt,
Nobody has ‘ranted’ here. Lewie and David are just describing their personal experiences they had with the Mac hardware. I didn’t read any wild exclamations or false conclusions.
On the whole, PC users are quite un-emotional about their hardware. They only want what is fastest and most stable.
But it is always fun to watch the Mac user rise up to beat back the Borg’s statements. Most PC users would jump at the chance to try OSX without spending a couple thousand dollars. I’m willing to bet that PC hardware is neither more or less reliable than Mac hardware.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:10 am
nivoxz says:
no, i don’t want one… i prefer to stay with my oollll very reliable one
, but i’ll accept any donations
February 1st, 2006 at 9:42 am
Matt says:
I am not talking about the commenters, I am talking about the bias that RTNews seems to have against Macs without a justifiable reason. At least try one for goodness sake. I don’t doubt that there are hardware problems. Such is the nature of mass market electronics. As a reference point, I love this site. I read it every day. But that particular unfounded bias expressed at the top level really grates me as a user. I base my opinions about Macs on actual experience, which compared to the dozen or more PCs I have owned has been like night and day. I developed for PCs for years at the kernel/device driver level, so I think I have a fair idea of what is going on inside a Windows box. But when it comes to dead-easy no-brainer ease of use and stability, the Macs come out way ahead. Its not even close.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:17 am
Lockergnome's Tech News Watch says:
The Intel iMac - Still Want One?
Chief Gadgeteer of RealTechNews writes: In case you’ve been hiding under a rock for the past month or so, you most certainly know about the launch of Apple’s new Macs with Intel Core Duo processors in them. So far, the iMac desktop is available in bot…
February 1st, 2006 at 10:48 am
David Johnston says:
I don’t think I’m biased against Macs. Just to clarify, my comment about hardware earlier was in response to the opinion that Macs use better hardware than PC’s do. I just know from practical experience that this is not the case. People complain about Mac hardware all the time. Heck, just look at the iPod Nano scratching fiasco or the Powerbook sound issue (http://powerbookdefect.info/). It doesn’t take much effort to find instances of Mac hardware letting people down.
That said, I think that OSX is a lot better than Windows in terms of the number and severity of security holes it has. I’m sure some people also find it easier to use, but I’ve just found it a hassle. As for the never rebooting stuff. I know that to go from a base 10.4 install to the latest 10.4.4 and all the latest software patches requires at least two reboots if I remember correctly, so saying you’ve only rebooted your OSX machines once in the past year also means that you’re not keeping up with the updates, many of which are security related. Also, you have to reboot to go from 10.4.x to 10.4.x+1 so to go from 10.4.0 which came out well into 2005 to 10.4.4 which came out only a few weeks ago with only one reboot just doesn’t jive with the facts.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:04 pm
David Johnston says:
BTW, I think it’s also hard to call us MS fanboys. All of us here at RTN think that Firefox is a great browser and our two most recent stories are covering Microsoft security vulnerabilities. Those aren’t hard to find either
February 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Mike Cohen says:
The Intel Mac is only ’slow’ if you have a G5. For those of us with anything else (like my PowerBook G4), Intel is a lot faster. I prefer to use a portable, so I’m forced to settle for a slower G4. I just got a new iMac (in exchange for the Developer Transition Kit), and since I’m used to using G4s, it’s a lot faster than what I had before. I plan to replace my PowerBook with a MacBook Pro that will be a lot faster.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Bubba says:
Why is this news?
Trying to become another biased rant site like Anandtech? Keep the trolling elsewhere, it’s not worthy of front page news.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pm
David Johnston says:
It is pretty big news if there isn’t an x86-native version of Photoshop out for Macs since a large number of Mac users use Photoshop. It will be pretty dissappointing if you get a new Intel-based Mac and Photoshop runs more slowly on it than it did on your older G4 or G5.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Charles says:
Matt and Bubba,
What gives you the expectation that this is, or should be, an UN-biased site? Wanting something that is not there is not very Zen like. Blogs are not journalism. Period.
Come to think of it, what makes you think print and TV media are unbiased?
I think Alice has made it clear her unabashed bias against the Mac. Deep down I think she would run OSX on her ThinkPad to use the stuff that works better than XP like the rest of us.
Even still, the anti-MS articles far exceed the Mac stuff on RTN, so really, where’s the bias?
February 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Chief Gadgeteer says:
Unfortunately, unless you’re a great writer, text (especially criticism or reviews) tends to come across harshly. This was never intended as a rant or a biased article against Apple or Macs, but rather just some observations and links to some (hopefully) useful information. To the Mac aficionados in the audience, I apologize. (This comment and article represent my own personal views and not those of Alice Hill, Founder and CEO of RealTechNews.)
February 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Charles says:
Chief Gadgeteer,
You have nothing to apologize for. I’m a writer as well, and the article wasn’t even close to being harsh.
Mac users are just sensitive to the implication that their systems do not live up to Apple marketing.
Cheers!
February 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Justin says:
Chief Gadgeteer,
I wasn’t saying anything bad about you or your article. I was just giving my own opinion, and pointing out something that might confuse people. And I think most of the other harsh comments here have been between commenters. Overall I liked your article (although I personally consider myself very up-to-date about the intel Mac situation).
February 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Jon Schalliol says:
The “better hardware” reference usually relates to the quality of the hardware and its integration with the OS. It’s not a shock that the integration would make a system a bit more efficient and reliable, since there’s less variation to support. That said, Apple has frequently pioneered connectivity options, like FireWire, removal of the floppy (most credit this to more quickly rid the world of them), USB in totality, wireless networking integrated into the system, ExpressCard slot, trackpad, heck - audio, DVI on laptops - just now have many PC laptops put in DVI-I. Apple hasn’t invented all of these technologies, yet it does attempt to think out uses and deliver them with reliability when it feels they make sense.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Jon Schalliol says:
Oh, and I did order a MacBook Pro. Yes, many apps won’t be universal binaries yet because the PowerBook it replaces is only a 1GHz unit, at least I won’t feel hampered by the extra processing to do the translations through Rosetta.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Jeff Dickey says:
Guys, guys…as far as the rants go, we’re just seeing yet another new phase of Mac envy. It’s been happening since ‘84; we ought to be used to it by now. Some of the people getting paid to spew it were just learning to talk when the Super Bowl ad aired.
I’ve been a Mac developer off and on since 1984; the second program I received a corporate paycheck for was a Macintosh application. 90% of my career since then has been on Intelish PCs, with DOS and Windows and operating systems like Linux and BSD, but every chance I get to do anything on the Mac, I grab it hard.
Why? It is a better system - for the user, for the developer…. the Mac APIs are much more consistent and easier to learn than the hodgepodge that is Windows, with far more intelligence going into the execution of the design than is possible for an organisation operating under Microsoft’s “Code Complete” development model.
As for the user…Some while ago, I did a lot of support work for a large American corporation that, at the time I first came there, had about 40% Macs and 60% Windows PCs. Within a year, those proportions had switched, and my understanding is that the number of users dealing with Windows now is well under ten percent. Why? Well…. we spent roughly twelve times as much to support a Windows seat as we did to support a Mac user. This included hardware, software (antivirus and whatnot), deskside support experiences with our fully trained and certified support techs who, on average, were working 55-hour weeks.
We did quarterly IT-effectiveness surveys, which involved both asking users how satisfied they were with the support they were getting, AND asking their managers how effectively the computer was helping their team achieve their business needs. Over nine quarters, the *lowest* median overall score for the Mac people was 98% in nine quarters. That’s right - ninety-eight percent as the poorest overall showing for the Mac. Conversely, the *highest* overall median for our Windows usees - the people we’re spending twelve times as much per head to help them use this business tool - was 42%. It became steadily more difficult for managers to justify acquisition of Windows PCs, and with changes in Microsoft’s pricing and support that would have completely smashed our budget had we “stayed the course”, it became *extremely* difficult.
My understanding, no longer being involved with the firm but chatting regularly with some of the IT people still there, is that they are now primarily a Linux and Mac shop. Their support staff is now far smaller, with roughly eight times the end-user ratio as before, and support overtime is strictly managed. (They still run their own IT support, having dodged the India bullet; lower costs were a major reason why.)
One final personal observation: I still have a Mac LC II that still runs the software I bought it for at acceptable speeds…. when was the last time a 1991-era Windows system gave you that level of service? 1993?
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
silverlokk says:
The Intel Macs won’t run Windows because they use something called Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) which, if I understand correctly, replaces the BIOS that Windows expects. But why bother with an inferior OS?!? In fact, what I’d like to be able to do is run OS X on a standard Intel PC — say, a ThinkPad . Yeah, I know, there’s a leaked OS X/86 (or whatever it’s called) floating around somewheres but I don’t think it’s exactly legal.
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:12 am
Chris says:
Intel macs are so much better machines than a “windows pc’ can ever be. They run both OS, and macs are rediculously fast. I love the designs, and i’m not really that worried about the program issues because by late this year or early next, the problems and bugs will be worked out. I’m never going back to a windows machine as long as i live.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:13 am