Comments on: Fastest Mac Last? http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/ Ranting and Raving Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:38:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Wes Felter http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/comment-page-1/#comment-1104 Wes Felter Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:58:03 +0000 http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/#comment-1104 I wouldn't worry too much about it; I expect the new MacMac Pro to come in July or August (just after Woodcrest is released). Transitioning the whole product line in 8 months is pretty impressive. I wouldn’t worry too much about it; I expect the new MacMac Pro to come in July or August (just after Woodcrest is released). Transitioning the whole product line in 8 months is pretty impressive.

]]> By: Dave C. http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/comment-page-1/#comment-1103 Dave C. Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:39:41 +0000 http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/#comment-1103 One compelling reason is Photoshop. It's unacceptably slow under Rosetta and because it's built with CodeWarrior rather than XCode, it's difficult to port to Intel. Consequently, Apple must continue to offer a high-end PowerPC-based system until Adobe release the next version of Photoshop, probably in 2007. One compelling reason is Photoshop. It’s unacceptably slow under Rosetta and because it’s built with CodeWarrior rather than XCode, it’s difficult to port to Intel. Consequently, Apple must continue to offer a high-end PowerPC-based system until Adobe release the next version of Photoshop, probably in 2007.

]]> By: Scott Ellsworth http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/comment-page-1/#comment-1102 Scott Ellsworth Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:18:23 +0000 http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/#comment-1102 Actually, I suspect it is the quark/photoshop/office triumvirate. For the first few months, we were going to be running a fair amount of software under Rosetta, pretty much regardless of when that clock started. At this point, a core duo's SSE3 implementation is not going to beat a fast G5, especially a quad. Add to that the Rosetta overhead, and you do not have a game winning machine. People would rather have a quad G5 than a current Core Duo. The story changes with the chips coming in September - those are 64 bit, and promise much better speed. A powerbook, on the other hand, was lagging so far behind what Intel was offering that there was no reason not to make the move. Even under Rosetta, a MacBook does pretty well, compared with a mid model Powerbook. (The mini story is similar.) Those who wanted true photoshop speed were running G5s, which means that a MacBook was not being marketed to the most performance sensitive crowd. So, by shipping the Mini and the MacBook, Apple gave generally better performance on most apps, even under Rosetta. They lost a bit for Photoshop, and gained a bunch with the few early Universal apps. As time passes, we will see more Universal apps, and thus an Intel desktop would have fewer places that it would not show well. They then look like better options with a bit of seasoning. Scott Actually, I suspect it is the quark/photoshop/office triumvirate. For the first few months, we were going to be running a fair amount of software under Rosetta, pretty much regardless of when that clock started.

At this point, a core duo’s SSE3 implementation is not going to beat a fast G5, especially a quad. Add to that the Rosetta overhead, and you do not have a game winning machine. People would rather have a quad G5 than a current Core Duo. The story changes with the chips coming in September – those are 64 bit, and promise much better speed.

A powerbook, on the other hand, was lagging so far behind what Intel was offering that there was no reason not to make the move. Even under Rosetta, a MacBook does pretty well, compared with a mid model Powerbook. (The mini story is similar.) Those who wanted true photoshop speed were running G5s, which means that a MacBook was not being marketed to the most performance sensitive crowd.

So, by shipping the Mini and the MacBook, Apple gave generally better performance on most apps, even under Rosetta. They lost a bit for Photoshop, and gained a bunch with the few early Universal apps.

As time passes, we will see more Universal apps, and thus an Intel desktop would have fewer places that it would not show well. They then look like better options with a bit of seasoning.

Scott

]]> By: George Bailey http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/comment-page-1/#comment-1091 George Bailey Sun, 09 Apr 2006 00:31:52 +0000 http://www.elharo.com/blog/mac/2006/04/08/fastest-mac-last/#comment-1091 Well, for me personally it's no big deal to decide to pick up a mini, but I'm not dishing out another $3,000 until I can see the value in it. So from my point of view you're right that it's a performance issue. Well, for me personally it’s no big deal to decide to pick up a mini, but I’m not dishing out another $3,000 until I can see the value in it. So from my point of view you’re right that it’s a performance issue.

]]>