[chrisutley]

I've never owned a DP Mac, so I'm wondering if a 1.25GHz over the 1GHz will make much of a difference in how my Mac performs from day to day when you take into account what I use it for.

I currently use a PB 667 DVI connected to a 20" ACD. I mainly do coding, listen to iTunes, and browse all day. Probably 10 hours a week I work in FCP and Photoshop.

A reconditioned 1GHz MDD can be had for as low as $1300, and that machine is no slouch:
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=6620

I know it's highly subjective, but I wonder what kind of a differences I will notice with a 1.25GHz machine.

[Leonis]

If you are going G4...go dual and never look back

Or better yet....wait til WWDC....A single CPU 970 will beat the dual G4 for sure

[spogy]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
I've never owned a DP Mac, so I'm wondering if a 1.25GHz over the 1GHz will make much of a difference in how my Mac performs from day to day when you take into account what I use it for.

I have had three DP Macs (800 DP, 867 DP and now a 1.42 DP) and I will never buy a single processor Macintosh again.

The dual processor machines really came alive in Mac OS X.

The ability to do several things at once without noticing any performance penalty has to be experienced to be appreciated.

I have been a big fan of large hard drives, large montiors and maxed out memory to allow multiple programs to run at the same time since the Mac OS 9 days. I shut down or restart my Macintosh only when an upgrade or an infrequent kernel panic forces the issue.

If you start one program, then quit it before you start another one, I believe you will never truly appreciate what Mac OS X and a dual processor machine can do for both your productivity and the enjoyment of owning a Macintosh.

For some former Mac OS 9 and Windoze users where I work, it took some time for them to see my way of computing can remove a lot of their complaints regarding waiting for their computer.

I think most people who find their computer slow are waiting for a program to do its thing and never think "if I was doing something else in a second program while the first program did its task, would I still think my computer was slow?"

When I sit in front of my Macintosh, it is always ready to work. If FileMaker is running a script (currently this program does not take advantage of dual processors), I write some email or work in Excel.

Sorry for the long post. I just want you know that Mac OS X and a dual processor Macintosh will change your life if your computing routine allows it to do so.

Spogy

[terrancew_hod]

Change your life? I doubt it.

Make certain computing experience more efficient in certain tasks? Certainly.

Just putting things in perspective...

Terrance

PS I'd wait for the 970s also.

[OreoCookie]

Change your life. Probably not. Speed up your work. Yes.

But seriously, I'd wait till the 970 comes out. Rule #1: buy computer equipment when you (desperately) need it. Worked out fine for me.

[The Placid Casual]

Change your life? No.

Speed computing things up? Yes. Probably.

I have had 3 duals in the past, dual 533, dual 800, and most recently a dual 867.

Th first 2 were great, the dual 867 was a total b*tch, got changed in the end as it was so buggy...

I used the duals for Indesign, Photoshop , Illlustrator, Quark, Databases, UNIX, compiling, coding... to me they were well worth the extra.

Although, I now use a Powerbook 12", and am very happy performance wise with what it can do... In fact I don't regret 'downgrading' to the PB.

If I were you, I would wait for a single 970 machine. It looks as if even the lowest single processor machine will cream any dual Powermac released to date... All for the price of a single processsor too...

Well worth the wait if you can.

Peace,

Marc

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by chrisutley:

I know it's highly subjective, but I wonder what kind of a differences I will notice with a 1.25GHz machine.

I think you will see a very noticable difference between the 1gigger and the 1.25, but your wallet may not appreciate the difference.
With OSX I would always want the dual cpu as it makes a very big difference in performance when multitasking. I don't know what kind of coding you are doing and how heavily you tax the machine. I would pick up the 1gig dual and save the money for that 970 or 980 depending on how long you wait.

[BrunoBruin]

Originally posted by spogy:
I have had three DP Macs (800 DP, 867 DP and now a 1.42 DP) and I will never buy a single processor Macintosh again.

Agreed! I have had a DP450, DP867 and now a DP1.25. I tend to keep a lot of things going at once and when I work on someone else's single-processor Mac, or even my PowerBook, I notice a lot more spinning beachballs when shifting between tasks.

[chrisutley]

This is the kind of feedback I was hoping for, thanks guys.

I'd love to leave beach balls behind in the Finder. I'm always using maybe 10 different apps at once, switching allot and what not. I want things to be snappy! I want windows to pop up in a snap, and of course when I'm compiling code I'd love to do other stuff. I also want iTunes to stop going silent for afew seconds now and then when I do something particularly processor/disk intensive.

[osxisfun]

you might want to wait till june 23rd. in case the g5s ship. dual 970s might change your like even more.


(assuming apple is using the 970 blah blah where there is smoke there is fire and i have zero doubt apple is going to use them)

[Commodus]

If you had to buy now, I'd definitely make the effort to get a dual-1.25 system. With the G4s of the past few years, the biggest difference has always been between the singles and duals.

Like the others, I say that you should wait until at least WWDC to see what if anything turns up. You could even wait until the CreativePro expo in July if you're patient enough.

[chrisutley]

My 667 DVI disk is at 99% full after throwing out everything possible and I really want to upgrade the RAM to 768 or 1GB.

I'm trying to be patient ... Ahhhhhhhh!

I will probably make it to the WWDC, but if nothing is released then all bets are off!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
My 667 DVI disk is at 99% full after throwing out everything possible and I really want to upgrade the RAM to 768 or 1GB.

I'm trying to be patient ... Ahhhhhhhh!

I will probably make it to the WWDC, but if nothing is released then all bets are off!

Get an external FireWire hd ...

[booboo]

My 533DP was a fantastic improvement in my computing life over the G4/733 that preceded it.

I would go for the dual processor option every time - and I will, from now on.

[Timo]

A dissenter: I've got a dual 1 gig-er, and while I appreciate the extra oomph I find it hasn't changed my life very much (and this was going from a 500mhz Pismo).

[bbt]

Originally posted by spogy:
I have had three DP Macs (800 DP, 867 DP and now a 1.42 DP) and I will never buy a single processor Macintosh again.

The dual processor machines really came alive in Mac OS X.

The ability to do several things at once without noticing any performance penalty has to be experienced to be appreciated.

I have been a big fan of large hard drives, large montiors and maxed out memory to allow multiple programs to run at the same time since the Mac OS 9 days. I shut down or restart my Macintosh only when an upgrade or an infrequent kernel panic forces the issue.

If you start one program, then quit it before you start another one, I believe you will never truly appreciate what Mac OS X and a dual processor machine can do for both your productivity and the enjoyment of owning a Macintosh.

For some former Mac OS 9 and Windoze users where I work, it took some time for them to see my way of computing can remove a lot of their complaints regarding waiting for their computer.

I think most people who find their computer slow are waiting for a program to do its thing and never think "if I was doing something else in a second program while the first program did its task, would I still think my computer was slow?"

When I sit in front of my Macintosh, it is always ready to work. If FileMaker is running a script (currently this program does not take advantage of dual processors), I write some email or work in Excel.

Sorry for the long post. I just want you know that Mac OS X and a dual processor Macintosh will change your life if your computing routine allows it to do so.

Spogy

if you have a couple of roms in your towers you can install a couple of apps at the same time

or burn, game, encode, rip, etc at the time

[chrisutley]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Get an external FireWire hd ...

I've thought about that, I'd just like to save every dime I've got to invest in a new machine. I guess I'll be doing the file shuffle at least until the WWDC ... I do have some space on the 20GB iPod so that will help.

[B.I.L]

I've got a PM dual 533, and my friend has a G4 iMac 800. These machines are fairly similar apart from the processors, and once you start trying to do 2 or 3 or more tasks at once, my PM just destroys her iMac. For example, doing a large disk-to-disk copy, playing iTunes, and web browsing or digging around in the Finder, all at once. Like was said before, I would only buy dual-processor desktop machines.

(And yes, I know PM vs. iMac is not really an even comparision, but all my other Mac-owning-OSX-running friends have laptops. So this is about the only comparision I have experience with. So jack up your post count by flaming someone else, please.)

[Leonis]

iMac always is hurt by the slower hard drive.

[Kenneth]

Originally posted by spogy:
I have had three DP Macs (800 DP, 867 DP and now a 1.42 DP) and I will never buy a single processor Macintosh again.

The dual processor machines really came alive in Mac OS X.

The ability to do several things at once without noticing any performance penalty has to be experienced to be appreciated.

I have been a big fan of large hard drives, large montiors and maxed out memory to allow multiple programs to run at the same time since the Mac OS 9 days. I shut down or restart my Macintosh only when an upgrade or an infrequent kernel panic forces the issue.

If you start one program, then quit it before you start another one, I believe you will never truly appreciate what Mac OS X and a dual processor machine can do for both your productivity and the enjoyment of owning a Macintosh.

For some former Mac OS 9 and Windoze users where I work, it took some time for them to see my way of computing can remove a lot of their complaints regarding waiting for their computer.

I think most people who find their computer slow are waiting for a program to do its thing and never think "if I was doing something else in a second program while the first program did its task, would I still think my computer was slow?"

When I sit in front of my Macintosh, it is always ready to work. If FileMaker is running a script (currently this program does not take advantage of dual processors), I write some email or work in Excel.

Sorry for the long post. I just want you know that Mac OS X and a dual processor Macintosh will change your life if your computing routine allows it to do so.

Spogy

Nicely done!

DP 1.25 FW800 is my first DP computer/Mac ever... it is superb I can say. BTW.. my older Macs are TiBook/400, iMac 233, 333, iBook 300, 800, and PowerMac 6100/60AV.

The 970 chip sounds good.. but the current G4 is enough for me so far.

[chrisutley]

I was playing on a 1.42GHz tonight, running VPC. Great googly moogly, it was FAST. VPC would open and close in like 5 seconds, incredible. It ran the apps I selected fast enough that I could use VPC day in a day out without getting frustrated.

The 1.25GHz is so close in performance I think it's a no brainer for most people, but I guess if you have the dough and a couple seconds count ...

[Cipher13]

Dunno about changing your life, but it'll be faster.

A girlfriend might change your life.

[Mac Zealot]

it'll degrade your lifestyle, make you fatter, and get you more online friends

Go for it

[Eugene Fields]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
I've never owned a DP Mac, so I'm wondering if a 1.25GHz over the 1GHz will make much of a difference in how my Mac performs from day to day when you take into account what I use it for.

I currently use a PB 667 DVI connected to a 20" ACD. I mainly do coding, listen to iTunes, and browse all day. Probably 10 hours a week I work in FCP and Photoshop.

A reconditioned 1GHz MDD can be had for as low as $1300, and that machine is no slouch:
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=6620

I know it's highly subjective, but I wonder what kind of a differences I will notice with a 1.25GHz machine.

Before my dualie I had Bullies kick Sand on me at the beach. All the girls laughed at how small it was.

After owning my 1.42 with Verax quiet, when they see me comming now they run away from me and get me Boat Drinks! The girls always say, Wholly Toledo, Get outta town, keep that tremendous thing away from me, then they ask me out LOL What a question LOL

Just installed the Verax Solution yesterday. Its the BomB!! The quiet Mac I always wanted!! 1.42's only need Lower Kit

You will see a differance

[B.I.L]

Originally posted by Leonis:
iMac always is hurt by the slower hard drive.

Not so much.

FP iMac has 7200rpm ATA/66 just like my dual 533.

[joe]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
I currently use a PB 667 DVI connected to a 20" ACD. I mainly do coding, listen to iTunes, and browse all day. Probably 10 hours a week I work in FCP and Photoshop.
<snip>
I know it's highly subjective, but I wonder what kind of a differences I will notice with a 1.25GHz machine.

A dualie will have a major advantage over a single processor for the apps you're running. But there are more bottlenecks in a notebook computer than just the cpu. You'd see an improvement even if you only upgraded to a 667Mhz G4 Tower - though not nearly as much as the dualie of course ....joe

[chrisutley]

I understand the notebook issues, but what I'm really trying to judge here is single proc 1GHz vs. a dualie 1.25GHz.

I was really surprised by the snappyness of the 1.42GHz. If the 970's aren't at least 50% faster than the 1.42GHz then I'm likely to wait and try to grab a 1.42 at a closeout price.

Originally posted by joe:
A dualie will have a major advantage over a single processor for the apps you're running. But there are more bottlenecks in a notebook computer than just the cpu. You'd see an improvement even if you only upgraded to a 667Mhz G4 Tower - though not nearly as much as the dualie of course ....joe

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
I was really surprised by the snappyness of the 1.42GHz. If the 970's aren't at least 50% faster than the 1.42GHz then I'm likely to wait and try to grab a 1.42 at a closeout price.

From the rumors I've read, the single processor 970 beats the pants over the highest dual system without the 64-bit optimizations. The larger bus has lots to do with this. I think that's why they will announce it for immediate availability; the performance is that good even in Jaguar.

I'd wait a few weeks and see how the prices fall out...hopefully the prices will be attractive enough for everyone to get one...that's what I hope apple is pushing for...

The single 1GHz system I have is very smooth even with the 100MHz bus. I have a ATI 8500, so the graphics are smooth as well. Thus I can imagine the dual systems are much smoother as well.

Terrance

[joe]

Originally posted by chrisutley:
I understand the notebook issues, but what I'm really trying to judge here is single proc 1GHz vs. a dualie 1.25GHz.

Then you glossed over my 1st sentence. To repeast - it's the "apps you're running" that dictate what kind of benefit you'll see from dual processors. In your case you will easily see a 50-80% boost from your 2nd cpu for apps like Photoshop and Final Cut Pro. This is not subjective. Check out www.xlr8yourmac.com as well as www.barefeats.com for real world benchmarks at least for Photoshop. Here's a Photoshop benchmark that should clear up any ambiguity about single vs dual processors:
http://www.barefeats.com/foto7.html

Check out the 2nd chart comparing the single 933 to a dual GHz in PS7 multiprocessor filters. The dualie is 64% faster on MP-aware filters. What's more important is the 3rd chart which is not MP-aware. The dual 1GHz is 13% faster even though it's only has a 7% faster clock speed than the single 933MHz. So you still get at least a marginal boost even for software not specifically written to use the 2nd cpu. Granted it may not seem like enough to justify the cost over a single if you're running non-dualie apps. However, you're running both FCPro and Photoshop which are explicity SMP enabled (multi-processor aware). So that's not an issue........joe

[galarneau]

My opinion on the matter is that a dual processor machine will make your computing life much better if you do one of the following:

1) Use apps that are MP aware

2) Use multiple apps simultaneously

Most of the apps I use are not MP aware, but I do tend to be doing more than one thing at a time. For example, I might be encoding some mp3's, burning a CD, working in Photoshop, constructing a web page, and listening to some music all at the same time.

With a dual processor machine the computer can spread the load over the two processors and everything will be much "smoother".

That's why I recommend a dual processor machine, even if you're not using MP aware apps... and if you are, then even better.

I think the "smoothness" factor is something that is hard to quantify in benchmarks, so it helps to see for yourself. Of course, your milage may vary depending on your work habits.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by terrancew_hod:
From the rumors I've read, the single processor 970 beats the pants over the highest dual system without the 64-bit optimizations. The larger bus has lots to do with this. I think that's why they will announce it for immediate availability; the performance is that good even in Jaguar.

I'd wait a few weeks and see how the prices fall out...hopefully the prices will be attractive enough for everyone to get one...that's what I hope apple is pushing for...

The single 1GHz system I have is very smooth even with the 100MHz bus. I have a ATI 8500, so the graphics are smooth as well. Thus I can imagine the dual systems are much smoother as well.

Terrance

There is no 1GHz G4 with only a 100MHz bus, apart from third party upgrades.

[businezguy]

I have an iBook and a Dual 1 GHZ. While my iBook offers adequate sound, I find that it doesn't multitask well enough for my needs.

When I need to get some work done, or multitask, I work on my dualie. The different is night and day.

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
There is no 1GHz G4 with only a 100MHz bus, apart from third party upgrades.

**sigh**.

I believe I was talking about my machine setup and my impressions of running the operating system with that setup; not the existence of an original 1GHz powermac with a 100MHz bus.

I said my setup with a 1GHz processor is pretty smooth even with the slower bus, so the dual systems should be better. No need to over-analyze what I said more that it should be.

Terrance

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
There is no 1GHz G4 with only a 100MHz bus, apart from third party upgrades.

Heheh.
I'm suprised you didn't also take a swing at the '64-bit optimizations' comment... there's still time... have at him

[terrancew_hod]

Originally posted by dfiler:
Heheh.
I'm suprised you didn't also take a swing at the '64-bit optimizations' comment... there's still time... have at him

Please don't encourage him

He could have really kept that first comment to himself in the first place...

Terrance

[galarneau]

Originally posted by terrancew_hod:
Please don't encourage him

He could have really kept that first comment to himself in the first place...

Terrance

Hey, you don't get a 15,000 post count by posting only germane comments.

So.... you gonna go for the dualie or what?

[chrisutley]

So I wait for the WWDC and see if anything interesting happens. If not, a the 1.25GHz looks to be a safe selection. I can run it for a year or so while you clowns break in the new Macs, then I'll turn the 1.25GHz into a server and gets me a 970.

[dfbennett]

Originally posted by galarneau:
My opinion on the matter is that a dual processor machine will make your computing life much better if you do one of the following:

1) Use apps that are MP aware

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under OS X, aren't ALL apps running natively MP aware? Furthermore, classic is MP aware so even classic non MP aware apps would see a benefit from MP in OS X.

[dfiler]

All apps are MP 'aware'. They also bennefit from having background tasks sent to the least busy CPU. However, apps must be properly multi-threaded to actually use both processors at the same time. Cocoa UIs run in their own thread but computational code specific to each program is usually contained in a single thread. Big-name consumer/professional apps are the most likely to be multi-threaded as they are supported by larger development budgets.

[joe]

Originally posted by dfbennett:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under OS X, aren't ALL apps running natively MP aware?

No. You will see definitely see a benefit when multitasking in OSX on a dual processor Mac - although I've recently noticed even that advantage tends to diminish slightly with the latest 1.3GHz+ single processor upgrades. However, for individual apps that are not explicitly SMP-enabled you will only get a marginal increase in performance at best from dual processors. In the case of the original poster, both PhotoShop and FinalCutPro are true SMP programs and will be significantly faster (roughly 64% in benchmarks) on dual processor Macs compared to single processors of the same speed. So while there may be some debate on whether to spend the extra money on a dualie in some cases, PhotoShop and FCPro users will reap major benefits from going with a dual processor Mac.

Furthermore, classic is MP aware so even classic non MP aware apps would see a benefit from MP in OS X.

If by "Classic" you mean running OS9 from within OSX then you will still get the benefit of improved multitasking with a dual processor. But if you boot into OS9 instead the 2nd cpu isn't used at all by the OS. So you only get a performance boost if the app is written for dual processors. At least OSX will try to use the 2nd cpu even if the apps aren't witten to use dualies. regards......joe

[Dogma]

Surpirised no-one's said it...

Change your life? Maybe.

Change you bank balance? oh yes indeedy!

Seriously, my advice. This close to what we call "Apple season" - the summer months when new stuff comes out, Iwould at least wait until WWDC. If machines come out, great. If they don't - oh well. If they come out and are pretty poor (as they are almost certainly "new" machines) then at least the old models will be majorly discounted.

In fact, my advice to everyone contemplating and salivating over the new G5 - even if they arrive - remember they are a NEW processor line. Does anyone remember the first G4's? It took until about the third revision to get everything right. Wait for someone to plunge in and review it - don't base it on Steve-J's hypefest. No matter how much you want a new breakneck speed machine, the last thing you wanna do is buy a donkey....

(Not wanting to sound negative, but I know a lot of peoples credit cards are itchy, so be careful)

[proux]

I really hope Apple will release duals as soon as possible. My next computer will be a dual Powermac or a single laptop...