Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Salty · Mar 7, 2011, 06:46 PM

So I FINALLY got my i7 13 inch today, and this thing is amazing! I've been playing around in Photoshop CS5 working on a project that I hadn't wanted to because my old comp was feeling so sluggish, this thing flies!

The only lag I've been noticing has to do with IO, I've been watching the processor cores in Activity Monitor's dock icon and I haven't noticed these things go over half way up!

I can't wait until I put an SSD in this thing and fix all the IO hickups and then it'll be like the most perfect and sexy computer ever!

(I should say I'm upgrading from a 2Ghz Core Duo)

sdilley14 · Mar 7, 2011, 06:53 PM

What was your last system? I'm still on my refurb MacBook Pro that I bought back in the summer of 2007 (2.16 C2D, 2GB, 120GB). I'm one of those people that always has to have the latest and greatest in technology, but I just haven't found a justifiable reason to sell this because it still runs so damn well!

ajprice · Mar 8, 2011, 03:23 AM

I have a big gap between new macs too, I've gone from Performa to G4 to MacBook and the plan this year is to get something with an i processor in it once Lion is released. The MacBook will be kept and see duty as a HTPC, probably with a new hard drive in it.

freudling · Mar 8, 2011, 04:39 AM

Just wait after 5 or 6 months of use for OS X to slow down. Typical "new system" phenomena. Sorry to be a killjoy.

OreoCookie · Mar 8, 2011, 05:03 AM

It's not OS X that slows down, it's you getting used to the newfound speed.

P · Mar 8, 2011, 05:13 AM

If the OS slows down after a few months, you're doing something wrong.

I have upgraded every 5 years for quite some time. That is much more than most do, and probably not ideal, but in each case it just happened that way because I was waiting for a specific upgrade or because a certain upgrade that came along was a huge step forward. First this was the slotloader iMacs (back when you could read MOSR to know exactly what was coming down the pipe), then the first G5 iMacs (increased performance with a price cut? Sold!) and now the first i7 (first desktop Intel chips, first quadcore, first IMC and a GPU that at least registered on the scale of gaming GPUs at the time). I'll probably do the same next time, but I'll have to bite the bullet and disassemble the iMac to put in an SSD at some point.

Salty · Mar 8, 2011, 05:43 AM

I had a 333Mhz iMac, then a 900Mhz iBook, then the logic board kept going so we paid the diff to get a 1Ghz 12 inch PowerBook. After that I had that for three years before getting a 2Ghz Core Duo (just before the Core2s came out but I needed it for college and the PowerBook was being flaky... turned out to be the AirPort card)

I'll be honest though, up until recently I always felt that the 2Ghz machine was fast enough. Granted most of the time I was maxing out the processor, but at the same time I rarely keep too many apps open, and my biggest performance hit was coming

Oisín · Mar 8, 2011, 06:03 AM

and my biggest performance hit was coming

Uhh, what? TMI.

Or post unexpectedly ended.

sdilley14 · Mar 8, 2011, 06:19 AM

I've had my MBP for close to 4 years now and I haven't noticed any real speed/performance hit at all really. I usually run Onyx or some similar program every 3-4 months to do routine "cleaning" and preventative maintenance.

As far as when I'll upgrade...it will likely be sometimes after Lion comes out when I can get a refurb system.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 8, 2011, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by P

the slotloader iMacs (back when you could read MOSR to know exactly what was coming down the pipe)

IIRC, it was apparent even then that Ryan Meader was a total nimrod with a less-than-stellar track record.

ThinkSecret was the cool site.

P · Mar 8, 2011, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

IIRC, it was apparent even then that Ryan Meader was a total nimrod with a less-than-stellar track record.

ThinkSecret was the cool site.

MOSR had the specs of the slotloading iMacs exactly right, including the rather long shot iSub. They were also correct about the upcoming OS updates - the real drop into insanity came later.

Big Mac · Mar 8, 2011, 08:36 AM

Yeah, I think SH is being too hard on Meader. MOSR was a daily read for me back in 1996 or so.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 8, 2011, 11:01 AM

I don't think I'm being hard on Meader. (he also didn't take over the domain until 1997.)

I may be wrong about the timeframe, though.

P · Mar 8, 2011, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

I don't think I'm being hard on Meader. (he also didn't take over the domain until 1997.)

I may be wrong about the timeframe, though.

That's probably fair. MOSR was based on hardware rumors of things coming down the pipe fairly soon and leaked betas of Classic Mac OS. My guess is that Meader had one contact with some insight into future hardware and then lost this contact and had to start guessing. He was absolutely correct in the era I'm talking about, however.

Eug · 02:43 PM

From a bang for the buck point of view, I found one way of not overspending on hardware while still being able to have very recent machines is to get a new refurb every year, just before the AppleCare runs out.

ie. Wait 3-6 months after a new release, then buy a refurb of that, and then buy a new refurb of the next gen in 10-11 months time.

I have done this with laptops from time to time. I generally try to keep the machines for longer though, because switching machines every year and selling the old one every time is a PITA.

Plus, it only works if there is actually a new machine to buy. Sometimes Apple's product cycle doesn't cooperate. And this method works best with low priced hardware. Don't expect to get great craigslist sale prices with top-of-the-line hardware.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's not OS X that slows down, it's you getting used to the newfound speed.

Originally Posted by P

If the OS slows down after a few months, you're doing something wrong.

I disagree. I find a new install almost always feels faster than the same machine after being used for a few months. And then if you reinstall the OS without all the extra software you've installed in those months, it feels faster again.

Don Pickett · Mar 8, 2011, 02:49 PM

Every four years? Bunch of spoiled brats.

I went from a Pismo to a G5 (five years) to a Mac Pro (six and half years!) So long as the machine continues to be useful for day-to-day stuff, there's just no reason for me to upgrade.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 8, 2011, 02:55 PM

FWIW, I upgraded my September 2006 Core 2 Duo Blackbook to a new i7 13" MacBook Pro.

I am very, very, very pleased with the upgrade.

My MacBook was starting to fail - Firewire apparently had a wonky pin that would cause my audio interface to lose sync and conk out on outgoing streams only (any inputs/recordings etc would continue to work fine), while the display was developing all the symptoms of a failing cable (closing display more than 90° would kill the backlight, and wobbling slightly would flicker it back on). It served me well.

Eug · Mar 8, 2011, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Every four years? Bunch of spoiled brats.

I went from a Pismo to a G5 (five years) to a Mac Pro (six and half years!) So long as the machine continues to be useful for day-to-day stuff, there's just no reason for me to upgrade.

I upgraded from a G3 iBook 600 (faster than the Pismo, and purchased in 2001), to a G4 PowerBook after just one year, because I thought the G3 iBook was painfully slow. PAINFULLY.

Don Pickett · Mar 8, 2011, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I upgraded from a G3 iBook 600 (faster than the Pismo, and purchased in 2001), to a G4 PowerBook after just one year, because I thought the G3 iBook was painfully slow. PAINFULLY.

I had the opposite experience: stuffed with 1GB of RAM, I was surprised how long it remained viable. The G4s of the time were so hampered by Motorola's lack of clue, and their anemic frontside bus, that the Pismo wasn't too bad by comparison. It was only when the G5s came out that I started to see machines which were impressively faster.

Eug · Mar 8, 2011, 03:15 PM

Well, I used the thing to encode video. The G3 was completely useless at that. Altivec made a huge difference.

Plus, were you still using OS 9 in 2001? I was using OS X exclusively. I absolutely despised OS 9. There was a distinct advantage to having a G4 over a G3 when using OS X. That and the fact that Apple's 2001+ G4s were mostly faster clocked anyway than their G3 offerings.

Don Pickett · Mar 8, 2011, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Well, I used the thing to encode video. The G3 was completely useless at that. Altivec made a huge difference.

Using a laptop to encode video? Are you a masochist?

Plus, were you still using OS 9 in 2001? I was using OS X exclusively. I absolutely despised OS 9. There was a distinct advantage to having a G4 over a G3 when using OS X.

I was on OS X. That's why the 1GB of RAM was important. Made the difference between a usable machine and a black paperweight.

dav · Mar 8, 2011, 03:19 PM

still running a powermac g5. it's slow these days, but i'm also getting left behind in software. waiting for an imac refresh w/lion.

Eug · Mar 8, 2011, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Using a laptop to encode video? Are you a masochist?

Sez the guy who toiled away on a G3 for his primary machine, during the G4 OS X era.

Originally Posted by dav

still running a powermac g5. it's slow these days, but i'm also getting left behind in software. waiting for an imac refresh w/lion.

Hell, even owning an older Intel Mac can be a problem for software compatibility these days.

sek929 · Mar 8, 2011, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Every four years? Bunch of spoiled brats.

I went from a Pismo to a G5 (five years) to a Mac Pro (six and half years!) So long as the machine continues to be useful for day-to-day stuff, there's just no reason for me to upgrade.

My Rev D iMac only had a 2-year lifespan, but I flogged my PowerMac G4 for seven years before upgrading. I'm still surprised how well it browses the web, with Click2Flash taking care of those annoying ads of course. A real workhorse.

Don Pickett · Mar 8, 2011, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Sez the guy who toiled away on a G3 for his primary machine, during the G4 OS X era.

The G4s were pretty anemic, tho: a single 1.8 GHz G5 is faster than dual 1.42GHz G4. Slow bus/memory will do that do you.

Eug · Mar 8, 2011, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

The G4s were pretty anemic, tho: a single 1.8 GHz G5 is faster than dual 1.42GHz G4. Slow bus/memory will do that do you.

It depends. In general I agree, though.

However, I don't think any of the Power Macs should have been single G5s, in retrospect, cuz even at that time, a single G5 wasn't that fast overall (just faster than prior Power Macs).

It seemed odd to me that my G5 iMac competed favourably with the much, much higher priced Power Macs.

Salty · Mar 8, 2011, 04:16 PM

Sorry for the abrupt ending... must have seen something shiny... like my new Macbook!

Anyway, I love that Activity Monitor is showing me four cores... I keep feeling like I have a Quad Core machine

I seriously haven't been able to tax this thing since I got it. I was doing a bunch of Photoshop and Dreamweaver stuff that would have made my old one cry, and there wasn't so much as a hickup! I love this computer!

Eug · Mar 8, 2011, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

Anyway, I love that Activity Monitor is showing me four cores... I keep feeling like I have a Quad Core machine

What's even more important is that you'll get actual usage out of those "four" cores. HyperThreading really works.

However, only up to a point. I have a quad-core - virtual 8-core - 2.93 GHz i7 iMac, and it's often tough to max the CPU out.

Law of diminishing returns I guess.

Speaking of which... Apple config'd this rig with 2 x 4 GB, even though my prior machine (which they replaced under warranty) had 4 x 2 GB. That means I have room left for lots more memory for upgrades. However, I have no real use for more than 8 GB at this point.

Salty · Mar 8, 2011, 04:55 PM

Honestly the four gigs of RAM I've got now make this machine pretty splendid! Though I plan on maxing it out to 8 gigs of RAM once summer comes. I think it'll cost me a little over a hundred bucks right now, so I'm gonna wait until that comes down a bit.

Scheduled upgrades include an SSD in the optical drive bay, a 7200 RPM drive once I get the replacement from Samsung for the failed drive I had. Though if that one fails again I might just pony up for a Seagate drive that has 4gigs of flash memory on it because that should speed up the times I need things from the HDD.

After all that's done, I'll save for a bit, and then I'll have to decide if I want to get a big ass monitor, or a small TV to use as a monitor. Both will be running 1080 (I'm not paying Apple's price for their display). If I get the monitor I'm hoping to get one with Audio out so that I can just plug in a Thunderbolt to HDMI cable and have my non-Airport audio stream to it.

Don Pickett · Mar 8, 2011, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

What's even more important is that you'll get actual usage out of those "four" cores. HyperThreading really works.

However, only up to a point. I have a quad-core - virtual 8-core - 2.93 GHz i7 iMac, and it's often tough to max the CPU out.

Law of diminishing returns I guess.

Hyperthreading works well on programs which are doing a lot of heavily serialized work: running the same, or similar data, through the CPU and changing it. In the case the machine can pump the data through and the CPU can take care of core scheduling. The funny thing is that this describes almost all games, yet there are almost no games out there which will use multiple cores.

That means I have room left for lots more memory for upgrades. However, I have no real use for more than 8 GB at this point.

The only reason I'm thinking about more than 8GB is to run virtual machines.

P · 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Hyperthreading works well on programs which are doing a lot of heavily serialized work: running the same, or similar data, through the CPU and changing it. In the case the machine can pump the data through and the CPU can take care of core scheduling.

HT is ideal when multiple threads do different types of tasks - one thread with lots of branchy integer code, and another with FPU and vector work - but even with a non-ideal mix, HT can add quite some performance for later cores. Eug has a point though - it is not very common that you need more than 4 threads today, partially because quadcores with HT are so rare that it doesn't make much sense to optimize for them. That may change with Bulldozer.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

The funny thing is that this describes almost all games, yet there are almost no games out there which will use multiple cores.

That used to be true, but many newer games make very good use of multiple threads. Civ V is a very good example of a game that used to be heavily serialized but now makes good use of 4 cores. 2 cores was a big win directly, in the last few years 3 cores have been the most bang for buck in gaming, and in the latest tests, 4 cores seems like the best option.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

The G4s were pretty anemic, tho: a single 1.8 GHz G5 is faster than dual 1.42GHz G4. Slow bus/memory will do that do you.

Depended on the workload - two threads of branchy integer code would run way faster on the G4s, especially if it could stay in the L3 cache - but in general I agree with you. For floating point code, the G5 was the fastest chip on the market in its day. Too bad Apple didn't pay for that big L2 cache.

Thorzdad · Mar 8, 2011, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Every four years? Bunch of spoiled brats.

I went from a Pismo to a G5 (five years) to a Mac Pro (six and half years!) So long as the machine continues to be useful for day-to-day stuff, there's just no reason for me to upgrade.

Pffft. I went from a PowerCenter 150 to a 2x2 G5. And in that same move, I also went from a 14" crt to a 24" Cinema HD Display. I couldn't get the grin off my face for a month

Don Pickett · 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by P

That used to be true, but many newer games make very good use of multiple threads. Civ V is a very good example of a game that used to be heavily serialized but now makes good use of 4 cores. 2 cores was a big win directly, in the last few years 3 cores have been the most bang for buck in gaming, and in the latest tests, 4 cores seems like the best option.

Inneresting. I've never played Civ, so I haven't seen it. I do use X-Plane, which is rapidly move to using as many cores as you can throw at it. But CoD:MW2 definitely ain't using multiple cores.

Too bad Apple didn't pay for that big L2 cache.

The G5, lovely as it is, really was a last-minute hack by Apple and IBM to try and keep the PPC platform viable.

mattyb · Mar 9, 2011, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Sorry for the abrupt ending... must have seen something shiny... like my new Macbook!

Anyway, I love that Activity Monitor is showing me four cores... I keep feeling like I have a Quad Core machine

I seriously haven't been able to tax this thing since I got it. I was doing a bunch of Photoshop and Dreamweaver stuff that would have made my old one cry, and there wasn't so much as a hickup! I love this computer!

Originally Posted by Salty

Honestly the four gigs of RAM I've got now make this machine pretty splendid! Though I plan on maxing it out to 8 gigs of RAM once summer comes. I think it'll cost me a little over a hundred bucks right now, so I'm gonna wait until that comes down a bit.

Scheduled upgrades include an SSD in the optical drive bay, a 7200 RPM drive once I get the replacement from Samsung for the failed drive I had. Though if that one fails again I might just pony up for a Seagate drive that has 4gigs of flash memory on it because that should speed up the times I need things from the HDD.

After all that's done, I'll save for a bit, and then I'll have to decide if I want to get a big ass monitor, or a small TV to use as a monitor. Both will be running 1080 (I'm not paying Apple's price for their display). If I get the monitor I'm hoping to get one with Audio out so that I can just plug in a Thunderbolt to HDMI cable and have my non-Airport audio stream to it.

Seeing this, makes me wonder about the necessity of having the MDP 15" with 1G of VRAM for my Aperture usage. I reckon that the 256M VRAM and slightly slower 15 incher will be fine.

Don Pickett · Mar 9, 2011, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Thorzdad

Pffft. I went from a PowerCenter 150 to a 2x2 G5. And in that same move, I also went from a 14" crt to a 24" Cinema HD Display. I couldn't get the grin off my face for a month

Before the Pismo I had a IIcx. . .

Thorzdad · Mar 9, 2011, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Before the Pismo I had a IIcx. . .

Yeah...well...before the PowerCenter I had a...a...calculator! And a notepad! And a pencil! And...and...no sharpener!

The Final Dakar · Mar 9, 2011, 10:51 AM

I upgraded from a dull pencil to a sharpened pencil. I find my graphics now look crisper.

Big Mac · Mar 9, 2011, 10:55 AM

What's your DPI?

The Final Dakar · Mar 9, 2011, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What's your DPI?

N/A. Pencils function like Vector Graphics.

Don Pickett · Mar 9, 2011, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I upgraded from a dull pencil to a sharpened pencil. I find my graphics now look crisper.

Postscript v0.0.1.

SSharon · Mar 9, 2011, 11:34 AM

PowerMac 7100/66 (1994)
PowerMac G3/266 (1998)
MDD 2x1ghz (2002)
[iBook 1.2ghz (2004)] - not primary machine
MacBookPro 2.2ghz (2009)

I have a pretty spread out and consistent upgrade path with 4 years between computers. The ibook throws things off as I considered my MDD my main computer until I got the MBP. That was a nice jump.

Oisín · Mar 9, 2011, 04:30 PM

My first real hardware upgrade was from an old ‘portable’ IBM machine (it was a 16 MHz 386 with 4 MB RAM and 20 MB hard drive, and it ran Windows 3.1 sort of usably) to what I think was a Vega+ laptop, which was a 1.9 GHz Pentium 4 with 512 MB RAM and I think 40 GB hard drive.

The former was from 1989 or thereabouts; the latter was from 2001. The difference was definitely noticeable.

(I’d been using my dad’s machine for a few years during high school to write papers and stuff, but it was never my machine, so it doesn’t really count as an upgrade)

Salty · Mar 10, 2011, 05:34 AM

I'm trying to think of a project that could actually task my new Mac somewhat, I'm thinking of ripping a DVD in handbrake just to see how quick it would go.

mattyb · Mar 10, 2011, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

I'm trying to think of a project that could actually task my new Mac somewhat, I'm thinking of ripping a DVD in handbrake just to see how quick it would go.

Install a game from Steam.

Don Pickett · Mar 10, 2011, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by mattyb

Install a game from Steam.

I play CoD:MW2 in Steam, using Crossover Games. Doesn't really tax the machine that much.

Salty · Mar 11, 2011, 06:29 AM

I don't get the point of buying a computer to play video games... if I want to do that I'll do it on a console where if the developers haven't optimized the game to run I can bitch at them. PC games tend to gravitate toward useless levels of detail that don't even look good. (or realistic) No need to support that market.

P · Mar 11, 2011, 07:44 AM

Two reasons:

1) Mouse & Keyboard is still far superior as a control method in most genres.
2) Certain genres of games (specifically strategy games) are all but unplayable on consoles

Note that if you drop the resolution to 1280*720 (what the consoles can manage), you can almost get by with integrated graphics.

mattyb · Mar 11, 2011, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by P

Two reasons:

1) Mouse & Keyboard is still far superior as a control method in most genres.
2) Certain genres of games (specifically strategy games) are all but unplayable on consoles

Very true. FPSes can be played on consoles, but using a mouse to aim is sooooo much easier. I chose to go the console route after seeing too many cheats/wallhackers on PC.

I've never seen anyone play something like Starcraft on a console.

P · Mar 11, 2011, 11:18 AM

I think Nintendo released Starcraft for the Gamecube. The setup was a split screen, with the top half being player one and the bottom half being player two. Good luck setting up a surprise attack...

Don Pickett · Mar 11, 2011, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I don't get the point of buying a computer to play video games... if I want to do that I'll do it on a console where if the developers haven't optimized the game to run I can bitch at them. PC games tend to gravitate toward useless levels of detail that don't even look good. (or realistic) No need to support that market.

Two reasons. One, I'm not a very serious gamer. Aside from Mah Jong on my iPod, the only games I play are CoD:MW2 and X-Plane. It doesn't make financial sense for me to buy a console, as it wouldn't get much use.

Two, the game/sim I use the most is X-Plane, and you can't do flight sims on consoles, as they don't have the horsepower. The PS3 and X-Box are running on the equivalent of 1995/6 CPUs and GPUs, which can't hold a candle to CPU and GPU in my machine.