[JKT]

Originally Posted by toddtmw

Yes, the Logitech people were very helpful when I asked about new drivers. This is what they had to say: <snip>

You can force System Preferences to run using the PPC version of the Universal Binary (I think you can change the setting in the Get Info pane) which will give you access to PPC only preference panes. I don't know if that will allow you to set the buttons on your logitech or not, but you could give it a go...

From today's www.macfixit.com:

Getting non-native Preference panes to run As we previously noted, preference panes with PowerPC-code cannot run on Intel-based Macs, as the System Preferences application launches (by default) in Intel-mode.

You can, however, force the System Preferences application to run under Rosetta (navigate to /Applications, click on the System Preferences icon, go to Get Info and check "Run with Rosetta") in order to access such Preference panes on your Intel-based Mac.

MacFixIt reader Stéphane has put this workaround into practice, and notes:

"In this case, the native will not run any more, but it's a workaround. You can probably make a copy of the 'System Preferences' application, for PPC Prefpanes only; and leave the original for the native ones."

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Maybe the new one will make the binary even more native than the last release.

Well, in this version, they made the front-end run Intel native, so that should help...

-Todd

[ciparis]

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

Ok so the thread has swayed way from what the tittle suggests but. I have Just got my Intel iMac, and didn't realise that I would need new drivers for my Logitech MX1000 mouse, the thumb buttons ect no longer working So in there any word from Logitech on updated drivers, or on any third party drivers (like USB Overdrive).

USB Overdrive has now been updated:
http://www.usboverdrive.com/USBOverdrive/News.html

I've been running it for a couple of days -- seems terrific. I'm using it with a Logitech G5 (which never had Mac drivers to begin with), and while I've lost the ability to shift resolutions on the fly (for the moment), I can instead reassign those buttons to anything else that I want, which is very handy on this mouse which otherwise has fewer buttons than usual available.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by ciparis

USB Overdrive has now been updated:
http://www.usboverdrive.com/USBOverdrive/News.html

I've been running it for a couple of days -- seems terrific.

Very good news about USB overdrive, and it couldn't have come at a better time, since I'm just now setting up my Intel iMac. Now I can use the other buttons on my Logitech mouse.

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by ravenz

Ok, the setup copying procedure is done (2 1/2 hours!).

"Please wait while Setup initializes your Windows XP configuration."

It's been here for about 5 minutes (not frozen because I see loading status changes on the bottom of the screen).

Well, I'm using the 2.0.1 version and it DOES seem faster. It finished the "copy" part in about an hour on my 20" amd it is "intalling" now. (I have the screen telling me all the cool stuff about XP and the 39 minute estimate to complete the install. (Same 39 minutes it gives on every iinstall I've ever done, whether, it actually takes 30 or 300 minutes.)

I'll post more as it progresses, but so far, it DOES seem that this version is faster than what Ravenz was seeing with the previous version. (And I'm still only running with 512MB).

-todd

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by toddtmw

Well, I'm using the 2.0.1 version and it DOES seem faster. It finished the "copy" part in about an hour on my 20" amd it is "intalling" now. (I have the screen telling me all the cool stuff about XP and the 39 minute estimate to complete the install. (Same 39 minutes it gives on every iinstall I've ever done, whether, it actually takes 30 or 300 minutes.)

I'll post more as it progresses, but so far, it DOES seem that this version is faster than what Ravenz was seeing with the previous version. (And I'm still only running with 512MB).

-todd

Well, I've run into some problems. The Windows XP install fails shortly after starting and tells me that there is some sort of catalog error. So, I tried to install Windows 98. But my Windows 98 disk is not a bootable disk, so I have to boot from the freedos disk they provided. It seems to have trouble booting something to himem, which I think is why the Windows 98 install fails right off the bat saying I need 16 meg to install Windows. (Even though I gave it 64 meg). I have an image of a windows startup disk, but it's nit exactly the right size and Wintel won't let me use it. I have a Windows startup disk that I burned to a CD to use in computers without a floppy, but it won't boot from that either.

I really DO think that this version would be faster, but I cannot get an install to work. I have an ME install disk, but it's only an upgrade disk and I do not know if I will be able to get past the check for a previous system. Maybe I can boot from that and get dos installed on my "hard drive" to get it bootable. I play around with it and see what I can do...

-Todd

[ravenz]

Originally Posted by toddtmw

I'll post more as it progresses, but so far, it DOES seem that this version is faster than what Ravenz was seeing with the previous version. (And I'm still only running with 512MB).

Yeah, 2.0.1 is faster...I guess. Windows XP went from booting in about 15 minutes to booting in about 5 minutes. Both are unusable. I upgraded my RAM today to 1.5GB and gave WinTel a 512MB allocation.

I think I'll have to wait for iEmulator, which uses QEMU. The developer said that current tests on the Intel iMac are very promising. An update to iEmulator is expected next month.

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by ravenz

Yeah, 2.0.1 is faster...I guess. Windows XP went from booting in about 15 minutes to booting in about 5 minutes. Both are unusable. I upgraded my RAM today to 1.5GB and gave WinTel a 512MB allocation.

I think I'll have to wait for iEmulator, which uses QEMU. The developer said that current tests on the Intel iMac are very promising. An update to iEmulator is expected next month.

Well, I couldn't get XP to install in "optimized" mode, so I had to turn that off. I left it installing all night and when I got up this monring, it wanted me to do the time zone stuff, now it's installing and it still sayd it wants 33 minutes to complete.

Plus, there's the added fun that every time I hit the shift key five times (while typing in other apps...like this web page...) it pops up the stickey keys dialog in Bochs. (not tapping it five times in a row, but every time I hit it to capitalize a word, or get a symbol, that counts...five of those and it asks if I want to turn on sticky keys...while the installer is running!) Which can't be helping the speed issue.

Finally, optimized or not, this app never gets above 98% of the CPU. But, it seems to be keeping them both at around 50%, so it appears to be hitting both CPU's. I don't know why it doesn't get closer to 200%. Seems like that would help.

[handras]

i've added the PM D core 2.3 results to the intel vs g5 tests. The tests of the Intel iMac 20'' will be ready too soon.

English version:

http://web.mac.com/handras/iWeb/Site/intel1eng.html

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by JKT

You can force System Preferences to run using the PPC version of the Universal Binary (I think you can change the setting in the Get Info pane) which will give you access to PPC only preference panes. I don't know if that will allow you to set the buttons on your logitech or not, but you could give it a go...

From today's www.macfixit.com:

Getting non-native Preference panes to run As we previously noted, preference panes with PowerPC-code cannot run on Intel-based Macs, as the System Preferences application launches (by default) in Intel-mode.

You can, however, force the System Preferences application to run under Rosetta (navigate to /Applications, click on the System Preferences icon, go to Get Info and check "Run with Rosetta") in order to access such Preference panes on your Intel-based Mac.

MacFixIt reader Stéphane has put this workaround into practice, and notes:

"In this case, the native will not run any more, but it's a workaround. You can probably make a copy of the 'System Preferences' application, for PPC Prefpanes only; and leave the original for the native ones."

This doesn't work. Apparently, macfixit posts articles based on conjecture, rather than experience. The System Preferences app does not list the "Open using Rosetta" checkbox under get info.

I guess I could split it and create an Intel version and a PPC version, but I doubt it would help as I imagine most apps that require preference panes also use Kernel Extensions which wouldn't work either...

-Todd

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by handras

i've added the PM D core 2.3 results to the intel vs g5 tests. The tests of the Intel iMac 20'' will be ready too soon.

English version:

http://web.mac.com/handras/iWeb/Site/intel1eng.html

Thanks for the work. The headings are still wrong though. eg. "Handbrake - Time in seconds, longer bars are better"

[rboisjoly]

Even running 2.0.1, on a 1 Gig iMac Intel, its still too slow to use. Really really slow. I have no idea how you guys got it to be so fast! Really, it took 48 hours to install and configure XP Pro!

Can you share your settings in WinTel? Perhaps mine are way off? Although I,ve used their recommendations.

I did get XP installed, but the graphics are screwy. It boots in a number of minutes (probably 10 or so).

I'll be trying 98 soon to see how much faster it can be.

But I still say its false advertizing to claim near-native performance. To me, native = speed of a PC running the Core Duo chip... but they do not offer refunds... sh*t

[rboisjoly]

Bug in browser, sorry for the multi-post...

[rboisjoly]

Even running 2.0.1, on a 1 Gig iMac Intel, its still too slow to use. Really really slow. I have no idea how you guys got it to be so fast! Really, it took 48 hours to install and configure XP Pro!

Can you share your settings in WinTel? Perhaps mine are way off? Although I,ve used their recommendations.

I did get XP installed, but the graphics are screwy. It boots in a number of minutes (probably 10 or so).

I'll be trying 98 soon to see how much faster it can be.

But I still say its false advertizing to claim near-native performance. To me, native = speed of a PC running the Core Duo chip... but they do not offer refunds... sh*t

[rboisjoly]

Even running 2.0.1, on a 1 Gig iMac Intel, its still too slow to use. Really really slow. I have no idea how you guys got it to be so fast! Really, it took 48 hours to install and configure XP Pro!

Can you share your settings in WinTel? Perhaps mine are way off? Although I,ve used their recommendations.

I did get XP installed, but the graphics are screwy. It boots in a number of minutes (probably 10 or so).

I'll be trying 98 soon to see how much faster it can be.

But I still say its false advertizing to claim near-native performance. To me, native = speed of a PC running the Core Duo chip... but they do not offer refunds... sh*t

[rboisjoly]

Bug in browser, sorry for the multi-post...

[handras]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Thanks for the work. The headings are still wrong though. eg. "Handbrake - Time in seconds, longer bars are better"

Oops, thanks! Corrected.

[handras]

i've added the 20" iMac core duo results to the intel vs g5 tests.

http://web.mac.com/handras/iWeb/Site/intel1eng.html

[handras]

double post..

[handras]

double post..

[cory5412]

Whoa! What an epic thread.

Aside from the virtualization-of-Windows portions, I think that this thread has positively impacted my desire to upgrade to an iMac coreDuo. I want to get the 17" version, and I will be ordering it with one 1gig stick of ram, along with the modem and iwork 06.

This machine will be directly replacing my PowerBook G4 15" 1GHz (Ti), and while I don't travel with my mac that often... I was wondering if anybody has any experience with any of the various iMac toting solutions that seem to exist. Primarily, I am interested in that iLugger (and I think that there was something else from another company called memorysolutions or something like that.)

It is obvious that the iMac coreDuo boots up fast enough to be useable in a portable situation like this, but how much does it weigh, (the 17" model) and [pending arrival of the ilugger case], how easy might it be to (for example) carry the machine (in the case) on a school bus and around a high school. (on the off chance that I would need or want a desktop computer in one of my classes... and please don't laugh or say that it's impossible, because it has happened before, and I have lugged a powerMac G3 on the school bus and back before.)

Also, [since my PowerBook will be gone prior to my purchase of the iMac], what would be the best thing to do with photos that come from my digital camera between now and when Apple releases the universalbinary version of Aperture? How does iPhoto '06 compare to Aperture and to iPhoto '05?

Thanks in advance!
~Cory

[jwoods]

According to the apple site, the 17" weighs in at 15.5 lbs. The 20" comes in at 22 lbs. They are not exactly small, and with the weight, I doubt anyone would want to carry them around for any amount of time. I wouldn't anyway. YMMV.

[iMacfan]

I'd worry about the LCD being very unprotected - also, dare I say it, some people think the full size iPod is too big to carry around!

David.

[cory5412]

Originally Posted by iMacfan

I'd worry about the LCD being very unprotected - also, dare I say it, some people think the full size iPod is too big to carry around!

David.

Hmm... yeah, Supposedly the iLugger back provides sufficient protection, they say that you could even take the iLugger (with an imac in it) on a plane as carry-on luggate, IIRC. I wouldn't dare carry the imac out of my own house or dorm room prior to getting one of the imac carrying cases.

[macintologist]

I'm ordering the iMac about a week from now

[cos]

I was very impressed by the new Intel IMac and almost convinced to get one, but I'm an Adobe CS2 Suite user (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) and my question is, excepting Photoshop, do you guys have any idea how the other two are working on the new Intel Core Duo? Thanks!

[nycks1]

Hi, Everyone. I'm new to this forum and looking for some advice. I'm a photography and I want to swich to Mac. How does PhotoshopCS2 run on the new IntelMacs and your advice on get the IntelMac or G5. Thanks inadvance

[Stefdar]

Don't.
Regardless of the benchmarks, the actual use of the CS2 suite is quite dissapointing.
Numbers maybe OK, but menu lags, weird errors and slowness make me want to send the 20" back and get a G5 again. And I don't see Adobe producing CS3 any time soon (probably end of 2006).

[ururk]

Originally Posted by Stefdar

Don't.
Regardless of the benchmarks, the actual use of the CS2 suite is quite dissapointing.
Numbers maybe OK, but menu lags, weird errors and slowness make me want to send the 20" back and get a G5 again. And I don't see Adobe producing CS3 any time soon (probably end of 2006).

Nooo! I was hoping it would be comparable to my PB G4 550mhz at least. I might want to cancel the MacBook I have on order : (

[parsec_kadets]

Originally Posted by cory5412

Hmm... yeah, Supposedly the iLugger back provides sufficient protection, they say that you could even take the iLugger (with an imac in it) on a plane as carry-on luggate, IIRC. I wouldn't dare carry the imac out of my own house or dorm room prior to getting one of the imac carrying cases.

That claim about taking it as a carry on is just plain wrong. I just flew this last weekend, and your carry-on can't be bigger than 22"x14"x9". If it's bigger in any dimention you have to check it. The 17" iMac is 16.9"x16.8"x7.4" so I guess it's almost small enough, but that's before you factor in the keyboard, mouse, power cable, and anything else you need to take with you.

[Stefdar]

Well Ururk, I am comparing it with my 1.67 GHz Powerbook and my Dual 2GHz G5 and find it slow, I don't really know how CS2 runs on a 550 MHz G4!!

PS: I hope you are joking and I didn't get it!!! If you don't, and according to my experience, I would say that for Adobe progs you should go for the Hires Powerbook instead.

[cory5412]

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

That claim about taking it as a carry on is just plain wrong. I just flew this last weekend, and your carry-on can't be bigger than 22"x14"x9". If it's bigger in any dimention you have to check it. The 17" iMac is 16.9"x16.8"x7.4" so I guess it's almost small enough, but that's before you factor in the keyboard, mouse, power cable, and anything else you need to take with you.

Ahh... ok. Luckily I don't plan on flying anywhere anytime soon - Though, the case still seems like a viable way to replace my tibook, especially the way I use my powerbook. (Basically, it sits on my desk for weeks on end, and then I take it to school once, or go to a friend's house with it, and it sits on the desk for weeks on end again.)

[ururk]

> PS: I hope you are joking and I didn't get it!!! If you don't, and according to
> my experience, I would say that for Adobe progs you should go for the
> Hires Powerbook instead.

I do have a MacBook on order, haven't been charged yet (shouldn't ship till late Feb). I'm hesitant about getting a G4. The reason I haven't upgraded from the Ti 550 is because I don't feel the current G4's are a viable upgrade path. I've held off for the past two years for a PB G5 - which is never going to happen. The main reason was the bus speed.

Frankly, if CS (I'm using CS, not CS2) is comparable to my Ti, I'd bite.

Do you have Flash? Dreamweaver? Quark? If it ran the last 3 programs smoothly, and CS choppily, I could live. If Illustrator was slow, well, that would put a damper on my potential purchase.

Thanks for the info though! I'll have to think long and hard about this one.

John

[Stefdar]

Illustrator is slow. Slow compared to my Powerbook 1.67 GHz.
Flash MX 2004 does not work period. Flash 8 works slow.
The same for Dreamweaver
Quark 6.5 works. Slow.
Quark 7 beta works. Very slow. I thought i read somewhere that it was universal, but it's not.
In general my experience is that the system is really fast as long as you don't touch PowerPC heavy apps. Then except the fact that it is slow, it starts paging insanely with 2 GB of RAM. After one day of use my memory is down to 53 MB free with a lot of pageouts.

[macintologist]

Stefdar are you sure you're not lying?

[Stefdar]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Stefdar are you sure you're not lying?

I am sorry?

I am on to that machine for a week now, and that is what I see. Anyone who has been using the iMovie, iPhoto, etc toys may disagree, but for the programs that Ururk asked for, that is how it is. And yes, Rosseta is paging like there is no tomorrow.
My Mac is an iMac Core Duo 20 inch, with 256 VRAM and 2 GB RAM.

Please don't act like a fanboy, that's the last thing anyone needs.

[handras]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Stefdar are you sure you're not lying?

He's not lying. Rosetta is slow. We need more universal application..

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by handras

He's not lying. Rosetta is slow. We need more universal application..

Sure. Anyone who really depends on software that runs for now only on PPC, should wait the Intel-native version. Which implies that if you need NOW a computer, buy a G4/G5 model. That's why they are still priced more or less the same as the Intel ones.

[ururk]

Quark 7 beta will be released as a Universal binary soon, right now the beta isn't.

As for what you are saying, ugh. I suspect this is why the Apple Store doesn't have CS2 on the display iMacs. I figured since Steve demoed Photoshop, it would be on the display models but it wasn't. I asked one of the employees, who said it won't be until it's native (which doesn't answer why they have Office on, which isn't native).

Thanks for the updated info! I'll be canceling my order, and wait till Adobe gets it's act together and releases a universal binary. Or if I have a chance to do a head to head comparison with my PB.

John

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by ururk

I figured since Steve demoed Photoshop, it would be on the display models but it wasn't. I asked one of the employees, who said it won't be until it's native (which doesn't answer why they have Office on, which isn't native).

The answer is simple or, at least, this is my take: Photoshop is an extremely CPU intensive application, while Office not so much. It is not strange that people complain about PS performance under Rosetta but not so about Office.

[ururk]

> The answer is simple or, at least, this is my take: Photoshop is an extremely
> CPU intensive application, while Office not so much. It is not strange that people
> complain about PS performance under Rosetta but not so about Office.

Well, I understand that, my comment was partly tongue-in-cheek. But, the Apple reps response that "Photoshop isn't yet native" obviously applies to Office as well. Therefore, if they include only selected non-native apps, it must mean the performance is miserable in the apps not included.

However, from what I had read on the web, the PS benchmarks were "OK". The thread here identified the potential problems that I would face with a Macbook, and as such, I'm now waiting on Adobe, not Amazon!

[Eriamjh]

It appears upgrading the iMac Intel is already confirmed. From Xlr8yourmac.com:

" OK, I went out and bought MacFan this afternoon. On page 48, it has about 3 column inches at the end of an intel iMac disassembly piece. Reading the Japanese it says (quick and rough translation): The CPU in the new iMac is mounted in a socket that should mean it can be changed easily. However, the author is not sure that it will run completely normally with an upgraded CPU. The author purchased a 2GHz T2500 from a PC shop and installed it in the socket of a 17" iMac and it booted OK.
There seemed to be no problems and the About this Mac pane reported a 2GHz duo chip. The CPU is exactly the same as that used in Windows PCs. At present, the 2GHz chip costs 53,000 yen and the 2.16GHz T2600 costs 80,000 yen, so it is not really cost effective to do this upgrade.
(a reader sent a link to a buy.com listing showing $472.99 for the T2500/2GHz and $709.99 for the T2600/2.16GHz currently)
However, since the chip set supports faster CPUs, it will be a doable upgrade in the future. Although this model does support CPU upgrades, they cannot guarantee that later models will, so choosing this iMac might not be a bad decision.
Robert H "

What's interesting is that no jumpers or soldering was required. It autodetected it.

[cos]

Illustrator is slow. Slow compared to my Powerbook 1.67 GHz.
Flash MX 2004 does not work period. Flash 8 works slow.
The same for Dreamweaver
Quark 6.5 works. Slow.
Quark 7 beta works. Very slow. I thought i read somewhere that it was universal, but it's not.
In general my experience is that the system is really fast as long as you don't touch PowerPC heavy apps. Then except the fact that it is slow, it starts paging insanely with 2 GB of RAM. After one day of use my memory is down to 53 MB free with a lot of pageouts.

__________________________________________________ ________

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm thinking if it worth getting a G5 instead an Intel Core Duo, and in few months apple will change everything on Intel, and of course, the applications will follow...

Thanks, if you keep digging, keep me in touch...

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

It appears upgrading the iMac Intel is already confirmed. From Xlr8yourmac.com:
[snip]

That is supremely interesting, and possibly worthy of its own thread (how many topics have been covered in this Mega-thread?). I wonder if Apple will attempt to disable this, like they did with Power Macs that one time...

[macintologist]

How does Realplayer work on the Intel imac?

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by macintologist

How does Realplayer work on the Intel imac?

It works fine. I just watched som superbowl ads with it and they were fine...no skipping or anything.

(This was with my CPU at 200% doing an rsync and some tar gz stuff in terminal.)

Real took about 45-50% of my CPU.

-Todd

[Macadvo]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

It appears upgrading the iMac Intel is already confirmed. From Xlr8yourmac.com:


What's interesting is that no jumpers or soldering was required. It autodetected it.

Not at all, modern PC motherboards have been able to do this for ages.

[parsec_kadets]

Originally Posted by toddtmw

It works fine. I just watched som superbowl ads with it and they were fine...no skipping or anything.

(This was with my CPU at 200% doing an rsync and some tar gz stuff in terminal.)

Real took about 45-50% of my CPU.

-Todd

Are you using a GUI client with this, or just the command line. I tried looking for some decent apps on version tracker last night, but nothing really met my needs. What I want is two way synching. If I update a file on my PowerBook I want that copied over to the iMac. If I change something on the iMac I want it changed on the PowerBook. I'm pretty sure rsync has this capability, but last night I didn't feel like learning to use the command itself. Maybe next week if I don't find a useful GUI implementation.

[toddtmw]

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

Are you using a GUI client with this, or just the command line. I tried looking for some decent apps on version tracker last night, but nothing really met my needs. What I want is two way synching. If I update a file on my PowerBook I want that copied over to the iMac. If I change something on the iMac I want it changed on the PowerBook. I'm pretty sure rsync has this capability, but last night I didn't feel like learning to use the command itself. Maybe next week if I don't find a useful GUI implementation.

Well, I've only ever used it to go from a local source to a destination on another machine. For that I use something like this:

Code:
rsync --archive --recursive --verbose --compress --rsh=ssh --delete --stats --progress --exclude=Desktop --exclude=Movies /Users/me/* me@server:/Volumes/external/Backups/me

This backs up my home directory ("me" in the example above) to the remote machine ("server" in the above example). It does not back up the Desktop folder or the Movies folder. (Stuff on the desktop tends to be transient and changes a lot and can sometimes be quite large, the movies are just really big and I don't have enough space on my backup drive to hold it.)

The first time I run it, it takes quite a while to complete, but then subsequent runs only back up files that change, so it is very fast.

Note, the "--delete" flag causes it to delete files from the backup directory that I delete from local directory. depending on what your needs are, you may not want to use this flag.

I've never used rsync to keep two folders in sync where they were being changed on both sides. I guess you could run the rsync on both sides, but I'm not sure how it would handle files that were changed on both sides. (Probably not the way you wanted all of the time...)

One other thing, when this script runs, you will need to enter your password for ssh. You can get around this by creating an rsa key without a passphrase, but that tends to be not very secure.

There is a pretty good tutorial on that here:

http://www.jdmz.net/ssh/

-Todd

[macintologist]

Does X-Tunes work on the intel imac?

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/8445