Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > iMac Intel has arrived!

iMac Intel has arrived! (Page 6)
Thread Tools
LagunaSol
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Fdanna
I'm in the same building as Vmware... wish I could get chummy with someone who can give me answers :-)
Follow some of them to lunch and sit at a nearby table. They're sure to blab.
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by LagunaSol
You're doing a good deed for your fellow man.
That's the only reason I haven't given up!
     
Macola
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ravenz
That's the only reason I haven't given up!
Yes, I'm refreshing this page to see how it goes!
I do not like those green links and spam.
I do not like them, Sam I am.
     
C.J. Moof
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:31 PM
 
Hes' not the only one refreshing this..... can we do an RSS feed for a specific thread?
OS X: Where software installation doesn't require wizards with shields.
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by C.J. Moof
Hes' not the only one refreshing this..... can we do an RSS feed for a specific thread?
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).
     
Macola
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:37 PM
 
From what I remember of my XP installs, this could take another 30 mins or so...
I do not like those green links and spam.
I do not like them, Sam I am.
     
kerver
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:40 PM
 
Just ordered 1gb upgrade from Crucial. Their website says out of stock but if you call, it's in stock at $117.89.
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:42 PM
 
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).
Ok, the instructions were bad - it tried to reboot from the virtual CD and re-install Windows XP. I quit WinTel (Bochs), and this time checked the preference to load from the virtual disk instead.

Now it won't load the virtual disk. Rebooting.
     
Voch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 02:55 PM
 
Anyone just try compiling Bochs for Mac OS X? I can give it a whirl when I get home (four hours or so), but it'll be on my 'ol TiBook (not x86).

http://bochs.sourceforge.net/doc/doc...COMPILE-MACOSX

What does Wintel have over Bochs anyway other than a pretty setup UI?

Voch
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ravenz
Ok, the instructions were bad - it tried to reboot from the virtual CD and re-install Windows XP. I quit WinTel (Bochs), and this time checked the preference to load from the virtual disk instead.

Now it won't load the virtual disk. Rebooting.
New photo posted at:

http://homepage.mac.com/ravenzachary/PhotoAlbum1.html

I'm in the next stage of install now, and performance is horrible.
     
MORT A POTTY
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:06 PM
 
you guys are getting ****ed w/ OpenOSX... there is no reason at all for there to be a). such a damn slow as dirt emulator for Windows, especially on an x86 based computer, and b). to buy an app that emulates it worse than Virtual PC does on PPC.
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by MORT A POTTY
you guys are getting ****ed w/ OpenOSX... there is no reason at all for there to be a). such a damn slow as dirt emulator for Windows, especially on an x86 based computer, and b). to buy an app that emulates it worse than Virtual PC does on PPC.
Agreed. I give up. I've just wasted 3-4 hours trying to get this thing loaded and performance clearly is really bad.

We'll see what clever response OpenOSX gives me to my performance questions (if they reply at all).

Oh well, I tried.
     
buffswin
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:12 PM
 
I will be interested to see how this plays out, and how increased memory effects performance.

While I don't really understand the necessity for XP on a Mac (if you want XP- buy a computer that runs XP) I can understand that there is SOME software out there that simply WON'T work on a Mac.
( Last edited by buffswin; Jan 18, 2006 at 03:18 PM. )
     
Farfarello
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ravenz
Agreed. I give up. I've just wasted 3-4 hours trying to get this thing loaded and performance clearly is really bad.

We'll see what clever response OpenOSX gives me to my performance questions (if they reply at all).

Oh well, I tried.
Maybe you can try Windows Vista (beta), this would be interesting.
     
Farfarello
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by buffswin
I will be interested to see how this plays out, and how increased memory effects performance.

While I don't really understand the necessity for XP on a Mac (if you want XP- but a computer that runs XP) I can understand that there is SOME software out there that simply WON'T work on a Mac.


I can only talk about me, but I need XP only for Games. Since 4 years I switched to Mac and I'm really happy. The only thing I miss are the games and it will be cool if it's possible to have a Mac with OS X and Windows.
     
Macola
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:20 PM
 
For games, I don't think anything would beat a (real) PC. What I really need is to be able to take both OSs with me on the road...a MacBook Pro running both would be outstanding.
I do not like those green links and spam.
I do not like them, Sam I am.
     
buffswin
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Farfarello
I can only talk about me, but I need XP only for Games. Since 4 years I switched to Mac and I'm really happy. The only thing I miss are the games and it will be cool if it's possible to have a Mac with OS X and Windows.

I hear ya-- the only reason I HAVEN'T made the switch to Mac is because of the games.

But even if you could emulate XP on your Mac -- would you want to - to play games? Emulating games would be s-l-o-w!
     
Blackcrayon
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ravenz
Agreed. I give up. I've just wasted 3-4 hours trying to get this thing loaded and performance clearly is really bad.

We'll see what clever response OpenOSX gives me to my performance questions (if they reply at all).

Oh well, I tried.
Thanks for trying, maybe it'll persuade others to avoid openosx for that product for now.

As someone on the thread already pointed out (you?), Bochs is designed to emulate an x86 processor, not to give you a VM in the sense that VMware does it. Even the Bochs guys say it's slow on an x86. OpenOSX is misleading people to believe it's natively running x86 instructions right on the intel cpu.

From the Bochs Faq: http://bochs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin.../user/faq.html

1.9.5. Tell me about performance when running Bochs.
Because Bochs emulates every x86 instruction and all the devices in a PC system, it does not reach high emulation speeds. Kevin reported approximately 1.5MIPS using Bochs on a 400MHz PII Linux machine. Users who have an x86 processor and want the highest emulation speeds may want to consider PC virtualization software such as plex86 (free software) or VMware (proprietary and commercial). Another related project is QEMU.
     
buffswin
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macola
For games, I don't think anything would beat a (real) PC. What I really need is to be able to take both OSs with me on the road...a MacBook Pro running both would be outstanding.

If it could run absolutely natively -- I agree.

Would be nice to have a computer where you could partition two operating systems, and then decide which one you wanted to use, depending upon the application.
     
Farfarello
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by buffswin
I hear ya-- the only reason I HAVEN'T made the switch to Mac is because of the games.

But even if you could emulate XP on your Mac -- would you want to - to play games? Emulating games would be s-l-o-w!
Yes, emulating games would be slow or wouldn't work at all, but I don't want to emulate windows (have virtual pc7 on my powermac g5 and it work good). I want a native Windows and i think and hope Vista will be able to boot on intel mac.
     
buffswin
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Farfarello
Yes, emulating games would be slow or wouldn't work at all, but I don't want to emulate windows (have virtual pc7 on my powermac g5 and it work good). I want a native Windows and i think and hope Vista will be able to boot on intel mac.
Only time will tell, I suppose- but I agree- that would be nice if that was possible.
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Blackcrayon
Thanks for trying, maybe it'll persuade others to avoid openosx for that product for now.
The worst thing about this is what looks to be blatantly false advertising by OpenOSX. Their announcement, web site, and support emails to me all touted performance based on the fact that it's using an Intel chip now (an email correspondence touted 10-20x improvements over an iMac G5). I'll give them another day or so to respond to my emails before I figure out what to do.

Optimism bit me here.
( Last edited by ravenz; Jan 18, 2006 at 04:07 PM. )
     
Farfarello
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by buffswin
Only time will tell, I suppose- but I agree- that would be nice if that was possible.
Maybe somebody can test it ... the beta of Vista is available. (hope the beta work with EFI)
     
buffswin
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Farfarello
Maybe somebody can test it ... the beta of Vista is available. (hope the beta work with EFI)

If you scan through the message boards- you'll see that some of the beta testers HAVE tried - and the discs wouldn't boot up.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=282078
     
ViktorCode
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Moscow Region, Russia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 04:13 PM
 
Did anyone try to install Windows on the 1st partition and leave the 2nd for 10.4.4, then use Acronis OS Selector as a boot manager? (see complete instruction on previous forum page). It is required to delete existing OS X installation and you may be reluctant to give it a try because of this limitation, but maybe someone will? I'm eager to see first positive result of Windows successful installation on Mac...
     
GreatMuppetCaper
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 04:16 PM
 
This is exciting... seems things are gonna go much smoother than the OS 9 to OS X transition!
I am concerned that AppleWorks is not included... that's a real bummer. But if one doesn't want to pay for Office I wonder if paying $79 for AW is even an option.

Can someone try loading AppleWorks and see if it runs under Rosetta?
AppleWorks may be old and outdated, yada yada yada, but atleast I could do headers and footers with page numbering. Plus I don't like that clunky font panel in TextEdit. Since when was that more convenient than going to a menu!?

I don't know if getting iWork is really an option for me either- when I used the last version it didn't take long to realize that it sucks for writing papers- more of a page layout tool than a good word processor.

Thanks for all the info on these iMacs!
     
iMacfan
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 04:28 PM
 
Textedit is far more powerful than you would think for basic word processing - streamlined, fast and there is a freeware word count app that plugs the one gap for writing things like papers.

David.
     
MORT A POTTY
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 04:31 PM
 
actually Pages 2 has made a few strides in actual word processing. they actually have a research paper template now!

with headers and all that junk. it's still got a ways to go, but it's definitely more complete than 1.0 was and still has a bit too much emphasis on the InDesign For Dummies part of it.
     
the_glassman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by GreatMuppetCaper
This is exciting... seems things are gonna go much smoother than the OS 9 to OS X transition!
I am concerned that AppleWorks is not included... that's a real bummer. But if one doesn't want to pay for Office I wonder if paying $79 for AW is even an option.

Can someone try loading AppleWorks and see if it runs under Rosetta?
AppleWorks may be old and outdated, yada yada yada, but atleast I could do headers and footers with page numbering. Plus I don't like that clunky font panel in TextEdit. Since when was that more convenient than going to a menu!?

I don't know if getting iWork is really an option for me either- when I used the last version it didn't take long to realize that it sucks for writing papers- more of a page layout tool than a good word processor.

Thanks for all the info on these iMacs!
I would use NeoOffice/J or Openoffice under X11 if needed. IMHO, they are both better than much dated Appleworks and are free!
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 06:43 PM
 
...and neither works on the intel Macs (and, no, Rosetta doesn't help here) at present and possibly won't for quite some time.

Quote:

Why can't NeoOffice 1.2 run on Mac on Intel?

NeoOffice 1.2 is still a PowerPC based application. All PowerPC based applications are forced to run within the Rosetta environment. Unfortunately, contrary to Apple's marketing claims, Rosetta cannot run all PowerPC applications on Mac on Intel computers seamlessly...and customers need to read the fine print. Classic PowerPC applications will not run, and neither can Rosetta applications that embed Java directly

NeoOffice 1.2 is an application that requires Java to be embedded within it in order to run critical portions of the application. Without Java, NeoOffice 1.2 cannot run. Since Java is not embeddable by Rosetta (even though Java 1.4 is available for native Mac on Intel applications), NeoOffice 1.2 cannot run within the Rosetta environment.

However, it appears that progress with the OpenOffice.org 2.0 for X11 port is making some headway
( Last edited by JKT; Jan 18, 2006 at 06:56 PM. )
     
GregAlex
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ravenz
The worst thing about this is what looks to be blatantly false advertising by OpenOSX. <snip> an email correspondence touted 10-20x improvements over an iMac G5.
Anyone know how slow OpenOSX ran on the G5!?!? :-/
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 07:01 PM
 
Run Bochs on a G5 and see for yourself.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Voch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 08:27 PM
 
If the Bochs bundled with Wintel was the issue it's kinda simple to buld a Bochs.app on your own. I sent ravenz some quickie instructions to try if if he's interested. I'm going to play with it now on my TiBook (to figure out configuration, not to test it for speed ).

Voch
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2006, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Voch
If the Bochs bundled with Wintel was the issue it's kinda simple to buld a Bochs.app on your own. I sent ravenz some quickie instructions to try if if he's interested. I'm going to play with it now on my TiBook (to figure out configuration, not to test it for speed ).

Voch
I think the problem is that the vendor, OpenOSX, is clueless that emulators are emulators and just because you compile an application to support the iMac Intel doesn't mean that the emulator is going to stop emulating a 586 processor and start natively using the Intel Core Duo instruction set.

They are adamant with me (in a cryptic way) that I should be getting a tremendous speed boost over an iMac G5, and I am just not seeing this at all. I think they are truly in a state of denial and don't understand why it's so slow for me.

I'm giving them another more day to work through this before I contact all the sites that carried their news announcement from Monday to give the details of real user performance.

"Our WinTel product built for the new Intel based Macs runs Windows(R) within Mac OS X offering performance we have always dreamed of: nearly native."

Yeah, right!
     
goofticket
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 08:59 AM
 
As a mac user since 1986, this intel switch reminds me of the uproar when the floppy disk came out...What are we going to do with our cassette recorders?
And when the ColorMac was released, another uproar about developers not having everything "color-riffic" within seconds of the macs release...
And when MacOS 7 showed up, the screams were deafening, as was OS9 and OSX.
Now this Intel thing is a repeat of the impatient ones being loudest, right out of the gate.
Every developer is happy with the Intel switch and with the universal binary. It saves them time and money porting their products to both platforms. So whats all the whinning about?
Simple answer is impatience. Let's hear all the complaints in, say July and see what has transpired.
We creative types waited for QuarkXPress for over a year each with the 4, 5 & 6 versions, but that didn't stop the printing industry, did it?
I certainly didn't toss out my old mac with all my OS9 & OSX apps on it. I networked them together and they play quite well. I do my designing on the older G3 and actually print via the Intel machine which is ported to a GCC Elite 1212. ( A 1995 PS printer which the IntelMac sees and has no problem with)
I have faith in Apple and the developers in getting things ported quickly.
I would also say that these upgrades will also come much faster than a simple microsoft patch ever has.
I am happy with my MacIntel and patiently wait for Adobe to upgrade the Creative Suite. Something I am more than willing to pay for, even if it means a new full retail version. It's my bread and butter, ya know.
My Apple 9600 still runs very day without a hitch or crash in 11 years. It got a 256MB upgrade and a Sonnet G3 500 CPU. Cost me under $250. I wonder how much a WinTel machine cost in upgrades since 1995, and if any are actually still running?
MY ADVICE: Be patient, it will happen and with better results than you expected.
     
Voch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by ravenz
I think the problem is that the vendor, OpenOSX, is clueless that emulators are emulators and just because you compile an application to support the iMac Intel doesn't mean that the emulator is going to stop emulating a 586 processor and start natively using the Intel Core Duo instruction set.
Yeah...you're right. I just wanted to confirm that the Bochs engine behind Wintel was Intel-native, at least, but I think you already did that.

Voch
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by goofticket
As a mac user since 1986, this intel switch reminds me of the uproar when the floppy disk came out...What are we going to do with our cassette recorders?
Which macs used cassette recorders again?
     
Voch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Icruise
Which macs used cassette recorders again?
Why...the Commodore MAC-20!

Voch
     
HouseSold
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Icruise
Which macs used cassette recorders again?
I don't think the name Mac was used until 1983-1984 intro.

My first Apple II (1979) used an audio cassette to load programs before Woz designed a 5.25 floppy which was a big deal back then; even bigger were the 2 drive floppy systems.

I still have the Apple IIc which use(d)s 5.25 floppies; haven't checked recently to see if they disintegrated yet.

Also have a Color Classic II; only have to think about back then what we all tolerated and laugh now at what we all whine about.

The average MacIntel iMac has more processing power in an all in one design than a large firm I worked for in 1989, which had an IBM 4341 computer running Cobol taking up an entire floor with special Freon fire extinguishing system and overnite security guard where our backups were done on 600mb cake platter type trays and took half an hour.

Whew.............there's nothing wrong with the MacIntel platform coming, in retrospect.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 01:28 PM
 
To all those complaining that AppleWorks isn't included: Keep a backup copy of it from your old G5 iMac.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
HouseSold
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
To all those complaining that AppleWorks isn't included: Keep a backup copy of it from your old G5 iMac.
Some hardware changed too during production.

At the Apple Store yesterday chimping around and noticed the hard drives in all their iMac Intels had the Maxtor drives in them. We have some December 2005 built iSight iMac G5's with the Western Digital drives in them.

All the iMacIntel iSights in the Apple Store were much warmer to the touch along the back than the G5 iSight iMacs running there were to the touch.
All the iMacIntels on display had 1gb of memory installed; probably to make sure of floor performance.

Any of you still have both your iSight G5 iMacs and your iMacIntels to compare heat and fan audibility side by side?
     
dkelley
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2006, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by JKT
...and neither works on the intel Macs (and, no, Rosetta doesn't help here) at present and possibly won't for quite some time.
Wrong - http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/9602

The link is to the newly released openoffice 2 for osx intel with X11 installed! :-) Yay!! Actually it appears to be a universal binary, so it should work on ppc macs just as well.

Use this instead of apple works (it's better than apple works by far) unless you want to use pages 2. I have page2, OO2 intel, and MSo2004, and will experiment to see if I can use OO2 for everthing from now on.

dkelley
( Last edited by dkelley; Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25 PM. )
     
bone666
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2006, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Fdanna
Limewire on the intel macs doesn't work under Rosetta. It installs but will not launch.
Check out LimeWire 4.10.5! It works on the new Intel Macs and is darn fast.
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2006, 02:41 AM
 
Why would you EVER shut down your computer? I still can't believe people turn off their computers in 2006. Why? It costs you more power to turn it on/off daily than if you let it go to sleep.

I don't know why people love to turn off their computers, it's almost if people can't handle NOT waiting... they have to wait for something.. or it doesn't feel like a computer



Originally Posted by HouseSold
With boot time like 20 seconds, most all of us will shut down overnite, instead of sleep....zzzzzz

Ravenz.....question

After your iMac Duo is on and being used for an hour or more (working.....more like coasting now ) what does the temperature feel like on the back of the case and in front below the display. (my kids call that front, the forehead)

The fan sounds on start up and after running for awhile.....how quiet are they in an absolute quiet setting.ie. late at night, no TV, iTunes or family sounds.
If you have ever heard the G5 iMacs, by chance, how does the fan sound compare.

I'm hoping they're not the same or much quieter. Out of 5 G5 iMacs here, there are 5 degrees of quiet or noise, from inaudible to buzzing sounds, very inconsistent AND annoying.

Thanks alot and much enjoyment for you.
     
OpenOSX
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2006, 06:11 AM
 
WinTel 2.0.0 Facts
  1. If Raven has 512 MB of RAM installed in his iMac (he stated that he has not yet added RAM), and he does a fresh restart, and only gives XP 64 MB of RAM (the minimum), then he would only have about 12 MB of free RAM (according to our tests).
  2. Raven may not have the settings optimal (we are still figuring them out).
  3. This is our first build released for Intel. We are working on aggressively optimized binaries which we have already seen 400% increase in performance. Our free WinTel 2.0.1 release will be free and available soon with increased performance.
  4. The entire operating system is being simulated from the CPU including emulation of the graphics card, network card, and so on so obviously there is some overhead. That is why we do not claim native performance. Of course the binaries are native, so like it or not, it is native performance. Not too mention OS X needs some of the cycles, we like to think we are crafty, but we can't do magic!
  5. You can always build it yourself. We provide a service and provide support. We do not hide this fact. Of course you will not get our interface, stand alone, drag-install application or support.
  6. It seems that Raven waiting for the installation to finish is serious work or something. You can do it in the background or even overnight - and it will seem to go much faster when you are not watching it!
  7. It is absolutely is 10 to 20 times faster than running on a G5. As someone else pointed out, try for yourself if you do not believe us.
  8. We have replied to Raven regarding performance, and yet he claims he will post we he gets a "clever" reply.

Now, with all that in mind, do you think its fair to base a product from one persons experience?


Sincerely,

Jeshua Lacock
OpenOSX Owner
http://OpenOSX.com
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2006, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by OpenOSX
WinTel 2.0.0 Facts
Is the program emulating an x86 processor, or is it using the Intel Mac's actual processor to run x86 code natively? Just because the emulator program itself is "native" does not mean that you are actually running x86 code without emulation, which is what your website leads people to believe. There's no way you're getting "nearly native" performance out of Bochs, I can tell you that right now.
     
foo2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2006, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Icruise
Is the program emulating an x86 processor, or is it using the Intel Mac's actual processor to run x86 code natively? Just because the emulator program itself is "native" does not mean that you are actually running x86 code without emulation, which is what your website leads people to believe. There's no way you're getting "nearly native" performance out of Bochs, I can tell you that right now.
A 512MB machine to run this test on isn't a valid test - it's a measure of how slow the hard disk is, because that's about all you'll be doing (just hitting the page file 100% of the time).

Get a 2GB machine, or at least a 1GB machine, and redo the test.

Open OSX : Can you post numbers for why you believe you're getting this speedup? It would make things much clearer.
iMac 3.3/i5 (2015) 24GB 2TB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.5 (2014) 16GB 500GB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.3 (2012) 16GB 250GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.4 (2010) 9GB 120GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.0 (E-2009) 4GB 120GB 10.13
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2006, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by foo2
A 512MB machine to run this test on isn't a valid test - it's a measure of how slow the hard disk is, because that's about all you'll be doing (just hitting the page file 100% of the time).
I wasn't even addressing ravenz's experiences. Bochs (which is what this is) is a DOG in terms of performance (a lot slower that Virtual PC, which itself was unbearably slow for many things). Even if this version runs a lot faster than previous versions, it's still nowhere near "native" performance.
     
rboisjoly
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2006, 12:06 PM
 
Here's my story...

20 inch iMac Dual Core, 1 Gig of RAM

Tooa few hours (about 8 I'd say to get my download link, then it too less than an hour to get the code to uncompress it. That's fine.

Installing did not work at first, I created my disk image (XP Pro SP2) as per the instructions.

Followed the XP tutorial

Adjusted the values to
512 MB of RAM for the emulator,
20000 VGA Update
3000000 Emulated IPS

Clicking Start 586 Emulator would not do anything (It would ask for my password but nothing happened. After some time though with clicking it again and again, restarting, etc, it finally started-up the Bochs emulator when I deactivated the Network Card and started the Windows XP Installer... I was getting some sort of Authentication error in the Console.

Anyway... now its been running the installer for OVER 12 hours!! and it is only at 51%, copying "usrcoina.dll"... I guess it should be done by tomorrow night :-)

Installing is more than slow...

Now, perhaps tweaking the IPS would help, if I know what that meant! Hopefully we'll get a better system for this in the future.

So, I'm waiting for this to complete to see how fast the emulator actually runs once it is done. It may just be that reading from the CD image is painful and that other things are faster, time will tell.
     
ravenz  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2006, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OpenOSX
WinTel 2.0.0 Facts
  1. If Raven has 512 MB of RAM installed in his iMac (he stated that he has not yet added RAM), and he does a fresh restart, and only gives XP 64 MB of RAM (the minimum), then he would only have about 12 MB of free RAM (according to our tests).
  2. Raven may not have the settings optimal (we are still figuring them out).
  3. This is our first build released for Intel. We are working on aggressively optimized binaries which we have already seen 400% increase in performance. Our free WinTel 2.0.1 release will be free and available soon with increased performance.
  4. The entire operating system is being simulated from the CPU including emulation of the graphics card, network card, and so on so obviously there is some overhead. That is why we do not claim native performance. Of course the binaries are native, so like it or not, it is native performance. Not too mention OS X needs some of the cycles, we like to think we are crafty, but we can't do magic!
  5. You can always build it yourself. We provide a service and provide support. We do not hide this fact. Of course you will not get our interface, stand alone, drag-install application or support.
  6. It seems that Raven waiting for the installation to finish is serious work or something. You can do it in the background or even overnight - and it will seem to go much faster when you are not watching it!
  7. It is absolutely is 10 to 20 times faster than running on a G5. As someone else pointed out, try for yourself if you do not believe us.
  8. We have replied to Raven regarding performance, and yet he claims he will post we he gets a "clever" reply.

Now, with all that in mind, do you think its fair to base a product from one persons experience?


Sincerely,

Jeshua Lacock
OpenOSX Owner
http://OpenOSX.com
They falsely advertise about "nearly native" performance on their website.

Yes, I have 512MB of RAM. However, I dedicated 256MB to WinTel before booting up Bochs. I get another 1GB of RAM on Tuesday and will try the same test with 1GB allocated to Bochs, but I don't think that is the problem. Bochs is consuming 99.9% of the CPU. It's CPU-bound.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,