First Lab Tests: iMac with Intel Core Duo processor

[Corey]

Intel-based iMacs are fast, but gains don’t match Apple’s claims

http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/feat...est1/index.php

Definitely not feeling the new monitor, they made it so that your eye would be constantly drawn to the logo. Absolutely terrible design IMO.



I'm completely bamboozled on who would buy such a thing, let alone for a premium cost. The logo is 30% of the way to the center! That's the singular least appealing monitor I've ever seen. Unfathomable...

[eric_darling]

Hey Corey, that's not just a monitor. It's the whole computer. Just FYI.

I hear you, though. Not my favorite Apple design. Their 30" Cinema Display, on the other hand, is absolutely incredible (four side-by-side app windows with no overlap is sweet).

[Corey]

Yep, that one's much better.

I like that they added the whole computer to the monitor, but I can't handle that monitor design. I'm a little surprised by the disparity between their claims and the benchmark data, it will be interesting to see how it evolves.

[eric_darling]

Oh, come on. We're talking Steve "let's spin the numbers" Jobs, right? If I'm not surprised, I have no idea how you are. Stoopid policy, too, quoting this or that benchmark. Benchmarks were built to be blazed way too quickly. Consumers, and especially professional computer users, are way too savvy these days for that kind of unmitigated garbage. I hate that they even claim that it's so much faster than current G5 Macs. I'm sure they are, and plenty of reports from third-parties will file in about that. No need to go on spouting trumped up stats for marketing. You are bound to be proven wrong time and again every time you say your technology product is the "fastest." And even if you're right in the moment, those moments are fleeting indeed.

[Corey]

I'm not surprised by the presence of a disparity, I think Steve Jobs is incapable of telling the truth. What I'm surprised by is the size of the disparity. He claimed that speed would doublle overall with some select apps running at triple speed. What he delivered is a 10-20% gain. So he was off by 400%-900% which surprises me a tiny bit. The press continues with its Apple lovefest though so no doubt he couldn't care less.

As far as I'm concerned it's mediocre gear for a premium price at this point. I'm mainly interested in the upcoming wave of PC vs. Intel Mac benchmarks. I'm not at all convinced that running Photoshop on a fast PC is a disadvantage. Time will tell. As it stands right now, Rosetta seems to run apps at 50% speed according to reports. I can't imagine that being usable to multimedia professionals. It will be interesting to watch it all evolve though.

[Corey]

Hey Eric, check out the latest episode of Digital Life TV (#29). Scott Lindsay from pixel corps is on there demonstrating an interesting match mover tool. The thing analyzes 2D footage and then generates a 3D scene from it which can be imported into Cinema 4D or whatever... Very cool.

http://digitallifetv.com/blogs/digit...1/24/4956.aspx

[eric_darling]

Rosetta's an emulator, so a certain amount of slowness is to be expected. 50% of what, though? The speed the apps originally ran on a PowerPC G5? A dual 2.7 or a dual 2.0, or perhaps a quad G5? Or, is that 50% of the speed they'd otherwise run if the app in question was a universal binary that was optimized for the Intel processor and running on that same machine?

That's what I mean about quoting stats. Who is doing the "research?" What political side of the platform war do they hail from? And how on earth would they be quoting stats on products that haven't even been released/finished yet? The ONLY universal binaries that are currently available are made by Apple, and those aren't completely ready yet either. Photoshop will have to run under Rosetta until a universal binary version is available (June?).

In any case, the best of the new Intel-based hardware is yet to come. Desktop towers don't yet exist, and I've never seen fit to own an "iMac." That kind of computer has never fit in my workflow.

[Corey]

50% of what, though? The speed the apps originally ran on a PowerPC G5?

Yes, that's what they said I believe. The researchers in this case seem to be pro-Apple.

[eric_darling]

Dang. There's so much junk to sift through to get to any content in these online video podcasts. I feel like it's too much of my life to pay attention to the video version of what should really be a radio show. I have to devote all of my attention to watch it - can't split my attention and listen while I work on something else, as I can with an audio podcast. Argh.

In any case, the Pixel Corps stuff looks intriguing...

[Corey]

If you click on the pixel corps link it will show you just that segment. As far as the video podcasts go DLTV is about as good as it gets right now. Three camera shoot, former Tech TV talent, etc...

[eric_darling]

Yeah, figured that out after 5 gruelling minutes...

The production quality is fine - it's the idea that video podcasting is just TV material re-purposed. Forcing new media to do the work of old media is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. To me, it's just silliness.

[JimS]

The logo is 30% of the way to the center! ... Unfathomable...

I agree with you, but like you, I don’t own an Apple. I also don’t own a $60 T-shirt with the words Ambercrombie & Finch written in big letters across the front (Probably have the wrong name there, but it’s close enough.)

I think that for some products, products that are at least perceived to be higher end, the logos themselves become objects of desire, at least to a certain percentage of the market. High end autos tend to prominently display their logos, right up front. My Nike’s each have a fairly large swoosh on them.

Maybe it’s a subconscious psychological thing. Perhaps we expect high end powerful companies to have big egos. After all, they are the best, why shouldn’t they boast about it, most animals do.

You and I might not like the design of the new Apple, but we’re not who they are being marketed to. All in all, I have to cut Apple some slack on this front, they are about the only current PC manufacturer that spends any money or thought on case design. Over the years, they have consistently had the best looking machines on the market. They’ve invested the money to bring in real design firms like Frog Design, to help them deliver visually appealing machines. Even Ferrari has put out a few lame looking models.

At least that new Apple is prettier than my Packard Bell.

[Corey]

Ambercrombie & Finch is a classic. Hee.

I pretty much agree with you, but still my delicate sensibilities have gotten tussled and that's going to take time to heal. Hee.