This article does a roundup of the Linux support to G5 machines. Elsewhere, Macworld’s initial benchmarks on Apple’s new iMac G5 show that the machine is 35 percent faster than the previous G4 model. “As you could probably guess, the new G5-equipped iMacs out-performed than their G4-powered predecessors,” writes James Galbraith.
Linux and G5; iMac G5 benchmarks show 35% speed boost
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
While is nice to know that Linux is available on hardware as nice as that which Apple sells, I find myself asking, asside from the free/open source Rah rah rah-factor, why would I want to install Linux over OS X.
Linux alongside OS X seems far more ideal IMHO.
Linux software or Mac OS X? Why not have both?
http://www.metadistribution.org/macos/
Allows you to install any Linux software on top of Mac OS with a single command.
Example: emerge nmap
Try it out.
That’s COOL!
If I ever have the money to buy a G5, the iMac is gonna be “it” for me… it looks far nicer than the “cheese-grater” G5 tower. It’s a *total* fashion statement, bar none!
Just need about $800 and I’ll sell my 466Mhz G4 DA (sell it for around $500, hopefully) and get one…
Luposian
Apple’s high quality is especially evident in their LCD’s, you’ll be hard pressed to find a comparable screen for $400. Maybe with a Planar, but not from more mainstream brands.
The 800mhz vs 533mhz bus is somewhat negated in the same way as the CPU clock differential: the P4’s pipeline is much longer and thus requires faster memory access.
Maybe one of these days we’ll be able to buy G5 barebones. I could die happy with a reasonably priced G5 with SCSI and killer sound.
—
Michael Salivar
After reading this article, I’m at loss trying to understand how the author reaches the conclusion that “Things are going quite well…” My conclusion from the same article is that things are rather dismal, since apart from absolutely bare-bones support, nothing works! To wit: video only works at the lowest common denominator, if at all, wireless networking does not work without additional hardware, sound and power management do not work at all… and “things are going quite well”?!?
I’d hate to see what he would consider to be a mess, but I certainly envy him his positive outlook
I can’t speak for people with newer Macs but my 667 PowerBook runs only reasonably well under Panther under YellowDog it screams. The only issue with the PPC versions of Linux at the moment is multimedia is not at a par with the X86 versions it seems to be about a year behind.
Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same things you were. Linux works w/ G5s, but the nice touches aren’t there.
The google hits graph is off by a mile. This article is completely bogus.
For instance, according to the article “java programming” has about 270,000 google hits. But when I run it right now in google I get 1,200,000 hits.
Now when I try “c# programming” which is probably a better comparison to java programming than “.net programming”, I get only 96,900 hits.
According to google, java is 12 times more popular than C#.
But this is so lame because a language like Visual Basic has more than one common name. If I use “vb programming” I get 185,000 hits and if I use “visual basic programming” I get 333,000 hits.
By the way, “c++ programming” gets me 1,060,000 hits. So clearly Java is more popular than C++.
Make what you will with this info, but clearly the article is deeply flawed and should be dismissed.
umm, Java is a platform and a language, so .net is comparable.
Well, i think linux is equal in all platforms.. Work, but the nice touches aren’t there, and never have been..
I mean.. The Centrino Intel Pro Wireles 2200 wifi cards don’t work or not so well, there is a project.. But is only a project..
Linux hardware support remains as a big problem..
About the iMac G5, i think is really very well priced.. As ken Mingis have stated:
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,…
The CPU of the iMac G5 20″ costs only 600$, really cheap..
I’ve recently buyed a shuttle SN85G4.. (I’m selling it after a month for 950 Euros.. if you want it
)
Athlon 64 3000+
512Mb RAM
160Gb HD SATA
Modem 56k
Floppy (You need it if you want to install windows xp..)
DVD-RW
And a 9600 XT 128Mb
Total price without a display in the web of shuttle USA: 1,478$
Shuttle suggests a samsung 19″ lcd display of 700$, but a more similar display to the iMac G5 is the formac 2010:
http://www.formac.com/p_bin/?cid=solutions_displays_gallery2010_01
Costs the same as the Cinema Display, 1,299$..
So this ups the total price of the shuttle with a similar display to 2,777$, a really big price difference with the unique diferences of the graphic card and the double ram.. And the unique PCI slot of the shuttle is occupied by the 56k modem.. wich is very useful for sending a receiving faxes..
But for nearly 1,000$ more it compensates more to buy 2Gb of RAM, a bigger/faster HD and other accessories like an eyetv or wireless network & keyboard/mouse..
I’ll buy an iMac G5 20″ as soon as i’ve been sold my shuttle SN85G4 and have found a cheap realtime firewire video capturer to play ps2/xbox games in the 20″ screen. (The iMac is really cheap also if you compare it to LCD TVs & plasma).
The eyetv has a lag of 2 seconds that isn’t good to play games, but i think i’ll buy one to view satellite TV.. I’ve found this for console gaming:
http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC-100/pm_advc-100.asp
But it need a power adapter, and costs 300$!.. I would want one that is portable, for use with my PowerBook & iBook… [The new PSTwo is so small and is compatible with N-Charge!!!! (http://www.valence.com/ncharge.asp)], there is other model of canopus:
http://www.canopus.us/US/products/ADVC110/pm_advc110.asp
I think it’s not realtime.. Anyone knows if the formac studio tvr captures in realtime?
Here we go! iMac G5 my third own mac
Sorry for my bad english, i’m spanish.. If i post in spanish eugenia censures me
You might have no reason to. Others will give you a million reasons. To begin with, not everyone is hypnothized by Apple’s marketing, or more precisely hype.
I am yet to figure out what I can do on OS X that I can do on Linux. In fact, I often a lot more on Linux without poking holes in my bank account. Trying to set up a server on OS X, Panther, is synonymous to male circumcision at puberty. Apple’s support center says I should purchase its server edition to do that.
Did I mention customizability, flexibility, portability, scalability and freedom. How about avoiding vendor lock in and Forced upgrades? I don’t care if OS X cleans for me after using the toilet, no company or person will ever dictate to me how I should use my computer again. Besides, aqua makes my belly hurt after a few days of usage, but Apple insists I use it.
I’m thinking of going the PPC route, most likely a dual G5. I can assure you it’s going to be running Linux and Linux only. Why would I do that? Well because I can. It might not seem apparent but Linux does have quite a lot of benefits over OS X. That’s why you see people going to great lenghts to install Linux over OS X, around it, within it, above it and along side it.
Ironically, I always asked myself why anyone will go through all that trouble. They say the best things in life are free. That echos everytime I see people go through all the hassle of running Linux along side OS X. I guess it is in attempt to get the best of both worlds, knowing fully well that neither worlds are perfect.
for those who like the new iMac or are interested in one, I sugest you go to an apple store like I did and check one out in person. It’s very diapointing. The screen is very nice, but it ends there. The quality of the case on was very bad. It just didn’t look good, and the vent at the top in the back you can see the case warping. not sure if it’s heat (cause it wasn’t hot), or simply not a strong enough case. I picked it up and i deformed in my grip. Also the clear loop around it had what looked like a crack when going around a bottom corner in the back (that could be an illusion though). The case just didn’t look very good at all. It looks like a huge white block. Sealed the deal that I will get a powermac instead. I didn’t get a chance to confirm if the 17 had the same issues. Apple usualy makes a good housing on things, even if they arn’t styled so nice they are put together well, this thing failed on both, look very cheap, and had poor fit and finish. Just a word of advise to go check one out in person before buying one.
I also must say the styling was a let down. It’s like they just gave up and didn’t care. if they had just managed to keap it looking like a wide screen monitor, and done something about the edges. 2 inches thick is really thick to not have rounded off corners or similar, to make it look a bit thinner or a little less rough. Actualy if they had put a ring around it much like the last imacs that could have helped make it look thinner. Also having ports on part that moves is not good. I see at the store they zip tied the usb and such cords to the power cord to help reduce the chance of them getting ripped out when you move the monitor.
I have a B&W 350mhz with 10.2 that runs quite well, but I also have OpenBSD installed on it, and there is a large speed difference. I prefer OS X because my iPod works with it, I can record my guitar, and it works with my digital camera. Basically what I give up going to OpenBSD is multimedia. I would imagine Linux on Mac is much the same except multimedia support would be a bit better.
As an aside, how come everytime there is a Mac article on this site the trolls come out in full force? I enjoy reading comments that pertain to the article at hand, if people wish to do price comparisons go to a mac forum, you’ll get many more bites there. Sorry for the aside.
When you buy less… you also pay less.
That does not make the PC less expensive… as in fact we found that the Mac was in fact less expensive.
Rather, the Mac is less configurable.
How come every article about Macs becomes a “Let’s build an x86 and show that it’s cheaper and that macs are worthless pieces of crap!!” discussion? This article is about Linux…on G5’s…It isn’t a price comparison, nor is it an article about why Macs are better than this or that or why they’re worse than this or that. It’s about…LINUX ON FREAKING G5’s! Take your discussions about Mac Vs. PC to the appropriate place. That would be in Forums – MacOS/MacOSX or Forums – OS Wars. Have some tact already!
Trying to set up a server on OS X, Panther, is synonymous to male circumcision at puberty.
Really? Because my “Missing Manual” for 10.3 shows how to dig out the server tools and set one up in about 5 pages. It looked straightforward. (I’d tell you chapter and page, but I’m at work and the book is on my nightstand.)
If you’re such a Linux guy you should be able to get to apache right from the CLI and set it up.
And Apple doesn’t force you to run Aqua. Install their X11 and you can run any Linux GUI you want.
“Speedmark, our all-around system performance benchmark, showed that the 1.8 GHz iMac G5s were 35 percent faster than the 1.25GHz iMac G4.”
wow new imacs that have an all new cpu that is supposed to be better than the g4…..and it is 50% faster in raw clock speed….yet it is only 35% faster?
50% faster clock rate = 35% faster in benchmarks
now how does apple spin that one?
No, look at the memory configuration for the new iMac G5. It uses a 64-bit DDR subsystem; which basically makes it a little memory starved. The dual PowerMac boxes is a 128-bit DDR subsystem which can feed the processors much better.
I was trying to decide if I wanted an iMac G5 or a PowerMac. I guess the benchmarks confirmed my thought that the processor could be a little starved. So I’m going to get the PowerMac. The iMac is still a good home computer; also, once Tiger comes out it’ll be a true 64-bit box which should solve some of the performance issues.
Apple is behind the x86 cpu’s and always will be behind. Apple has always lied about the performance of their systems and they’re still lying today. Apple is slow and will never catch up unless they port to x86 – and that will never happen.
I am yet to figure out what I can do on OS X that I can do on Linux. In fact, I often a lot more on Linux without poking holes in my bank account. Trying to set up a server on OS X, Panther, is synonymous to male circumcision at puberty. Apple’s support center says I should purchase its server edition to do that.
I’m sure if you would be completely objective you would have to acknowledge there are things you can do on Mac OS X you can’t do on Linux. I make the same acknowledgement that Windows runs software I can’t on my Mac.
We made decisions about what we would most like to run, and what we would be willing to spend. Don’t keep re-evaluating your decision? Relax, and be happy with your decision.
I’m sure your email, web browser, and word processing app are fine. Your video editing and DVD authoring are not as good, but that’s not what’s important to you. So be it.
Please give examples of how you have found it hard to install server software on OS X. What applications in particular gave you trouble? I find it curious that you have no difficulty downloading, compiling, and configuring applications for Linux, but the Mac has you confused. It’s the same process.
Some of the software is already built in: like Apache and perl. I’ve installed mod_perl, PostgreSQL, tons of CPAN modules, Ploticus, and many others. Yes, there is more to servers than web and database servers, so be specific: what do you find so hard to set up on OS X?
“The iMac is not just competitively priced… its damn inexpensive.”
$1299 is not inexpensive, especially for a 1.6ghz cpu. The $199 walmart PC’s are inexpensive. Computer parts are now at the commodity level and Apple just doesn’t get it – nobody except fanatics are going to pay several times the commodity price for hardware… especially subpar hardware like 1.6ghz cpu’s.
800mhz vs 533mhz bus? NOPE – 1600mhz bus on Athlon64
You do know those numbers are not even remotely comparable right? The Athlon 64 does not even have a bus in the sense that the p4 and g5 do.
The 1600mhz you are referring to only means the speed at which the north bridge core runs. You may be referring to the hypertransport links, but those at only used for peripherals (uniprocessor). Memory access on the athlon 64 (uniprocessor) does not touch the hypertransport connection. Besides hypertransport is only 16 bit wide link (in both directions) and does not always run at its maximum speed. eg The nForce3 150 chipset runs it at 600MHz, while the K8T800 chipset runs it at 1000MHz. Comparing this all to a 64 bit 200MHz quad pumped shared bus to this is not simple.
Morel of the story: bus speeds are not a measure that you can use to compare the g5 and athlon64. So please next time you want to post a “my number is bigger, I am strong like ox” message use a relevant number.
All of the processors have their strengths and weaknesses and all are actually quite competitive with each other, especially interesting given how different each one is.
Apple can not pretend they have the best monitor anymore on any of its systems.
Every one should have a look at Sony’s XBrite based monitors and think twice about buying anything else.
The PPC970 is a lot like the Athlon 64 chips, the Athlon 64 3000+ for instance is really a 2Ghz part but can outperform chips that are far faster, while clock speed is a factor in performace, the pure MHz rating is not the only factor in performance.
For a system as small as the imac, I don’t think that the price/performancee is that bad. It would be perfect for my mother.
(Still running dual celerons on linux)
I read the articles and then the comments. Strange, now , for the life of me I can’t remeber what in heck the article was about. Pretty sure it was about Linux on Mac, and a performance comparison? I don’t know about these wank session’s on osnews, what’s the point? I like them all, wish I could have them all on one box!! Oh wait I can. osx, virtualpc, and fink, all running on one desktop, all at one instance. And that would be on a imac or other fine apple product. But before mac folks raise up in victory, as pear-pc gets better, the day of xp, linux(on vitual pc) and osx all on an athlon64 at the same time , is close to a reality.
Perfect os? ya right. All this moaning about who’s best is pointless, they all are getting great, and getting better all the time. It’s just like hair color, which do you prefer? It’s just taste, and the tolerance to let you like your shade , while i like mine. I like them all, at times.
Was the author drunk? So many typoes wow. Also the comment that sleep mode on ppc is generally not working is incorrect. I own a new-world iBook and sleep works fine via pbbuttonsd, pmud and kernel support. Also the linuxant drivers worked perfectly for me, minus the fact that the “free” demo version only supports 33Kb/s (you have to buy the 56Kb/s drivers from linuxant). All in all it appears the majority of the problems stem from lack of open documentation or specific programs not being ported from ppc to ppc64.
“C. Macs tend to have a longer hardware upgrade cycle than PC’s. (Though, I’ll admit that it almost doesn’t seem so currently, since OS X is such a cycle-hog).”
that is an utter falsehood. old wives tale passed on from one mac lover to another. but when you see that ms has large numbers of users still going on win nt 4, win 95, and win 98, you realize its just bunk. ”
People talk about hardware and you bring up Os’ses?? Funny. What these Mac people mean to say is that they are using 3 year old hardware to run their brand new Panther OS. And that it is running reasonably fast.
A lot of Windows People don’t upgrade, because it means buying a complete new computer … of upgrading half of their hardware. That is why you do see a lof of those old junky osses along.
Try running WindowsXP with full features (a dummy install) on a 1 ghz Pentium III, with 256 MB memory and see how fast it is. Dig the problem?
And a three year old Mac is actually worth something when you sell it (look up those prices). A three year old PC can be picked up for $50 and ends its life as a 1.44 SCOUNIX firewall ….
People talk about hardware and you bring up Os’ses?? Funny. What these Mac people mean to say is that they are using 3 year old hardware to run their brand new Panther OS. And that it is running reasonably fast.
Panther only just runs “reasonably fast” on brand-spanking new Macs. On old Macs it’s *slow*.
XP runs quite usably on ca. 1997 300Mhz Pentium 2 hardware, as long as its got 512MB of RAM and a few bits of eyecandy turned off. Throw in a modern, 7200rpm 8MB cache hard disk and it’s almost *quick*. Certainly, XP on such a machine is only marginally slower than OS X on my 1Ghz iBook with 768MB and a 7200rpm 8MB cache drive.
Hell, I’ve got a machine somewhere around here dating from 1996 – a dual Pentium I/200Mhz with 512MB of *EDO* RAM and some 7200rpm SCSI disks – that I installed XP on once for shits and giggles (normally it’s a Solaris box). It was certainly slow, but it *was* usable. I’d be amazed if you could even get OS X to install on a ca. 1996 Mac, let alone be usable.
A lot of Windows People don’t upgrade, because it means buying a complete new computer … of upgrading half of their hardware. That is why you do see a lof of those old junky osses along.
Complete and utter bullshit. Windows has an excellent record of not only “supporting”, but also actually being quite usable, on older hardware. An almost immeasurably better record than any Apple OS ever made. Up until the last year or so, OS X was only just usable on *top end PowerMacs*, let alone the much slower consumer machines.
Apple’s history of legacy support is dismal. Microsoft’s is excellent. Those old and junky machines don’t get upgraded because their owners don’t perceive a need.
Try running WindowsXP with full features (a dummy install) on a 1 ghz Pentium III, with 256 MB memory and see how fast it is. Dig the problem?
No. XP on such a machine is more than quick enough for typical web browser/email/word processing use. It’s blazingly fast compared to a Mac running OS X dating from the same era (for reference, that would be a 500Mhz PowerMac G4 or a 350Mhz iMac). Heck, a 1Ghz P3 with 256Mb is vastly more responsive running XP than a brand new eMac or iBook with 256Mb is running Panther.
I spend all day at work sitting in front of a dual 700Mhz P3 machine with 1GB of RAM running Windows 2003 that dates from 1999. It’s typically running dozens of applications, usually with a couple of VMWare machines in addition to Firefox/Word/Outlook/Putty/Cygwin/etc. Having also spent several months in a previous job using a Mac dating from the same timeframe (350Mhz G4 PowerMac), the idea of running the same workload on it – without frustration – is laughable.
And a three year old Mac is actually worth something when you sell it (look up those prices). A three year old PC can be picked up for $50 and ends its life as a 1.44 SCOUNIX firewall ….
Of course, since it was so much cheaper to start with, the overall expenditure is about the same. Sure, you can sell your 3 year old Mac for more than your 3 year old PC – but since the PC probably only cost 1/2 as much in the first place, it’s a bit of a pyrric vitory.
Since we’re discussing macs… I’m a recent mac owner, having used only PC’s before (and running Linux as my main OS for the last 3 years). I bought a 12″ ibook G4, and I must say that it is very comparable to similarly priced laptops from Dell et. al. The software that you get with a mac definitely ads a lot of value. OS X is a great, easy to use operating system, and I honestly can’t see how somebody would _prefer_ windows over OS X if we ignored price and what hardware we have to run it on. I mean, win XP is just so ugly. It’s a joke. Sit an OS X box and a WinXP box side by side and tell me which one is nicer. I’m totally loving this laptop, and can’t imagine ever wanting an x86 laptop.
However on the desktop, none of the options from apple impress me. I don’t like the iMac, and the powermacs are way too expensive. So my desktop computer is an AMD64 box that I built myself. But that’s okay. OS X and Linux talk to eachother fine
Since we’re discussing macs… I’m a recent mac owner, having used only PC’s before (and running Linux as my main OS for the last 3 years). I bought a 12″ ibook G4, and I must say that it is very comparable to similarly priced laptops from Dell et. al.
Agreed. If the primary criteria are size (12″ or 13″ at most) and price (under AU$2500) nothing is as good as the 12″ iBook in the bang-for-buck stakes, particularly if you’re a student (or know one). Although Dell’s Inspiron 700m comes close (better specs, but more $$$).
I’m going on a year long vacation/multi purpose expedition, (living in a small trailer), and was planning on a 17″ powerbook. This thing is small enough to travel, and has tons of conectivity features, that with a few options, will save me money.
I have the difference between the two, plus the TV I don’t have to buy.
Now I can justify a better camera, like a Canon XL1 S, and a couple of 250 gig external HD’s, and the Apple production suite.
Happy Happy Joy Joy!
I’m still running my trusty, unmodified, 450MHz G4 Cube with OSX 10.3 and I do not have speed problems on non-CPU intensive apps. Sure if I throw on some iMovie renderings, or Maya, or a poorly written video app (WMP) I start maxing the little thing out. However I have the same problem on my 1.6GHz Windows machine bought at a much later time, obviously. I wouldn’t think of putting XP on that guy–W2K is slow enough–yet I plan on putting 10.4 on my Cube.
I am planning on getting a new iMac because I’m doing more video work nowadays, and a 4 year old computer just doesn’t cut it for that purpose. I still wouldn’t think of running Linux on either machine however. I’ve never had a problem with Unix-ish apps ported over to OSX running in X11, especially now that Apple’s development and install environment is much more Linux friendly. I really don’t see the point of losing what I consider to be the best OS just so that I don’t have to recompile some Linux apps or at worst look around for the binaries on the internet.
I’m still running my trusty, unmodified, 450MHz G4 Cube with OSX 10.3 and I do not have speed problems on non-CPU intensive apps. Sure if I throw on some iMovie renderings, or Maya, or a poorly written video app (WMP) I start maxing the little thing out. However I have the same problem on my 1.6GHz Windows machine bought at a much later time, obviously. I wouldn’t think of putting XP on that guy–W2K is slow enough–yet I plan on putting 10.4 on my Cube.
If you’re happy with the performance of OS X on a 450Mhz G4, then Windows 2000 on a 1.6Ghz machine should be blazingly fast, unless it’s memory starved or has something else going on that’s bogging it down. XP will be no slower (it’s marginally faster in most benchmarks) and probably noticably faster if you turn off the default skin. Added to that, the UI improvements (like the new Start Menu) will probably make it faster to actually use.
x updates break ethernet and eat firewire hard drives. x updates break tons of apps and since they come out so often it is much like linux dependency hell. i wonder why so many recommend repairing permissions so damn often on os x? what is up with that? mom want to repair permisssions every time an auto update is done to x?
x is a nightmare to use.
Unbelievable. Calling OS X a nightmare could be the most laughable comment ever posted on OSNews.
I’ve been running OS X since the Public Beta, and the real public beta (10.0). Since upgrading to OS X (10.1), my favorite OS has crashed a total of 4 times in what… 3 years. I’ve never experienced one of the problems he describes, nor have the few dozen macs that have been purchased over the years by friends and family. (I know there are some documented problems with a few OS X updates, so he’s not lying… Just overstating the problem).
Of course, the Seeker likes to portray me as an ultramaroon. Maybe so. But I’m also a power user, running Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Photoshop, InDesign, Final Cut Express, DVD Studio Pro, the iLife apps, and a number of other productivity apps… and all from a lowly iMac G4 (800 Mhz). With each release of OS X, my computer gets faster and I can do more. (I’d love to get a new iMac G5… I think Apple will sell a ton of them… But I digress…)
There are many Windows XP users here who are happy and content. They run a ton of productivity apps, and they make money by using their computers. (And most of their computers are faster than mine). The whole package works for them, and I’m fine with that. I think Windows XP is a decent OS. Even though you couldn’t pay me to use it, I wouldn’t dream of calling XP a nightmare. It isn’t.
That’s why I’ve started using the initials ND to refer to the Seeker. Based on his continual low level of discourse — designed to add heat, but not light, to every debate — I encourage others to do the same.
i was planning on getting an iBook but have heard more bad reviews then good ones as for the OS i have used osX and i dont really like the apple built programs(ichat there browser ect)but it is nice to not have to go out and download what i use right away befor it is remotly useful to me i also find aqua pretty ugly and i dont like not having my start menu i have grown to love it and find the thing they have ugly and the only linux version i have seen is the lindows one so i cant really judge linux gui’z or speed because i havnt had the time to partition my hdd and dl linux but oh well OSx is a desent os most likly better with linux over the top but i think ill stay with my wintel pc and possibly an ibook when i have som cash again
XP runs quite usably on ca. 1997 300Mhz Pentium 2 hardware, as long as its got 512MB of RAM and a few bits of eyecandy turned off. Throw in a modern, 7200rpm 8MB cache hard disk and it’s almost *quick*. Certainly, XP on such a machine is only marginally slower than OS X on my 1Ghz iBook with 768MB and a 7200rpm 8MB cache drive.
That’s opinion again. I have a 333Mhz PII it’s unsable doing anything decent.
I find that a 1Ghz ibook with 768 MB is only marginally faster than xp on a 300Mhz PII extremely hard to believe.
spend all day at work sitting in front of a dual 700Mhz P3 machine with 1GB of RAM running Windows 2003 that dates from 1999. It’s typically running dozens of applications, usually with a couple of VMWare machines in addition to Firefox/Word/Outlook/Putty/Cygwin/etc. Having also spent several months in a previous job using a Mac dating from the same timeframe (350Mhz G4 PowerMac), the idea of running the same workload on it – without frustration – is laughable.
Ok that’s fair compare a dual cpu box to a single cpu machine. Also the G4s were at 500Mhz then.
http://www.apple-history.com/frames/body.php?page=gallery&model=g4a…
Panther runs fine on such a machine. Care to post benchmarks demostrating a single 700Mhz PIII handily out performing a 500 MHZ g4?
If you’re happy with the performance of OS X on a 450Mhz G4, then Windows 2000 on a 1.6Ghz machine should be blazingly fast, unless it’s memory starved or has something else going on that’s bogging it down. XP will be no slower (it’s marginally faster in most benchmarks) and probably noticably faster if you turn off the default skin. Added to that, the UI improvements (like the new Start Menu) will probably make it faster to actually use.
Actually I don’t find either GUI’s to be especially non-responsive, however the W2K system does bog down much more easily than the OSX system does. All you have to do is add a network drive and suddenly every explorer or file I/O based operation can be ground to a halt. I think OSX, like all other Unixes I use, don’t have the performance bottlenecking that I feel in Windows. Is that a subjective thing? Yes. However I consistently find this to be the case. The claim that OSX feels sluggish I think may have been true back in the 10.1 days, and maybe even the 10.2 days, but it is not true at all anymore. Take it from someone who’s been running ever OSX release since PB on the same lowly Cube, the OS gets faster with every release–not slower.
On the XP skin…I loath what MS did with the start menu and skin under XP. The first order of business is to switch it back to look like W2K
apple has run out of design ideas it appears.
No. The korean AIO’s screen is stationary and can’t be repositioned it apears. That’s retarded especially considering how straight that damn thing is, can you say bad ergonomics.
The iMac G5’s ID trumps the lluon AIO interms of seer brilliance in engineering, a thin metallic stand supporting the weight of a PC vs a wide think base and a stationary screen.
The iMac looks like a monitor the lluon AIO is a clearly a PC.
[quote]I mean.. The Centrino Intel Pro Wireles 2200 wifi cards don’t work or not so well, there is a project.. But is only a project..Linux hardware support remains as a big problem..
[/quote]
That’s true of all bleeding edge hardware because it takes time and demand for people to lobby for the source to be opened up or for people to hack it. Support for a lot of wireless cards (my Dell/Broadcom one for example) is still a crapshoot with linuxant.com or ndis wrappers as the only solution.
[quote]As an aside, how come everytime there is a Mac article on this site the trolls come out in full force?[/quote]
good point.
so, $200 less than the 20″ iMac and you get these benefits
a 20.1″ lcd that can be adjusted (rotatable and height adjustable), has higher resolution (1600×1200), higher contrast ratio (600:1), greater brightness
(250), does picture in picture
Yeah the display alone weighs 3/4 that of the iMac 20 inch. has a horrible vieweing angle at 85 degrees vs 170 degrees. Resoultion is about the same at 1680×1050 for the wide screen iMac.
Not to mention a hideous looking tower with ridiculously loud fans and not to mentions wire hell.
and who cares about wires….everyone has palms, phones, scanners, printers, speakers, routers, cable/dsl modems, hubs/switches, external hard drives, external optical drives, game controllers, etc etc etc.
Apparently a lot of people. Given the proliferation of wireless devices in the last couple of years. Keyboards/mice, bluetooth devices,Satatelite TV, Cellphones, cordless headphones, cordless phones. wireless game controllers, Wifi network options and Even USB is going wireless. Almost anything that can do without wires has a wireless option. So yes there is a rather huge market for wireless becuase people don’t like wires.
Wow, yet another thread completely taken over by this guy.
Doesn’t he have anything better to do?
I have to skip over every post of his because they’re all repetitive, regurgitative drivel. What a waste of time.
I’d like to read an article and hear what people think about it, not get the same crap posted over and over by a bitter Mac-basher.
PC=good pc for average person
Linux system=Good system for geek or power user
Mac=Ok for average person, Good for digital media people
That’s opinion again. I have a 333Mhz PII it’s unsable doing anything decent.
Of course it’s going to be slow on individual tasks – the processor is 7 years old.
The thing I’m trying to describe *UI responsiveness*, not raw by-the-stopwatch performance.
I find that a 1Ghz ibook with 768 MB is only marginally faster than xp on a 300Mhz PII extremely hard to believe.
Well after buying my iBook and being disappointed that OS X was *still* pretty chunky to use, I plonked it down next to an old machine at work to compare. As long as you stay away from CPU intensive applications (so just using the typical web browser/email/word processor/mp3 player app lineup) XP is nearly as responsive to use (switching between applications, performing tasks in them, opening menus, etc) as my iBook. Of course, when you do something CPU intensive like compress a file or convert an MP3, the iBook shits all over it, but that’s not the kind of performance I’m referring to.
Ok that’s fair compare a dual cpu box to a single cpu machine.
Given that both were available at the same time, probably cost about the same and that a dual G4 *wasn’t* available, how isn’t it fair ?
Also the G4s were at 500Mhz then.
http://www.geek.com/readercomm/091999/comm101.htm ):
700Mhz P3:
SPECINT95: 33.7
SPECFP95: 23.5
450Mhz G4:
SPECINT95: 21.4
SPECFP95: 20.4
500Mhz G4 (est):
SPECINT95: 23.7
SPECFP95: 22.6
I’ve extrapolated the 500Mhz figures from the 450Mhz figures. SPEC scales pretty much linearly with clock speed, so that’s a reasonable thing to do. A 700Mhz P3 is quite a bit faster at INT (~30%) and pretty much equal on FP. That’s basically what you’d expect since the G4 and P3 match up very similarly clock-for-clock on INT, but the G4 is much faster in FP (and faster again when you can take advantage of AltiVec). However, since the bulk of the work in “just running” is INT, for typical workloads the P3 is the faster CPU.
The short answer is that, typically, a 700Mhz P3 is going to be in the ballpark of 20% – 30% faster in general benchmarks than a G4 (which is about as much of a prediction as can be made without knowing other things like memory configuration, disk configuration, workload, etc).
Although, again, that’s not really relevant to what I’m talking about. The kind of performance I’m talking about (interactive responsiveness) has much more to do with the OS (scheduling, memory management, etc) than the hardware (some people might remember the Amiga as amazingly responsive with quite modest hardware, by today’s standards). Again, you’d expect NT to be better simply because it’s been under active and intensive development for much longer, is used by more people and has a wider range of workloads. OS X has been chunky and unresponsive ever since the public beta. It’s certainly improved markedly over the years, but it remains a UI that always feels half a step behind in actual use.
A 12″ screen for a desktop????? Are you crazy or what?
Anyway.. Where is firewire? Where is 5.1 optical audio? What graphic card does it have?
The Athlon XP 2200+ is much more slow than a G5 1,6-1.8Ghz..
A G5 1,8Ghz is more comparable to an athlon 64 3000+..
Well, buy a stand.. And.. What if i want to wall mount it?
The iMac is VESA compatible, is there an adaptor for a Averatec notebook?
I don’t think i’ll buy nothing from averatec ever if i can buy from companys like Apple, IBM, HP.. Who knows averatec? Are they in the nasdaq?
Buy an iBook 12″ and upgrade to a dvd-rw trough MCE Tech.. i’ll be better money spent than any averatec..
Only my memory. I’m not spending hours chasing up historical part prices for the sake of an OSNews discussion (this machine is a clone, not a name brand, and was at this current job long before I was).
I doubt I’d be able to give you directly comparable prices anyway, given it was bought in Australia.
I remember paying $2000+ for a dell dimension xd233 233Mhz PII around 1998. So PCs weren’t available for $500 like today. The price differential of a Mac Vs PC wasn’t much around 1999.
Everymac says a 350Mhz PowerMac G4 was US$1600 with 64MB of RAM and no monitor. If you wish to research the late 1999/early 2000 prices for an Asus P2B-DS, two 700Mhz Pentium 3 CPUs and some PC100 RAM to prove me wrong, feel free. My gut feeling and recollection from the time tells me the PC was probably somewhat more expensive, but not a great deal more, relative to its greater specifications.
No SPEC doesn’t linearly scale with MHz. If you look at the 600 MHz PIII number and the 700MHZ numbers that is not a linear scale.
It scales “pretty well linearly” with clockspeed. Not exactly, not always. In this particularly case I think you’d find it’s because the P3/600 in question has an L2 cache running at 1/2 the CPU clockspeed and the 700Mhz model has an L2 cache running at full clockspeed. I’m almost certain there was no similar design differences between the 450Mhz and 500Mhz G4s of the time – certainly Everymac would suggest they are simply differently clocked variants of the same core.
In general, SPEC scales almost linearly with clock speed – as you would expect from a benchmark that usually fits complete in CPU cache and tests little outside of sheer computational ability.
Exactly, then your opinion will be just that then.
True enough. However, when basically every single Mac I sit down in front of from 233Mhz Beige G3s through to G5 PowerMacs all feel like they’re half a second (or more) behind my every move, I get the impression it’s not exactly an odd occurrance. Certainly, a lot of Windows machines are also similarly slow and chunky to use, but whereas I’ve used lots Windows machines that aren’t – often with quite modest specifications – the only Macs I’ve ever seen (out of the dozens, if not hundreds that I’ve used) that come even close to Windows for UI responsiveness are the current and previous model top of the line, fire-breathing dual G5 monsters.
I’ve actually gotten to the point now where I think whatever it is that makes the UI feel ‘sluggish’ is either a) unfixable or b) deliberately programmed in, it’s so prevalent.
BTW I am running XP on a Athlon XP 1700+ machine and the UI is barely responsive after turning of all the eye candy. XP keeps alowing down over time just like all windows versions before it. I for the life of me can’t figure out why an OS should slow down over time. No other OS does.
Your machine is broken, severely misconfigured or possibly infested with something malicious (since you seem to have a rather fatalistic view of Windows’ security, that’s a distinct possibility). Given it’s an Athlon, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if it was a crappy motherboard and/or chipset.
i was using xp on an old athlon 1000+ i think it was like a thunderbird or something like that i dont rember because i didnt like it to begin with even when it was new but it was still quick and usefull (256 mb ram) i love that old computer
It’s timely that YDL 4.0 is to be released soon. When RC3 came out on the 10th, they had only one showstopper to resolve.
There are good reasons for wanting to run Linux distributions on Apple’s systems, and yes, that even includes not liking Mac OS X. I personally love Mac OS X and use it as my ‘primary’ system (for the moment, anyway). I’m also a KDE fan and Linux distribution enthusiast and while it runs happily with Darwin, it simply runs better as part of a Linux distribution. Hence, I like to dual-boot my G4 tower (a second box and KVM would be better, but that’s something I’ll have to leave for another day…).
Support for Apple’s new hardware has never been good in PowerPC Linux distributions, and Apple shares some of the blame here, no question. However, be patient and support gradually catches up. If you have a look at the support for some of Apple’s older models in YDL, it’s actually reasonably good. Not as perfect as what Mac OS X provides (obviously), but good enough to use a Linux distribution as the primary OS on.
The G5 hardware Apple now sells is a different kettle of fish compared with their previous lines. Apple has enough confidence to allow TerraSoft to distribute their brand new hardware with YDL pre-installed and still maintain the warranty, which I believe speaks volumes louder than what is realistically a transient issue. The article itself notes that “Usually support situation changes very fastly“… and it already has, considering the delays in getting shipping G5 models.
In short, I’m glad an update on this was posted, but while it may sound pretty bleak, trust me, it’s not 🙂
As a footnote, these discussion threads are getting ridiculous. Over 1/3rd of the items in this thread have been moderated down, and a dozen or so are still pending review! Macs exist, Mac OS X exists, Apple charges what they like, and there are people out there willing to pay them and like using Macs and Mac OS X. Please build a bridge and get over it.
Your machine is broken, severely misconfigured or possibly infested with something malicious (since you seem to have a rather fatalistic view of Windows’ security, that’s a distinct possibility). Given it’s an Athlon, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if it was a crappy motherboard and/or chipset.
No My machine is nowhere broken. The motherboard is a Soyo K7 dragon plus, a motherboard highly placed on the reviews of Anandtech and Tomsharsware. With Mushkin shielded DDR or whaterever and a decent Radeon that was available whrn it was built.
I have every patch including XP SP2 and it has always been patched runs a desktop firewall and is behind a hardware NAT firewall router. Also it is running the corporate version of symantec’s Anitvirus and the last update to the virus definitions was a few days ago.
Also I have desabled all the eye candy, fixed the swap file to a fixed size (imporves performance over dynamic swap files) turned of many services that are security risks and not needed.
I am well aware of how to configure a windows box, I have done it for more than 8 years now, thank you.
My powerbook works exactly the same as it did when it was bought 12 months ago. I remember installing XP around the same time, it was win2k before then.
wow that is a lot for just $599!
Yeah. Makes you wonder how all these other PC companies with their overpriced notebooks manage to stay in the market, or why they still bother to offer multi-thousand dollar machines.
You know, companies like Dell or Compaq.
yes you can spend more to get more. and many times you can spend more to get less or the same.
And obviously there are people who do buy these overpriced, underpowered PCs. Why would they do that if there are so much better PC deals out there (as you don’t tire to point out)? (this is a real question)
“Why would they do that if there are so much better PC deals out there (as you don’t tire to point out)? (this is a real question)”
one reason would be master marketing like what jobs/apple is capable of….style over substance.
“Why would they do that if there are so much better PC deals out there (as you don’t tire to point out)? (this is a real question)”
one reason would be master marketing like what jobs/apple is capable of….style over substance.
And that is the only reason? (Especially considering that good chunk of the higher priced PCs are rather bland machines stylewise).
And even if: what’s wrong with style?
I am well aware of how to configure a windows box, I have done it for more than 8 years now, thank you.
In which case you’re lying. There is no way known a machine of that specification, “properly configured” is “barely responsive”, if your measurement of “responsive” is anything realistic. Certainly, if you consider Windows “barely responsive” on that hardware, OS X on the Powerbook must be practically running in reverse.
In which case you’re lying. There is no way known a machine of that specification, “properly configured” is “barely responsive”, if your measurement of “responsive” is anything realistic. Certainly, if you consider Windows “barely responsive” on that hardware, OS X on the Powerbook must be practically running in reverse.
My mistake, I should have said barely any more responsive than OS X. In fact it is less responsive.
You assertion that XP would blaze on a 1 GHz PIII is anything but realistic. But since we are on opinions and there is not accurate way of measuring UI responsiveness, we will leave it that.
OS X is runs just fine and is fairly quick on my powerbook 1.25Ghz. However, it is very easy to make the animations like expose and the genie effect do a cool slow-motion effect.
Where did you get that price quote on the 1.8Ghz 970FX?
Quote: “The CPU of the iMac G5 20″ costs only 600$, really cheap.. ”
I can dig up price quotes for Freescale “G4″‘s and IBM “G3″‘s, but I’ve not found a quote on the “G5″‘s.
I was referring to the entire CPU not the microprocessor..
1899$ – 1299$ (Of an Cinema Display of 20″) = 600$, easy math
Next Time, read the links i’ve posted, please..
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,…
At the end, the article says:
“Look at it this way: A stand-alone 20-in. Cinema Display sells for $1,299. That’s just for the LCD monitor. In the top-of-the-line iMac G5, you get virtually the same screen, with a G5 computer now elegantly attached to it, for just $600 more. In my book, that’s money well spent. “
I did read it.
And btw CPU==Microproccessor.
Somebody’s not got there naming conventions straight, and for once I’m quite shure that it ain’t me.
My mistake, I should have said barely any more responsive than OS X. In fact it is less responsive.
I find that exceptionally difficult to believe. However, it’s a dead issue, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
You assertion that XP would blaze on a 1 GHz PIII is anything but realistic. But since we are on opinions and there is not accurate way of measuring UI responsiveness, we will leave it that.
My assertion was actually that it would blaze relative to a Mac from about the same time. Since Macs of that vintage have barely half the performance (cooked up Photoshop benchmarks aside) of similar PCs, I’d say that’s a pretty reasonable thing to say even from an objective perspective.
I have to agree, however, we’re best off leaving it at that.
“The only issue with the PPC versions of Linux at the moment is multimedia is not at a par with the X86 versions it seems to be about a year behind.”
Somebody donate some hardware to good codec-hackers located in a legally appropriate country!
over or alongside? mac on linux.