“Is the new Intel iMac as good as its predecessor? Does the machine’s raw power offset the translation slowdown? To find out, we’ve been testing an Intel-based iMac against an iMac G5 only about a month old. The two machines look identical and sport nearly identical features. The major differences are hidden under the hood,” Walter S. Mossberg and Katherine Boehret report for The Wall Street Journal.
“For days, we ran a wide variety of software on the two iMacs, and performed all of the common tasks mainstream consumers do — surfing the Web, emailing, instant messaging, word processing, using spreadsheets, editing photos, playing music, managing personal finances, playing simple games. Our verdict: The brain transplant was a success. The two machines behaved almost identically in our tests. Compatibility is excellent. The new model easily handled all the major consumer software we threw at it. We never noticed the translator software, called Rosetta, and any slowdowns it imposed were so slight as to be indiscernible,” Mossberg and Boehret report.
“The new model was actually a little faster at a few of the tasks we tried, but nothing like the two to three times as fast that Apple claims. A mainstream user who didn’t know what was under the hood couldn’t tell the difference between them, even after using them for hours. It appears that the faster chip roughly balances out the translation effect,” Mossberg and Boehret report. “So, if the new model works only about as well as the old one, what’s the advantage for consumers? Well, the slight, scattered, speed gains we saw should grow greater over time, as Apple and third-party software makers tweak their applications to take full advantage of the dual-core Intel chip. A year from now, an Intel iMac purchased today will likely be notably faster, if you update your software to newer versions.”
Mossberg and Boehret report., “But, even now, this is a terrific computer. It’s still the best consumer desktop on the market. It still runs crisply, still is free of viruses and spyware, still has the best operating system and the best built-in software of any desktop we’ve tested. Given how smoothly the new machine works, and how likely it is to get even better, we would prefer it today over the iMac G5, which Apple is still selling for the same price until inventories are gone. The G5 is still a fine machine, but the Intel model has a brighter future.”
Full article here.
[Walt Mossberg is the author and creator of the weekly Personal Technology column in The Wall Street Journal, which has appeared every Thursday since 1991. Newsweek magazine calls Mr. Mossberg “the most powerful arbiter of consumer tastes in the computer world today.” Time magazine calls him “the most influential computer journalist.” And Rolling Stone calls him “the most powerful columnist in technology.” The Washington Post declared Mr. Mossberg “one of the most powerful men in the high-tech world” and “a one-man media empire whose prose can launch a new product.” And the New York Times calls him a “protean critic of the new economy’s tools and toys.” Mr. Mossberg was awarded the 1999 Loeb award for Commentary, the only technology writer to be so honored.]
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. $49.00.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related MacDailyNews article:
Mossberg: ‘Apple iMac G5 the best consumer desktop you can buy this holiday season, period’ – November 30, 2005
Want to switch to Mac? Mossberg answers common questions – November 10, 2005
Mossberg: Every mainstream consumer doing typical tasks should consider Apple Mac – October 13, 2005
Mossberg: ‘I’ll turn on Apple Computer in a New York minute if I think they’re going south again’ – October 09, 2005
Mossberg: Switching from Windows to Mac – software not an expensive proposition – September 30, 2005
Mossberg offers resources for Windows users interested in switching to Apple Mac – August 18, 2005
Mossberg: ‘consider dumping Windows altogether and switching to Apple’s Macintosh’ – April 18, 2005
Switching from Windows to Mac? Save money by asking to ‘crossgrade’ your software – April 12, 2005
Mossberg: most people ‘are good candidates for switching’ to Mac from Windows – February 28, 2005
So why do only 4% of the world actualy understand this.
The rest of the world is stupid.
This man is an Apple lapdog.
So Apple new that the speed perception of the average user would not be 2-3x otherwise those iMac owners who bought since the last update (including me) would feel really pissed. As it is, I’m not too unhappy as the G5 works fine for me, although still more beach ball than Id’ have expected…
I’m a get me one soon!
How can apple Justify charging the G5 at the same price as the Intel if it’s not as fast?
or ‘knew’
Boy, IBM really, really blew it.
well sad to see so many Mac whingers… get a brain, nearly everything apple does is incredible, isnt it easier to be just glad to have a Mac…
Me I’m glad all over
Hey Veronica, as they say over (and over) at MBNA: “Complacency Is Devastating”. Onward, Forward and Upward as Apple strives for perfection.
Sigh, Jobs specifically said the 2-3X faster were benchmarks, not real-world application speed. The speed of an application depends on so many variables, including how it’s written, whether it’s universal binary, what kind, etc. I wish they’d get their facts straight. These writers sometimes baffle me.
But that’s really nice, isn’t it?
You buy a new iMac now for the same price and it’s already a bit faster and then it’s going to get faster and faster over the next year.
This explains why the Powerbook and iMac were upgraded first. It puts the dual core against a G4 and a single core G5 to make things look good while Intel get their shit together.
It says something that even the next generation tech from Intel still doesn’t whip the G5’s arse… especially considering how the iMac G5 is crippled compared to the PowerMac G5.
It was the right move, and it’s being done the right way, but the playing fields are more level than the marketing would have it.
The BS benchmarks are another advantage with using Intel chips. Best benchmarks in the business. Nothing real world about them.
The thing is, now those BS benchmarks belong to Apple as well.
PC vendors have been crowing about those BS Intel benchmarks for years. Now it’s Steve’s turn.
Let him have his fun.
I am sure those speed gains will be realized once all the applications are Intel-native. Besides, those 2x-3x speed gains were benchmark reference points anyway.
Good point Steve…
Just wait until the Single Core Intel Chips get into the iBooks for a comparison…
Dear lord are those iBooks slow as hell, and the new comparisons will prove it just like Steve pointed out for the Powerbook G4’s and iMac Single Core G5 … 133/142 MHz bus speed for the iBooks…. in 2006???? That’s pathetic.
The article is proof positive that Mossberg say it as he sees it. He’s in no-ones pocket which makes his opinions and assessments al the more valid.
What matters more than just the current speed comparisons is what Apple chooses to do -and not to do- with this new Intel world at his disposal…
Veronica knows of the Dave Clark Five????
Ars Technica have a very good review of the new machine with various real-world tests. Unfortunately they are comparing a 2004 1.8GHz iMac G5 against the new Intel iMac, so the comparison isn’t as valid as it could be, but it does look like the Intel chip is great at some things, but slower than PPC at others.
Which we pretty much knew all along. The main thing is that the Finder now appears to be much faster, and once the UniBin apps start to flow and Rosetta becomes less of an issue, you’ll probably get a nice speed increase over the previous G5 model.
The best thing is that Apple seem to be managing the transition with as little pain to it’s user base as possible.
Does anybody know if the Remote Desktop software from Microsoft works well in the intel Macs?
I don’t want to spend the money to buy Apple’s version of Remote Desktop seeing as Microsoft’s is free:
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location;=/mac/download/misc/rdc_update_103.xml&secid=80&ssid=10&flgnosysreq=True
At the same time, if it doesn’t work on the intel Mac then I won’t have much of a choice. Anybody test this out yet?
Mine is on order!
Will: “How can apple Justify charging the G5 at the same price as the Intel if it’s not as fast?”
Your logic suggests to me that, if the retail price of the previous imac G5 was justified, then the new Dual Core iMac should cost more than it does.
“The G5 is still a fine machine, but the Intel model has a brighter future.”
This statement brilliantly describes why Apple switched.
“Does This WorK”:
Forget paying for Apple Remote or using Microsoft’s stuff (unless you totally dig it), try using Chicken of the VNC. Open Source and it works really well. It doesn’t have some of the slick features of ARD or Timbuktu but it does the remote controling thing just fine. I use it at Home and my Home Office. It works well over ethernet or wireless. Try it out:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/cotvnc/
MacNut said: “This man is an Apple lapdog.”
I hope that was sarcasm in your voice because Moss’ is dude.
Rock on Moss’!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
Ever anybody really noticed that the iMac moved from a 64bit machine back to a 32bit machine…? And anybody considered that the higher power consumption of a 64bit processor was the reason the G5 did not quite fit into the PB? That being said Intel is not delivering on anything IBM failed to – no 3GHz PM, no 64bit PB, even back to 32bit with iMac? Advances, anybody, huuuh???