So, in your experience, what went wrong in the Macs? - Page 4

nixgeek · #25 January 29th, 2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario8672

Yea, the intel mac's boot up time is almost HALF of the PPC's.

I can attest to this, even when compared to my iMac G5. The Intel Macs (even the first Core Duo model) were snappy with their boot times.

pds · #26 January 29th, 2007, 05:18 PM

It's a bit of a "plus/minus=zero" in my book. Sure the start-up time is shorter, but the new machines are dog slow waking from sleep. If my macbook goes to sleep with less than 10% charge on the battery, I usually need to restart to get it moving again. I _never_ had to do that on my iBook.

**Captain Code** · #27 January 29th, 2007, 05:22 PM

That's strange because my MBP takes less than 3 seconds to wake from sleep.

**fryke** · #28 January 29th, 2007, 05:28 PM

Yes, but 2.5 seconds is longer than the 0.5 it took my TiBook/500 back then.

... It's still fast enough for me, though.

pds · #29 January 30th, 2007, 02:09 AM

yeah - the iBook woke on opening the lid - before I could get my hands on the keyboard. And even the macBook beats a Toshiba we have at work - it takes as much as a minute to be ready to go.

But it's all a bit of a sideline to the thread - What went wrong? Nothing really.

ApeintheShell · #30 January 30th, 2007, 09:52 PM

I think the difference between the Power PC Macintosh and the Intel Macintosh is design. The hardware design went through many changes in 1998 thru 2005.

We had the tray loading iMac, the slot loading iMac, the Flat Panel iMac, and the iMac G5. All of which had completely different designs. Even the Mac Mini was different.
Then there was the Power Mac G3, the Power Mac G4, Power Mac G4 Cube, and Power Mac G5.
Finally, the laptop line had three distinct changes: Powerbook G3/iBook G3 Clamshell, Powerbook G4 Titanium/iBook G3 Icebook, and iBook G4/Powerbook G4 Aluminum.

The new Mac line has a Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro, and Mac Mini. This is great but there was minimal changes to the design of these machines besides the addition of new ports, placement of those ports, and wider/bigger screens. The laptops are thin and the iMac is slimmer but the buzz about them is not as big as it was. I remember when Apple released the Titanium Powerbook and it was 'the next big thing'. People described it as 'sexy'. No one called a PC 'sexy' or even 'cool'.

**fryke** · #31 January 30th, 2007, 10:40 PM

I guess the main reason for them *not* to change the designs too much while in the intel transition was to not give the idea of those not being Macs or something like that. The iMac very nicely showed that it looked the same, worked the same etc. - but faster.

One year later now... They _can_ start to change designs. The question probably is: Does it make _sense_ to change the designs. Other than a short-lived wow-effect, I mean...

ApeintheShell · #32 February 4th, 2007, 02:38 AM

If you are talking about short lived 'wow' from the Mac user base than the iMac G4 hit the mark. There is always room for improvement and Apple proved it when they released the iMac G5 in September 2004. Walt Mossberg labeled that design as the "Gold Standard of desktop computing" and PC Magazine gave the iMac G5 a 5 out of 5. The only change was its thickness which is about the same from my point of view. Suprisingly, the editors from PC Magazine actually gave the iMac a 4.5 out of 5 when Apple went intel. Maybe they wanted a new design also.

The second generation of the iMac G3 did well and there were a total of four major revisions. This pattern has continued all the way to the Intel Core 2 Duo. So we can expect to see two more revisions and a new design but it is Apple's call.