How much power does OSX need?

K

kendlips2

Registered
Hi guys, I want to switch, but have trouble deciding to get what kind of a Mac?

I used a new iMac at school for 2 days, I love it, but with a G4 700 and 512MB of ram, it still doesn't seem to be very fast. I did some tests on it, I used Mathematica to calculate the sig fig of pi to the 100,0000 and it took longer to finish than the AMD 2000+ system I have right now, same with 512 RAM.

I am a student programmer, most program in PHP and Java and C/C++, so a fast but affordable machine is really what I am looking for, something around $1,700? I heard about the new Powerbook 12", seems cool, but is it worth it? Or can i settle for an iBook too?

Thanks'
Ken
 
I don't know the facts but i do know that the iBook is a G3 chip and a powerbook or iMac, or even a eMac have G4 chips. You definitely want a G4 chip because programs usually run faster with the G4 chip.

Twister
 
First problem: your methodology is all wrong. You should be benchmarking with the applications you use, not something else. If you're going to be primarily using C/C++/Java compilers, Apache, and PHP, test those out, not Mathematica calculating pi. If I were going to run a database server, I would be a fool to decide on a system by installing Alias|Wavefront Maya and clocking rendering times for a particle animation.

I'm not really a programmer, but a couple of times a week I compile GNU Emacs from scratch (using CVS sources, make bootstrap for the lisp stuff), currently with gcc 3.1. It generally takes 35-40 minutes. Sure, I wish it were faster on my white iBook 600MHz, but I usually go for a swim while it's compiling so it's not a big deal. The wimpiness of my system's compile performance cannot include health benefits obtained by exercising during such an event.

Second, you say that you want to switch, yet you don't list any reasons how your current setup is deficient. Based on your irrelevant (as well as statistically-insignificant) Mathematica "benchmarks", it sounds like there is no logical justification to your switching. Personally, I accepted trading pokey compile times (not important) with portability (relatively important), plus the convenience of not having to dual boot Windoze and Linux just to run a mail client, web browser, and Quicken in a UNIX-type environment with minimal fuss (very important).

That said, value-wise, you get more performance from a desktop system. What you get with the convenience of portability on a laptop is lost in system bus performance, memory architecture performance, secondary and/or tertiary CPU cache performance/size, and basic hardware reliability, et cetera ad nauseam. You have not mentioned anything about what portability means to you. In any case, you'll still have to make that final judgment call yourself.

In a way, it's as though you've asked, "What automotive vehicle should I buy?" or "What should I eat at my next meal?" with almost no context. Based on your relatively unspecific criteria, I recommend that you build your own deskside ATX box based on solid x86 technology (e.g., Asus motherboard) and pick between Windows 2000, Linux (I prefer Gentoo Linux, but that's just me...), or FreeBSD operating systems.

Good luck.
 
Ok, so I am wrong with the benchmarking. But I am trying to say that G4 is not as fast as I thought.

I program Java, PHP, C, C++, and don't really care about how fast they can be compiled, but how fast they can be run. Can you tell me is the performance of Java on your iBook smooth? Do Java apps run quiet fast and steady on MacOSX? (all compared to a 1GHz PC)

I have also heard a lot of noise on the amount of RAM that OSX needs. Some say put it to the max, some say 128MB is enough, from your experience, just how much RAM and CPU power is "enough" for programming and running the system smooth?

I like OSX because I am already a Windows/BSD user :(
You know why I really want to dump Win, bad Java support, bad System reliability, it's a hugh chunk of a virus. But using BSD is not as half as enjoyfull as using OSX. I really want an OSS that can satisfy my entertainment and working needs.
 
I really want an OSS that can satisfy my entertainment and working needs.
Click to expand...

well, there you have it. what difference does it make if you have to trade off a little speed?

anybody who tells you would be happy with 128 mb of ram is just plain naive. consider 512 to be minimum and every mb over that to be a good addition. but don't buy extra ram from apple. they overcharge. wait and add on after you get it. beyond that, just look at the prices and get the best one you can afford because essentially, the higher the price, the better your performance. Macs are not on a speed level with pc's yet in terms of top of the line comparison. OS X is not a 'snappy' os, but rather a very reliable one. reboots are primarily caused by updating system and software, not from crashes.
finally, while apple may be advertising for switchers, most of the mac faithfull would just as soon you wouldn't if you think you would be unhappy for any reason. we don't need any more people whining about how our platform should be more like the platform they left behind. most of us like the differences - that's why we're mac users. If you're still singing the praises of windows and linux and pc speed, you aren't ready to switch. you might be ready to add - to gradually adjust to the mac environment while still keeping your pc.
 
No offense to you, but I loathe client-side Java, so I avoid it like the bubonic plague. Why? Because Java is a big fat, smelly resource pig. I couldn't care less about server-side Java. Actually, I don't care about any sort of server-side technology, as long as it works (i.e., fast, reliable, secure, scales well if necessary, et cetera).

If you're looking at the Mac as your saviour for Java, well forget it. Client-side Java on OS X is just as bad as Java on any other OS. It's really tied to the inherent suckiness of client-side Java, not the shortcomings of an individual operating system/hardware architecture.

I'm a memory slut so I'm in the can't-have-too-much-RAM contingent. That said, I get along fine with 256MB RAM in my iBook, but I'm usually just running a web browser (Chimera) and Emacs simultaneously.

Again, memory consumption is a personal thing. It depends on what you're running. Really, only you know. Running OS X on 128MB is pretty ugly though. But some people do, so it's really dependent on what you can stand.
 
True: Mac OS X - like most current multimedia operating systems - has an appetite for system resources. You can speed up your system by reducing the screen resolution (from millions to thousands) and by turning off the shadows. Unsanity.com has a tool to do that.

Another option is to get a faster machine.
Perhaps wait a few more days (or weeks) until the new iMacs G4 become available. They will have faster processors (1-1,5 GHZ) and some other nice features as well. And you might consider bying more than 512 MB of RAM. If possible get wice as much. Then you should not have any trouble...

But even my iMac G3 with 768 MB RAM is quite satisfactory for most tasks.
 
Kenlips2:

In many tests, a 700 mHz Mac will be slower than a 2+ gHz Pentium. In some tests, particularly Photoshop, window acceleration, dvd encoding, . . . the g4 will show similar or better performance.

Those of us who use Macs most likely use the Mac because we prefer the operating system, hardware design, etc.

I sold my PC becasue I was sick and tired of using Windows (XP), which I find ugly, inelegant, and big-brotherish. I bought a 17" flat screen iMac because I love the design and the large, wide screen.

If you are willing to pay around $2000 (total) and you want a faster Mac, consider the new low-end Power Mac, running with a single 1 gHz G4 processor. Couple that with a nice monitor (all for under $2000), and off you go.

Doug
 
When I first got my 867Mhz G4 I was a bit dissapointed... For a while I really feared that I had made a mistake by not getting the dual-800...

But I've since thrown a LOT of RAM at the problem. (I have 1GB) I'm not sure if this actually made a difference, but I also moved my unix virtual memory swap file to a fast firewire drive that is dedicated to only that.

Today I have to say that I am quite happy. I'm feeling like this machine will keep me happy for another 2 years. (I'm spoiled but also hard to convince that the "latests greatest" actually is... so for the average person this would translate to 3-4 yeas or OS X 12.5 )I run a lot of programs including the HOG Virtual PC w/ WinDoze 2000 which has 512MB of RAM dedicated exclusively to it.
 
Yeah. I really took a leap of faith buying an iMac. I wouldn't have considered buying an original iMac. Just too limited (my opinion only, don't hurt me).

But the flat panel iMacs are just too cool!!!!

Not being able to put in a new graphics card is really my only concern. I like to play games. The GeForce4 MX is fine for now. . . My solution? Playstation. No graphics card updates required.

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top