Upgrading to an IntelMac- a surprise.
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rob on 13 Jul 2010 04:28 On 12/07/2010 18:35, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/07/2010 05:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>> Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>>>> Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Peter Ceresole wrote: >>>>>>> Okay, I've gone from my iG5 to and InteliMac and as I expected, by >>>>>>> comparison it's blindingly fast, especially with Street View and Flash >>>>>>> stuff like the iPlayer. No complaints at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice, aren't they :-) >>>>> >>>>> My somewhat older 3.06 GHz Core2Duo iMac is about as fast as my old >>>>> 2.5GHz 4G5 - faster on some things, slower on others, less snappy UI. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am kinda surprised, although perhaps some applications run better on >>>> the Power PC code? >>> >>> Why be surprised? Four 2.5GHz 64 bit cores can be expected to out-power >>> a pair of 3.06GHz 64 bit CPU cores, all other things being equal. >>> >>> But they're not... >>> >>> The 4G5 had a better graphics card, and those old G5s are stormingly >>> fast at streaming operations, so the 4G5 can rip DVDs and CDs rather >>> quicker than the new machine. >>> >> >> Interesting - the i5 takes about 15 minutes to rip a commercial DVD to >> an 800MB avi - how long does the 4G5 take? > > No idea. It broke, so I've not got it to test, and I'm not sure either > the 4G5 or the new iMac can manage even to read the data off `a > commercial DVD' in 15 minutes, let alone re-encode it, a job which I > expect to see taking hours. > 15 minutes does sound suspect - but that's what it's taking - or about 100fps, or about 1/4 real time. That's from memory - I shoud check again properly before propagating poor memory as fact ;-) >>> Definitely less snappy, the newer Mac. >> >> OK, point taken. >> >>>> Admittedly my 'old' C2D does feel a bit ploddy >>>> starting some apps, especially MS Office, but is pretty good once >>>> they're running. This i5 SSD is far and away the fastest computer I've >>>> used - clicked Excel, one, one and bit seconds - up and running. >>> >>> That slow? You must have managed to avoid rapidly responding computers, >>> then. >>> >> >> Could you give me an example of a rapidly responding computer? > > <shrug> > > BBC Micro with software in ROM. The old HP 9000 `snake box' as it was > called, that I met in 1990. 128MB RAM, 1GB HDD, 90MHz CPU - but it > seemed about ten times faster than the 99MHz 486 whatevers in the rest > of the lab... > >>>>> I wonder if the current iMacs are at least as snappy as my old 4G5? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not just snappy - they are nice to look at (YMMV), convenient with >>>> good screen (although again, not for all). >>> >>> <shrug> I'm not overly bothered about that. I want a tool that's good >>> to use. >>> >> >> Which I find the iMac is, YMMV. > > I can't say any tool is good to use unless I can learn how to use it and > try it out. With most modern software, I can't learn how to use it > because it's got no manual. > > So most modern software counts as `useless tools' to me. > > Older software is much more use to me. > I spent 3 hours yesterday rewriting documents so various users could have the same 'experience' and editing control (convert to OpenOffice). I'd probably stick with old 'n good if I could. >>> For one thing, I'd quite like new Macs all to be as snappy as the old >>> b&w compact Macs. Very few of them are - our old 4G5 is the only >>> PowerMac I've met with as much snappy as my old Mac Plus. >>> >>> I've not yet met an Intel Mac with the same snappy as a Mac Plus. >>> >>> Pathetic, innit? >> >> I assume by 'snappy' you mean quick to respond? > > Yeah, I mean the instant response from the UI that you get with a CLI or > with an old (esp. pre-MacOS 8) Mac. They worked hard to get the snappy > on the old line of Macs - before System 7, you've got an efficient UI. > Then it got less efficient - although the b&w Macs are still snappy with > System 7 versions, I've found. > Ah, interesting, OK. >> I get the impression >> you're trying to trick me in some way? > > Sorry, not my intention. > Ah, OK, sorry, my misunderstanding! Genuinely baffled by your suggestion an old computer could compare with newer . . . >> Or making a joke? > > <puzzled> Not sure I can see anything that might be considered > humorous. > > I've got this huge humming beast of a computer, with two 3.06GHz 64 bit > CPU cores, a monster graphics card, a line to the internet running at 8 > Mb/s, gigabit Ethernet around the house - and while it's obviously > considerably faster than the older Macs, the UI doesn't respond as > `snappily' as it does on my 8MHz 16/32 bit single core no graphics card > Mac Plus - with its<cough> fast 230,400 bit/s serial links to the > outside world and all of 4MB RAM (maxed out, woo!). > > Up until not so many generations of MacOS X/MacTeX ago, LaTeX jobs on > modern Macs were taking about as long as they did on the 90MHz HP/UX box > I mention above - TeX writes to a console as it runs, and that used to > be *horribly* slow on Macs. They've got that going faster, so TeX now > runs on my gigahertz Mac at `faster than the old dog slow speed, which > was caused by UI sluggishness'. > > Nope, I don't know if it was the OS or the TeX distro that had the fix, > but: the fact that there was inefficiency to overcome in the first place > is the issue. > .. . . take your point. So much for progress. Rob
From: Rowland McDonnell on 13 Jul 2010 09:25 Rob <ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>> Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>>>> Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Peter Ceresole wrote: > >>>>>>> Okay, I've gone from my iG5 to and InteliMac and as I expected, by > >>>>>>> comparison it's blindingly fast, especially with Street View and Flash > >>>>>>> stuff like the iPlayer. No complaints at all. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nice, aren't they :-) > >>>>> > >>>>> My somewhat older 3.06 GHz Core2Duo iMac is about as fast as my old > >>>>> 2.5GHz 4G5 - faster on some things, slower on others, less snappy UI. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am kinda surprised, although perhaps some applications run better on > >>>> the Power PC code? > >>> > >>> Why be surprised? Four 2.5GHz 64 bit cores can be expected to out-power > >>> a pair of 3.06GHz 64 bit CPU cores, all other things being equal. > >>> > >>> But they're not... > >>> > >>> The 4G5 had a better graphics card, and those old G5s are stormingly > >>> fast at streaming operations, so the 4G5 can rip DVDs and CDs rather > >>> quicker than the new machine. > >> > >> Interesting - the i5 takes about 15 minutes to rip a commercial DVD to > >> an 800MB avi - how long does the 4G5 take? > > > > No idea. It broke, so I've not got it to test, and I'm not sure either > > the 4G5 or the new iMac can manage even to read the data off `a > > commercial DVD' in 15 minutes, let alone re-encode it, a job which I > > expect to see taking hours. > > 15 minutes does sound suspect - but that's what it's taking - or about > 100fps, or about 1/4 real time. That's from memory - I shoud check again > properly before propagating poor memory as fact ;-) I wonder what sort of size the DVD is? 'cos 15 minutes sounds like about as fast as you'd expect the machine to be able to read the data, never mind process it. <shrug> I'd guess that it's not doing much by way of re-encoding - except if you're squeezing a DVD into an 800MB file... erm? Expending much effort on e-encoding seems rather unavoidable. <bigger shrug> But it takes this 3.06GHz Core2Duo iMac some hours to re-encoded a DVD - about the same for the old 4G5, maybe a wee bit faster, definitely much noisier. It was easy to spot when it had finished - the jets wound down and it stopped sounding like it was on its take-off run. (transl: bloody noisy fans, when running fast) [snip] > > I can't say any tool is good to use unless I can learn how to use it and > > try it out. With most modern software, I can't learn how to use it > > because it's got no manual. > > > > So most modern software counts as `useless tools' to me. > > > > Older software is much more use to me. > > I spent 3 hours yesterday rewriting documents so various users could > have the same 'experience' and editing control (convert to OpenOffice). > I'd probably stick with old 'n good if I could. I have done - been on LaTeX since about 1989, never had to worry about changes (there have been changes, but well documented and since they're all genuine improvements, pretty much, it's worth doing the learning). Having to re-write computer stored documents for the convenience of the users - oh, there's something wrong there, isn't there? - although quite what you can do about it in a practical sense, I'm not sure. [snip] > >> I get the impression > >> you're trying to trick me in some way? > > > > Sorry, not my intention. > > Ah, OK, sorry, my misunderstanding! Genuinely baffled by your suggestion > an old computer could compare with newer . . . I've got a book on classic cars downstairs, from a classic car fiend who mentions that in a lot of ways, the older cars were better than modern (this was in the early 1970s). And he gave specific examples of how they were better - more tractable engines requiring fewer gear changes, and things like that (and that's *before* he starts to extoll the joys of steam cars[1]). A lot of older computers can compare very well with newer computers when you think about *using* them. So what if you don't have four 3GHz CPU cores? They are not needed for word processing or sending email and so on. What you do need is something reliable and usable and responsive - a lot of older computers are better than a lot of modern computers in all three respects. The downsides is the limited range of abilities compared to what you can do today - but lots of the older machines have a usability advantage when you start to look at what they *can* do. One advantage that old tyme Macs always had over Windoze 3 boxes in particular was that the mouse pointer never got left behind, the UI was never sluggish to respond. Win 3 was awful for that, if you didn't have a `Windoze accelerating graphics card' and lots of RAM and so on. They could do that because the Mac hardware and software were designed carefully to make sure that the user had a good experience without annoyances like that. Because Windoze 3 was layered on top of a PC architecture that was never meant to drive a GUI, it had to put up with all sorts of inefficiencies that were never in the Mac design at all. [snip] > . . . take your point. So much for progress. <grin> The Mac Plus has a 72 dpi 9" black and white (no greyscale) screen. This 24" iMac - erm - doesn't. The Mac Plus doesn't have a DVD drive, either. Some things are /definitely/ better. Thing is, once upon a time, you had a telly and video recorder for all that - I'd rather that the PCs were made into really good PCs before they started to slap all the functions in the world onto 'em. Rowland. [1] A late model Stanley Steamer had a flash boiler - fire it up, you've got driving power inside 30s (full power takes not much longer). The boiler's wire-wrapped and so cannot explode. They're silent when not moving and hardly any noisier when rolling along. And you can run 'em off almost any liquid you can burn in an oil burner. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rob on 13 Jul 2010 14:10 On 13/07/2010 14:25, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >> >> 15 minutes does sound suspect - but that's what it's taking - or about >> 100fps, or about 1/4 real time. That's from memory - I shoud check again >> properly before propagating poor memory as fact ;-) > > I wonder what sort of size the DVD is? 'cos 15 minutes sounds like > about as fast as you'd expect the machine to be able to read the data, > never mind process it. > > <shrug> I'd guess that it's not doing much by way of re-encoding - > except if you're squeezing a DVD into an 800MB file... erm? Expending > much effort on e-encoding seems rather unavoidable. > > <bigger shrug> But it takes this 3.06GHz Core2Duo iMac some hours to > re-encoded a DVD - about the same for the old 4G5, maybe a wee bit > faster, definitely much noisier. It was easy to spot when it had > finished - the jets wound down and it stopped sounding like it was on > its take-off run. > > (transl: bloody noisy fans, when running fast) > I think it might be something to do with the way the software works. Ripping a 7GB protected DVD to a 1GB mkv file using Handbrake rips at an average of 98fps - a quarter of real time. It's a two hour film so it took 30 minutes. All cores are sitting at 100%, temps went up to 60 (from 40). > [snip] > >>> I can't say any tool is good to use unless I can learn how to use it and >>> try it out. With most modern software, I can't learn how to use it >>> because it's got no manual. >>> >>> So most modern software counts as `useless tools' to me. >>> I admit I have no idea what it does - I just set buttons that look familiar and press Go. I'm sure what I'm doing could be improved. >>> Older software is much more use to me. >> >> I spent 3 hours yesterday rewriting documents so various users could >> have the same 'experience' and editing control (convert to OpenOffice). >> I'd probably stick with old 'n good if I could. > > I have done - been on LaTeX since about 1989, never had to worry about > changes (there have been changes, but well documented and since they're > all genuine improvements, pretty much, it's worth doing the learning). > > Having to re-write computer stored documents for the convenience of the > users - oh, there's something wrong there, isn't there? > > - although quite what you can do about it in a practical sense, I'm not > sure. > > [snip] > >>>> I get the impression >>>> you're trying to trick me in some way? >>> >>> Sorry, not my intention. >> >> Ah, OK, sorry, my misunderstanding! Genuinely baffled by your suggestion >> an old computer could compare with newer . . . > > I've got a book on classic cars downstairs, from a classic car fiend who > mentions that in a lot of ways, the older cars were better than modern > (this was in the early 1970s). And he gave specific examples of how > they were better - more tractable engines requiring fewer gear changes, > and things like that (and that's *before* he starts to extoll the joys > of steam cars[1]). > > A lot of older computers can compare very well with newer computers when > you think about *using* them. So what if you don't have four 3GHz CPU > cores? They are not needed for word processing or sending email and so > on. > [snip] This belongs to the the 'growth' argument IMO. Keep producing stuff that people superficially need, and the country is doing well. And do it at an increasing rate and the country is doing better. Never mind the consequence. It'd make me seethe if I didn't have a job that consumes my every hour and enables me to pay for all this tat ;-) Rob
From: Rowland McDonnell on 13 Jul 2010 22:20 Rob <ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > >> > >> 15 minutes does sound suspect - but that's what it's taking - or about > >> 100fps, or about 1/4 real time. That's from memory - I shoud check again > >> properly before propagating poor memory as fact ;-) > > > > I wonder what sort of size the DVD is? 'cos 15 minutes sounds like > > about as fast as you'd expect the machine to be able to read the data, > > never mind process it. > > > > <shrug> I'd guess that it's not doing much by way of re-encoding - > > except if you're squeezing a DVD into an 800MB file... erm? Expending > > much effort on e-encoding seems rather unavoidable. > > > > <bigger shrug> But it takes this 3.06GHz Core2Duo iMac some hours to > > re-encoded a DVD - about the same for the old 4G5, maybe a wee bit > > faster, definitely much noisier. It was easy to spot when it had > > finished - the jets wound down and it stopped sounding like it was on > > its take-off run. > > > > (transl: bloody noisy fans, when running fast) > > > > I think it might be something to do with the way the software works. > Ripping a 7GB protected DVD to a 1GB mkv file using Handbrake rips at an > average of 98fps - a quarter of real time. It's a two hour film so it > took 30 minutes. All cores are sitting at 100%, temps went up to 60 > (from 40). I wish I knew what sort of job it was doing, then. Sounds like the job that DVDRemaster calls `transcoding' rather than `re-encoding' - much less work needed to do transcoding, but poorer quality especially if you're shoving it into a much smaller space. > > [snip] > > > >>> I can't say any tool is good to use unless I can learn how to use it and > >>> try it out. With most modern software, I can't learn how to use it > >>> because it's got no manual. > >>> > >>> So most modern software counts as `useless tools' to me. > >>> > > I admit I have no idea what it does - I just set buttons that look > familiar and press Go. I'm sure what I'm doing could be improved. With most modern software, I can't learn enough even to do that sort of thing. Oh, I can usually find the `go' button, if you see what I mean, but not with any sort of clue what it's for in most cases. I remember getting OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner with an old version of MacOS X - looked at them, couldn't get the first idea what they was for. No manual was supplied for either - the supplier seemed to think that everyone knew what these programs did. You ask on the Web, you get told that it's not a problem, they've both got an intuitive UI. <shrug> That's what I find with modern software - no idea what it's for in a lot of cases, and even when I can find that out, I usually can't work out how to use it. btw, I did mention that problem to the Omni Group. If you look for those two applications now, you will see that they did in fact deal with my complaints about it being impossible to find out what the software did or how to use it. [snip] > >>>> I get the impression > >>>> you're trying to trick me in some way? > >>> > >>> Sorry, not my intention. > >> > >> Ah, OK, sorry, my misunderstanding! Genuinely baffled by your suggestion > >> an old computer could compare with newer . . . > > > > I've got a book on classic cars downstairs, from a classic car fiend who > > mentions that in a lot of ways, the older cars were better than modern > > (this was in the early 1970s). And he gave specific examples of how > > they were better - more tractable engines requiring fewer gear changes, > > and things like that (and that's *before* he starts to extoll the joys > > of steam cars[1]). > > > > A lot of older computers can compare very well with newer computers when > > you think about *using* them. So what if you don't have four 3GHz CPU > > cores? They are not needed for word processing or sending email and so > > on. > > > > [snip] > > This belongs to the the 'growth' argument IMO. How do you mean? > Keep producing stuff that > people superficially need, and the country is doing well. Keep importing stuff that people think they need, and the country is doing badly - and that's what we've got these days, innit? > And do it at > an increasing rate and the country is doing better. Never mind the > consequence. It'd make me seethe if I didn't have a job that consumes > my every hour and enables me to pay for all this tat ;-) <shrug> It can't carry on this badly for much longer, don't worry - it'll either sort itself out sensibly, or we'll have a revolution. Hopefully, no revolution will occur until after I'm dead. Revolutions are always messy. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rob on 14 Jul 2010 11:23
On 14/07/2010 03:20, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>> Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >> >>> >>> A lot of older computers can compare very well with newer computers when >>> you think about *using* them. So what if you don't have four 3GHz CPU >>> cores? They are not needed for word processing or sending email and so >>> on. >>> >> >> [snip] >> >> This belongs to the the 'growth' argument IMO. > > How do you mean? > If I've remembered the context correctly, I mean 'economic growth' is accepted almost uncritically nowadays in the mainstream. We're supposed to do it without thinking what it means, because 'growth is good'. I might find merit in the notion that broadening cultural appreciation as a means of growth has merits, but expanding (someone's, nation state's) economic growth (of which private consumption is a major component in the government's measure) is a crime of our times. IMO, naturally. >> Keep producing stuff that >> people superficially need, and the country is doing well. > > Keep importing stuff that people think they need, and the country is > doing badly - and that's what we've got these days, innit? > The country will continue to do badly, hardly a 'sustainable economy'. This fella thinks he's discovered something: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/11/apple-foxconn-start-ups >> And do it at >> an increasing rate and the country is doing better. Never mind the >> consequence. It'd make me seethe if I didn't have a job that consumes >> my every hour and enables me to pay for all this tat ;-) > > <shrug> It can't carry on this badly for much longer, don't worry - > it'll either sort itself out sensibly, or we'll have a revolution. > > Hopefully, no revolution will occur until after I'm dead. Revolutions > are always messy. > It won't be pretty. Rob |