Silvermac

Oh and another thing. “If you are one of the few people left on earth that haven’t seen this video.” Must be a mac freak. Like people will pull over to the side of the road and link up to see this garbage!! jeez.

jesus. boot times are a benchmark standard of performance.

do i need a PC that can boot faster than yours? no. do i want one? yes.

it’s about bragging rights. so enough with the ‘why do you care?’. WHY DO YOU CARE IF THEY CARE.

wow.

G5 is not that slow. There is something different between the two machines and its not just the processor

Some people have the right idea here, others don’t. Boot up times are meaningless in a stable operating system environment. In the Windows world, people are programmed to accept they will be rebooting their systems. You had to reboot for even something as simple as changing your IP address (offically anyway) *nix users have had the pleasure of not needing to reboot their machines, practically, ever. Uptimes of months, even years are not unheard of. Im not a Mac user, but now that its Freebsd/*nix based, my understanding is that it should be similar in approach.

Frankly, if the box boots as fast, or faster than my WinXP box here at work, and I dont have to reboot it every time I install a new program, my productivity is going to benefit.

If people want to do a side-by-side comparison of Intel vs Powerpc, then thats a different kettle of fish. Though, I would like to point out that we are talking about a port of OSX to Intel. I don’t care what you say, thats the reality of the situation. OSX was originally developed for Powerpc architecture, not for Intel. Therefore it is optimised and configured to run best on that platform. Give it another release (or two) on Intel, and I think you will start to see it come into its own. I bet it out performs WinXP, a purlely Intel developed compatible OS, already. It might not boot as quick as a Gentoo Linux boxen, but it looks prettier when its up and running by a long mile! Both are an achievement in my books.

“Steve Jobs Says:
January 18th, 2006 at 03:34
Mac’s suck ass. Get a real computer. At least they are starting to see the light and move to Intel chips. Get a real O/S too. Here, try this: http://www.wind‘ohs.com

Ha ha, lame Mac users. Go cry now!”

…says the script-kiddie Windozer lurking on Mac sites feverishly sitting under the glow of his Dell ‘puter praying for osmeone to notice him. Okay, lil’ johnny. You been noticed. You can go back to cruising beastialty sites on your cheetos dust and DNA stained keyboard ;)

OS X takes a very long time to boot up if it has not been shut down properly prior to boot up (loss of power, hard shut down, interrupt button, etc…). I’ve not tried to diagnose why, perhaps fsck or journaling. That might have been what happened to the iMac G5.

Well G4 350MHz, boots faster than the G5 they have in the video, and yes I still use it on occasion still a decent machine. I dont know of a 350MHz Intel machine that is nearly as usable. I will miss the PowerPC. Intel makes a good chip not as good as a PPC, but good. I am just glad Apple didnt go with some cheap AMD crap. Why am i typing this, no one reads comments this low down on a page….

Yeah well my Intel, Windows XP boots up completely in 32 seconds!
Mac Fags!

[...] Thanks to Binary Bonsai for the pointer to a post at SilverMac challenging all of the “speedtest” claims of the new Intel chipped iMac as compared with the G5. Yes, the Intel based iMac is probably faster, but it seems that even the videos can be misleading. Go figure. [...]

Benchmark: beige G3 300Mhz 448M ram, partitioned 80G disk, 10.4.4 (X-PostFacto), for the 4 timings measured above: average of 3 runs: 3, 8, 32, 55 seconds. Sheesh, who needs a G5 or an intel?? ;-)

PowerMac G4 2003 MDD result:
Mac sound 4.5 s
Apple logo 20 s
Mac OS X 37 s
Ready to use 44 s

System Configuration:
PowerMac G4 MDD 2003
- 1,25 GHz PPC G4
- 2x 80 GB IBM, 1x 160 GB WD (1 of the IBM as StartUp Disk at ATA66)
- 1,5 GB Memory (some days ago 512 – wasnt really slower)
- Radeon 9600 (G5) with 2x DVI and 17″ TFT | 20″ CRT connected (both by Eizo)
- MacOS 10.4.4 which I use since 10.4 came out and which is used alot and has many programs installed :P

so whats up with the MacBook Pros being 4-5x faster then the G4 PowerBook (same CPU)… ok the startuptime is no real comparsion but that benchmark is just worth crap…

long boot times would do most of you some good. a useful thought might enter your head.

@zeroflake:
“I am just glad Apple didnt go with some cheap AMD crap. Why am i typing this, no one reads comments this low down on a page….”

I would be glad if they would use AMD chips because compared to Intel crap they got really power and dont just waste power and got a high MHz number… AMD kicks each Intel cpu s ass atm – just check PC site comparsions of the cpus and you will see the 1st 5 cpus are by AMD and then a Intel arrives… Intel is just expensive crap and hasnt been innovative for decades… without AMD Intel wouldn’t even start to try developping better CPUs now (because no concurent)

I love how you guys list the size of your monitor first.. as if that affects system performance… i.e. “17″ 1.8Ghz 1GB RAM Rev 2″

[...] Video More info [...]

What? I saw a PowerBook at Gravis (I think it had 1,33 Ghz), which was Ready-To-Use in 4 seconds. 2 seconds for that Apple logo and 2 seconds for this “Mac OS X”-dialog.

And my iBook (Clamshell; 1999) with 300Mhz (!) and booting on Mac OS X 10.2.8 Jaguar is Ready-To-Use in much less than one minute (…going to restart and count… ;)

Boot times are not great examples of system speed. As Jobs noted, while the CPU and memory are faster, the disks (even with SATA) are still slow. Most time wasted during bootups is from the disk thrashing about. The CPU is usually not being taxed at 100% so the bottleneck is the hard disks.

Anything is better than a cr@ppy Windows-based machine.

The thing i find interesting is that mac has switched over to a “Intel” format rather then a universal architechture format. Havent any of you ever heard of AMD, intel is not the only other processor company out their…jesus.

[...] Como dije anteriormente, me parecía que la iMac G5 tenía algo malo y así fue. En Silver Mac cronometraron cuanto tardaba un iMac G5 y les tardó 40.8 segundos en enceder completamente. Apenas 2.9 segundos más que la nueva iMac Dual Core. [...]

[...] 大家都看了iMac G5大戰iMac CD Boot機時間的影片了吧！ 已有不少讀者指出，iMac G5的極長Boot機時間，可能有問題。外地網友Mike Sivcevic有同樣的質疑，他真的用Stop watch去量度Video中兩台iMac（G5和CD）的Boot機時間，以及他正在使用的iMac G5 Rev. A的時間。他發現影片中的iMac G5需要1分38秒才能由開機到Mac OS X可用、iMac CD需要37.9秒，而他使用的iMac Rev. A只需40.8秒。他於是乎對iMac CD的Boot機時間十分失望。（注意：Rev. A的iMac G5的CPU只有1.8 GHz，而iMac CD卻有2.0MHz，而且Dual Core） 大家會否有科學精神去量量你在用的Mac的Boot機時間呢？ [...]

[...] Check out his blog for full details of his test. Cat:  Everything under the Sun… | Time: 8:37 pm (UTC+9.5)  [...]

Boot time IS important, isn’t it? Putting my laptop to sleep and using only that would mean you’re not going to be traveling a lot, now right? I

Hey guys, i acctually own an iMac G5 with camera and i have to admit that the boot time IS very slow, about as slow as that video so in fact they did nothing to the iMac G5. Also i would like to say that I do need to turn my iMac G5 off during the nght as it sleeps in my room and the light would disturb me

This test is clearly useless regardless of boot times mattering or not. What I find really confusing is all these windows people…

I used to be a windows person (i hated what is now classic), for ~10 years I was a windows only person and even snickered at mac users with their ‘toy’ computers. But i would never have wasted my time trolling forums and blogs and such writing comments as ‘bill g.’ talking about this stuff like i knew what i was talking about. I only used os9 maybe once, wasn’t a fan, left it at that.

If half of these windows users went to an apple store and ACTUALLY USED some of this software without a bias or stubborn preconception they might find they actually like it… just like I did one day at a bestbuy of all places. Amid all the pos compaq’s and hp’s and other pieces of crap i had used and fought with (and had to support! can’t forget that!) i saw a 12″ powerbook and checked it out. I left there literally by force of my fiance… i was literally in love.

Now i am typing this on one of them, my beefy 1200$ windows xp machine sold (all i kept was the monitor and my laser mouse) and my productivity, sanity, and shoulder (have you tried to carry some of those hp’s? damn!) have benefitted from it.

Before I ramble on more, let me just say that loving a platform (even a platform such as windows, which… ugh… sucks) is one thing, but loving it blindly is just plain ignorant. And that’s not to say you can’t bitch about how crappy mac’s are if you want, i’m just saying it’ll be better if you actually know what you’re talking about. Do some reading, ask some questions at an apple store, watch steve do his keynote, play with a machine and better yet try to break it! Anything so that your opinion means something instead of just running your mouth for attention.

To all of you who agree with “my opinion is that you can’t really do a decent comparison because you are comparing your own computer to a a flash video.”

i bet you just say that because you already ordered the intel imac and are disapointed already :P

Clearly the intel mac is fast and it’s also clear that the G5 imac in that video has some clear issues. Did you notice how long it stayed black for?

The guys who made that video were playing a prank if you ask me.

They probably know nothing about macs to begin with. Quite honestly my eMac G4 boots twice as fast as the iMac G5 they had in that video…what a joke.

With that said the Intel based iMac does boot fast and so does are properly maintained iMac G5.

Blue and white G3 tower!

512 MB of ram!!

Mutiple Hard Drives!!!

45 seconds from power on to ready to go!!!!

My mac at home…

That G5 is obviously broken or something. Anyone that believes that it’s normal for a G5 takes that long to boot is a serious TECH ‘TARD. I mean really, the bigest thing that I’ve seen going for the core duo is that it’s a 32 bit processor that doesn’t run as hot as the 64 bit G5. Because of this, it can be dual core (kind of) and be put into small cases without blowing all of your capacitors out.

Anyone wanna benchmark a 2.0 Gig Core Duo vs a 2.0 Gig dual core G5? I’ll bet the intel processor won’t find it so easy to wipe the floor with the G5 then.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there are many advantages to using a Intel chip. Also, I think that this is a real good opportunity for Jobs to grind the competition into a fine powder, If he playes his cards right.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, Intel does not make the best processors, by far. But hey, as long as my computer doesn’t start picking up bad PC habits (Like dying on startup and hardware that doesn’t work on retail machines), then I’m cool with whatever Apple has in mind.

oop! forgot to mention that my machine has a 400 mhz G3…

To the PC lurkers out there. You know you really want a Mac. Come on, admit it. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be lurking around Mac users who’re talking about macs. I don’t lurk on the PC boards. Why? Because I hate PC’s and Windows! I use them every day at work and they suck royal. They don’t just suck they gargle with it and spit it right into my face! They only make my job that much harder…

Think I’ll just buy a Mini and take it to work with me. Ought to improve my productivity quite a bit…

Quite interesting data about this.. especially My G5..

“Who turns their computer off?”

Any person how cares about the future of his childrens …

I got my new iMac 5 days ago, this morning I shut it down and I rebooted it, 31 sec later it was on. My configuration : iMac core duo 1.83Ghz, 512MB RAM, 160GB HD. Impressive but I’m still waiting to 0s boot time, understood Steeve? ;-)

Boot – Smoot:)

How fast a computer boots is really rather insignificant. Every time I get a new computer (it’s always a Mac) the first thing I do is boot PhotoShop, and then apply some rather heavy filters, just for fun. Loading a system is a labor-intensive task for a computer but when we use the computer it’s on. If you really want to check the speed difference between the two models the test needs to be done using real world applications (PhotoShop, Word, Flash, etc.) because that is all that really matters. There are several other system nuances that must also be addressed – what start-up items are active, OS version, RAM, processor settings, and when the computer was last updated (first boot after an update or new software install is always slower). Even an application comparison would not be accurate right now because most applications made for the Mac OS are not Intel Core Duo native and run using a background support application called Rosetta. And that’s my 2 cents.

My old iMac G3 400mhz Boots 10.4.4 faster than that G5 in the video so the video is obviosly bunk.

i own an imac g4, 800 mhz, 512 mb, macOsX tiger 10.4.5. The system boot in about 45 seconds completely (ready to use).

[...] Earlier this year someone posted a video comparing G5 and intel iMacs, booting next to each other where G5 was very slow. This has prompted me to run my own test on my 20″ G5 iMac which showed that G5 in that video was seriously below it’s normal performace. Here is the article I posted in January. Basically, the G5 iMac in that video was a real dog, booting in 98 seconds while Intel iMac booted in 37.9 and my G5 iMac booted in 40.8 sec. A few other tests suggested boot times very close to my results but I’ve also seen a few people in forums claiming their Intel iMac boots in just under 30 seconds. I haven’t got any Intel iMac to try to replicate that. [...]