Your Mac!

Berserker · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:00

And make sure there's no illegal downloads visible on the screen too, please.

nomore · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:02

Here's an old photo of my PowerMac (Dual 2GHz G5, 2GB RAM, 600GB HDD) and 20" Cinema Display.

Here's my 17" MacBook Pro (2.16Gz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 120GB HDD) while installing Windows XP.

Here's an old screenshot (Jan 2005) from the Powermac (OS X 10.3 Panther). I have OS X 10.4 Tiger on there now.

click image for large version

OT: I find that the Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5 is quite a bit quicker than the Dual 2.16GHz Core Duo MBP. I was transcoding some video from DivX to MPEG2 for a DVD, and I had to stop it on the MBP. The PowerMac must have been 40%-50% faster. I was suprised... after all the hype about the new Intel chips. This was using the same software as a fat binary.

Big-Mac-Please · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:12

I have edited my post now! Sorry about that, I didn't think

nomore: That 17" looks fantastic!!! Was the software you were using being emulated or was it universal software?

All the reviews were saying how fast they are. Do you have anymore pics?

Cheers

Berserker · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:12

nomore said:
OT: I find that the Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5 is quite a bit quicker than the Dual 2.16GHz Core Duo MBP. I was transcoding some video from DivX to MPEG2 for a DVD, and I had to stop it on the MBP. The PowerMac must have been 40%-50% faster. I was suprised... after all the hype about the new Intel chips. This was using the same software as a fat binary.

That's quite a disk-intensive task, and the G5 won't be encumbered by slow 5400 RPM or less laptop disks. The Mac Mini has that problem too.

Big-Mac-Please · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:14

So do you think the upgrade to the faster harddrive with less space would be a good move?

Berserker · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:18

It'll still be slower than the 3.5" disks in the G5, but it may well be quicker than it is now if you have 4<whatever it is> RPM disks.

Regarding this thread, I'm thinking of restarting it along the same lines as the case gallery - i.e. images only, no discussion. Anyone object violently if I do that?

OllyM · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:19

Berserker said:
Anyone object violently if I do that?

Nein, good idea

Berserker · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:22

OllyM said:
Nein, good idea

I'll restart it tomorrow night if no objections are received. I'll leave this thread open for discussion.

Big-Mac-Please · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:26

Yea that is probably a good idea. Could it be a sticky though because comments are what normal stops a thread dissapearing.

Berserker · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:31

It can be stickied until the Mac sticky is done (assuming that's still going to happen). At that point, a link can be added to the Mac sticky. Don't want to have more than three stickies.

nomore · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:32

Big-Mac-Please said:
I have edited my post now! Sorry about that, I didn't think

nomore: That 17" looks fantastic!!! Was the software you were using being emulated or was it universal software?

All the reviews were saying how fast they are. Do you have anymore pics?

Cheers

The MBP is very fast... a huge leap faster than my 15" 1.33Ghz G4 Powerbook... but the PowerMac feels faster at everything. Yes it was a "universal" binary. That's Apple talk for fat binary.

The MBP does boot quicker than the PowerMac though.

nomore · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:35

Berserker said:
That's quite a disk-intensive task, and the G5 won't be encumbered by slow 5400 RPM or less laptop disks. The Mac Mini has that problem too.

The file was 1GB... and 90 minutes long. If I've done my maths right, that's about 194kB/s... that's only 4 times more bandwidth than a High Density floppy disk. I would think that it wasn't intensive enough for the HDD to effect the performance, or at least not by that much anyway.

Matt · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:36

Berserker said:
Regarding this thread, I'm thinking of restarting it along the same lines as the case gallery - i.e. images only, no discussion. Anyone object violently if I do that?

Probably easier to just delete all the discussion replies rather than everyone posting again

Berserker · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:39

nomore said:
The file was 1GB... and 90 minutes long. If I've done my maths right, that's about 194kB/s... that's only 4 times more bandwidth than a High Density floppy disk. I would think that it wasn't intensive enough for the HDD to effect the performance, or at least not by that much anyway.

So would I. The other option would be if the software is not a universal binary and is thus running under Rosetta. Emulating any processor will usually result in the emulator being slower than the original processor, and Rosetta is no exception.

Matt said:
Probably easier to just delete all the discussion replies rather than everyone posting again

I can only do that by hijacking your first post to drop in the rules. Otherwise, the rules would be half way through the pictures, which doesn't make sense.

Mat · 13 Jun 2006 at 22:57

Simple is as simple does...

Lacie Porsche HDD on the left, Elgato 410 DTT TV adapter on the right.

punky_munky · 13 Jun 2006 at 23:19

Mat said:
Simple is as simple does...

Lacie Porsche HDD on the left, Elgato 410 DTT TV adapter on the right.

How's the picture on the digital TV? Is it interlaced and low res or does it look decent? I'm considering getting one for recording purposes. Also, are you using the supplied mini aerial?

OllyM · 13 Jun 2006 at 23:31

I've got a 410 - don't really use it any more, though... I've got Sky+ now.

The picture is standard Freeview resolution, it looks okay though:

Mat · 13 Jun 2006 at 23:36

punky_munky said:
How's the picture on the digital TV? Is it interlaced and low res or does it look decent? I'm considering getting one for recording purposes. Also, are you using the supplied mini aerial?

I find it perfect, better than the TV downstairs. Full screen, progressive scan probably uses about 35% on each processor. The supplied mini aerial "sees" nothing, mine is hooked up to the aerial on the roof.

Tbh, those pics above dont do it justice imo, sorry.

OllyM · 13 Jun 2006 at 23:38

Mat said:
Tbh, those pics above dont do it justice imo, sorry.

I agree... but *shrug*

The compression is sometimes quite evident, but that's not the EyeTV's fault.

nomore · 13 Jun 2006 at 23:56

Berserker said:
So would I. The other option would be if the software is not a universal binary and is thus running under Rosetta. Emulating any processor will usually result in the emulator being slower than the original processor, and Rosetta is no exception.

It is a universal binary application... It was unversal binary DivX codec, used via Quicktime 7 in iDVD 6.

The explaination as far as I can tell is that the PowerMac G5 (dual CPU) is faster than the Intel Core Duo. I use a 2GHz iMac G5 at work. The PowerMac is also substantially faster than the iMac. The PowerMac does have two 1GHz FSBs which would certainly help... plus the two double precision FPUs on the 970fx are well known to be faster than any x86.. However, some x86 do have better Integer units.