Silver Mac

This new version just scrolls like butter…

86 Responses to “G5 vs. Intel iMac boot up time”

1. Mud said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:02

   my opinion is that you can’t really do a decent comparison because you are comparing your own computer to a a flash video.

2. Chris Meisenzahl said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:08

   Interesting, I’m curious to see where all of this goes.

3. Mad said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:14

   My opinion is….that you CAN do a fairly decent comparison because you are comparing like with like in realtime. I have watched the video and apart from the Non Intel device not starting up properly the video looks OK.

   Good item

4. Balazs said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:21

   I agree with Mud

5. Frog said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:29

   Like Balazs says, I’m down with Mud.

6. Islander said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:33

   Well the G5 in the video was either tampered with or it has a serious problem, I have a 17″ 1.8Ghz 1GB RAM Rev 2 and it in no way takes as long as the G5 in that video to boot up. I haven’t timed it but the numbers that the author here come up with I would believe to be more accurate than the test done in the video, as I said either the G5 in the video was rigged or there was something major wrong with it.

7. amorson said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:33

   He’s not comparing his computer to a flash video but to a timed event.

8. Steve Jobs said: Wed, 18 January 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.redhat.com or even THIS would be an upgrade to a Mac OS: http://www.windows.com

   Ha ha, lame Mac users. Go cry now!

9. Justin said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:34

   I believe it to be avery good comparison. I have some queries. “I have shut down my 20″ 1.8 GHz G5 iMac (rev 1)” Aren’t the rist one’s ddr 3200? If not it is no matter, but consider that both were out of the box, and yours being setup properly, what if the intel mac was setup properly? I would assum it to be faster. I like powerpc, and I wish they had stuck with it. However please let me know when you get a hands on test. This is still top notch by the way.

10. michi* » Intel iMac bootet gegen einen G5 iMac said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:43

    [...] UPDATE: Diesem Kommentar kann ich mich nur voll und ganz anschließen! [...]

11. Oli said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:44

    Why are people even caring about boot times?
    If you cared so much, you wouldnt give a monkey’s what the stock boot speed is and throw 2 SATA2 raptors inside it in RAID0 (assuming this can be done)

    Analysing a flawed mac on a video and comparing it to a real life machine may be a fair comparison but in all honesty, shouldnt you be asking your self why you care enough to be here in the first place?

12. Bryan Mau said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:48

    Well my eMac (1.25GHz G4, 512M ram, Tiger 10.4.4) boots to the desktop (ready to use) in 1:05 (65 seconds) so something’s up with that iMac G5 in the video…

13. Lee said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 03:56

    It’s easy enough to cause any unix box to start up slowly. Just force it to shut down so it needs to run fsck when it boots back up and it’ll take much longer to boot.

14. Nick said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:00

    Though Apple may think so, I do not think that boot time is really that important unless it is an accurate gauge of machine performance or if the boot times are greatly different which they are not in this case. Opening applications and performing processor intensive work in day-today activities would probably be a better comparison.

    I use a PowerBook G4 which I only reboot about once a month. I just close the top when not in use and the machine ’sleeps.’ Open the top and the machines wakes up in a couple of seconds so boot time is not an issue. If one desires to boot daily or weekly then schedule the machine to boot when not in use.

15. Mateja said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:09

    I completely agree with Nick. More and more, boot time is just irrelevant. Desktop or laptop — it realy doesn’t matter. When your desktop is sleeping it consumes less than 10W of power. Laptops even less. Why is this such a big deal?

16. Lee Hord said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:13

    I totally agree, something was done to make the G5 iMac boot slower. My iBook G4 boots faster than the iMac in that video, and the G4 processor is no match for a G5.

17. michel said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:14

    boot time IS important

    it’s really nice to have the computer available FAST when I put it on.

    no, sometimes we cannot always put it in sleep.

    no, I don’t speak about a powerbook but about an iMac or powermac.

    It matters TO ME, so I’m REALLY GLAD apple try to really speed the boot.

18. michel said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:16

    there are a problem in that imac G5. an imac G5 should boot in mostly 30 to 40s completely, Finder and dock ready to use.

19. Tim said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:25

    I would imagine that Apple is commenting on boot time so much because for the past 2 versions of windows Microsoft has bragged about there ‘quick’ boot time. Now that Apple is moving to the Intel platform they have serious competition from Microsoft, they have moved to the same playing field. Apple will need to make several changes to there marketing plans to keep form being sucked into the Microsoft monopoly.

20. Intel iMac VS iMac G5 Bootup time (with video) at the mini Blog said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:25

    [...] This is a video showing the amazingly fast bootup time of the new Intel iMac. As you an see from the image above the Intel iMac on the left is already loaded while the iMac G5 is still on the Apple logo screen. This looks all and good for the ones who have never used a Mac before, but if you have, then you will certainly notice that that G5 iMac’s screen is black for a good 5/10 seconds before it shows the Apple screen; This is not normal. The people who filmed this had to have done something, even like turning the power off suddenly while the iMac was on, to make it force a longer system check. This is highly irregular and my Mac Mini (with a G4 processor) boots faster than this. One person who also found this highly suspicious, conducted a test of his own. [...]

21. craigtheguru said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:26

    I can confirm that the boot times on the new Intel-based Macs is definitely exceptional, although I don’t have any hard numbers to back me up.

    While at Macworld I performed a performance analysis of the new MacBook Pros, comparing the new system to previous G4/G5 systems. Here’s the full MacBook Pro Performance Analysis.

22. john said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:30

    Intel’s boot time isn’t astonishing, it’s an amazingly slow startup. And the G5 one is even slower, what the hell are you mac guys doing?? Heh, forget it, mac is just the trend nothing particularly astonishing on it.

23. panos said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:34

    Funny, my G3 700MHz iBook boots up in no time. I simply open the lid and its on :-D

    Does anyone really care about boot times? The only reason I switch off the machine is if I know I won’t be using it for more than a day and don’t want to leave it plugged into the mains/waste battery power. I don’t see why I would shutdown a desktop.

    I think what the guys in the video did, was to power off the G5 by pulling the plug or by keeping the off buttons pressed. Whenever I do that it takes significantly more time for the machine to power-up as I think it runs some diagnostics on the disk or something.

    Of course, we could all get a real machine with a default Redhat installation and watch it boot for 5 minutes…

24. LaterLater said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:44

    What’s the big deal about boot times? How many times have you actually had to shutdown your Mac? The sleep mode is perfect. The system sleeps and wakes up almost instantly with no problems. Mac OS never crashes, so how often do you actually have to boot up your Mac, only when there’s updates to Mac OS? I’ve actually gone over 6 months without rebooting my system, it never has problems. This is a non-issue for us Mac users.

25. Scott Goodson said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:44

    Michel, why do you say you can’t always put you machine to sleep? Unless you need to physically relocate a desktop (or otherwise remove it from power), I can’t see a reason.

    As Nick says, it’s adequate to reboot a Mac roughly monthly, oftentimes required only for software updates. Why shut down? Why wait 37 seconds rather than 1-2s? My PowerBook is ready as fast as I can open it and get my hands in place.

    Anyone else of the mindset “we can’t always use sleep,” please do enlighten us: why the heck not?

26. xen ix said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:51

    Do your computer work? Does it do what you want it to do? Why care about boot time. So what if a computer boots up in 1 second or 5 seconds. Isn’t it more important how it handles the software you run?

27. Who is Dull now... said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:53

    So who is calling who DULL :-s

    I still want one though…. Good job…

28. Gustomela  PPC pride › Intel aside › January › 2006 said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 04:59

    [...] mondo intero sospetta! Leave a | Post to Del.icio.us | Technorati Cosmos Comments» [...]

29. Chris U. said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:01

    So you are judging this machine based on boot time alone. Crazy!

    Macintouch published their own results and they are way different than what you came up with. I trust Macintouch before I trust you.

30. info-ninja » Blog Archive » My mac boots faster then yours. said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:02

    [...] I have never understood the big deal about how fast a computer boots up. The boot up time is a real kindergarden/penis-envy thing in the computer world, and it is really ridiculous. Someone have booted up a iMac G5 and a iMac Intel side by side to see which mac that boots the fastest. That has resulted in a mac user comparing his iMac G5 with the video [...]

31. jca said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:03

    Boot time is such a poor measure of performance.

    Back in the day, I setup a Mac Plus with a SCSI drive and System 4 (yes System 4) included in Star Wars bootable floppy disk - the computer was booted/usable before the monitor warmed up! That is less than 5 seconds.

    Mac Plus, 68000 8mhz cpu, 4 mb ram, 100MB SCSI External

32. t3knomanser said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:05

    Man, I don’t ever reboot my iBook- but when I do, I have more like a 2:00 time-to-usable (10.4.4, iBook G4, 1.25G of ram). Of course, I have a bunch of startup processes, so that has something to do with it.

    And I don’t generally follow Mac blogs- but deaam there’s a lot of idiotic Winblows users out there aren’t there.

33. Bootsy said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:10

    Man, my iMac G4 boots quicker than that iMac G5, what gives??

34. Matthew Price said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:15

    So my iMac G5 is still not completely out dated. Not that boot up times really matter that much anyway.

35. macophilia » Ist der G5 wirklich soooooooo langsam? said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:27

    [...] Update: Es scheint nicht wahr zu sein, denn Silver Mac trägt eigene Messungen bei. Sein iMac G5 braucht 40 Sekunden, der Intel-Mac nach seiner Stopuhr 37 Sekunden. Interessant auch die Diskussion unter dem Beitrag über Sinn und Unsinn von Boot-Zeiten als Indikator für Performance… [...]

36. Vader said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:33

    Do I really care to split seconds in a boot time showdown? Not really. If two machines can boot within a 10 or 20 percent margin of each other then I’d say their boot times are close enough to equivalent.

    What bothers me about the video is the obviously false impression it leaves. It would seem as though the iMac G5 was being booted for the first time after installing the 10.4.4 update (which has been documented to take longer than typical boots). I don’t own an iMac, G5 or other, but there’s no way you can convince me that a nearly 2 minute boot time is typical for this machine.

    I worry that this video is throwing manure (putting it kindly) onto the “G5 sux” bandwagon. In reality it seems to me as though the three year old single core G5 is holding up pretty well to a CPU that has twice as many cores and a brand new architecture.

    Granted the Core Duo generally seems to outperform a (single core) G5 at a given clock speed. It damn well should with everything it has in it’s favor. If we’re going to analyze footage that demonstrates the superiority of the new iMac, I would hope for a more balanced and rigorous experiment that at least makes an effor to show what the _real_ advantages are rather than the _desired_ advantages.

37. Matt said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:46

    Ok, so why does my 800mhz 2002 iMac G4 boot up in 45 seconds flat? Tiger, 512 ram.

38. Eric said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 05:58

    There are a lot of variables such as maybe the G5 was trying to establish a network connection during boost, or maybe some other service was trying to start. I personally know that on a brand new iMac G5 20″ it’s much faster than shown. Perhaps starting in verbose mode (Cmd-V) would show what’s taking so long.

39. Lesaintfabuleux said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 06:20

    Well MY machines stay on 24/7 development webserver for like 4 years now.. Im only worried about getting a G5Quad and finding out that there is some intel technology that will negate the advantages of the velocity engine when using the Pro Apps. Anyone got a bead on this?

40. cow ard said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 06:29

    Who turns their computer off?

41. iMac Intel vs iMac G5 at trikenit.com said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 06:53

    [...] Update: Apparently, the iMac G5 in the video was pretty messed up so it isn’t a fair video. Maybe I’ll test it with my iMac G5 when I get home. Here is a video of the iMac Intel vs the iMac G5 booting up simultaneously (at least, that’s what should happen). I would love to see an iMac G5 vs MacBook Pro (I have an iMac G5 and I want a MacBook Pro). [...]

42. grahams said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 07:13

    Um, Boot Time is a terrible indicator of a machine’s speed… Boot time is largely a factor of I/O performance and throttled heavily by disk speeds.

43. rakslice said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 07:18

    Hi, folks! I’m relatively new to Mac OS X land, but I’m thinking that people here are missing an important factor when they’re reporting their hardware stats: hard drive performance.

    I have a hunch that the order that OS X loads things when the system boots is now fairly well optimized by BootCache/launchd, and the necessary files are defragmented by the installer. If that’s true, the big bottleneck isn’t the processor, system bus speed, hard drive seek time, or even RAM beyond a modest amount; it’s raw hard drive read throughput.

    Of course, systems tend not to ship with drive performance stats on the label, beyond the capacity and maybe the rotation rate. You can in theory work out the read throughput from the rotation rate, platter geometry & count, and areal density (i.e. you just figure out how many bytes would be going by the read heads each second,) but there should be some easy to use performance tools that will run a quick test and tell you. I don’t know what they are; as I said, I’m new to OS X… This is the kind of thing that it would be cool for Apple’s System Profiler to have (so it could live up to its job “profiling” in the way the word has come to mean among technical folks.) Anyway, can someone recommend a good performance-measuring prog?

44. MAC или Intel at slaff @ reworked said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 07:32

    [...] По этой ссылке можно посмотреть видеоролик, демонстрирующий одновременную загрузку iMac Intel и iMac G5. Судя по видеоролику, Intel выигрывает у G5, но в комментариях (англ.) на Binary Bonsai говорят об обратном и там же указывают на другие результаты (англ.) подобного теста. [...]

45. NIF said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 07:34

    Pillow Talk…

    Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … It’s Kerry-180 Tuesday (+ Open Trackbacks)…

46. rakslice said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 07:47

    Oh, and as to “Why do we care about boot time?”…

    Maybe this isn’t an issue for desktop users who never routinely shut down their computers. I’m not sure that’s all desktop users, but in any case…

    Where it becomes an issue is with enterprise servers, where every second counts (and especially corporate web servers, where every second of downtime could be a lost sale). Or something.

    Of course, there are lots of other good/better ways of dealing with these kinds of scenarios (e.g. clustering). And Dr. Applestein has some more significant work to do on OS X’s locking performance if they want it to be competitive in many server markets.

    But hey, maybe enterprise customers will take the “Apple is a hardware company” mantra to heart and buy them to run Linux. Fnord.

47. TheHolyMacintosh said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 07:52

    Who the hell cares about a few seconds difference of boot time? Also: boot time is a shitty indicator of performance. ALL of my Pre-OS 7 macs boot in WELL under 20 seconds. My hotrod SE/30 boots into System 6.0.8 in under 10 seconds, the CRT doesn’t even have time to warm up entirely. Now THAT’S performance.

48. web1.0 said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:02

    why are posts listed in a top-down chronological order? you have to scroll the whole thing down to get recent posts. I would expect it the other way around…

49. nhmacusr said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:04

    When you look at the actual specs of the machines, it is not surprising that the iMacs come out pretty similar. The only real speed boost the Intel iMac is getting is from the dual processor. That really isn’t going to get you much. Also, as another poster stated, the disk speed makes a difference too.

    The MacBook is going to be a different story. This is a significant revision. The PowerBook had an FSB of 167 MHz, the MacBook has 667 MHz FSB (Front Side Bus). This is going to make a huge difference to the feel of the machine.

50. Jason said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:05

    Just another example of “Bad Apples” spreading misconceptions. They all learn it from the Worst apple, steve Jobs, who lied to the world when he said his G5 was fastest computer on Earth. My XP at home boots faster than any of those so it’s not impressive one bit. Not to say I don’t love and own macs, I just can’t get excited about these freaks who try and make everyone “Switch” Lame.

51. Jason said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:07

    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.

52. jbrousseau said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:18

    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.

53. Bob said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:19

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

54. Karl said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:26

    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.

55. Mojo said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 08:50

    “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 ;)

56. Bob Maguire said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 10:09

    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.

57. zeroflake said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 14:02

    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….

58. Bill G. said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 16:04

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

59. You Can’t Even Trust the Video at j² said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 16:16

    [...] 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. [...]

60. peterk said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 17:18

    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?? ;-)

61. MacGeneral said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 21:35

    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…

62. peter said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 21:38

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

63. MacGeneral said: Wed, 18 January 2006 at 21:41

    @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)

64. NonMacFanboy said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 01:56

    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″

65. Intel iMac vs. G5 iMac at Todd Vanderlin said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 05:40

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

66. mac-home.com said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 06:25

    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… ;)

67. Matt said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 06:50

    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.

68. disgruntled windows user said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 07:37

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

69. Who's Intel said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 07:51

    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.

70. 350px » iMac vs iMac said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 08:56

    [...] 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. [...]

71. MacGrass » iMac G5 長Boot機時間質疑 said: Thu, 19 January 2006 at 12:08

    [...] 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？ [...]

72. Mmmm…Sacrelicious! :: G5 vs. Intel iMac boot up time :: January :: 2006 said: Fri, 20 January 2006 at 21:07

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

73. ld said: Sun, 22 January 2006 at 03:27

    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

74. Alexander said: Wed, 25 January 2006 at 06:10

    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

75. regular dude said: Wed, 25 January 2006 at 14:36

    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.

76. dfgh said: Sat, 28 January 2006 at 04:48

    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

77. Alex Santos said: Sat, 28 January 2006 at 09:35

    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.

78. Liquidmark said: Sat, 28 January 2006 at 14:50

    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.

79. Liquidmark said: Sat, 28 January 2006 at 15:07

    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…

80. Ivan Minic said: Sun, 29 January 2006 at 04:03

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

81. Alien said: Wed, 1 February 2006 at 20:04

    “Who turns their computer off?”

    Any person how cares about the future of his childrens …

82. uomolinux said: Thu, 2 February 2006 at 00:37

    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? ;-)

83. Jeremy said: Thu, 2 February 2006 at 12:39

    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.

84. Doogen said: Thu, 9 February 2006 at 06:46

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

85. carlosTSR said: Wed, 1 March 2006 at 09:13

    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).

86. Silver Mac » Blog Archive » MacMini Dual Core start up time said: Sat, 4 March 2006 at 19:50

    [...] 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. [...]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Website or Blog

Authentication code (required)

Cleaker 2.1 Theme created by Adam Walker Cleaveland   with Widget support added by Chris Webb    Modified by SilverMac       content rss