Blazing Review of the New iMac

boxturtleme writes "Despite the sometimes lackluster reviews of the new Intel iMac over the past several weeks, what with speed tests and hardware bugs, the New York Times sure seemed to like it. And beyond the blazing review, the Times seems fully confident that someone will soon have Windows and OS X dual booting."

Comments

Why Dont you people wait.

[jellomizer]

You people want to complain about all the problems the new IntelMacs have. Did you seriously think Apple/or Any Company. Is going to release a Version 1 of a new system without having some problems. If you don't want to deal with the Glitches of a Version 1 Apple. Wait a year, most apps should be universal, Faster Processor speeds, and Apple will fix all the Generation 1 problems, Also OS X 10.5 should be out. I think the NYT had a fare review. They basically said it is an iMac with what iMacs said to have, and it runs most of the apps currently pretty well, but there are some that don't work yet and others that will never work. If you want an Intel Mac Now go get one. But if you want a good Intel Mac wait next year after some updates and fixes, and a OS that has a stronger focus on the chip.

Re:web pages

[Sparks23]

Not necessarily. Even if it's stored locally (taking broadband out of the equation entirely), a graphics-intensive page -- or one with Flash advertisements -- will always take a longer time to render than one which is, say, mostly text and CSS. Occasionally it will take a MUCH longer time.

This is because of the actual cost of laying out and rendering the page, which is something that can be affected by CPU performance. (If I have a Pentium 233 and a Pentium 4 on the same network link, both running Firefox 1.5, pages will still come up faster on the Pentium 4 than they do on the Pentium 233.)

I suspect that this was what the NYTimes reviewer was referring to, even if he wasn't really *clear* about it. :)

Hardware bugs? What hardware bugs?

[Radak]

Bricking a computer by flashing unsupported code into the part of the computer responsible for making it boot is not a hardware bug. It is a user bug.

Or did I miss a memo somewhere?

Well...

[plazman30]

David Pogue, like myself, is a huge Mac geek. I have to treat what he writes with a grain of salt, as he sees the world with a Steve Jobs reality distortion field on him at all times. As much as I love the Macintosh and use one every day, I would never say that David Pogue is an impartial source when it comes to reviewing Macintosh hardware or software.

Blazing Review?

[Microsift]

Well, for one thing it's not really a review of anything; it's a story about Apple's transition to Intel chips.

He does note that some things are faster on the Intel iMac, and that some software will run natively, some will run with Rosetta, and some won't run at all. Anyway, hardly a review...

A False Argument

[maggard]

engagebot writes:

But still, the amount of time it takes for to pop up has little to do with an increase in processor power. If you want to give comparisons like that to lay-persons, thats fine. Its just that this one in particular doesn't prove anything one way or the other, and the fact that he even cites it proves his lack of any real technical prowess (therefore killing any authority he has in the first place).

The comment would be legitiately "Insightful" if Pogue were using web pages as a measure of processor power. However for those who bother to read the article will discover, he doesn't. In fact engagebot's argument is a straw man.

Pogue writes:

What you'll discover is that the new iMac is deliciously fast when it's running Intel-ready software. Just turning the machine on is a joy, because starting up now takes 20 seconds instead of 60, like the previous model; you'll want to do it again and again. Programs open up a lot faster, too: GarageBand, for example, is ready for your musical inspiration in only 9 seconds, rather than 20. Web pages appear startlingly quickly: nytimes.com pops open in about 1 second (versus 2), Amazon is ready in 2 seconds (versus 4) and MSN appears in 6 seconds (versus 8).

Pogue is clearly describing how fast the new Intel-Macs feel doing things the the old Power-Macs do, but with the new Intel-based universal applications. No reference to the CPU here, none to megafoofoos-per-second, bajillions-of-fakestones, or other like esoterica. Not even the Intel processor makes these faster. Just that this new Intel Mac boots fast and runs these Intel-compiled apps just as well or better then the older Macs.

In case anyone was too obtuse to clearly understand this the next paragraph makes this absolutely clear by spelling it out:

Pogue writes:

In other words, if your computer world is complete with programs for e-mail, the Web, word processing, graphics viewing, music playing and editing of photos, movies, basic Web sites and music tracks, then choosing the IntelliMac over the regular iMac is a no-brainer. The computer comes preloaded with all the software you need, all Intel-ready. You get a heck of a lot more speed for the same price.

"Speed". Not CPU speed, just speed. Indeed later in the article he takes care to point out all of the places where things run slower, and why, and how some won't run at all.

So, the only one "therefore killing any authority he has in the first place" is engagebot for setting up a completely false argument then using it to grind his own axe. And whoever so carelessly moderated his posting as "Insightful".