Umm, hang on, is this thread getting hijacked?

I wonder…

Just how many consumers out there on the Windows side are holding on to older machines JUST so they can run Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, or Windows 2000?  Just curious.

Old Windows Machines

The answer to acdc1174’s question is not many. We have 1 or 2 customers who still use the old DOS version of our software, but almost all of them are running Windows XP with modern computers. Especially since you can get a machine from Dell for $500 which runs all your office needs.

THANKS this is EXACTLY what I was looking for. A definte answer. Thanks. now back to our topic!. . .

I could be wrong on the printers but I think I read that at least all the drivers for printers that came on the Tiger install disc are present and that there are some extra new ones as well.

The definitely won’t work under Rosseta page includes this

Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane

I guess that includes all the nice haxies from Usanity then. Or am I wrong.

Regarding the performance of the intel based iMac, ars technica has a pretty good article up with benchmarks, including benchmarks of apps under rosetta.

Considering that it was a stock Mac with the “low-end” Core Duo and only 512MB RAM when the Rosetta tests were done, it’s lookin’ like a great consumer machine.  Holding out for the rev. Bs is gonna be a challenge

[quote author=“iGrouch”]I guess that includes all the nice haxies from Usanity then. Or am I wrong.

Nope, such hacks won’t work under Rosetta, since they need to work with System Preferences AND they rely on patching running processes for any usefulness. There’s no way a PPC-native hack can “infect” an Intel-native process. The good news is that this kind of thing will probably be very easy to port to Intel. I doubt there’s a lot of low-level code in any of these things.

Hey, it’s a big transition. Can’t expect it to be perfect….although Apple’s come a lot closer than I could have expected a year ago, that’s for sure!

Well if they can be ported that’s great. But when they say “Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane” does that close the door on updated ported haxies?

Yesterday I had a chance to check out the new iMacs at CompUSA in Birmingham.

All I have to say is…  Impressive!

The boot-up time is indeed stellar at ~25 seconds.
As Macworld recently pointed out, the overall speed boost relative to an iMac G5 is variable, but many tasks in native apps are like lightning. I did not check out any apps running through Rosetta.

Overall, this system is very, very responsive, although I sense we will miss the wide pipeline of AltiVec for some things. Since the iMac supports dual monitors with desktop spanning, I am seriously considering clearing off my desk at the office and replacing my Quicksilver tower with a core duo iMac. That is, once the Rev B’s and enough native software are available. I may do the same at home, but I will wait to see what the performance gap is between the iMac and the upcoming “pro” towers before making that decision.

Seeing the Core Duo units next to the G5 units was striking. There is no obvious difference. I think Apple is trying to give the impression of continuity with this switch.

Bottom line: it looks like a Mac, and it drives like a Mac. And a mighty fine one at that.

As an update to the question whether you can add extra pref panes to System Preferences, check out this page at Usanity.

http://www.unsanity.com/products/compatibility 

I guess that makes it clear.

I’ve been trying to find information on Flash performance, and found something interesting. Apparently, the Flash player for the Mac will only work if you tell your Universal Binary web browser to “Open Using Rosetta”. Apparently programs and their plug-ins can only run on one or the other, not both.

Expect a speed hit, but that’ll probably let all the unported web plug-ins work properly.

Has anyone noticed this thread has had 4100+ views? That’s quite a spike. 

TMO’s making it a “Hot Forum Topic” certainly didn’t hurt.

That reminds me, I’d had a chance to “extended-test-drive” an Intel iMac at the the local Apple Store a week or so ago.  In an nutshell, very fast machines, beautifully smooth GUI thanks in large part to the finally-decent X1600 graphics, multitasks pretty well up until I added about 6 open apps (3 of ‘em Office apps) and a streaming HD trailer, which caused the H.264 MWSF keynote I also had open to chug, Rosetta’s transparent when running Office apps (of course, this is someone who’s used Classic on an 800MHz iMac talking here, so maybe there’s some microlag I’m not noticing).  The 20” iMac did have 1GB of RAM, though.  Also, “25-30 second startup time” isn’t quite true.  It still takes at least another 10-15 seconds for the iMac to be truly ready to go—click a bunch of apps in the Dock (even lightweight ones like Mail and Safari) as soon as it pops up and the icons’ll bounce for some time before opening.

[quote author=“coaten”]That’s great news. I do hope you find your new iMac to be the experience you had initially hoped for.

And remember, if you do have troubles, or don’t understand something, feel free to drop in.

There are plenty of people here with real working knowledge of Macs who are happy to help.

Just one thing. Can you open the “About this Mac” window (first choice in the Apple menu, top left of menu bar) and tell me what it says?

Getting a new I-Mac is like getting a new wife. They all look good and work great out of the box. It takes a little time for the problems to develop and repairs are very expensive. Good luck.