Is an Intel iMac faster than PowerMac G4 1.25 Ghz single proccesor?

Hi, I'm owner of a PowerMac G4 1.25 Ghz single proccesor, working whit Adobe Creative Suite 1. I'm wonderin if the iMac Intel Core Duo is faster than my PowerMac G4? Thanks for your support.

I have a 1.25 G4 Mac Mini and the new intel Mac. The answer to your question is that the iMac will be loads faster for anything that is a native Universal Binary like iLife programs. It will also be faster for games that are not the latest thing, but that are accelerated by its fairly beefy 3d card - so faster for Halo, Call of Duty - Unreal Tournamaent1 etc. (other Unreal tournaments not good under Rosetta - but 2004 now has a UB so that should whizz when you download the patch, if you are into such things).
However it will be slower for power applications running under Rosetta - ie: Photoshop or Dreamweaver. Until the Universal Binary versions come - then it will be much faster for those too.

Similar Messages

New iMac faster than my MacPro?

I've recently purchased a new 24" iMac for a 2nd home I have out west. After a few days tinkering with it I'm pretty positive that this new machine is quicker than my 2 year old MacPro that I have at home. I was hoping after looking at the specs below if people could confirm that this should be the case.
The reason I'm wondering is that I even though the iMac is brand new, the Mac Pro was and still is far more expensive than the iMac. The main reason I would like to know for sure is that since I work from home and have fairly advanced needs (two VMWare Fusion vms running on top of OSX 60+ hours a week working with important financial software), if the iMac is indeed faster I may be looking for an upgrade. Before I essentially toss my $2700 MacPro to the side though I want to make sure the lag that I notice that I don't yet see on the iMac couldn't be simply cured with an OS reinstall, which hasn't been done in over 2 years.
I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors, as well as how important the 1067mhz vs the 667mhz ram is to my needs. I basically run two Fusion VMs with 1gb dedicated to each one in Unity, Safari, iTunes, Mail, Adium, and Skype occasionally.
Specs for each machine..
24" iMac - 2.93ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB Ram 1067mhz, 600gb ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB
MacPro w 30" Cinema - 2 x 2.66Ghz Dual Core Intel Xeon, 5GB Ram 667mhz, 250GB ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT
All advice greatly appreciated.

I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors
No Intel Mac has ever had a "Pentium" inside.
The Mac Pro would be faster for applications that are designed to use multiple processors. It has 4 cores versus 2 in the iMac.
VMware Fusion has a option (in the virtual machine's settings) to use more than one +virtual processor+, but it is not as efficient booting the OS directly. Also, it probable that things like the financial software you are running on the virtual machine is itself not designed to take advantage of multiple cores. Therefore, CPU clock speed becomes the overriding factor for performance in your case. Since the new iMac runs at 2.93 GHz versus 2.66 GHz for the Mac Pro, it is certainly possible that your iMac is faster than the Mac Pro, in your situation. If you were running Final Cut Studio or Logic Studio (or other app that takes advantage of all the cores), the Mac Pro would be faster.
Also, Snow Leopard has a new technology called Grand Central Dispatch
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral
which is supposed to make use of multiple cores more efficient under Mac OS X. I don't think it will have too much impact on existing third-party software, but it will be interesting to see what the developers at VMware and other third-parties software firms can do with it. So your Mac Pro with four cores may become more efficient (faster) under Snow Leopard.

Is the new iMac faster than my PowerMac G5 dual 2Ghz?

I have a PowerMac G5, Dual 2Ghz (first generation model)
2.5GB Ram, and a ATI 9800 Pro 256mb Graphics Card.
Looking at the SPEC ratings on the Apple page, the new iMac (2.0Ghz model) scored...
SPECint_rate2000 = 32.6
SPECfp_rate2000 = 27.1
And according to http://www.apple.com/lae/g5/ the dual 2Ghz scored...
SPECint_rate2000 = 15.7
SPECfp_rate2000 = 17.2
Doesn't this mean is roughly twice as fast? Does SPEC just measure the processor or the whole system?
And how does my ATI Radoen 9800 Pro 256MB compare to the ATI Radeon X1600 256MB?
Thanks!

I agree. Specs are great and certainly are helpful in comparing the new MacBook to the new iMac as they are quite similar. What's really interesting is how PowerPC coded apps will compare to their universal binary equivalents on the new machines. I for one am curious to see how the universal binary of FCP Studio runs on the new iMac vs today's PowerMac. While people have been using FCP tools on G5 iMacs and G4 PowerBooks, performance isn't nearly as good as the same app on a Dual or Quad G5 PowerMac. It could usher in a whole new segment of Pro tools users who can get good performance from a less expensive option like the new iMac.
Jeff

Is a factory restore, out of box worth it? Make iMac faster than is now?

I still consider myself new to iMac and OSX coming from PCs. I have a 2007 Aluminium Core 2 Duo 2Ghz, 2Gb RAM with Snow Leopard and iLife 09 on.
I am just finding now after 3 years that I'm getting a lot of "beach balls", general slow down. I have a 320Gb internal HDD and about 100Gb free. I now run my iTunes library from an external HDD as it got too big with movies/TV shows.
I haven't got many extra programs installed, Handbrake. Open Office, metaX, iDentify2, YouTube converter, iClip. I don't run many widgets on dashboard either.
So what I'm wondering is would it be worth me doing a total factory reInstall/reset (which would be Leopard and iLife 08?) and then putting Snow Leopard and iLife 09 on, and all updates, then the few extra programs I have?
All I need backed up is my iTunes and iPhoto library's, which are at the moment with Time Machine. However I will make a separate backup of these to another drive.
Will this help any? I used to do this on my PC and it used to help a lot, as I say there's only iTunes and iPhoto I need to worry about.
Cheers

You can reinstall over your current installation of SL or you can do a reformat that will wipe the disk totally clean so your MS Windows will be wiped as well.
If you don't restore from Time Machine and begin over again then there really isn't any point in using TM. However I think you should post that question in the TM forum located here. I would recommend reading the TM FAQ and Troubleshooting areas.
In total honesty I think you are still thinking of OS X as a Windows user, it's not Windows and while doing a complete reformat and install is the way to get the most clean system in most cases it's just unnecessary.
My iMac shipped with Tiger, then I upgraded to Leopard and now Snow Leopard. I did upgrades when going to Leopard and SL, not erase and install or reformat's and install. My OS X system performs as well today as it did when it was new. I also have XP installed using Fusion, I have noticed that while I hardly use it it continues to get slower and slower. It's clear they are built on two totally different methodologies. While there may be some on the surface similarities under the surface they're as different as night and day.

Intel iMac w/fresh install still runs like a single task machine

I did a fresh install of OSX Leopard, immediately followed by the Snow Leopard upgrade. Ran the Software Updater and installed all updates. My machine still runs one task ok, but forget about multi-tasking. I see the beach ball more often than not. I have run the Tech Tool (prior to the fresh install) and have checked the hard disk via the disk utiility. All say the machine is fine. It feels like one processor isn't functioning. I do have AppleCare, but hate dragging it up to the store if I don't have to. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

If you are doing fresh clean install, I don't see the need to go back to Leopard.
Reading between the lines, you have 2008 iMac with dual core? 1-2GB RAM?
As for TechTool, I'd upgrade to TechTool Pro 5.x that is compatible.
Nothing that sounds like hardware malfunction to me.
To test a hard drive, boot from another hard drive - you can verify but that isn't as helpful. And Disk Utility doesn't even find problems that can interfere.
Monitor Activity Monitor for what is going on.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1342
http://homepage.mac.com/joemikeb/ActivityMonitor.htm

Very slow network performance - with uploads faster than downloads

I just got new ISP - 100 mbps through a Cat5 line. It checks out when I run ethernet directly to a computer. However, I want a totally wireless network.
I have a Time Capsule attached by ethernet and that is my main network device. I also have two airport Xpress' to extend the network.
I am getting, on average, 16 mbps! And, upload speed is generally higher.
The Time Capsule is about 2 yrs old, but it is an "n" device.
Anybody have any idea what the problem might be? I was considering getting a new extreme and using the Time Capsule as an extender instead of the expresses because, as I understand it, the express has one band only. Would that be better? Mainly, I want to get the speed up to what it should be.
Is there some way to trouble shoot the Time Capsule?
Others in my building with D Link or Linksys routers are getting over 80 mbps wirelessly, so I know it is possible.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I want to stay with Apple products, but if not possible I will get another brand of router.
Thanks,
Deanna

Deannanel wrote:
So, William, I got an Airport Extreme. Within 20 or so feet of it I am now getting 85 to 95 Mbps!
Great!
However, in the far reaches of the house, signal is low and I have not been able to extent network with either the Time Capsule or an Airport Express. They just won't connect.
Based on the earlier numbers you gave me, you won't be able to establish a reliable connection "in the far reaches of the house", as it's too far away from the base router. You'll either have to (1) run Ethernet to that remote unit, (2) use PowerLine units as an Ethernet extender, or (3) put the remote unit closer to the base unit.
I reset the Time Capsule a couple of times. I noticed that both devices are automatically set to channel 157.
That's a 5 GHz channel. That band can give faster throughput, but the signal strength falls off faster than in the 2.4 GHz band.
The Extreme has 2 channels - 2 and 157. I do not have the option of changing the channel on either of the other devices.
That makes sense, if they're configured to extend an existing network. They must communicate on the same channel as the base station they're extending.

PowerMac faster than intel Mac when running video programs?

Hello everyone! Having a question now so wonder if any of you have the same experience?
Recently i have many video works to do. I have a powerbook, which is the lasted 17inch powerbook and an intel imac (early 2008, 2.66GHz). I run the same version of finalcut pro and compressor. But thing become very strange, which is that when i run compressor to make final video files, my powerbook is much faster (about 2 times faster) than intel iMac. When i run XDCAM program to import video clips to finalcut from Sony XDCAM blueray reader, powerbook is also much more faster than intel iMac, and which is about 10time more faster than intel iMac. So it become very strange. I list my configurations below, and any of you can help me to solve the 'problem' or explain the strange fenominal.
Maybe theres anything wrong with software configurations, any one can also help me with that?
Thank you very much!
Powerbook G4 17inch:
CPU: powerpc G4 1,67GHz
RAM: 2GB (two 1GB module)
HDD: 120GB IDE
System: Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.8
Program: Final Cut Studio 2
iMac 20inch Early 2008
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2,66GHz
RAM: 4GB (two 2GB module)
HDD: Cosair 256GB SSD
System: Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (tried also on Snow Leopard)
Program: Final Cut Studio 2 (tried also Final Cut Studio 3 on friends imac with the same configuration)
Camera:
Sony XDCAM PDW530 Broadcast Camcorder.
Media:
Sony XDCAM blueray disk
Reader:
Sony XDCAM blueray disc drive
Program:
XDCAM transfer for Final Cut Pro 2.12
XDCAM browser software 1.20

Of course it depends on what you're doing and how well you know how to use available resources... the general rule for Logic is:
>>>Fastest machine with the most RAM you can afford.<<<
That said, someone who knows what they're doing can get an amazing amount of effects and virtual instruments on an old PPC G5 computer running Logic 8.
So, while fast machines will allow more plugins/VI with less overloads... knowing what you're doing will take you further so that the difference between machines would not make a difference in the music.
pancenter-

Why is my MacBook downloading faster than my new Imac?

I have a two year old Macbook; 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM with about 30GB left of memory. I also just purchased, from apple, a 27" Imac; 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 with 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3. and have just under 850GB left. The Macbook is running on 10.5.8 and the Imac is on 10.6.3.
My issue is that when i download/stream video to my Imac it takes a substantial amount of time. I love to watch movies, tv shows, ect, on my Imac. I was disappointed by how slow the downloads would take. So I set up my macbook right in front of the Imac to compare the speeds. I went to the Movie Trailers section on apple.com and I clicked on The Last Airbender 1080p (149MB) at the same time for both computers (on WiFi of the same network). My macbook finished the download 5 minutes faster than the Imac. I then tried the 42MB version with a minute difference with the Macbook. I then went to youtube and it was almost the same speed. I tried Itunes and it was about the same speed as well. I then did an internet speed test with both and got these results:
Macbook: Download 18.45Mb/s, Upload 2.28Mb/s, Ping 93
IMac: Download 20.88Mb/s, Upload 2.3Mb/s, Ping 89
I don't know if any of this information helps or if anyone will even read this far but the apple store is extremely far from my house and would try almost anything to fix this issue. My questions are:
1) Is this a known issue that has a fix, if so how do i fix it?
2) Is this possibly a faulty computer that i would have to return?
3) Is this the way it's supposed to operate and if I don't like it take it back
Thanks in advance for anyone who even reads this post.

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

Importing Slower on Intel iMac than Pentium 4 Laptop

I've had my Intel Dual-core iMac (2 GHz) for a couple of months now. What really annoys me about it is that Importing CDs to mp3 files (160 kbps) only proceeds at 3.2-6.0x speed whereas doing the same conversion on my sister's old Pentium 4 laptop proceeds at around 28.0x.
I phoned up Apple support and was told to trash the Caches folder in my Home folder. This helped for about a day but the import would still start at around 3.2x speed and then accelerate slowly up to 24.0x by around the 10th track on the CD. I have run a hardware check using the install DVD that came with the iMac and it did not report any problems with the superdrive. I have also repaired permissions on the hard drive and run the maintenance and cache cleaning scripts in Onyx but this doesn't seem to help. I understand that as the superdrive is only able to read CDs at a maximum of 24x the import is unlikely to be able to exceed this speed no matter how fast the processor is.
I keep my iTunes Library on an external firewire hard drive so as not to clog up my boot drive and it contains 5760 items, 22.32 GB. Could this be the reason for the slow down?
2 GHz Intel iMac Mac OS X (10.4.6) 1 GB RAM, 256 MB ATI Radeon X1600

Your optical drive has more to do with this than your processor. The processor really only comes into play inasmuch as concerns the on-the-fly conversion/compression to MP3. It could well be that the MP3 encoder Apple uses is not as highly optimized for Apple hardware as it is for Windows. Actually, most lossy compressors run much more slowly on Macs than on PCs for similar reasons.
If the high-speed ripping is your ultimate goal as opposed to high-quality digital audio extraction, then I hope you find a permanent fix to this problem. I rip most of my CDs on my Windows machine with EAC because I want the most accurate rips possible, and even though my Plextor drive reads CDs at 52x, the actual ripping speed is generally about 5-7x because of my secure ripping configuration (all data is read multiple times, drive cache is flushed, etc.). The only way to achieve high-speed ripping is to completely ignore any kind of quality control measures.
If you disable (if applicable in your case) "Use error correction when reading audio CDs), you might be able to slightly increase your ripping speed, but again, there's the matter of MP3 encoding slowing things down anyway. You'd likely notice a substantial speed increase if you encoded directly to WAV or AIFF so no compression is being done as you rip.

New iMac 2.33 GHz w/2GB RAM VERY SLOW... slower than my non-intel iMac

So I just purchased a new Intel iMac with a 2.33GHz processor and 2GB of RAM. Seems like this thing should scream. I ran Migration Assistant upon starting the thing up in order to load on my 25ish software applications, 10,000 photos and numerous documents. Everything looks pretty good except that the computer hangs like crazy. On my old iMac which is only 2.0 GHz and 1GB of RAM I can have Photshop, Keynote, iPhoto, Mail and Safari all open at once, switching betwen them in order to get my work done. It's never been a problem. For some reason however, this new machine doesn't seem to be able to handle such tasks. Even the finder is slow. I'll click on a folder and it will take seconds for the items in that folder to show up. I just don't get it. The only thing that's faster is that the system boots much faster than my old iMac. Is it that all of this software isn't written for the intel chip? Is there some way in which I can test my system in order to be sure it's operating at full steam? Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ben

How long have you actually had the Mac? How many hours has it been actually active?
When an iMac is brand new Spotlight has to index the entire HD. Not just the Mac OS and Apple software pre-installed, but everything you have migrated as well (10,000 photo)! If it doesn't have some quiet time, a few hours depending on how many Gigs it needs to index, to accomplish this on it's own then the whole system will run slow as you force it to do what you want to do and it tries to do what it wants to do, both at the same time.
There is also plenty of evidence that Migrating more than your personal account and personal files, photos, music, videos, docs, etc. can indeed mess things up. The majority of PPC apps run OK with Rosetta, but there are a few incompatibles. It is almost always best to do fresh installs of PPC apps from install dicks or fresh internet downloads. Also have you checked if there are Universal binary updates available for any of your PPC apps.
Kappy (the Cobbler!) wrote a pretty good Migration user tip article. Maybe you should familiarize yourself and see if you made a mistake or two.
A Basic Guide for Migrating to Intel-Macs

Imac intel core duo or powermac G5 dual

I am just starting out in graphic design. I have not bought adobe/macromedia software but I do have plans to buy cs2 and upgrade to cs3 when it comes out. Other than that I have no equipment but would like to start out with learning on mac. I just need some suggestion, and yes I have search some of the older post. But like older post the information is old sometimes also. Which one should I get 20' imac intel 256 ram or referb powermac G5 dual. Thanks for your opinion and time.

I had the same situation a while back where i actually bought a G5 refurb but sent it back and swapped it for a intel imac, mainly because i needed a better graphics card for the G5 and at this point there are still no better cards available to buy.
Mine is the 17" and i have to say it runs the G5 pretty close, basic Photoshop action seem to run ok but there would be a hit with intensive tasks etc i would imagine. You have two issues here though, the current imacs have been out since Jan 06 so could well be due for an update of some kind soon and the same goes for the G5, roumers put a replacement for these at around July August so i would hang on a bit if you can.
If you can't it's possible (but by means certain) that a refurb imac 20" could have the 256mb card in, my G5 came with the 256mb card instead of the 128mb but that's only through luck!

How much faster is the 2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5 than the 2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5?

Hi there,
I'm considering buying either a Mac Mini (2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5) or an iMac (2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5). I'm just wondering what the difference in speed is between the two different chips. If both had 4GB of memory would the iMac be a lot faster than the Mac Mini? I'm a graphic designer so I'd be mostly using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop.
Many thanks,
Richard

You mean this information:
GRAPH LEGEND
MP 3.3 w6 = 2010 Mac Pro 3.33GHz Hex-Core Westmere
iMac 3.4 i7 = 2011 iMac 3.4GHz Quad-Core i7
MBP 2.3 i7 = 2011 MacBook 2.3GHz Pro Quad-Core i7
mini 2.7 i7 = 2011 Mac mini 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
MBP 2.7 i7 = 2011 MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
MBA 1.8 i7 = 2011 MacBook Air 1.8GHz Dual-Core i7
All Macs had except the MacBook Air had at least 8GB of RAM

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Intel iMac/PowerMac G4--Sharing a Printer

I've been reading a bunch of posts, and just get confused, so hopefully someone can help me out with a simple answer. Have a PowerMac G4 running OS 9.1, with 2 printers connected with a USB hub (HP LaserJet 1320 and a Canon i860); have just added an Intel iMac (OS X 10.4.9) to the office. What do I need to be able to use both printers from either computer? It seems like a router is the answer, but I'm not totally clear on that. It would also be nice to be able to access the internet with both as well (Verizon DSL), but if only the iMac can do that, that's ok. We have an Asante FH305 ethernet hub, so I don't know if that can be used in some way . . . I'd like to do this the simplest way, for the least amount of $$ (doesn't everyone?)
Thanks.

Let's take a quick breeze through networking 101 for non-majors (grin). Some printers are made to be shared over a network - they have an ethernet interface and are generally called network printers. Other printers, generally known as dedicated printers, are made to be connected to a single computer. Today the preferred interface for these printers is USB. A USB printer cannot be connected to an ethernet hub, only a network printer can.
Recognizing that lots of us have multiple computers but no pressing need for multiple printers, Apple built into its OS the ability to share a dedicated printer with other computers that are on the home network. That's what I recommended to you.
There is a second option that can work for some printers. There's a device called a USB print server. It connects to an ethernet network and, as its name implies, lets you connect USB printers to it. It doesn't work for all printers though. I used to own the same Canon printer you do and I have an Airport Extreme which includes a USB port for printer serving. It worked fine. Whether your laser printer would though, I cannot say.

Photoshop 7 faster than CS 3 on Mac Intel .....

How come Photoshop 7 running on a MacIntel so via Rosetta emulation mode is really really quite faster than the CS 3 which is native !!
It clearly shows the lack oof optimisation of adobe softwares and that after each update they are becoming more and more gaz factories !!
It is clear that softwares with competitors are really better than others, the flagrant exemple of Lightroom vs Aperture !
Plus the prices ...
CS 3 Standard Edition is in Europe 2032 vs 1199 $ in Northern America reported in US $ 2985 $ vs 1199 $ !!! European customers have to pay 2,5 the price for the same crap !!
It is clearly that you take your customers for pigeons !!
Thank you i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!

But its it faster than CS3 on an Intel Mac with Leopard.
You also have clearly confused the people here on the forums (OTHER USERS) with Adobe.
Also instead of getting mad at Adobe in America Maybe you should be asking why Adobe distributers in your part of the world see the need to jack the price up. I have a feeling it has more to greed on your end than our end.
>i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!
Well if you really do own Photoshop 7 instead of just a pirate copy you might want to upgrade now as Adobe's policy world wide is 3 versions back. As soon CS4 is released you will no longer be eligible for upgrade pricing.

Is an Intel iMac faster than PowerMac G4 1.25 Ghz single proccesor?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for