Re: Reflections on Intel macs

[Tony Evers]

Re HP 8150 - for more modest printer needs (not as fast but smaller  
than a microwave oven) the HP 2100TN is bullet-proof - I have had one  
networked for 50 users/20 terminals in a Primary School for 6+ years,  
serviced once (staple jammed inside), and have purchased 2 more at  
auction,  <$30 each with almost full toner, for use in home business  
desktop publishing. I have also had much success with other HP models  
from auction ($10-$20 each) for conventional home use, and of course  
the toner refills are cheap and last a very long time - beats inkjet  
for black & white every time!

Cheers
Tony Evers




On 21/06/2006, at 11:39 AM, Eugene wrote:

Hi Bob,

I'll let you in on our little secret, we buy them at auction for  
about $200 - $400, most have hardly been run in, we check the duty  
cycle before purchase. No one wants to purchase them because they are  
the size of a washing machine. I have had the previous model for 5  
years and it never skipped a beat nor did I ever service it. It gets  
absolutely hammered at work. The toners are huge and last 6 months  
but cost less than $100 to recharge. Cheapest, fastest and most  
reliable printers on the market.


  Regards,
  Eugene


On 21/06/2006, at 11:03 AM, Robert Howells wrote:



On 21 Jun 2006, at 10:43 AM, Eugene wrote:




I haven't experienced printing delays but we have just installed a  
new HP 8150 which is so fast the paper flies out the tray before  
you hit the print button!


At 32 pages per minute and $4000   I would hope so !

Beats an old Stylewriter 2 or Epson Photo 700 ... !

Oh I wish . !
But then one can't have the dollars and the Printer.

Bob





-- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List --
Archives - 
Guidelines - 
Unsubscribe - 

Re: Reflections on Intel macs

[Eugene]

Hi Bob,

I'll let you in on our little secret, we buy them at auction for  
about $200 - $400, most have hardly been run in, we check the duty  
cycle before purchase. No one wants to purchase them because they are  
the size of a washing machine. I have had the previous model for 5  
years and it never skipped a beat nor did I ever service it. It gets  
absolutely hammered at work. The toners are huge and last 6 months  
but cost less than $100 to recharge. Cheapest, fastest and most  
reliable printers on the market.


  Regards,
  Eugene


On 21/06/2006, at 11:03 AM, Robert Howells wrote:



On 21 Jun 2006, at 10:43 AM, Eugene wrote:




I haven't experienced printing delays but we have just installed a  
new HP 8150 which is so fast the paper flies out the tray before  
you hit the print button!


At 32 pages per minute and $4000   I would hope so !

Beats an old Stylewriter 2 or Epson Photo 700 ... !

Oh I wish . !
But then one can't have the dollars and the Printer.

Bob

Re: Reflections on Intel macs

[Eugene]

Hi Rod,

any old app will need to use Rosetta to emulate the old processor.  
This will cause a significant slow down in speed.


I have been using Pages 3.0 as my word processor of choice and am  
quite pleased with its performance until I used Pages 2 on a G4 iBook  
and realised how quick my MacBook Pro actually was.


In using Word and Excel it appears about as fast as my old 1 GHz PB.

Using iMovie and iDVD the MB Pro is about the same when it comes to  
normal tasks but much faster with rendering.


I haven't experienced printing delays but we have just installed a  
new HP 8150 which is so fast the paper flies out the tray before you  
hit the print button!


The thing that really convinced me as to the speed was when I was  
converting a movie to run on an iPod. On the PB is took 3 hours on  
the MB Pro it was 1/2 an hour using a native app.


Start by going to version tracker which has a huge list of shareware,  
freeware and commercial SW that has already been converted to run  
native and download some of your favourites, you should see an  
immediate difference in speed.




  Regards,
  Eugene


On 21/06/2006, at 10:04 AM, Rob Phillips wrote:

Now that I have had my 15" intel-based MacBook Pro for a month or  
so, I can comment on its speed relative to the old 17" G4 Powerbook  
1.25 Ghz I had. Both machines had/have 2Gb RAM.


Overall, I find the new machine to be slower. My usual apps are  
Eudora, Word and Excel, and I often work with large documents with  
tables and large spreadsheets.  The new machine is much slower in  
handling these.  I often get a delay of a second when I try to  
scroll through a doc.  The machine seems to work fine for minutes  
and then I get a rotating globe for a couple of seconds.


Printing is really bad.  Sometimes I wait 5 secs waiting for the  
Print Dialog to load.


Do other people have similar experiences? Is this because Word and  
Excel aren't intel native? Or is it because they're M$ products?


Cheers
Rob
--
---
Rob Phillips, BSc, PhD, Grad Dip Comp Sci, FHERDSA
Manager, Open Distance and e-Learning
Room 4.38, Library North Wing, Murdoch University
South St, Murdoch, 6150, Perth, Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Phone: +61 8 9360 6054  Mobile: 0416 065  
054
Executive Member, Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E- 
learning (ACODE)
Fellow, Higher Education Research and Development Society of  
Australasia

---

-- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List --
Archives - 
Guidelines - 
Unsubscribe - 

Re: Reflections on Intel macs

[Rod]

On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 10:04 +0800, Rob Phillips wrote:
> Now that I have had my 15" intel-based MacBook Pro for a month or so, 
> I can comment on its speed relative to the old 17" G4 Powerbook 1.25 
> Ghz I had. Both machines had/have 2Gb RAM.
> 
> Overall, I find the new machine to be slower. My usual apps are 
> Eudora, Word and Excel, and I often work with large documents with 
> tables and large spreadsheets.  The new machine is much slower in 
> handling these.  I often get a delay of a second when I try to scroll 
> through a doc.  The machine seems to work fine for minutes and then I 
> get a rotating globe for a couple of seconds.

Office is a PPC app, so will be running in Rosetta.  Also, Rosetta apps
use *twice* the amount of ram a native app would, so if you have a
number of rosetta apps running, you will find that ram being chewed up
quite quickly.  Don't forget, Rosetta is trying to convert PPC code into
Intel code on the fly.  Think how slow Virtual PC is on a PPC Mac, which
puts Rosetta in perspective (I think Apple did a fantastic job in
getting Rosetta to run - check out the efforts of Pear PC :-) )

> 
> Printing is really bad.  Sometimes I wait 5 secs waiting for the 
> Print Dialog to load.

Are you using a network printer?  Maybe the Mac is searching for the
printer first before displaying the dialog.

> 
> Do other people have similar experiences? Is this because Word and 
> Excel aren't intel native? Or is it because they're M$ products?

When running Intel apps, my iMac flies!  Crunching video is where I have
seen the biggest increase.

I think you will see a decent speed increase with 10.5.  I'd put my
money on that there will be a lot of optimisations geared towards Intel
Macs in the next full OS release.

Seeya

Rod!

Re: Reflections on Intel macs

[Matthew Healey]

On 21/06/2006, at 10:04 AM, Rob Phillips wrote:

Do other people have similar experiences? Is this because Word and  
Excel aren't intel native? Or is it because they're M$ products?


You just answered your own question. The problem at the moment is  
that the speed gains from the new chip are completely eaten up by  
running non-intel apps. Office is a LARGE application and so you will  
notice much more so than any other app.


Try an app like iPhoto or any other app with a Universal binary. The  
speed gains are quite significant.


- Matt

Reflections on Intel macs

[Rob Phillips]

Now that I have had my 15" intel-based MacBook Pro for a month or so, 
I can comment on its speed relative to the old 17" G4 Powerbook 1.25 
Ghz I had. Both machines had/have 2Gb RAM.


Overall, I find the new machine to be slower. My usual apps are 
Eudora, Word and Excel, and I often work with large documents with 
tables and large spreadsheets.  The new machine is much slower in 
handling these.  I often get a delay of a second when I try to scroll 
through a doc.  The machine seems to work fine for minutes and then I 
get a rotating globe for a couple of seconds.


Printing is really bad.  Sometimes I wait 5 secs waiting for the 
Print Dialog to load.


Do other people have similar experiences? Is this because Word and 
Excel aren't intel native? Or is it because they're M$ products?


Cheers
Rob
--
---
Rob Phillips, BSc, PhD, Grad Dip Comp Sci, FHERDSA
Manager, Open Distance and e-Learning
Room 4.38, Library North Wing, Murdoch University
South St, Murdoch, 6150, Perth, Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Phone: +61 8 9360 6054  Mobile: 0416 065 054
Executive Member, Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-learning (ACODE)
Fellow, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia
---

Re: Reflections

[logrythm]

cresciniusa wrote:

> IF YOU LIKE TO READ SOME FLASHES ON THE FAITH WHICH
> ENRICHED A LOT OF PEOPLE AND HAVE HAD A BIG SUCCESS
> GIVING PEACE AND HOPE, GO TO WEB SITE
> http://digilander.iol.it/crescini and tell me eventual impressions
> of yours on
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> FIRST THREE FLASHES FOR EXAMPLE
> 1.) There is the historical proof the myth could not invent the
> cross. If by the heathen the cross roused a "social horror", by the
> jews aroused a shocking religious dismay. It is not a case that the
> first christians, in order that the preaching be jeopardised,
> represented the cross with an anchor, a plough, a mast, a man praying
> with open arms. How could man think that this way of diying should
> have been put in the myth by the christians selves ?
>
> 2.)If somebody should tell us of having seen a dead on the cross
> resuscitated, nobody would believe him. But if those persons who
> affirm it, could make miracles,then we would believe them. It is what
> happened to the Apostles. In order to be believed, they should obtain
> the power of making miracles. Without this power, the christianity
> couldn't have been born.
>
> 3.)Jesus says on the cross "my God, my God, why did you abandon me ?"
> these are words that can shock the reader. But then, why should they
> have been written if they weren't true?
>
> -- The WA Macintosh User Group Mailing List --
> Archives - 
> Guidelines - 
> Unsubscribe - 
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

This is SPAM, in my opinion, and I would rather not see it on wamug again
thankyou.

Reflections

[cresciniusa]

IF YOU LIKE TO READ SOME FLASHES ON THE FAITH WHICH
ENRICHED A LOT OF PEOPLE AND HAVE HAD A BIG SUCCESS
GIVING PEACE AND HOPE, GO TO WEB SITE 
http://digilander.iol.it/crescini and tell me eventual impressions 
of yours on 
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

FIRST THREE FLASHES FOR EXAMPLE
1.) There is the historical proof the myth could not invent the 
cross. If by the heathen the cross roused a "social horror", by the 
jews aroused a shocking religious dismay. It is not a case that the 
first christians, in order that the preaching be jeopardised, 
represented the cross with an anchor, a plough, a mast, a man praying 
with open arms. How could man think that this way of diying should 
have been put in the myth by the christians selves ? 

2.)If somebody should tell us of having seen a dead on the cross 
resuscitated, nobody would believe him. But if those persons who 
affirm it, could make miracles,then we would believe them. It is what 
happened to the Apostles. In order to be believed, they should obtain 
the power of making miracles. Without this power, the christianity 
couldn't have been born. 

3.)Jesus says on the cross "my God, my God, why did you abandon me ?" 
these are words that can shock the reader. But then, why should they 
have been written if they weren't true?