New MacBook running slow

Hi,

I just bought my first Mac - the new MacBook with the 2 GHz Core Duo,
and 512 MB ram, and the shared video ram.

I thought that this would be comparible in speed to my desktop PC which
is a Dell Pentium 4, 1.6 GHz, 512 MB ram, with a G Force 2 graphics
card.

Sadly, I am finding the MacBook incredibly slow for running Excel,
Word, Firefox, Thunderbird - just about everthing.

Would buying more RAM be the solution, or would I need to upgrade to
the MacBook Pro to get the designated video card? What notebook would
be comparible?

I'm not sure what to do because I can't keep working with this speed!
Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

In article < .com>,
"Conanu" <> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just bought my first Mac - the new MacBook with the 2 GHz Core Duo,
> and 512 MB ram, and the shared video ram.
>
> I thought that this would be comparible in speed to my desktop PC
> which is a Dell Pentium 4, 1.6 GHz, 512 MB ram, with a G Force 2
> graphics card.
>
> Sadly, I am finding the MacBook incredibly slow for running Excel,
> Word, Firefox, Thunderbird - just about everthing.
>
> Would buying more RAM be the solution, or would I need to upgrade to
> the MacBook Pro to get the designated video card? What notebook would
> be comparible?
>
> I'm not sure what to do because I can't keep working with this speed!
> Any help would be appreciated.

First install more RAM. 1 GB minimum, or stuff it up to the maximum.
512 MB is really the bare minimum.

Also check your energy saver settings under System Preferences.

In article < .com>,
Conanu <> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I just bought my first Mac - the new MacBook with the 2 GHz Core Duo,
>and 512 MB ram, and the shared video ram.
>
>I thought that this would be comparible in speed to my desktop PC which
>is a Dell Pentium 4, 1.6 GHz, 512 MB ram, with a G Force 2 graphics
>card.

Judging from reports on the net, the laptop should be much faster.

>Sadly, I am finding the MacBook incredibly slow for running Excel,
>Word, Firefox, Thunderbird - just about everthing.

Excel and Word run in emulation until the next release of Microsoft Office.
Firefox and thunderbird are native and should be fast, but they may suffer
from other effects such as the network.

>Would buying more RAM be the solution, or would I need to upgrade to
>the MacBook Pro to get the designated video card? What notebook would
>be comparible?

Other notebooks aren't going to be that much faster. More memory might
indeed be helpful. 1gig is probably a good lower limit on modern machines.
The video card should be more than adequate for your applications.
Your experience doesn't seem typical.

Conanu <> wrote:

> Sadly, I am finding the MacBook incredibly slow for running Excel,
> Word, Firefox, Thunderbird - just about everthing.

Excel and Word are slow for the time being because they have not been
adapted to run fast on Intel Macs yet. We may have to wait for the next
release of Offfice for the Mac for that, unfortunately.

Firefox and Thuncerbird are "Universal" though, and should use the Intel
processor to its full potential. Your report seems to go against most
others I have seen, although I am not so lucky that I have an Intel Mac
yet, so I can't test it myself. :-(

In general I would absolutely recommend another 512 MB RAM on any Mac OS
X machine, Intel or not. Mac OS X _loves_ RAM.
--
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc

Jon wrote
(in article
<1hh1nq2.1h0ybs7hg0zowN% lid>):

> Conanu <> wrote:
>
>> Sadly, I am finding the MacBook incredibly slow for running Excel,
>> Word, Firefox, Thunderbird - just about everthing.
>
> Excel and Word are slow for the time being because they have not been
> adapted to run fast on Intel Macs yet. We may have to wait for the next
> release of Offfice for the Mac for that, unfortunately.

Why buy a Mac and then run Microsoft software on it? The first
thing I did after account creation when my macbook pro arrived
was to expunge the trial-ware/virus-ware MS Office from the hard
drive.

> Firefox and Thuncerbird are "Universal" though, and should use the Intel
> processor to its full potential.

It's possible he somehow installed a PPC version though, or is
it?

> Your report seems to go against most others I have seen, although I am not
> so lucky that I have an Intel Mac yet, so I can't test it myself. :-(

I have an Intel mbp, same clock speed as the OP, but with 2GB of
RAM. It flies. The only exception to that was that Windows
sharing bug I ran into that was jacking the cpu load out of
control until I found the source.

I would recommend he either use activity monitor to look at CPU
load, memory use, paging, etc. to try and determine if anything
unexpected is going on.

> In general I would absolutely recommend another 512 MB RAM on any Mac OS
> X machine, Intel or not. Mac OS X _loves_ RAM.

The extra memory could be a big factor, I have only used it with
larger amounts, but if it is anything like my older PPC
Powermac, which came with 512 originally, 512 just isn't
suitable running most applications. Apple should probably ship
1GB minimum across the board.



--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Thanks for your help. Any idea when the next release of Office will be?

Also, do you know if is there any way to turn off the animations on the
menus in office. It is very slow to change options when you have to
wait for the menus to change?

Where would I find the "reports on the net" you mentioned? I wouldn't
mind taking a look at what others have to say about the MacBook.

Thanks again everyone for your responses.

-Conan


Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article < .com>,
> Conanu <> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I just bought my first Mac - the new MacBook with the 2 GHz Core Duo,
> >and 512 MB ram, and the shared video ram.
> >
> >I thought that this would be comparible in speed to my desktop PC which
> >is a Dell Pentium 4, 1.6 GHz, 512 MB ram, with a G Force 2 graphics
> >card.
>
> Judging from reports on the net, the laptop should be much faster.
>
> >Sadly, I am finding the MacBook incredibly slow for running Excel,
> >Word, Firefox, Thunderbird - just about everthing.
>
> Excel and Word run in emulation until the next release of Microsoft Office.
> Firefox and thunderbird are native and should be fast, but they may suffer
> from other effects such as the network.
>
> >Would buying more RAM be the solution, or would I need to upgrade to
> >the MacBook Pro to get the designated video card? What notebook would
> >be comparible?
>
> Other notebooks aren't going to be that much faster. More memory might
> indeed be helpful. 1gig is probably a good lower limit on modern machines.
> The video card should be more than adequate for your applications.
> Your experience doesn't seem typical.

Conanu wrote:
> Thanks for your help. Any idea when the next release of Office will be?
>
> Also, do you know if is there any way to turn off the animations on the
> menus in office. It is very slow to change options when you have to
> wait for the menus to change?
>
Don't use anything but the individual modules.

And please bottom post after trimming.

--
John McWilliams

I just bought a new MacBook (Pro) also. I'm picking it up tonight.

I've been a mac user for years but this will be my first experience
with an Intel mac.

I've been wondering... how can one tell if an application is running
natively or via Rosetta? (apart from the speed)

In article < .com>,
"MikeGreiner" <> wrote:

> I just bought a new MacBook (Pro) also. I'm picking it up tonight.
>
> I've been a mac user for years but this will be my first experience
> with an Intel mac.
>
> I've been wondering... how can one tell if an application is running
> natively or via Rosetta? (apart from the speed)

Do a "Get Info" on the application; that will show either "Universal" or
"PowerPC".

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

Randy Howard <> wrote:

> Jon wrote
> (in article
> <1hh1nq2.1h0ybs7hg0zowN% lid>):
>
> > Conanu <> wrote:
> >
> >> Sadly, I am finding the MacBook incredibly slow for running Excel,
> >> Word, Firefox, Thunderbird - just about everthing.
> >
> > Excel and Word are slow for the time being because they have not been
> > adapted to run fast on Intel Macs yet. We may have to wait for the next
> > release of Offfice for the Mac for that, unfortunately.
>
> Why buy a Mac and then run Microsoft software on it? The first
> thing I did after account creation when my macbook pro arrived
> was to expunge the trial-ware/virus-ware MS Office from the hard
> drive.

Well - for many people it really is the only game in town as far as
so-called Office software is concerned. If you want or need real MS
Office compatibility at work or at home, no hassles, then MS Office is
the name of that game. And very, very many users need that.

NeoOffice / OpenOffice just don't cut it - yet.

> > Firefox and Thuncerbird are "Universal" though, and should use the Intel
> > processor to its full potential.
>
> It's possible he somehow installed a PPC version though, or is
> it?

It is possible, of course, though AFAIK, both have shipped as Universals
for some months now.

<snip>

> > In general I would absolutely recommend another 512 MB RAM on any Mac OS
> > X machine, Intel or not. Mac OS X _loves_ RAM.
>
> The extra memory could be a big factor, I have only used it with
> larger amounts, but if it is anything like my older PPC
> Powermac, which came with 512 originally, 512 just isn't
> suitable running most applications. Apple should probably ship
> 1GB minimum across the board.

I agree. And with RAM prices as low as they are now, get at least the
other 512.
--
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc