We've had a few users tell us about performance lags that they're experiencing with their brand new 27" iMacs. Our own Casey Johnston even wrote a quick article about the problem last month. Now that everyone has had a few days to play with the issue and try the obligatory troubleshooting steps, we've been tipped about a possible solution.

One of our readers claims that this isn't just related to Flash playback... it's possible that this lag problem is consistent across the system. Flash taxes your system more than most applications so it would show the lag problem more consistently than another application -- thus making it look like a problem only with Flash.

The suggestion at this point: cycle your wireless connection. By turning AirPort off and on again, some people are seeing the computer regain responsiveness. Obviously this isn't a permanent fix because the issue will most likely appear again after you reboot your machine... we can't say if the fix will persist for the entire session, either; the problem could come back before reboot.

Fellow TUAW blogger Joachim Bean suggests that the issues may be something related to PCI Express. Both the AirPort and graphics card are using PCI Express to communicate with the system. There's a possibility that the lines of communication are crossing during use. I'm still betting on a software issue -- at least, let's hope for that.

Let us know if this helps, or any other possible solutions you might have in the comments.

Thanks, Simon!

Our sharp-eyed iPhone goddess, Erica Sadun, alerted us to the fact that there's a small, but potentially important, update that has just shown up in Software Update.

Performance Update 1.0 "addresses intermittent hard drive-related stalls reported by a small number of customers." It may not show up for you, unless you have one of the following Macs:

MacBook Air (Mid 2009), MacBook Pro (17-inch, Mid 2009), MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2009), MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2009), MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2.53GHz, Mid 2009), iMac (20-inch, Mid 2009), MacBook Pro (17-inch, Early 2009), MacBook (13-inch, Early 2009), MacBook (13-inch, Mid 2009), MacBook (13-inch, Aluminum, Late 2008), MacBook Air (Late 2008), MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2008), iMac (24-inch, Early 2009), iMac (20-inch, Early 2009), Mac mini (Early 2009)

If you own one of these models, be sure to load the update at your earliest convenience, especially if you have experienced the problem described in the update notes.

Thanks to Erica and to Joachim Bean, who provided the link to the Apple KB article.

Macworld has spotted a new page over on Apple's website highlighting their dedication to making their products as environmentally healthy as possible. We've seen this pitch from Apple within the past few years -- they've recently slimmed down their packaging and started using recyclable materials in making their computers. It's pretty interesting to see them making such a push on this issue, but then again it not only helps them sell computers (assuming they don't have to raise prices too high due to the new policies), but of course helps the culture and the Earth at large in terms of making sure our environmental footprints are as small as possible.

The new site includes information about the impact of Apple's products both during manufacture and during usage, as well as reports on product performance, as well as a blog on what they're doing lately. They also have a link to their recycling program so that when you're done with whatever Apple products you're using, you can make sure that those recyclable products are actually recycled.

Pretty good deal all around, and good for Apple to make it clear how committed they are to this issue and acting on it.

I picked up CoverSutra a little while ago in a bundle purchase, and I generally liked it -- it's an iTunes controller with the added features of regular notifications with album art, a music search, and Last.fm scrobbling. My one complaint with the software was that it was a bit of a CPU hogger -- my little Mac mini chugged right along trying to keep it running, and I occasionally had to turn it off completely if I was doing something else CPU-intensive.

But maybe with newly released version 2.2 they'll have fixed that problem -- not only have they made the app fully compatible with Snow Leopard and iTunes 9, but they've beefed up performance, taking advantage of all available CPU cores and, they say, dramatically loading album artwork and searching music faster. I haven't tried it yet, but if you've had the same problems with CoverSutra I have, it's worth picking up the new version and testing it out. 2.2 is of course a free upgrade to current users, and the app itself is available for $19.95.

They didn't just slap an S on the back and call it a day, you know. Apple has improved the 3D performance on the 3G S by including a more powerful graphics processor. According to John Casasanta, the speed increase is up to four times that of the 3G. But don't take his word or these OpenGL ES speed tests as proof -- check out the video and see for yourself.

On a related note, we hear that Apple has done "even more" than we can publicly disclose around speed improvements on the device. That could mean there are further software updates that may make the 3G S even faster. That's the kind of thing Apple loves to do, isn't it? Just look at the Snow Leopard marketing around it being lighter and more efficient. I've usually had (often temporary) system speed increases with updates as well, so here's hoping there's some unused horsepower under the hood just waiting to be unleashed.

Do you feel the need... the need for speed? With more and more of our computing lives taking place via our web browsers, eking out even a slight performance improvement for Firefox or Safari (or a similar reduction of resource demands; I'm looking at you, Flash Player) can improve the user experience noticeably. One way to improve browser performance, if you've got the chops and the time, is to compile the open-source browser of choice yourself, with all the tweaks for the specific processor platform you're using.

Web guru Neil Bruce Lee has offered the performance-hungry Firefox user the choice of G5 and Intel optimized versions of the 3.0 release; now, for those who want to live completely on the far side, Chris Latko has rolled out an Intel-optimized build of the beta Firefox 3.1 (Shiretoko) browser. With the architecture-specific tweaks Latko made, along with the inclusion of the TraceMonkey Javascript native compiler, this is the screaming-est version of Firefox ever to grace an Intel Mac screen... but be wary, it's going to be less stable than an official release, and many of your favorite plugins may not work (best to disable them all in the 3.0x version, then enable one at a time in the beta build to make sure they play nicely).

Don't roll the Firefox way? There's a bleeding-edge choice for you too: WebKit nightly builds, based on the most current code that goes into future versions of Safari. Again, you should see a boost in speed and possibly a corresponding decrease in stability, so tread with caution.

If you're running an optimized browser build, share your experiences with us below.

Thanks Chris!

[Hat tip: Mac.Blorge]

TouchArcade interviewed Handheld Games Corp's Thomas Fessler, who noted an interesting bit of the company's research: Second-generation iPod touch devices are significantly faster than their predecessors when it comes to 3D rendering.

In fact, it's faster than both iPhone models as well. In its tests, the iPhone 3G ranked second, the original iPhone third, and the first-generation iPod touch lagged behind in fourth. Fessler is paraphrased in the interview, even suggesting he would not recommend anyone interested in gaming to buy a used first-generation iPod touch.

The primary difference is a faster processor: The second-generation iPod touch has a 532 MHz processor. The iPhone, iPhone 3G, and first-generation iPod touch all have 412 MHz processors.

Fessler also speculates in the interview that the GPU has also been improved, but has no evidence to support that claim. These performance differences may also explain why certain apps only run on second-generation iPod touch devices.

I was really disappointed when Google released their Chrome web browser for Windows only. When it comes to browsers, I've tried them all. Right now I regularly switch between Firefox and the latest nightly build from Webkit (essentially Safari). Firefox has the extensibility I rely on, while Webkit has the performance I crave. I had hoped that Chrome would magically combine those two crucial traits and become my new go-to browser. Unfortunately, Chrome is not yet nearly as extensible as Firefox, and isn't available for Mac (yet).

So imagine my surprise when I stumbled upon the latest experimental Firefox build from Mozilla, called Minefield. This Minefield should not be confused with the unofficial optimized builds of Firefox that Brett wrote about, which are also referred to as Minefield. Minefield is Mozilla's code-name for this generation of Firefox, and the code name is used for unofficial builds to avoid infringing upon the Firefox name.

So, what's so special about the Mozilla Minefield build? It's fast... smokin' fast. This is essentially a version of Firefox with the new TraceMonkey JavaScript engine under the hood, and as Ars Technica reports, it tests even faster than Google's V8 JavaScript engine.

As most Mac users have noted, Firefox is kind of pokey on the Mac platform, particularly compared with WebKit or even Safari, and even when compared with Firefox on a similarly spec'd Windows machine. Version 3 of Firefox was supposed to fix the performance problem, and while it's somewhat better, it's still not great.

Well, Minefield is great. Using Gmail or even a complex content management system is a breath of fresh air. I feel like my web apps are finally keeping up with me.

There's one caveat, and it's a big one: though the current version number is 3.1b2pre (the "b" denoting beta status), this is really alpha software. That means there will be bugs, and you will experience problems. Surprisingly, though, Minefield has been very stable in my testing -- not yet crashing in a full day of testing. I have restarted it a couple of times due to suspicion that something strange was going on, but I can't say for sure if it was.

If you use it with your regular Firefox profile rather than creating a new one, Minefield will complain that most of your extensions are not compatible. Using Nightly Tester Tools, I re-enabled all of the extensions that it disabled, and every single one of them appears to be working normally, even the complicated ones like Better Gmail 2 and TabMixPlus.

I've only had a problem with one site so far, but unfortunately it's a big one: Google Docs. The page simply won't load. But for now, I'm willing to open WebKit or Camino to edit my Google Docs, because I'm just too smitten with the raw speed that Minefield offers.

One last note: being a nightly build, you will likely find that new versions are available, well, nightly. Mozilla makes the process of upgrading to the latest version virtually painless by using the built-in version monitoring process that Firefox uses.

[via Ubuntu Unleashed]

Whenever two options are presented, it is often a smart move to weight the pros and cons of each and make a decision based on your needs. If you need to push Windows in a virtualization environment, Daniel A. Begun at CNET Labs has benchmarked Windows Vista running in both Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion. The short of the long? If you really need to push Windows, do it in Boot Camp if at all possible. If Boot Camp is out of the question, VMware Fusion was the winner in heavy duty, multimedia tasks by a landslide, due largely in part to its support of multiple core processors (Parallels, as of this writing, only supports one core per CPU). On the flip side, however, Parallels Desktop is the only virtualization product that supports 3D gaming right now, but as a Parallels owner, I'll still vouch for running your games in Windows via Boot Camp.

At the end of the CNET Labs day, both apps still have their pros and cons. Begun hails Parallels Desktop for being the more usable and intuitive of the two (and during my initial tests of both before deciding to buy, I agreed), though I had a much easier time getting non-Windows OSes installed in VMware Fusion (to this day, Parallels Desktop still won't install Ubuntu, and I have received no response as to why). Still, the moral of this particular story is that if performance is at the very top of your virtualization shopping list, VMware Fusion is, at least for now, the reigning champion. Check Begun's full article for more details on the tests and how they were performed.

Reader John L kindly dropped us a tip that Other World Computing has upped their Mac mini memory upgrades up to a whopping 3GB of RAM. And in fact, if you really want a Mini that flies, they'll even squeeze 4GB under the hood, even though they say the Mac Mini can't really handle that much.

The performance testing they did just completely confounds me, however-- in situations where lots of memory was needed (the "RAM Hog" setup), 4GB clearly beats everything else. In fact, in most of the regular testing-- the Photoshop test and the "Stress Test" the memory runs exactly how you'd expect: more memory means quicker processing. But in the last two tests, the Halo test and the Xbench test, the mini actually ran faster at just 1GB (which is what it ships with) than the 3GB, and almost as fast as the 4GB. The reasons for that are probably technical (too technical for me, although I'm sure our talented commenters have some answers), but it seems that in some situations, extra RAM just doesn't help.

Still, in situations that ask for a lot of memory, having more will definitely give you a nice bonus in speed, and it looks like the mini can now hold more than ever. When I buy mine (in October when Leopard drops, assuming Steve lets it live that long), I'll probably just double it to a reasonable 2GB. But if you want that extra power, it's good to know it's there.

iSlayer has released v4.1 of their killer iStat pro widget for monitoring system performance and statistics right from within Dashboard. In this new version, the team has added a new Fire skin (pictured, and apparently a mod of a much-requested skin from the previous v3), support for monitoring temps of S.M.A.R.T.-capable hard drives, better network change detection, support for 30 new temperature sensors in Intel Macs and even updated fan support for iBook users.

As usual, iStat pro is provided as donationware and should be available via its own update system if you already have the widget installed, or from iSlayer's site.

A browser doesn't seem like it should have that adverse of an effect on one's system performance. Aside from the power users who surf for hours at a time and leave their browser running for days on end, one's browser shouldn't be dragging the rest of the class down.

Macenstein, on the other hand, has used a few pseudo-scientific tests to determine otherwise. While the debate still rages as to which browser is the 'best,' or the fastest, or the least detrimental memory hog, Dr. Macenstein has apparently outed Safari as a fairly selfish system resource gobbler, able to slow at least some operations by 76 percent. The tests performed by the monster of all things Mac included a fairly tricked out G5 PowerMac, as well as Quad Core Mac Pro just for good measure. Just to round the tests out, Macenstein eventually added Camino and OmniWeb to the original test sequence of Safari and Firefox. These browsers were all tested separately against opening/saving a fairly hefty PSD in Photoshop, as well as rendering a project out of After Effects (remember: those two apps still have to run emulated in Rosetta on the Mac Pro).

The cliff notes results? In nearly every test, Safari (running in the background) was found to deal a significant blow to performance and efficiency, causing the three aforementioned operations to take noticeably longer. To make things even more bizarre, Safari was actually found to not affect performance when exporting a video for the iPod with QuickTime.

At the end of the day, no one is really sure why Apple's browser is making so many waves in the performance pool, but a healthy comment thread on the post is already hard at work. For anyone serious about Safari, here's hoping Apple is already aware of the issue and has brought their browser in line for Leopard.

Alyce Lomax, blogging over at the Motley Fool, discusses her take on Apple's stock performance. Over the last five years, Apple has boomed -- up 715%. Lomax believes that Apple has not yet peaked. She sees growth opportunities in the Intel line of Macs along with the strong performance of the iPod.

So should you buy Apple? We here at TUAW haven't a clue. But Lomax's article is an interesting read for those of you following the stock market. As for us, we tend to go with the whole monkey and dartboard method.

Sketchy AirPort performance has been bugging me for weeks, probably over a month now, and I've been going through all forms of troubleshooting with my AirPort Express trying to squash the issue, but to no avail. My MacBook and iMac drop their Wi-Fi connection seemingly at random, sometimes right in the middle of Unreal online, and never regain it unless I manually re-select the network. I've been following the typical methods of changing channels on the APE, reducing range and using Interference Robustness - but it's all been for naught.

Now, Apple has released a support document that might provide a solution for those like me who are experiencing less-than-stellar AirPort reliability and connectivity with their Intel Macs. The document specifies that these issues are related to the use of WPA2 and upgrading to 10.4.8, and I can't offer any feedback just yet as to whether my problem has been solved, but this doc is at least a step in a troubleshooting direction other than 'pull out more hair.' Feel free to share your experiences and any solutions in the comments.

[via HardMac]