PowerMac is now dead

[bloodline]

KThunder wrote:
apple has basicly become an alternative os pc manufacturer, and thats not a bad thing.

Haven't they always been that? Once the PC became defacto standard in the mind 90's... everyone else became "alternative os pc manufacturers"... I know what you are saying... but my point is that nothing has really changed. :-)

they have a strong and commited following.

Yeah, they've got the crazy freaks, like us Amigans :-) But apple also have a huge range of MacOS only software that is of exceptional quality! And keeps people like me with the platform. See my avatar :-D

and enough style to make it all work.

Yeah, their stuff does look good!

other pc alternate os manufacturers were missing that special something or other and so far have fallen. os2 beos etc.

The others just lack the software library... Linux scraps by because of it's good software support (but they lack the "Linux only" quality software). The AmigaOSoids really need some new quality, software.

mac os is now based on bsd unix isnt it? ive never liked apple but i wish them well.

A bit of BSD Unix, a bit of Mach 3.0 a bit of MacOS classic and NeXT Step... some other stuff all mushed into one OS :-)

Quite an interesting system.

[irishmike]

Yes, I am fanatical about my Mac too.  I am currently lusting after that Mac Pro... very nice.

I am even considering selling most of my Amiga stuff to obtain the over $2K (USD) I need.

Haven't decided on what I will let go of yet.

[stopthegop]

irishmike wrote:
Yes, I am fanatical about my Mac too.  I am currently lusting after that Mac Pro... very nice.

I am even considering selling most of my Amiga stuff to obtain the over $2K (USD) I need.

Haven't decided on what I will let go of yet.

Its interesting that you can still sell your 10+ year old Amiga hardware and raise the cash to purchase a brand new Mac.  Five years from now, that same Amiga hardware will still be worth the same amount of money if not more, whereas your Mac will have depreciated to almost $0.00 in the same time.  G3 Macs can be had for free in my neighborhood every Monday and Wednesday: trashday.  See also craigslist/anytown/freestuff.  Pleny of once "high-end" crapintosh in there, too.  I know, I know, I know... the Mac can "do" a lot more (better and oh-so-importantly, faster), and I suppose technically thats true;  Amigas are very poor at running gargantuan, hideously bloated software.  Macs are definately better for this task as well they should be since they need four CPUs to do it.  

[irishmike]

@stopthegop

Well, my mac only has one processor and it is doing a lot of things that my Amigas can do.  The difference to me is that I need the Mac for my day to day work, and the Amiga is simply a hobby for me.  I love my miggies, but until the Amiga is actually reborn and available, the Mac is a very cool platform to do video, graphics and even occasionally some internet things on :-)

I applaude those who can use their Amigas day to day and don't need any other computer, but there in also lies the key -- The Amiga does not DO everything I need to do, so I use mine to play classic games on.

Yes, I think it interesting that I can sell my Amiga equipment to help fund the brand new Macintosh, but that is a function of supply and demand :-)


@everyone

I will be keeping my A2000 and possibly still build the A4000 I wanted to build up, but I will be compiling a list of things I wish to sell as I decide this.

[InTheSand]

stopthegop wrote:
Amigas are very poor at running gargantuan, hideously bloated software.  Macs are definately better for this task as well they should be since they need four CPUs to do it

LOL! And PCs need two CPUs (or at least one dual-core), a gig of RAM and a reasonably specced graphics card just to run[color=808080]*[/color] Microsoft's next OS! Nobody bothers writing efficient stuff any more!

Lando wrote:
In fact this is the first time I think Apple have released a new generation of machines which were actually slower than the previous generation

Hmm... Weren't the first PPC-based Macs slower than their 68040-based counterparts to start with? Especially with earlier versions of the OS that were still mostly 68k-based?

 - Ali

[color=808080]* - deliberately OTT![/color]

[stopthegop]

irishmike wrote:
@stopthegop

The difference to me is that I need the Mac for my day to day work, and the Amiga is simply a hobby for me.  

...the Mac is a very cool platform to do video, graphics and even occasionally some internet things on :-)

I applaude those who can use their Amigas day to day and don't need any other computer, but there in also lies the key -- The Amiga does not DO everything I need to do..

I'm in the same boat.  I have it only slightly worse because I'm shackeled to Windoze OS all day.  I agree with you in that Amigas are by no means "practical".  Which is unfortunate because they are most definately better.  I say "better" subjectively, not objectively.   In short, I agree with everything except your statement that started "Macs are really cool...".    Macs never did paddle my canoe.  To me MacOS felt like trying doing serious work in Crayon.  And the insultingly stupid error messages!  I just couldn't imagine why someone would buy a 'Mother-in-Law in a box'.  

[Lando]

InTheSand wrote:

Lando wrote:
In fact this is the first time I think Apple have released a new generation of machines which were actually slower than the previous generation

Hmm... Weren't the first PPC-based Macs slower than their 68040-based counterparts to start with? Especially with earlier versions of the OS that were still mostly 68k-based?

 - Ali

[color=808080]* - deliberately OTT![/color]

Yes, sorry, you're ansolutely right :-)  The first 601-based Performa and PowerMacs were slower than the 68040-based Macs.

Still, I wouldn't swap my MacBook Pro for any machine - it's the best computer I've ever owned, bar none.  I also have an Acer Ferrari 4000-series  Windows XP notebook (Turion 64, 2GB  RAM, Radeon X700), and the MBP just makes it look so clunky and second-rate when they are sitting on the desk side-by-side.  I actually bought it with the intention of installing Windows XP on a second partition using BootCamp, but 2 months down the line, I still haven't felt the need to do so because OS X does everything I need.  I miss CounterStrike, but installing Windows on her would feel too much like hitching a trailer to a Ferrari F355.

I have nothing against Intel - Apple's new notebooks are the best notebooks on the market today.  I was just slightly  disappointed by the performance of the new Desktop 'Professional' machines.   Nothing major, but I just expected a little more.

[bloodline]

Lando wrote:

Still, I wouldn't swap my MacBook Pro for any machine - it's the best computer I've ever owned, bar none.  

I'll have to second that... My MacBook Pro in a few short months has managed to replace all my other machines (I had various machines for different jobs and tasks). I did install Boot Camp on mine and that really tipped the scales. I don't touch any other machine now, even my poor Amigas haven't been switched on in months...

I have nothing against Intel - Apple's new notebooks are the best notebooks on the market today.  I was just slightly  disappointed by the performance of the new Desktop 'Professional' machines.   Nothing major, but I just expected a little more.

Intel had a pretty lame CPU wit the Netburst (Pentium 4)... and they deservidly lost a lot of ground to AMD who were simply making cheaper, faster, cooler, quieter CPUs. Anyone who was anyone would have avoided intel like the plague... But the Core Duo has come out fighting, intel now have the best chip money can buy... Apple knew this and make a good choice. I hope that AMD have something as ground breaking as the Core Duo up their sleave! The K9?

Mac Pro is a beast! Running Logic Pro on one is frighting!

[danamania]

In fact this is the first time I think Apple have released a new generation of machines which were actually slower than the previous generation - the tests over at barefeats (http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html) showing even the dual 2.5Ghz G5 out-performing the dual 3.4Ghz Xeon in 4 out of 6 tests.

That barefeats test is an older one, comparing a G5 with the Xeon from 18 months ago that doesn't share much with the current chips apart from its name and the ability to execute x86 instructions - http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html is the comparison of an actual 2.66Ghz Quad (new)Xeon powered Mac with the previous model Quad G5. That new mid-range Xeon Mac walks all over the old top of the line Quad G5 in everything but PPC Binary performance... ie running PPC-only apps. Pity, as most of the reason I'd want one is to run Photoshop, and it's not Universal yet .

However like the older PPCs which seemed slower at release, as soon as those apps shift to native code for the CPU they're running on, that'll change to line up with the other benchmarks. At release, an 80MHz PPC601 had trouble justifying itself against a 40MHz 68040 as almost no PPC coded apps existed, let alone a fully PPC OS. As soon as the PowerPC started running native apps it won by a long shot.

Dana

[LoadWB]

InTheSand wrote:

Hmm... Weren't the first PPC-based Macs slower than their 68040-based counterparts to start with? Especially with earlier versions of the OS that were still mostly 68k-based?

This was due to the small 8k cache on the PPC603.  The 68k emulator could not fit in that small of a cache.  The PPC603e fixed this problem with a 16k cache which easily accomodated the 68k CPU emulator.

EDIT - I also forgot about the 601-based units.

[bloodline]

Mac Pro pr0n: http://www.powermax.com/articles_reviews/article.php?id=33
Mac Pro Review: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macpro.ars

[bloodline]

New Mac Pro outperforms PowerMac G5 even in non universal apps.

http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html

[TheWizard]

Speed. Interesting subject.  :crazy: