OS 9, G5's in 2003, and Apple Engineers [Archive]

arn

Sep 12, 2002, 02:33 AM

The announcements at Apple Expo Paris brought to light previously-rumored information about future motherboards not being allowed to boot Mac OS 9.

The first of this rumor, however, came from an unlikely source... a reader report (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/06/20020621225247.shtml) of an discussion by an Apple engineer back in June:

the new models of motherboards do not support os 9, it is thus finished definitively on the next machines. (French Translation)

This was before Mac World Expo NY and the opening of the Soho store - where readers reported that Jobs hinted at the same (OS X-only next year). This rumor was later repeated in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020802113210.shtml) by eWeek.

The original rumor, however, could be of some interest, if it contains other truths. Unfortunately, the remainder is a bit disjointed and inconsistent. The most notable is the following about the G5, which pegs it at late 2003.

G5 will not even be available until the end of 2003, on the other hand it really exists and runs reliably. The manufacturing is, however, not very reliable in terms of loss and is too expensive for the moment.

Choppaface

Sep 12, 2002, 02:47 AM

the G5 will never actually be released as a unit, rather it is more of a omnipotent spirit that will float around and enhance all mac hardware :D :D

but really, if they're already a proto now, how do they intend to update the proto as the year progresses?

iwantanewmac

Sep 12, 2002, 03:01 AM

Ah I got the time.
I'll be sticking around with my G4 450 for another year. No problem. :)
At least I will have a decent upgrade. (I hope)

pianojoe

Sep 12, 2002, 03:25 AM

the new models of motherboards do not support os 9, it is thus finished definitively on the next machines.

Just a fine point: It's not the motherboard that is to support the OS, it's vice versa.

Any Mac OS had to be upgraded to support new hardware. (Remember the system enablers back in the stone age?) There simply will be no upgrade to OS 9 to support the new boards.

gaomay

Sep 12, 2002, 03:55 AM

Any word on clockspeed or instructions per cycle or even better real-world performance?

reyesmac

Sep 12, 2002, 04:33 AM

So we still might have to wait almost another year to get the kind of performance of what the high end PC chips have today? Because I don't think the chips are so advance that they would beat the 4ghz chips Intel might have by then. Hope we at least get hyper transport before Wintels do. I also hope we get a new case design but still keep some sort of door on it. And I also hope that I don't blow my money on anything but a G5, next January's Macs are already tempting me and those still might be G4's.

gotohamish

Sep 12, 2002, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by gaomay
Any word on clockspeed or instructions per cycle or even better real-world performance?

Wishful thinking mate, if Arn knew that I think he'd be telling us...

gotohamish

Sep 12, 2002, 05:22 AM

Slightly off the topic, sorry, I've just taken my trusty G3-333MT to bits and modded the case so it's beautiful and white like the new iMacs... that the only 'next generation' mac I'll be seeing for a while if the G5 continues like this!!

*H*

rugby

Sep 12, 2002, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by gotohamish
Slightly off the topic, sorry, I've just taken my trusty G3-333MT to bits and modded the case so it's beautiful and white like the new iMacs... that the only 'next generation' mac I'll be seeing for a while if the G5 continues like this!!

*H*

got any pics?

Mr. Anderson

Sep 12, 2002, 08:22 AM

There truly are so many conflicting reports on what's happening with the G5 or not happening. Going to OSX raises one question for me - is it a philosophical reason (to push software developers to get with the game plan) or one that that is based in OS9 not being able to run on a new mobo design?

D

kenohki

Sep 12, 2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by dukestreet
There truly are so many conflicting reports on what's happening with the G5 or not happening. Going to OSX raises one question for me - is it a philosophical reason (to push software developers to get with the game plan) or one that that is based in OS9 not being able to run on a new mobo design?

D

It's mostly to push developers and users to migrate to OS X. They want a large OS X installed base so that developers can get enough sales of OS X-only products to justify development for that platform.

I would also think too that Apple would like to start having developers use the Cocoa APIs and methodology for application development a little more. Some rather large applications that are primarily written with Carbon code would be difficult to port over to Cocoa. But for new apps, Cocoa tends (IMHO) to provide a more rapid development environment than Carbon (although a steeper learning curve for those not used to totally OO programming).

Unfortunately, they can't really push Cocoa hard until they get everyone off of OS 9 (which doesn't support it). And over the very long term, I'm sure they'd probably like to see Carbon go away after they're securely migrated to OS X. It's easier logistically to only have to support one API set.

Thirteenva

Sep 12, 2002, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by arn

G5 will not even be available until the end of 2003, on the other hand it really exists and runs reliably. The manufacturing is, however, not very reliable in terms of loss and is too expensive for the moment.

So who is this mystery manufacturer? IBM? any guesses...

mymemory

Sep 12, 2002, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by reyesmac
So we still might have to wait almost another year to get the kind of performance of what the high end PC chips have today? Because I don't think the chips are so advance that they would beat the 4ghz chips Intel might have by then.

Apple got behind FOR EVER!!!

Apple is trying so hard to push every body to the new OSX that offer less than half the options of OS9. People does not want to migrate just because do not feel better with OSX just because it is not better!!!

OSX is the equivalent of running 8.1 today.

gotohamish

Sep 12, 2002, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by rugby

got any pics?

Okay, he's a pic! It was a bit of a rush job, but fun to do. I managed to pop the little retro apple out so I could keep it without painting over. Where it once said 'PowerMacintoshG3' it now has a reflective silver panel. The rest of the machine is "iMac" white. Beautiful. Apologies for putting this in this thread, I wih I could open my own!

gotohamish

Sep 12, 2002, 09:38 AM

http://www.fourdegree.com/dinomac.jpg

iGav

Sep 12, 2002, 09:38 AM

DaveGee

Sep 12, 2002, 10:05 AM

dhdave

Sep 12, 2002, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by mymemory

Apple is trying so hard to push every body to the new OSX that offer less than half the options of OS9. !!!
OSX is the equivalent of running 8.1 today.

What utter crap. OS X is a fantastic OS. It is THE most valuable asset that apple is bringing to the table right now. If you love OS 9 so much then by all means USE IT FOREVER and just shut the ******* up. The machines that exist today are plenty fast running OS 9. Enjoy!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am SO sick of hearing about the G5. How many years has it been since we first heard about it? Two? Three? Haven't we been hearing about test yields of G5 chips for at least 24 months? This has got to be one of the slowest processor development cycles ever. I don't care that somebody says "it does exist". As long as it's not in production it's just vaporware. Late 2003 is far, far too long to wait. I'm buying my PowerMac now, so I'll be set for years. But I'm one of the faithful. What Apple needs is windows users to switch and they'll never, ever get them if they can't close this gap. Like now. Within 6 months.

dh

Mr. Anderson

Sep 12, 2002, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by gotohamish
Apologies for putting this in this thread, I wih I could open my own!

You should be able to start your own thread. Go do it in the General Discussion forum, and if you have problems, let arn know.

D

mozez

Sep 12, 2002, 10:28 AM

somebody mentioned hypertransport, well, pcs already have that, check amd, we all yelled about ddr, when pcs already had it for over a year, not only that, the ddr on a pc is so far ahead of apple it's not even in contention. any technology we could ask for for the next revision of the mac, the pc will already have, just have to hang onto a superior os, if you can even call it that now.

iGav

Sep 12, 2002, 10:34 AM

iGav

Sep 12, 2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by dhdave
What utter crap. OS X is a fantastic OS. It is THE most valuable asset that apple is bringing to the table right now. If you love OS 9 so much then by all means USE IT FOREVER and just shut the ******* up.

And so say all of us, and so say all of us, for he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow.... etc etc.... :p

I totally agree by the way..... :D

gotohamish

Sep 12, 2002, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by dukestreet

You should be able to start your own thread. Go do it in the General Discussion forum, and if you have problems, let arn know.

D

Thanks - I've open a new thread for my beige G3 case mod (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=11179) . Thanks for the help!:D

Thirteenva

Sep 12, 2002, 11:03 AM

ddtlm

Sep 12, 2002, 11:42 AM

This rumor makes no sense to me unless Moto is the maker of the G5, and even then it doesn't make much sense.

It would be a new level of sloppiness if either IBM or Moto designed an entire chip but couldn't produce enough to launch it. I very much doubt that is the case. Sounds to me more like desperation: "no, we're not really behind!" Actually, we know this couldn't be IBM because they are perfectly capable of making even huge chips like the Power4, so in order to believe this rumor, not only does Moto need to be the company that made the G5, but they had to have completed the design a long time ago (many months) only to find that they had neglected to consider wether or not they could actually make it. Except for limited quantities that they are making through, presumably, magic.

Again, I repeat, this rumor makes no sense.

DharvaBinky

Sep 12, 2002, 11:53 AM

Once upon a time there was a computer company which had built their entire OS around a single CPU instruction set. The CPU was fine and fancy at the time and continued to advance at a reasonable rate beginning with 16-bit 8MHz and trundling *all* the way up to 32-bit 110MHz w/ a built in FPU!! However, the generation of CPUs in this line were running out of growing room and their best and brightest incarnation couldn't stand up to the "other guys"... What to do what to do?!

This computer company had a *very* clever plan. They would move to a whole new CPU that was totally different than everything they had ever done before, one that would be fast and efficient! But... what about all the software that was written for the old crusty CPUs? Ahhh... this company was clever indeed. They wrote a micro-emulator that ran in the L1 cache of the new CPU that emulated the instruction set of the old one! Sure, it hurt initial performance for the new CPU, but it allowed everyone to run all of their software with few problems and all was well. As the new CPUs took hold, more and more vendors rewrote their apps to use the new CPU's instruction set and when they did, they when vroom! And gradually, support for the old crusty instruction set was dropped.

The company, obviously, is Apple. The crusty old CPU? 680X0. The new CPU? PPC.

In my opinion, given that all modern CPUs have large full-speed L2 caches, there's no reason Apple couldn't do this again. It seems to me that it would be totally do-able for them to build a machine around *any* modern CPU and load a PPC emulator into the L2 cache at boot time. All our apps would run, and we'd get the raw speed associated with strapping a rocket engine onto a slug bug. As apps would be ported to the new CPU's instruction set, the true speed advantages would come to light, and Apple would be saved from Mot's inneptitude.

maybe no? maybe yes? Whatcha think?

Binky

porovaara

Sep 12, 2002, 12:01 PM

Does anyone know if Apple has any deals with Transmeta, perhaps licensing some of their code-morphing technology?

eric_n_dfw

Sep 12, 2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by mymemory (monster font removed)
Apple is trying so hard to push every body to the new OSX that offer less than half the options of OS9.

...

OSX is the equivalent of running 8.1 today.
B.S.

Does OS 9 have things OS X doesn't? Yes.
Does OS X have things OS 9 doesn't? Yes.

But to say that OSX offers "less than half" the options of OS9 is just spreading FUD (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/9267/fuddef.html) and makes you sound like an uniformed, whiner.

What does OS X not offer that OS 9 does besides some 3rd party drivers (scanners for instance) and the that window roll-up thing? (Oh, wait, OS 9 allows the user to specify how much memory an app can have - that's something that I miss... NOT!)

In fact, I'll give you one - tabbed finder windows. I loved that on OS 9 - but I can get similar functionality with docked folders which is arguably better in some ways. (What would really rock is if you could have multiple docks - i.e.: one on the bottom with app's and another on the right for folders)

IMO, the only real, arguable problems OS X has today are:
1. GUI speed (the OS itself is actually pretty snappy; Quartz/Aqua, however, is not)
2. Getting developers to write OS X code (including drivers)

jefhatfield

Sep 12, 2002, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by arn
The announcements at Apple Expo Paris brought to light previously-rumored information about future motherboards not being allowed to boot Mac OS 9.

The first of this rumor, however, came from an unlikely source... a reader report (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/06/20020621225247.shtml) of an discussion by an Apple engineer back in June:

the new models of motherboards do not support os 9, it is thus finished definitively on the next machines. (French Translation)

This was before Mac World Expo NY and the opening of the Soho store - where readers reported that Jobs hinted at the same (OS X-only next year). This rumor was later repeated in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020802113210.shtml) by eWeek.

The original rumor, however, could be of some interest, if it contains other truths. Unfortunately, the remainder is a bit disjointed and inconsistent. The most notable is the following about the G5, which pegs it at late 2003.

G5 will not even be available until the end of 2003, on the other hand it really exists and runs reliably. The manufacturing is, however, not very reliable in terms of loss and is too expensive for the moment.

actually, it all sounds plausible to me, but that would be sad if it will take that long to get g5 on the shelves

would that slow the time it takes to get g4 in the ibook and would ibook only get g4 when tibook gets g5?

i do remember when powerbook and ibook both had g3s in them so i hope to expect a g4 in ibook sometime in 2003...plus, that would be my next machine so i definitely have a personal stake in it;)

steveh

Sep 12, 2002, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Choppaface

but really, if they're already a proto now, how do they intend to update the proto as the year progresses?

What do you think that the development process mostly is? You design and build prototypes, test them, make changes, test them,...

I've worked on projects that took the better part of five years to ship a product, with prototypes being built/revised for most of the last three years of the project.

jefhatfield

Sep 12, 2002, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by steveh

What do you think that the development process mostly is? You design and build prototypes, test them, make changes, test them,...

I've worked on projects that took the better part of five years to ship a product, with prototypes being built/revised for most of the last three years of the project.

a teacher of mine mentioned a prototype supercomputer which is desktop size which can hold several terabytes on its hd and supports many GBs of ram, but i have no idea if something like that would come to OUR desktops or if it was something used only for industry/govt

Thirteenva

Sep 12, 2002, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

actually, it all sounds plausible to me, but that would be sad if it will take that long to get g5 on the shelves

would that slow the time it takes to get g4 in the ibook and would ibook only get g4 when tibook gets g5?

i do remember when powerbook and ibook both had g3s in them so i hope to expect a g4 in ibook sometime in 2003...plus, that would be my next machine so i definitely have a personal stake in it;)

If the G5 came out in late '03 it would be a few months before they stuck it in the Tibook. I can't imagine how they'd even do it. If the rumor is true that the new Powermac case is designed for the yet to come chip, and the air holes and huge heatsinks will be needed for it, well then how would you stick such a hot chip in a lap top? That will be interesting to see.

I remember one rumor i think it was actually on this site, where an apple representitive said not to expect a g4 in the Ibook for quite some time. I believe he said "the G3 has a lot of life left in it and we don't plan on using a G4 in the ibook anytime soon" or somethign similar. I'm pretty sure i saw that on macrumors

dethl

Sep 12, 2002, 01:12 PM

The G5 has been flaunted for over 2 years and yet we have not even seen the chip, only rumors and "reports". If Motorola was smart, they would get their rear in gear and get the friggen chip finalized. I was kinda hoping I could buy a G5 before I graduate thiscoming May......but I guess I'm gonna get a G4 instead. *sigh*

OS X rocks. I'm running 10.2 on a iBook special edition 466mhz G3, and it runs much faster than OS 9, or even 10.1 :p

Thirteenva

Sep 12, 2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by dethl
OS X rocks. I'm running 10.2 on a iBook special edition 466mhz G3, and it runs much faster than OS 9, or even 10.1 :p

I have a 500mhz tibook 512mb ram, its not faster than 9 on my machine but its plenty usable. I still get the spinnng beach ball from time to time in flash and photoshop though. Plus i have a knack for having PS, flash, dreamweaver and <insert any browser name here> open all at the same time, i live for multitasking. At that point it seems a little slow. ;)

10.2 is plenty faster than 10.1 which was way more usable than 10.0.4(thats when i had made it my main OS).

I recently erased the OS partition i had and installed 10.2 WITHOUT OS 9 and it actually seems a little snappier. I don't have classic support but it seems ok, i didn't use many classic applications or use them that often, and i'm weaning myself off the ones i did use(ie: quark). All thats left is to update to illustrator 10(i have freehand 10 but don't like it as much as i did Illustrator 9) and Indesign 2.

phillymjs

Sep 12, 2002, 02:27 PM

My love affair with Macs began 11 years ago when I got my first one, an LC. I've had a few others over the years, and since 1996 I've been running a 7600 as my primary machine at home. I've added in a couple G3 upgrades as faster chips were released, and USB, and IDE, and a better video card, but the last couple years I've really been nursing it along, holding out as long as I could for a new Mac that would have equal longevity.

My intent was to buy the killer G5 (with goodies like FireWire 2, USB 2, BlueTooth, etc built in) that everyone expected to be released at MWNY2002. I've been working like a slave this year to rack up a nice bonus to blow on a whole new setup. So what happens? They don't release it at MacWorld, and then after addtional waiting announce lackluster G4 machines, without any of the aforementioned goodies. To add insult to injury, they've trotted out the "all dual processors" business again because Motorola is too inept to keep up in the CPU race with Intel/AMD, and Apple had to do something to save face (which we had seen once before a couple years back). At least now we have Jaguar which can take full advantage of dualies, but still... The improvements over the previous generation Power Macs are really not there. The adoption of newer standards like USB 2, faster FireWire, and BlueTooth hasn't come to pass, and I don't want to lay out big bucks on a machine and then have to buy a PCI card or USB dongle to add stuff that should've been there in the first place.

The terrible timing comes in because for the last 10 years I've made a career out of supporting Macs, and my clients are starting to get antsy about upgrading to OS X. I've maintained that the best way for them to go about it is to stick with OS 9.x until all their must-have apps are X-native or at least carbonized, so they won't have to deal with the kludge that is Classic. This was also supposed to buy me time to acquire a new Mac that would replace that 7600 and run OS X as Apple intended-- and time to learn by immersion all the stuff that I'd need to know to effectively support OS X at client sites. So now I'm in a jam because I need to buy a new whiz-bang machine, but what Apple's offering isn't whiz-bang enough. I know that if I bite the bullet and buy one of the dual G4s, the machine I wanted will be announced in January. And if I keep holding out, my ability to serve my clients will suffer.

I've got an iBook 500 that runs Jaguar pretty well, but I need that 'immersion' factor... I need the machine I sit in front of from 6pm until bedtime to run OS X, and not by using some hack like XPostFacto. One of my clients chose to ignore my 'wait as long as you can' advice, made me roll out 10.1.x, and they've paid the price in lost productivity. To make matters worse, they are still using older versions of apps that have carbonized/native versions, and those older versions don't always play nice in Classic. They're seeing all kinds of problems, looking to me to fix them, and all I can do most times is shrug and start combing Google or The Missing Manual in search of an answer, because I'm not up to speed yet. If I absolutely have to, I'll try to find a used Quicksilver or slightly older G4 on eBay to tide me over, but that is not an optimum solution.

So come on, Apple-- get on the damned stick and put out a machine worthy of the money I'm dying to give you for it. Tell Motorola to kiss off, and find a company who can provide good, competitive CPUs in a timely manner-- and do it fast, because those inept morons are costing you mindshare with the MHz/GHz-obsessed majority, and even starting to erode staunch Apple loyalists. My career is riding on you, Apple. I don't want to be an MCSE and spend my life repairing virus damage and fixing 0wn3d IIS boxes. Please, please save me from that! :-)

~MJS

Thirteenva

Sep 12, 2002, 03:05 PM

phillymjs - I hear ya, you want a new machine but one that will be upgradeable and don't want to spend money on a computer that will be a possible stopgap solution till the G5 hits.

My advice, forget the hype of the G5. This is after all is said and done, just a rumor. Don't base purchases on rumors. The G5 has been a rumor for a long long time, so why belive this one that says end of 2003.

If you need a new computer to run your business, and you obviously do, then get one. Its business related so you'll get a tax break. Plus you have a few options.

1) Find a very cheap refurbished/used g4 and run os x so your up to speed with it and save money till end of next year when you can buy your complete setup.

or

2) buy the new low end dualie 867, its a great buy at $1,600(in my opinion) and it will last you at least 3 years in which time you can save up for an outrageous setup.

Either way its business related and you should be able to write off a portion of the computer on your taxes. :D

chubakka

Sep 12, 2002, 03:13 PM

http://www.cube-zone.com/AExpo/6/DCP_0696.JPG

Did I miss something? Were they demoing prototypes?

Pants

Sep 12, 2002, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by iGAV

Something tells me you're a 'the glass is half empty kind of guy'..... :rolleyes: :p

& something tells me you believe the the advertising buzz.... :rolleyes: ;)

Pants

Sep 12, 2002, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Thirteenva
phillymjs - I hear ya, you want a new machine but one that will be upgradeable and don't want to spend money on a computer that will be a possible stopgap solution till the G5 hits.

My advice, forget the hype of the G5. This is after all is said and done, just a rumor. Don't base purchases on rumors. The G5 has been a rumor for a long long time, so why belive this one that says end of 2003.

thing is - hes right - its not just the g5 issue, its all the other bits - the usb2/firewire2/bluetooth/the real DDR - not the marketing fudge and hype we have now. These current machines just don't offer enough value for money when stacked up against a similar priced pc. OS wise its great, but Im desperate, and I can't justify the cost - I dont want indesign bundles or other 'incentives' - i want a good machine that once Ive borrowed cash for will last without more cash thrown at in 6 months time.

I'm desperate, and hammers on the horizon.

dongmin

Sep 12, 2002, 03:53 PM

If this rumor is to be belived, then it's the same old problem of Motorola not being able to get high enough yields to make the chip cost-effective.

To me this makes sense. They already have the chip. They've had it for a while now to build a new Mac around it. That's why the motherboard of the new Powermacs is so radically different. But, they have to hold off introducing the G5 until Moto can get their act together and get their manufacturing in gear.

So the new PowerMac G5 is ready to go. Just waiting for Moto to deliver the quantities. Kind of a broken record, don't you think?

And this leads me to think the G5 is definitely coming from Moto and NOT IBM.

Arcady

Sep 12, 2002, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
Once upon a time there was a computer company which had built their entire OS around a single CPU instruction set. The CPU was fine and fancy at the time and continued to advance at a reasonable rate beginning with 16-bit 8MHz and trundling *all* the way up to 32-bit 110MHz w/ a built in FPU!! ...

The 680x0 CPU never went up to 110MHz. The fastest 68k Mac was the Quadra 840av, running at 40MHz. The Power Macintosh 8100 was available at 110MHz, but that used a 601+, not a 68k.

It takes a 604e running at 150MHz to emulate 68k at the same speed as a Quadra 840av. That Mac didn't come out until 3 years after the 840av, so for a few years most software actually ran slower, until software developers switched over to PPC code. By the time we see G5's, maybe OS X will feel as zippy as OS 9 did on a G4.

However, I think OS X 10.2 runs just fine on my G3 (a 533 overclocked to 583.) :D

kenohki

Sep 12, 2002, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Arcady

The 680x0 CPU never went up to 110MHz. The fastest 68k Mac was the Quadra 840av, running at 40MHz. The Power Macintosh 8100 was available at 110MHz, but that used a 601+, not a 68k.

The 680x0 line also included the 68060 around the time of the PowerPC transition. Although not used by Apple, it was used by others (Amiga) and did scale to faster than 40MHz. The 68060 would run at both 50MHz and 60MHz and at 50MHz, 66MHz and 75 MHz in the EC and LC versions. It also cranked out over 110 MIPS at 75MHz due to the fact that it was a superscalar processor. (The 40MHz 68040 did 44.)

ddtlm

Sep 12, 2002, 04:41 PM

dongmin:

Why in the world have you (and others) chosen to believe this rumor? Here you are thinking the G5 is from Moto and not IBM based on an old and nonsensical rumor... it's almost too much for me to believe. Why does every damn rumor have to be correct (until the next one that says something totally different, anyway)?

Anyone who chooses to believe that Moto or IBM is stupid enough to design a chip that they cannot build in sufficient quantities is plainly out of touch with how those companies operate. They have a LOT of things figured out and planned a LONG time ahead of time, and there is no way in heck that Moto would create a G5 months, no about a year according to this rumor, before they could actually produce them.

People, Moto may not be perfect, but they are a heck of a lot smarter than that.

Additionally, the time-honored cure for low yields is to produce lower-clocked chips. If Moto was having problems making this mythical G5, why couldn't they just release versions at low clock speeds such as where the G4 is found now? That's right, Moto would have released them at a lower clock, started getting paid for their work, and Apple would be happy.

The only reasonable conclusion is that this rumor is wrong. There is no Moto G5 that they just can't produce enough of. And we know IBM can make much bigger chips (Power4) so we also know that there is no IBM "G5" out there that they just can't fab.

This rumor is crap. Please stop believing it.

Jeffx342

Sep 12, 2002, 05:24 PM

Why is everybody making such a big deal switching to 0sx
OsX is the best OS out there even BETTER THAN WINDOWS XP
and i made the switch!

scem0

Sep 12, 2002, 06:02 PM

Well at least we have a date for the g5s, but the fact that they are to expensive to produce scares me. Apple needs to work on lowering prices. At least there is a g5.

Johnny7896

Sep 12, 2002, 06:05 PM

Moto is most likely getting the g5 to 500 Mhz with decent yeilds. Sounds about right for them. If the g4 goes to 1.25 then then g5 shouldn't be lower in Mhz. remember that Moto used to keep up with the MHz on intel chips until the came out g4. Then they sunk. Ironic that the g3 hit 1 Ghz before the G4. Hmmmmmm. Also it didn't help that Intel took most of the PowerPc designer/engineers away from Moto with big offers. I hope apple moves to IBM. If we get a fast Moto g5 great. But long term it may prove problems with increased speeds. Again.......

nixd2001

Sep 12, 2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by dhdave

What utter crap. OS X is a fantastic OS. It is THE most valuable asset that apple is bringing to the table right now. If you love OS 9 so much then by all means USE IT FOREVER and just shut the ******* up. The machines that exist today are plenty fast running OS 9. Enjoy!

Commenting from the perspective of a switcher (triple user, maybe) from NT and Linux:
a) Jaguar is very nice to use (and just plain looks better than OS 9 and earlier)
b) I never used OS 9 and earlier, but have to say that I'd never want to use a cooperatively multi-tasking OS again (since using one in the early '90s)
c) Whatever you think of OS X versus OS 9, Apple's future is with OS X and it is in their (and hence ultimately our) intersted to achieve a transistion as quickly as possibly. This may take you through a painful period in the short term (possibly 10.0 and 10.1 from discussions?), but it will be less painful long term than not transisting to OS X long term.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am SO sick of hearing about the G5. How many years has it been since we first heard about it? Two? Three? Haven't we been hearing about test yields of G5 chips for at least 24 months? This has got to be one of the slowest processor development cycles ever. I don't care that somebody says "it does exist". As long as it's not in production it's just vaporware. Late 2003 is far, far too long to wait. I'm buying my PowerMac now, so I'll be set for years. But I'm one of the faithful. What Apple needs is windows users to switch and they'll never, ever get them if they can't close this gap. Like now. Within 6 months.

dh

I can sympathise with this sentiment quite a lot. Whether announced or not, there are some wonderful research and pre-commercial projects around the World. Great. But I can't have one. So I've got a DP 1GHz. Every time I've bought a new computer for the last decade, I've always done it in the recognition that it might well be out of date not long after buying it. This is reality. Get used to it or don't buy. The future will be better, but you can't control it and there are often more relevant factors that you don't know about than you do know about.

Somewhere, and perhaps a little elusive here, there is a balance between reality and unbounded rumor. G5 may or may not exist - that we don't know precisely what it is means it quite possibly simultaneously exists and doesn't exist according to the various definitions. Rumors are great - especially when there's a little bit of substance (this guy from IBM, my friend in Moto, a rumor from an Apple engineer, etc), but it is possible to discuss to the point where there is no point because there is insufficient substance to back any individual opinion up.

As has been pointed out by a few other posters, this board is about rumors, so don't expect 100% fact. On the other hand, a rumor isn't the same as a day dream that's just happened.

(Another rant over)

ncbill

Sep 12, 2002, 06:46 PM

You must be kidding...the overhead of OS X is painful on my iBook 600, and Mail is a joke.

Maybe if you like being in terminal mode all day long OS X is for you, but it's agony on G3 systems.

Originally posted by dethl
OS X rocks. I'm running 10.2 on a iBook special edition 466mhz G3, and it runs much faster than OS 9, or even 10.1 :p

dongmin

Sep 12, 2002, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by ddtlm
dongmin:

Why in the world have you (and others) chosen to believe this rumor?

First of all, I began my post with "If this rumor is to be believed"...

Secondly, the only reason we're even talking about this rumor is that, as Arn pointed out, this was the first source to correctly report that future systems would not be OS 9 compatible. So we're taking the rest of what this source said more seriously.

Anyone who chooses to believe that Moto or IBM is stupid enough to design a chip that they cannot build in sufficient quantities is plainly out of touch with how those companies operate.

You give Moto way too much credit (and you shouldn't be lumping IBM with them). This is the company that's been hemorrhaging money in their semiconductors division for years. This is the company that released the G4s at 500 mhz but then had to clock it down because of some "errata" (that's plural for "oops, we fu**ed up"). This is the company that's given us only a 900 mhz increase in THREE years (the 350mhz G4s came out in 10/99). Frankly, I don't think Moto has a clue what they're doing. Either that or they don't give a rat's a$$ about Apple (in which case it's Apple's fault for sticking with them).

Additionally, the time-honored cure for low yields is to produce lower-clocked chips.

As someone mentioned, they're not gonna release these chips unless the mhz is at or above the G4 levels. They may have a plenty of G5s at 800 mhz but no way in hell is Apple gonna use those.

The only reasonable conclusion is that this rumor is wrong.

You want reasons, I just gave you a bunch...

nickgold

Sep 12, 2002, 09:10 PM

I never fail to get a kick out of the pure entertainment that is macrumors.com. :D

Here are some facts, for the folks on this board who apparently have no clue:

1) OS X kicks the crap out of any other Mac OS ever released, and *gasp* even runs pretty decently on G3s.

2) Windows users are switching to Macs BECAUSE of OS X, and because they hate Microsoft and its crap products. Macs are also very nice to look at, and frankly, people dig that.

3) Consumers don't give TWO ****S about Megahertz speed. All of the dorks on the net who say otherwise are just that -- dorks. I talk to computer users all day long, most of them general consumers. You know how many of them even KNOW how fast their computer is, in megahertz? Maybe 2%-5%. Tops. That's being VERY generous. In fact, most of the more advanced users don't even seem to be aware of megahertz AT ALL. It is totally irrelevant to people who are actually USING computers, as opposed to the dweebs who just fawn over them. WHat matters? Workflow, productivity, and their ENJOYMENT of using the machine. People enjoy Macs, in general. As opposed to Windows, which they simply tolerate, or more likely, actively dislike.

Of course this one post is not going to stop any debates. But many, MANY of the people on this BBS, and others, have absolutely no idea how the REAL world works, and how real, non-computer-dork people think about the computers they use on a daily basis.

Do you know what the VAST majority of computer users are using their computers for?

- web browsing
- word processing
- and... oh wait, sorry, that's it.

How much does MHz affect the above two kinds of apps, in this day and age? Please.

I am using my G4 450 Sawtooth, purchased as soon as they were available. You know what? It is just as fast as the day I bought it. Oh wait, faster -- now it has 1.37 GB RAM installed, and Jaguar sails like a dream. I was considering an 800 or 1 GHz upgrade, but you know what? I don't need one AT ALL. And I do video, audio, etc.

REALITY-CHECK, people. OS X is by far slickest OS available today, in many regards. The future of the Mac platform is brighter than it's probably EVER been.

I truly wonder how many of the 1-post trolls on this board are actually desperate Microsoft marketting execs, who hang out on boards like this and troll FOR FUN when they get home at night. Pathetic.

For the rest of the folks around here, who seem to have some semblance of a clue -- continue to keep it real, people. :)

scem0

Sep 12, 2002, 09:43 PM

Mac OS 10.2 runs just fine on my 333 MHz g3 (I use a 450 MHz g4 though). THere are temporary occasions when it will start to bogg down, and I have to wait 5 seconds, but it works fine if you arent running 10 programs at 1 time, with a DVD playing behind your warcraft III game. What I am trying to say is - it is standable. OS 10.2 runs great on g4s. It sux that we have to wait that long, and I was hoping the next chip would be the scaled down Power 4. I guess after the g5 everyone will be talking about power 4 chips for 3 years, just as we have with the g5. :o :D :D

Pepzhez

Sep 12, 2002, 09:45 PM

Maybe if you like being in terminal mode all day long OS X is for you, but it's agony on G3 systems.
I think the term "agony" is a bit melodramatic here. In addition to my G4 system, I run Jaguar on my 600 mHz ibook and my 500 mHz imac DVSE and I think that 10.2.0 is very close to OS 9.2 in GUI response. The feel and speed of 10.1.x was problematic on G3 systems (well, on G4 systems too, for that matter), but Jaguar is fully functional.

I bet that a couple more minor Jaguar updates will make the GUI response on par with OS 9 on G3 systems. If your OS is properly optimized, it's very close to OS 9 responsivesness right now (and I'm talking about a G3 imac that cannot even utilize Quartz Extreme). And I do have to admit that Firewire operations are MUCH faster and far more reliable in OS X than in OS 9.

If you're running Jaguar on a G3 system, I'd recommend that you d/l Mac Janitor and X Optimize. Also verify and fix disk permissions (using the 10.2 install disc). That alone will make a tremendous difference in boot time and all around speed.

Truth is, the G3 is still a damn good chip, and if IBM or Moto can make new G3's that run at 2 gHz or higher, imagine how fast a new dualie G3 Powermac would be. I do know that it would run rings around the current G4 offerings.

King Cobra

Sep 12, 2002, 09:45 PM

Let me put this in nice big letters as well...

OS X is a great OS. Jaguar helped improve it even more. Apple would not work their ashes off for so many ********** years if they knew their new OS wasn't going to be as great.

Dump Motorola for this G5 crap!

Let IBM help Apple out here. Motorola hasn't been able to provide sht on a stick for Apple. Why do you think that the current PowerMac design is as radical as it is?

IF the G5 is not ready for us at the Jan. Expo, either Motorola better have some faster G4 ready. Or...get IBM moving along here.

>3) Consumers don't give TWO ****S about Megahertz speed. All of the dorks on the net who say otherwise are just that -- dorks. I talk to computer users all day long, most of them general consumers.

Nick, I gotta love the language. But I'm not sure if these people are dorks, or just too lazy to look at the "Intel inside" warning label I keep hearing about. :p

jefhatfield

Sep 12, 2002, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by dhdave

What utter crap. OS X is a fantastic OS

dh

os 9.x is fantastic, and os x will be there soon and these people who are os 9.x vs os x will have nothing to talk about

os x beta was just that... a beta

os x, 10.0 was crap

os x, 10.1 had more, but lacked support compared to os 9.x

jaguar got canned by macworld's latest issue but it's still in the right direction of getting better...woz said jaguar is not "there" yet for him, but for many, or even most basic users, jaguar is fine

...by the next revision, 10.3, hopefully, os x will be good for home and professional users...a new os takes time to get there, but to say os x is fantastic may be true for you, but not for everybody or even the "majority" of mac users

but over time, go os x!!!

my 2 cents;)

3G4N

Sep 13, 2002, 02:00 AM

they say nothing of G5's, Apollos, or anything near technical
enough to warrant even the slightest drool...
BUT
on Motorolacareers.com (no direct url, you've gotta search),
they've got 7 positions here in Austin
for PowerPC Microprocessor Designers.
And the job desc'rs for the Logic Designers states
"logic design of High performance Microprocessor"
not low-power or embeded.

This goes in line, again, with what my buddy at Moto told
me a few months ago -- That Moto is being temporarily dumped
(for IBM - for a while apparently), and they plan to return
(and are starting work on the beginning phases of the G7
(hey - his words)) to the PPC market emphasizing
heavy-hitting, big-muscle, High Performance Microprocessors.
No time frame. Sounds like he got some of this from a
company meeting.

again, 2nd hand info, fwiw, twagosalt...

MacBandit

Sep 13, 2002, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by phillymjs
My love affair with Macs began 11 years ago when I got my first one, an LC. I've had a few others over the years, and since 1996 I've been running a 7600 as my primary machine at home. I've added in a couple G3 upgrades as faster chips were released, and USB, and IDE, and a better video card, but the last couple years I've really been nursing it along, holding out as long as I could for a new Mac that would have equal longevity.

My intent was to buy the killer G5 (with goodies like FireWire 2, USB 2, BlueTooth, etc built in) that everyone expected to be released at MWNY2002. I've been working like a slave this year to rack up a nice bonus to blow on a whole new setup. So what happens? They don't release it at MacWorld, and then after addtional waiting announce lackluster G4 machines, without any of the aforementioned goodies. To add insult to injury, they've trotted out the "all dual processors" business again because Motorola is too inept to keep up in the CPU race with Intel/AMD, and Apple had to do something to save face (which we had seen once before a couple years back). At least now we have Jaguar which can take full advantage of dualies, but still... The improvements over the previous generation Power Macs are really not there. The adoption of newer standards like USB 2, faster FireWire, and BlueTooth hasn't come to pass, and I don't want to lay out big bucks on a machine and then have to buy a PCI card or USB dongle to add stuff that should've been there in the first place.

The terrible timing comes in because for the last 10 years I've made a career out of supporting Macs, and my clients are starting to get antsy about upgrading to OS X. I've maintained that the best way for them to go about it is to stick with OS 9.x until all their must-have apps are X-native or at least carbonized, so they won't have to deal with the kludge that is Classic. This was also supposed to buy me time to acquire a new Mac that would replace that 7600 and run OS X as Apple intended-- and time to learn by immersion all the stuff that I'd need to know to effectively support OS X at client sites. So now I'm in a jam because I need to buy a new whiz-bang machine, but what Apple's offering isn't whiz-bang enough. I know that if I bite the bullet and buy one of the dual G4s, the machine I wanted will be announced in January. And if I keep holding out, my ability to serve my clients will suffer.

I've got an iBook 500 that runs Jaguar pretty well, but I need that 'immersion' factor... I need the machine I sit in front of from 6pm until bedtime to run OS X, and not by using some hack like XPostFacto. One of my clients chose to ignore my 'wait as long as you can' advice, made me roll out 10.1.x, and they've paid the price in lost productivity. To make matters worse, they are still using older versions of apps that have carbonized/native versions, and those older versions don't always play nice in Classic. They're seeing all kinds of problems, looking to me to fix them, and all I can do most times is shrug and start combing Google or The Missing Manual in search of an answer, because I'm not up to speed yet. If I absolutely have to, I'll try to find a used Quicksilver or slightly older G4 on eBay to tide me over, but that is not an optimum solution.

So come on, Apple-- get on the damned stick and put out a machine worthy of the money I'm dying to give you for it. Tell Motorola to kiss off, and find a company who can provide good, competitive CPUs in a timely manner-- and do it fast, because those inept morons are costing you mindshare with the MHz/GHz-obsessed majority, and even starting to erode staunch Apple loyalists. My career is riding on you, Apple. I don't want to be an MCSE and spend my life repairing virus damage and fixing 0wn3d IIS boxes. Please, please save me from that! :-)

~MJS

Some people need to try a new dual running OSX to just realize how fast it is and how, "immersive," it is. You can cry about wanting the next greatest thing forever or you can get what Apple intends OSX to run on now. OSX is optimised for Altivec and the G4. You can't compare any G3 machine in speed to any G4 running OSX.

MacBandit

Sep 13, 2002, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by Pants

thing is - hes right - its not just the g5 issue, its all the other bits - the usb2/firewire2/bluetooth/the real DDR - not the marketing fudge and hype we have now. These current machines just don't offer enough value for money when stacked up against a similar priced pc. OS wise its great, but Im desperate, and I can't justify the cost - I dont want indesign bundles or other 'incentives' - i want a good machine that once Ive borrowed cash for will last without more cash thrown at in 6 months time.

I'm desperate, and hammers on the horizon.

Really they don't offer value for money? Last time I checked (which was about a month ago) if you worked up a Dell, Compaq or other name brand PC tower and added everything you get with the Apple to it you end up with two computers with very similar prices.

Jima

Sep 13, 2002, 02:50 AM

Credibility would be radically compromised beyond the currrent precarious Apple perch, if a FAST machine did not appear until late 2003.

Jaguar is good and not even close to being able to deliver the intuitiveness the Mac is (was) known for. Plus, still, the lack of totally complete software and drivers (09/02). Jaguar looks good on paper, until you make the switch, and the tears just run on. This is not good, and Jaguar at the moment is not successful enough of a distraction. (I am a user, not a tech head, using a wonderful eMac, a G4-450 (9.2), and a revB iMac, in two locations. The eMac was an inexpensive temporary Apple FIX.)

BLIND FAITH: I have to keep some faith in the fact that Jobs has some trump cards he will deal in SF in January. No evidence, just blind faith. I do not believe that Apple could successfully ($$$) endure another full year of what can arguably be described as SECOND RATE technology for their premiere chip. He has had to eat crow and almost lie for several expo sessions in terms of speed and chip innovation. He is not dumb, and will pull something off.

Or am I dreaming? If I am, I am afraid it is closer to PC time.:confused:

jefhatfield

Sep 13, 2002, 06:49 AM

[i]

BLIND FAITH: I have to keep some faith in the fact that Jobs has some trump cards he will deal in SF in January. No evidence, just blind faith. I do not believe that Apple could successfully ($$$) endure another full year of what can arguably be described as SECOND RATE technology for their premiere chip. He has had to eat crow and almost lie for several expo sessions in terms of speed and chip innovation. He is not dumb, and will pull something off.

Or am I dreaming? If I am, I am afraid it is closer to PC time.:confused: [/B]

i am a pc techie...here are their nightmares with windows...windows 95/98 needed an upgrade so windows nt 5 was supposed to fix that and nt 4...nt 5, aka windows 2000 delivered on the business end but is a poor home operating system and lacks support in games and many home software titles

so microsoft later came out with windows me, because windows 2000 didn't work for home users...while windows me had better multimedia, it was not a stable os

then comes windows 5.1, aka windows xp, and it has the aspects of windows 2000 and the multimedia aspects of windows 95/98 that windows 2000 and windows me were not able to deliver to the industry

but windows xp is a ram hog and is not popular with the windows crowd in general and in some ways, is a rip off of os x

... so looking at jaguar is not so bad...the cat is out of the bag and it's obvious that os x is not prime time quite yet, but it is closer than all the previous versions were and the next version of os x will be better yet

my guess is that it will take the next release or the release after that to win over new users and veteran mac users, including the pro graphics crowd

os x has been a slow revolution, but it does not take giant steps backwards like the windows world where i make my living

...like a poster said before, it's all relative

any time you feel that apple is not up to apple's regular high standards, just look at windows, and you will find yourself wanting to stay with apple

jef
certified microsoft techie

Jima

Sep 13, 2002, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

i am a pc techie...here are their nightmares with windows...windows 95/98 needed an upgrade so windows nt 5 was supposed to fix that and nt 4...nt 5, aka windows 2000 delivered on the business end but is a poor home operating system and lacks support in games and many home software titles

so microsoft later came out with windows me, because windows 2000 didn't work for home users...while windows me had better multimedia, it was not a stable os

then comes windows 5.1, aka windows xp, and it has the aspects of windows 2000 and the multimedia aspects of windows 95/98 that windows 2000 and windows me were not able to deliver to the industry

but windows xp is a ram hog and is not popular with the windows crowd in general and in some ways, is a rip off of os x

... so looking at jaguar is not so bad...the cat is out of the bag and it's obvious that os x is not prime time quite yet, but it is closer than all the previous versions were and the next version of os x will be better yet

my guess is that it will take the next release or the release after that to win over new users and veteran mac users, including the pro graphics crowd

os x has been a slow revolution, but it does not take giant steps backwards like the windows world where i make my living

...like a poster said before, it's all relative

any time you feel that apple is not up to apple's regular high standards, just look at windows, and you will find yourself wanting to stay with apple

jef
certified microsoft techie

Okay, I sort of like the Jaguar to PC comparison. It is really a bunch of simple things that screw up the transition to Jaguar, and I just hate to put out another hundred here and a hundred there, and more. And the migration is probably worth it.

But, still, what about the chip? The perception, or marketing crap, is enough on it's own. But actual speed. I had been using a G4 450, and the difference between it and the eMac is a bunch. I can imagine going to a really fast chip would really be a difference. I work in photography and graphics, and it is a big issue.

Jima

Thirteenva

Sep 13, 2002, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

jaguar got canned by macworld's latest issue but it's still in the right direction of getting better...woz said jaguar is not "there" yet for him, but for many, or even most basic users, jaguar is fine

I believe that at the time the woz interview was actually conducted jaguar wasn't available yet, he was referring to 10.1 which a lot of people felt "wasn't there yet" even though it was solid enough for day to day use. People are taking that interview out of context this is the second time i've heard that he was referring to jaguar.

Here's the excerpt where he discusses OS X...

What operating system are you running on your PowerBook?

9.2.2. I have another PowerBook with 10.1.3 on it, and the trouble is, I didn't install one program. The mail's crashing right now because I have too much e-mail on my server. I'm going to use Eudora on it.

Do you like OS X?

I love OS X from a feeling point of view. But from capability and readiness, I still don't rate it ready for me, I'm sorry to say. The experimental side of me is losing out because I don't have as much time with my startup company.

The link to the full article is
http://www.macworld.com/2002/10/macbeat/woz.html

MacBandit

Sep 13, 2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Jima
Credibility would be radically compromised beyond the currrent precarious Apple perch, if a FAST machine did not appear until late 2003.

Jaguar is good and not even close to being able to deliver the intuitiveness the Mac is (was) known for. Plus, still, the lack of totally complete software and drivers (09/02). Jaguar looks good on paper, until you make the switch, and the tears just run on. This is not good, and Jaguar at the moment is not successful enough of a distraction. (I am a user, not a tech head, using a wonderful eMac, a G4-450 (9.2), and a revB iMac, in two locations. The eMac was an inexpensive temporary Apple FIX.)

BLIND FAITH: I have to keep some faith in the fact that Jobs has some trump cards he will deal in SF in January. No evidence, just blind faith. I do not believe that Apple could successfully ($$$) endure another full year of what can arguably be described as SECOND RATE technology for their premiere chip. He has had to eat crow and almost lie for several expo sessions in terms of speed and chip innovation. He is not dumb, and will pull something off.

Or am I dreaming? If I am, I am afraid it is closer to PC time.:confused:

In some ways OS X may not be as intuitive but if you start a new mac user on it they will never want to learn OS 9. I started my fiance on OS 9 and X at the same time and she prefers X. This is simply because there is less that they need to know to work everything and it doesn't crash. Crashing is not in any way intuitive.

DharvaBinky

Sep 13, 2002, 10:58 AM

You're absolutely right, the 68040 never scaled up to 110, I *was* confusing that with the 601s... however... the 68040 was not topped out at 40MHz.

Most people aren't aware of this little fact, but all 68040 were clock doubled and Apple reported the System speed as the *bus* speed. The 840av, in fact, had a 40MHz FSB with an 80MHz 68040 on it. It wasn't until Intel "developed" the DX2 markitecture that Apple began to report the clock speed of the CPU itself, and not the FSB.

:)

Binky

MacBandit

Sep 13, 2002, 11:02 AM

eric_n_dfw

Sep 13, 2002, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
You're absolutely right, the 68040 never scaled up to 110, I *was* confusing that with the 601s... however... the 68040 was not topped out at 40MHz.

Most people aren't aware of this little fact, but all 68040 were clock doubled and Apple reported the System speed as the *bus* speed. The 840av, in fact, had a 40MHz FSB with an 80MHz 68040 on it. It wasn't until Intel "developed" the DX2 markitecture that Apple began to report the clock speed of the CPU itself, and not the FSB.

:)

Binky

According to www.everymac.com re the Quadra 840AV:
This model is sometimes designated as having an 80 MHz processor,
since the clock input runs at 80 MHz. However, the processor itself
is not "clock doubled", so technically it is only a 40 MHz processor.

...also...

The Apple Macintosh Quadra 840AV, intended to replace the Quadra 950, features a 40 MHz 68040 processor, a 66.7 MHz AT&T 3210 DSP processor to accelerate multimedia functions
...
The Macintosh Quadra 840AV is the fastest in the Quadra series, and the fastest 68k-based Macintosh

eric_n_dfw

Sep 13, 2002, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

This sounds right to me. I seem to remember Quadra's going well over 40Mhz. Am I also right in thinking they had dual processors on some of them?
I don't think Apple built any multi-proc 680x0 machines. Apple's 604e based machines were the first to have MP I believe. (Although DayStar had some 604 (non-"e") based ones too)

(I wasn't a Mac user back then though so I could be wrong! :-/ )

jefhatfield

Sep 13, 2002, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Thirteenva

I believe that at the time the woz interview was actually conducted jaguar wasn't available yet, he was referring to 10.1 which a lot of people felt "wasn't there yet" even though it was solid enough for day to day use. People are taking that interview out of context this is the second time i've heard that he was referring to jaguar.

Here's the excerpt where he discusses OS X...

What operating system are you running on your PowerBook?

9.2.2. I have another PowerBook with 10.1.3 on it, and the trouble is, I didn't install one program. The mail's crashing right now because I have too much e-mail on my server. I'm going to use Eudora on it.

Do you like OS X?

I love OS X from a feeling point of view. But from capability and readiness, I still don't rate it ready for me, I'm sorry to say. The experimental side of me is losing out because I don't have as much time with my startup company.

The link to the full article is
http://www.macworld.com/2002/10/macbeat/woz.html

my mistake concerning woz

do you think jaguar is the one to really showcase os x yet? or could it use improvement in big ways?

btw...i know no os is perfect but i am happy with the 9.x family and with enough ram...i have 160 on ibook, and crashing is not a problem

...i don't worry about os x crashing but it just feels slow but i have not tried it out on the new dual g4s yet at length with the ddr ram and faster bus (and with jaguar)...the feel and use of it may be a lot faster and that is what i am hoping for

Thirteenva

Sep 13, 2002, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
my mistake concerning woz

No problem, alot of the confusion i think arose from the fact that the macworld issue only printed part of the interview and printed it later than they had it up online. Plus the issue that contained the woz interview also had an article on jaguar.

do you think jaguar is the one to really showcase os x yet? or could it use improvement in big ways?

Jaguar is by far the best version since i started using it(since 10.0.4), The finder is much faster, i love that i can share files with windows machines on the network. Classic is much faster and more stable. Recently though i've experienced a couple problems. I'm using it on my tibook 500 with 512mb ram and I'm getting the spinning wheel in photoshop alot for little stuff like dropping down a menu. Photshop never even hiccupped in 10.1. I'm also experiencing a long delay before the computer shuts down. It can take up to 3 full mins for it to shut down sometimes. Not sure whats causing this. I erased the partition that my OS's were on before installing 10.2 and reinstalling classic(9.2). So i'm baffled.

It has some minor bugs but as a whole is leaps beyond 10.1

btw...i know no os is perfect but i am happy with the 9.x family and with enough ram...i have 160 on ibook, and crashing is not a problem

When my tibook was running 9, i had a tendancy to lock up the machine using flash 5, and with IE(go figure). I don't feel OS X is quite what 9.1 was as far as speed/snappiness but then again my machine is already over a year old so don't go by me. I'm probably not seeing any benefits from quartz extreme.

...i don't worry about os x crashing but it just feels slow but i have not tried it out on the new dual g4s yet at length with the ddr ram and faster bus (and with jaguar)...the feel and use of it may be a lot faster and that is what i am hoping for

10.2 is much faster than 10.1, it boots up much faster, even IE launches faster on it. It still feels a little slow to me also, not as fast as 9 was on my machine. I think with new hardware and more code optimization that will improve over time. I recently tried the Dual 867 at the local crapUSA store. I had 8 programs open and i launched IE and the splash popped up instantly and the browser window was openend almost immediately after the splash appeared, much faster than my Tibook. Programs are super responsive on the dual G4s.

jefhatfield

Sep 13, 2002, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Thirteenva

Programs are super responsive on the dual G4s.

have os x work well with even the ibooks and crt imacs (loaded with RAM though) and i will be very happy

but that sounds a couple of gens away and by then, ibook will be at g4 and crt imac may be gone

but if os x can run fast on a single 700 mhz g4 emac, then things will be looking really good for apple users

beatle888

Sep 13, 2002, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Some people need to try a new dual running OSX to just realize how fast it is and how, "immersive," it is. You can cry about wanting the next greatest thing forever or you can get what Apple intends OSX to run on now. OSX is optimised for Altivec and the G4. You can't compare any G3 machine in speed to any G4 running OSX.

no ****, when i read that guys post i didnt
know if i should laugh or shake my head...
and he runs his own business... :eek:

Thirteenva

Sep 13, 2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

have os x work well with even the ibooks and crt imacs (loaded with RAM though) and i will be very happy

but that sounds a couple of gens away and by then, ibook will be at g4 and crt imac may be gone

but if os x can run fast on a single 700 mhz g4 emac, then things will be looking really good for apple users

I had tried OS 10.1 on one friends ibook 500mhz and on another friends imac crt 500mhz. The imac was a little faster than i expected. The ibook was ok but doing any real work on it proved to be an exercise in patience.

I haven't tried an emac. I'm quite curious about them because of the price. I could really use a desktop workstation with a crt(for my graphics work). The price is right but i don't want to find that i am frustrated with it after a year. For $2k dollars i can get a low end powermac with a cheap CRT. Now all i need is some money.:(

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 13, 2002, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Choppaface
the G5 will never actually be released as a unit, rather it is more of a omnipotent spirit that will float around and enhance all mac hardware :D :D

but really, if they're already a proto now, how do they intend to update the proto as the year progresses?

Actually an embedded version of the G5 has been out for several months now.

Motorola Launches First PowerQUICC III Device (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467)

Leveraging the comprehensive PowerQUICC III SoC Architecture, the MPC8560 employs a host of leading industry standards and innovative Motorola technologies - including a high-performance Book E PowerPC e500™ core, an enhanced Communications Processor Module (CPM), RapidIO™ interconnect technology, Motorola's OCeaN(tm) crossbar switch fabric, dual Gigabit Ethernet interfaces, and support for Double Data Rate SDRAM (DDR SDRAM) and PCI-X.

It's not very fast, and wont work in a Mac, but it has some interesting features like RapidIO, PCI-X and support for DDR SDRAM.

:)

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 13, 2002, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by mymemory
OSX is the equivalent of running 8.1 today.

Want to qualify that remark? How so?

8.1 sure doesn't have SMP, preemptive multitasking, multi threading, protected memory, real virtual memory, usable Java, etc., etc.

I used 8.1, and it was crap compared to OS X or OS 9. 8.5 and 8.6 was much better, but still you couldn't go a year and a half with only 6 crashes now, could you? ;)

Oh and BTW, "forever" is one word.

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 13, 2002, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by mozez
somebody mentioned hypertransport, well, pcs already have that, check amd, we all yelled about ddr, when pcs already had it for over a year, not only that, the ddr on a pc is so far ahead of apple it's not even in contention. any technology we could ask for for the next revision of the mac, the pc will already have, just have to hang onto a superior os, if you can even call it that now.

Apple is one of the companies on the Hypertransport board BTW.

A lot of people are mixing up DDR SDRAM with "Double Pumped" FSB systems. Apple is using DDR SDRAM, but the current G4 CPU's do not run on DDR FSB's.

Another point is AMD is not a computer maker, they make parts for computers. How many main stream PCs are using Hypertransport?

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 02:52 PM

My iBook G3 500MHz with 8MB ATI runs slow in Photoshop. I'm gonna buy a PC!

AMD 1800+, 512 RAM, 32x CDRW, Geforce2, 40GB HD - 6000,- NOK

PowerMac starting at 18000,- NOK can't afford it :(

Thirteenva

Sep 13, 2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by F/reW/re
My iBook G3 500MHz with 8MB ATI runs slow in Photoshop. I'm gonna buy a PC!
I hope your kidding...

AMD 1800+, 512 RAM, 32x CDRW, Geforce2, 40GB HD - 6000,- NOK

PowerMac starting at 18000,- NOK can't afford it :(

Did you factor in the cost of buying windows versions of photoshop and other programs you use regularly???

Why don't you buy an emac there cheaper than an imac or powermac.

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 13, 2002, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by phillymjs
My love affair with Macs began 11 years ago when I got my first one, an LC. I've had a few others over the years, and since 1996 I've been running a 7600 as my primary machine at home. I've added in a couple G3 upgrades as faster chips were released, and USB, and IDE, and a better video card, but the last couple years I've really been nursing it along, holding out as long as I could for a new Mac that would have equal longevity.

I was using a PowerCenter 132 with G3 upgrade that I had since 1996 also. I knew I would need a new machine to run OS X when it came out, and after a while I realized that even with the USB card and the G3 card, it was still not as fast as a low end G4, due to slower FSB and RAM.

So I picked up a refurb G4/466 Digital Audio early 2001. It's by no means the fastest Mac, but this can hold me over for another year or two (and I might pop in a new CPU upgrade) while I wait for the real killer machines.

But my point is you would be doing much better even with a two year old G4 than with a souped up 7600!

My intent was to buy the killer G5 (with goodies like FireWire 2, USB 2, BlueTooth, etc built in) that everyone expected to be released at MWNY2002... and I don't want to lay out big bucks on a machine and then have to buy a PCI card or USB dongle to add stuff that should've been there in the first place.

I don't think anyone was seriously expecting a G5. I expected something like the Xserve, and that's what we got. I think we put too much importance in having the latest technology. USB 2? Who cares! There aren't even any USB 2 peripherals out, or not many if there are. For what I need USB for, USB 1.1 does its job, i.e., my printer, mouse, keyboard, digital camera... that's all I use it for. USB stinks for audio, I wouldn't even go that route. I haven't even used Firewire yet so...

Bluetooth? Sounds cool, but once again where are the devices? I don't see a problem with hanging a dongle off my USB hub when the time comes.

BTW anyone who hasn't tried a new G4 needs to check one out. I tried the Dual 1 GHz model, and it was pretty quick! Don't get hung up on numbers, try the new machines out.

The terrible timing comes in because for the last 10 years I've made a career out of supporting Macs, and my clients are starting to get antsy about upgrading to OS X. I've maintained that the best way for them to go about it is to stick with OS 9.x until all their must-have apps are X-native or at least carbonized, so they won't have to deal with the kludge that is Classic....
One of my clients chose to ignore my 'wait as long as you can' advice, made me roll out 10.1.x, and they've paid the price in lost productivity. To make matters worse, they are still using older versions of apps that have carbonized/native versions, and those older versions don't always play nice in Classic.

That's not very smart of them... if they are a business why haven't they upgraded their apps? I work in graphics, and we are still running OS 9.1, but we have the latest versions of everything... you have to!

At home I run Jag, and everything except Quark runs native. And Quark 5 works fine in classic, but Quark 4 was kind of iffy.

The last thing I'm waiting for is Cubase SX (and Quark 6) and then I don't need OS 9 for anything!

So come on, Apple-- get on the damned stick and put out a machine worthy of the money I'm dying to give you for it.

I'm sure they want to! Be patient. :D

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Thirteenva

I hope your kidding...

Did you factor in the cost of buying windows versions of photoshop and other programs you use regularly???

Why don't you buy an emac there cheaper than an imac or powermac.
eMac is 11000 so its almost dobble the price of the PC and I would have to buy more RAM so it would be more than dobble the price.

Photoshop runs superslow! Lagg, lagg, lagg. Takes time just to move layers or enter txt fields. Even changing tools takes time.

Thirteenva

Sep 13, 2002, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by F/reW/re

eMac is 11000 so its almost dobble the price of the PC and I would have to buy more RAM so it would be more than dobble the price.

Photoshop runs superslow! Lagg, lagg, lagg. Takes time just to move layers or enter txt fields. Even changing tools takes time.

i've used photoshop on a G3 ibook(500mhz, 256mb ram) its slow but its not that bad. Rendering filters takes some time. And the ibook i used was running PS 6 on OS X in classic mode. We worked on a couple of posters on it, 30mb files with no problem. Of course thats with no other programs open.

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Thirteenva

i've used photoshop on a G3 ibook(500mhz, 256mb ram) its slow but its not that bad. Rendering filters takes some time. And the ibook i used was running PS 6 on OS X in classic mode. We worked on a couple of posters on it, 30mb files with no problem. Of course thats with no other programs open.
Theres a huge different between 6 and 7. 7 is a carbon app and you sure can tell. The file I'm working on now is 2,42 / 59,9 MB.

I wish Apple could make a GUI for pro users ass well as iApp users. All the Aqua interface takes up too much space on the screen!

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 13, 2002, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by F/reW/re
My iBook G3 500MHz with 8MB ATI runs slow in Photoshop. I'm gonna buy a PC!

First I have to say that anyone who buys an iBook and expects Photoshop to run great on it is foolish. This is true of laptops in general.

Why? Let's look at the machine.

It's got a G3, not a G4. Photoshop uses Altivec for some things, and G4s are faster in general.

Laptops have slower hard drives, and that impacts Photoshop's performance, because of scratch disk access and opening and saving files.

8MB VRAM. Even the low end G4s had 16MB Rage 128 cards (like mine).

I'd also imagine you don't have enough RAM. Photoshop is happy when it has at least 256MB to its self, and more is better. Even in OS X, Photoshop 7 has a memory setting to control what percentage of available RAM it uses.

I'm using a fairly "slow" G4, 466 MHz, but I do have 1 GB of RAM. Photoshop's default setting is 50%, so it's using 449 MB of the available 849 MB of RAM.

I do work for a friend with an 800 MHz PIII running Photoshop 6, and my Mac is much faster, even as far as opening and saving files. Her PC sits and grinds a lot with every little thing you do. She has 512 MB installed, but I'm never working on big files either. Go buy a PC and see how poorly PS runs on it compared to a Mac with OS X.

One last thing,

AMD 1800+, 512 RAM, 32x CDRW, Geforce2, 40GB HD - 6000,- NOK

PowerMac starting at 18000,- NOK can't afford it :(

I swear people don't have a clue...

18000??? 18000 what?? try $1,600.

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 1MB L3 cache/processor
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
56K internal modem
$1,699.00

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

First I have to say that anyone who buys an iBook and expects Photoshop to run great on it is foolish. This is true of laptops in general.

Why? Let's look at the machine.

It's got a G3, not a G4. Photoshop uses Altivec for some things, and G4s are faster in general.

Laptops have slower hard drives, and that impacts Photoshop's performance, because of scratch disk access and opening and saving files.

8MB VRAM. Even the low end G4s had 16MB Rage 128 cards (like mine).

I'd also imagine you don't have enough RAM. Photoshop is happy when it has at least 256MB to its self, and more is better. Even in OS X, Photoshop 7 has a memory setting to control what percentage of available RAM it uses.

I'm using a fairly "slow" G4, 466 MHz, but I do have 1 GB of RAM. Photoshop's default setting is 50%, so it's using 449 MB of the available 849 MB of RAM.

I do work for a friend with an 800 MHz PIII running Photoshop 6, and my Mac is much faster, even as far as opening and saving files. Her PC sits and grinds a lot with every little thing you do. She has 512 MB installed, but I'm never working on big files either. Go buy a PC and see how poorly PS runs on it compared to a Mac with OS X.

One last thing,

I swear people don't have a clue...

18000??? 18000 what?? try $1,600.

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 1MB L3 cache/processor
133MHz System Bus
256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX
56K internal modem
$1,699.00
On my machine Photoshop runs much faster using OS9, but OS9 using Carbon apps is unstable!
My Photoshop is using 300 MB and that should be more than enough!

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 = 18000,- NOK (norwegian kroner) / 2250 USD (USdollar)
PC = 6000, NOK / 750,- USD

Why dont I buy a G4, because I cant afford it!! Apple doesent seem to care about ordinary people in no other place than USA. Thats why I hope for OSX on wintels!

We all dont live in USA!

btw. I know how PS works on a PC, and I get a AMD 1800+ for 750,- USD! Its gonna blow my iBook away :) even tought its gonna crash some times :(
But I'll still have my Ibook to play my mp3s :) No divx though :(

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 13, 2002, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Jima
Jaguar is good and not even close to being able to deliver the intuitiveness the Mac is (was) known for. Plus, still, the lack of totally complete software and drivers (09/02). Jaguar looks good on paper, until you make the switch, and the tears just run on. This is not good, and Jaguar at the moment is not successful enough of a distraction. (I am a user, not a tech head, using a wonderful eMac, a G4-450 (9.2), and a revB iMac, in two locations. The eMac was an inexpensive temporary Apple FIX.)
...
Or am I dreaming? If I am, I am afraid it is closer to PC time.:confused:

I have to disagree here. I've been using Macs since System 7, and I think Jaguar is the best OS I've used. I've also used Windows, Linux, IRIX, and Solarus quite a bit.

Jaguar is so easy to use that my 10 year old son had no problems figuring it out after a few minutes.

The problem people have with OS X in general is they try to use it like OS 9, and they don't even know how to use OS 9 properly!

For example, I read things such as where a user complains that it's hard to switch between running apps on OS X because when you click a window only that window comes forward. The problem here is that person was doing it wrong in OS 9, and they are still wrong in OS X.

You switch applications using the Dock, than all your windows come to the front.

I cant think of a single feature on OS 9 that I miss. Popup folders were nice, but I can put a folder in the Dock, or on the Finder toolbar.

I missed the Apple Menu and Windowshade, but that was easy to fix.

The Application menu was God awful in OS 9, and I'm happy to see it go!

I've been using OS X as my main OS since March 2001. OS 9 was nice for a 17 year old OS that was patched and hacked together to try and make it modern, but OS X also has its roots in NeXT STEP, which has been around almost as long.

And it's sure nice to never have an errant application take the whole OS down. I love not having to reboot... :)

chubakka

Sep 13, 2002, 05:48 PM

Geeee... photoshop runs slow on a iBook.... duh.
good reason to go PC. Bonehead.

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by chubakka
Geeee... photoshop runs slow on a iBook.... duh.
good reason to go PC. Bonehead.
The reason I'm gonna buy a new computer is because PS runs slow on Mac.
The reason I buy PC is because a Mac costs 3 times what a PC does!

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 13, 2002, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by F/reW/re

On my machine Photoshop runs much faster using OS9, but OS9 using Carbon apps is unstable!

I never have problems with it at work in OS 9.1.

My Photoshop is using 300 MB and that should be more than enough!

it's never enough! ;) The more RAM the more stable it runs.

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 = 18000,- NOK (norwegian kroner) / 2250 USD (USdollar)
PC = 6000, NOK / 750,- USD

You really can't compare the price of a retail computer (PC or Mac) to a "white box" PC. Computers are one of those rare commodities that are cheaper to make than to buy.

chubakka

Sep 13, 2002, 06:14 PM

No... Photoshop runs slow on an iBook...
the ATI card on it isn't pwerful enough.
and 300 mb of ram isn't nearly enough.

runs great on a Powerbook or PowerMac...

are you running Photoshop in classic in OS X 10.2?
Try upgrading to 10.2 and getting photoshop 7.

Enjoy your CHEAP PC.

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

I never have problems with it at work in OS 9.1.

it's never enough! ;) The more RAM the more stable it runs.

You really can't compare the price of a retail computer (PC or Mac) to a "white box" PC. Computers are one of those rare commodities that are cheaper to make than to buy.
Making my own PC and build it my self is a great possibility. I can use my money on what I want and what I need.

OS9 worked fine untill the Carbon apps came. (exept with internet explorer)
Photoshop 7, Dreamweaver MX on OS9 is the worst thing I've ever worked with. Worse than Win98. Just pressing F12 in dreamweaver made my computer crash almost every time. Flash MX runs smooth, better than Flash 5!

More RAM the better, but I cant afford 1.5 GB

chubakka

Sep 13, 2002, 06:35 PM

maybe it's the SOFTWARE!

buggy RAM hungry software that's burdening the system...

bet your were trying to run both at the same time too.

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by chubakka
No... Photoshop runs slow on an iBook...
the ATI card on it isn't pwerful enough.
and 300 mb of ram isn't nearly enough.

runs great on a Powerbook or PowerMac...

are you running Photoshop in classic in OS X 10.2?
Try upgrading to 10.2 and getting photoshop 7.

Enjoy your CHEAP PC.
I am using 10.2 and PS 7.
YES, I am going to enjoy my cheap PC. Now I can even watch DivXmovies :)

F/reW/re

Sep 13, 2002, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by chubakka
maybe it's the SOFTWARE!

buggy RAM hungry software that's burdening the system...

bet your were trying to run both at the same time too.
Nope. its just the iBook and OSX that makes it slow. The new iBook works much better because of QE support!

jefhatfield

Sep 13, 2002, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by chubakka
Geeee... photoshop runs slow on a iBook.... duh.
good reason to go PC. Bonehead.

i do ok with photoshop on ibook, but then again i don't have any kind of g4 and that would be fun to see how fast that would be

the few times i ran photoshop on p3 and p4s, they seemd a little slow to me, but i know the g4 is the way to go with adobe and macromedia software

i hope i am not a boner, too:p

digitalgiant

Sep 13, 2002, 08:41 PM

Can we please STOP talking about G5s. This topic is way past dead. Here is an idea, lets talk about them when they hit the stores. I am sooooooo tired of hearing G5 this and G5 that. I am all for power, but come on folks this is getting super very old. Thanks and have a great day.:)

jefhatfield

Sep 13, 2002, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by digitalgiant
Can we please STOP talking about G5s. This topic is way past dead. Here is an idea, lets talk about them when they hit the stores. I am sooooooo tired of hearing G5 this and G5 that. I am all for power, but come on folks this is getting super very old. Thanks and have a great day.:)

certainly the g5 has been a rumor longer than anything else i can remember on macrumors, except for the lcd imac or a 17" inch screen imac, both of which came in one model recently:D

Pepzhez

Sep 13, 2002, 09:08 PM

If you want fast, full-featured image editing and don't want to pay a cent for it, download X Free 86 and install MacGIMP. I only have the occasional need to do any still image editing; certainly not enough to justify the price of Photoshop. MacGIMP does indeed run MUCH faster than PS7 on OS X, undoubtedly because you're bypassing Aqua when using it. I'm sure the fact that GIMP carries far less bloat than PS is a huge factor also.

Tip: PS7 on old imacs and ibooks running OS X is one big frustrating waste of time and money, no matter how much RAM you have installed. The GIMP will blaze on these machines, however. Plus it opens .PSD files. And the cost is 0 cents. What more could you want?

vniow

Sep 13, 2002, 11:25 PM

disregard this post, it was meant for a previous one which was deleted.

Jimong5

Sep 14, 2002, 08:11 PM

I have a Dual 867 G4. The bottom line is its fast. REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. The iBook thats so pathetically slow has a G3, in addition to a measly 66MHz bus. the new dual G4s aren't a filler upgrade, this machine smokes so much its unbelievable, ripping MP3's at 15x with 5 other apps open! 5 apps open would overload my old G3 PB 400. I've even gotten 80 FPS in UT, which is not known as a high FPS game. the bottom line is: this isn't just a bump, these Macs seriously come to play.

nixd2001

Sep 14, 2002, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Jimong5
I have a Dual 867 G4. The bottom line is its fast. REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. The iBook thats so pathetically slow has a G3, in addition to a measly 66MHz bus. the new dual G4s aren't a filler upgrade, this machine smokes so much its unbelievable, ripping MP3's at 15x with 5 other apps open! 5 apps open would overload my old G3 PB 400. I've even gotten 80 FPS in UT, which is not known as a high FPS game. the bottom line is: this isn't just a bump, these Macs seriously come to play.

This sort of performance issue is something that hasn't really been looked at with the obession with MHz and MB/S. My suspicion, although somewhat unfounded at present, is that the PMG4 will be good at not slowing down when additional load is given to them. In other words, they may not excel at a single task (performance wise) compared to "some other systems", but the combination of hw and sw will mean that you can keep throwing more work at them without it having such a slowing-down effect as you might initially expect. Benchmarking this sort of thing is considerably more difficult than some of the simplistic benchmarks that have been cited here, so this may stay as a guess for a while...

MacBandit

Sep 14, 2002, 08:52 PM

Rocketman

Sep 15, 2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by F/reW/re

On my machine Photoshop runs much faster using OS9, but OS9 using Carbon apps is unstable!
My Photoshop is using 300 MB and that should be more than enough!

Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 = 18000,- NOK (norwegian kroner) / 2250 USD (USdollar)
PC = 6000, NOK / 750,- USD

Why dont I buy a G4, because I cant afford it!! Apple doesent seem to care about ordinary people in no other place than USA. Thats why I hope for OSX on wintels!

We all dont live in USA!

btw. I know how PS works on a PC, and I get a AMD 1800+ for 750,- USD! Its gonna blow my iBook away :) even tought its gonna crash some times :(
But I'll still have my Ibook to play my mp3s :) No divx though :(

I have some suggestions.

Firstly if you just buy a PC and go away we will all be the happier. Except you.

However if your goal is to actually purchase a superior computer and your problem is overpriced local suppliers, do what Americans do. Mail order your computer. You can buy it from outpost.com and get the norweigan localized version of the OS. You can buy from a used computer company like powermax.com or whoever that ADVERTISES HERE. and get it for far cheaper but also an older model. Any of which would run photoshop faster than a G3 or a PC.

And as far as Aqua, there are already alternatives from xdarwin and other places with xwindows which is a unix thing.

Rocketman

Rocketman

Sep 15, 2002, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit

I have a Dual Ghz/DDR and I agree wholely you can't do enough at one time to slow this thing down it is always fast. The CD ripping thing I have seen in excess of 20x nearing the end of a cd. This all while playing unreal and doing email and everything else you can imagine. Also it never crashes. Totally amazing.

Thank you for this post and the one from the dual 867 owner. This is a powerful testimonial for the new systems especially since they are priced same as other older and lower performance systems.

OSX is maturing indeed. And the new hardware "rocks" and is "sick". :)

Rocketman

F/reW/re

Sep 15, 2002, 11:48 AM

To get a machine from outside the Norway and inside you have to pay 24% taxes to the goverment + + + +.
The prices I have refered to is from AppleStore (the cheapest place in Norway)

Where can I find out more about XWindows? Do all carbon and cocoa apps work with XWindows?

BobtheTomato

Sep 16, 2002, 07:38 PM

G5 will not even be available until the end of 2003, on the other hand it really exists and runs reliably. The manufacturing is, however, not very reliable in terms of loss and is too expensive for the moment.

This quote comes from AMD Zone
made a call to my friend working for AMD and got the following info regarding Hammer delay:

(1) Hammer's layout need to redesign. The old design cannot reach competitive speed at introduction. Need to add one extra layer of metal, just like Tbred-B. A new layout revision takes time.

(2) SOI process is not as stable as expected. The yield is still poor and volume production is still a very challeging task. AMD process people is improving SOI process but this is not easy. Even IBM still has problems with SOI but IBM can afford to have a low yield with high-end Power4 unlike AMD where cost is a major concern. The nice thing is AMD already has a non-SOI backup plan in case SOI doesn't deliver the promise.

(3) Integrated memory controller has proven to be a two-edge sword. It does improve performance by 10-20% compared with the same frequency CPU without independent memory controller. However, the integrated memory controller make the CPU less scalable (in term of frequency). Also current design have some stabability issues when performing at high frequency, but new a revision is in progress and hopefully can fix these issues.

(4) realistically Hammer will not become widely available until early or mid Q2 [2003]. If non-SOI version is required then it will be further delayed until late Q2.

2 processor lines both delayed at about the same time for similar reasons...

basquino

Dec 10, 2002, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by iGAV

Something tells me you're a 'the glass is half empty kind of guy'..... :rolleyes: :p

Mozez is one of those rare, but insightful "pessimists [whom] are naught but informed optimists," I'd say. Forgive me, iGAV, "the road [may] go on forever, but [this] party," (while it may indeed never end) has me a bit hungover.

Despite a truly magnificent OS (speed, remote DT and other issues notwithstanding), Apple just simply must give us faster hardware if the competition (for users,especially high end ones) is to continue without reference to Aesop.

basquino

Dec 10, 2002, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by F/reW/re

Why dont I buy a G4, because I cant afford it!! Apple doesent seem to care about ordinary people in no other place than USA. Thats why I hope for OSX on wintels!

We all dont live in USA!

So find an American friend to buy you one and ship it to you freight class.

But I'll still have my Ibook to play my mp3s :) No divx though :(

Have you ever heard of Versiontracker? (http://versiontracker.com/macosx) There's a 3ivX and DivX codec for OS X. Works fine.

Paix,
dB

Frobozz

Dec 10, 2002, 02:41 PM

Hi all. I am a power user. I use my Mac for the typical daily tasks such as browsing and typing reports, playing top end 3D games, and doing high end 3D animation and physics. You know what? You should try using a dual 1 GHz or faster if you are complaining about speed-- 'cause that's what I have and it's great (quicksilver). Seriously, boot up CPU monitor and look at a dual 1 GHz when you do a bunch of tasks. Aside from rending 3D models with Radiosity, etc., which can always use more horsepower. Generally, it seems unaffected. At times a program or two will put it to 50% capacity. You know what I wait for the most? My hard drive. It ain't the CPU.

For me to upgrade I need a 100% increase in speed to justify it. I upgraded from a 400 MHz Sawtooth, which was upgraded from a 250 MHz G3 PowerComputing clone. I can always use speed, unlike a lot of people. Do I think what Apple is going to produce something 2x better than my Quicksilver dual 1GHz before July? I wouldn't bet on it. I know I'm not in the market until the MWSF 2004, since I usually upgrade every 24 - 28 months. By then, the 970 could be released... optimistically in it's 2nd revision. Giddyup!

Quite honestly, I'm much more interested in my mac being able to run PHP or a cool iApp than I am speed right now. In 1 year or so, I'll be in the market for more speed. Until then, I'll be enjoying what I've got. I may be a dork, but I'm a practical dork.

jefhatfield

Dec 10, 2002, 03:44 PM

i hope we have a dual 2 ghz tower before 2004

and if we do, i doubt it will use the current G4 chip

vniow

Dec 10, 2002, 03:50 PM

Okay, who was the newbie that brought back this 3 month old thread back??http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gifhttp://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gifhttp://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gif

jefhatfield

Dec 10, 2002, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by edvniow
Okay, who was the newbie that brought back this 3 month old thread back??http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gifhttp://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gifhttp://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/rolleyes.gif

sometimes the old threads are better than the new ones;)

etoiles

Dec 12, 2002, 12:31 AM

...and I am not sure if this has been noticed before, but I think Jef might have some insider infos...he has been trying to inform us for months now, but his tongue was tied (is that the expression ? :)) by a 42page Apple NDA document. Good thing he is so creative...

The G5 is going to be an overclocked 68040 !
:D

daveg5

Dec 12, 2002, 03:02 AM

They are both great, they both have there unique good points and bad points. OSX is definately much much more stable and looks much much better. Although www.aquamakeover. com can get your OS9 to look just as good. They both crash, Mac osx much much less. And when it does it does not bring the whole system down as much. Apple needed OS9 to finance OSX, virtually every OSX user first used OS9. Many OS9 users still use it because they have to, thier apps are not yet available in OSX, dont run in classic, run better in OS9 (hard to believe but sometimes true) or more commonly they have hardware scanners, sound cards, printers whose OSX drivers they need they are still waiting on or are discontinued and they dont have the money to upgrade that hardware and/or it works just fine in OS9.

Believe it or not many OS9 systems are very stable and stay up for days and weeks with out a hard freeze, to people that know how to optimize them.
What I dont understand is why those who use OSX only are so quick to jump down the throat of any one that still uses OS9 ocassionally or often.
They are both Macos both running on a Apple Mac system and people choose the one that works best for them for what they are doing at that time, we all have diff needs right? Is that a bad thing. OS( will be around and used for a few more years and give a lot of people joy and pain until they can make the move to OSX or maybe OSX1 by then)
After all we are brothers" this is not a Windows vs Mac scenerio developing" that would be bad for the Mac community as a whole, I hope not because we need to stick together for the good of all of us.

basquino

Dec 12, 2002, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by daveg5
Believe it or not many OS9 systems are very stable and stay up for days and weeks with out a hard freeze, to people that know how to optimize them.
What I dont understand is why those who use OSX only are so quick to jump down the throat of any one that still uses OS9 ocassionally or often.
They are both Macos both running on a Apple Mac system and people choose the one that works best for them for what they are doing at that time, we all have diff needs right? Is that a bad thing. OS( will be around and used for a few more years and give a lot of people joy and pain until they can make the move to OSX or maybe OSX1 by then)
After all we are brothers" this is not a Windows vs Mac scenerio developing" that would be bad for the Mac community as a whole, I hope not because we need to stick together for the good of all of us.

Well, while I've got to laugh at the Rodney King (pseudo-) reference, :confused: my man here does have a point about OS 9.x. Just ask your U.S. Army why they switched from NT web servers to AppleShare IP (OS 8.6 & ASIP 6.2) and continue to run them on OS 9.x and ASIP 6.3.x. Provided enough RAM, efficient allocation thereof to processes and an administrator/user of the machine who knows how to resolve conflicts, Mac OS 9.1 and higher runs fine.

I've got to wonder if this fella has ever seen a kernel panic, though. But, weren't we talking about hardware?:rolleyes:

Paix.

ELYXR

Dec 12, 2002, 04:58 AM

This thread is a little depressing after hearing that recent semi-credible rumor about moto's G5 disappearing act and Apple pulling G5 prototypes from software developers. I hope that's the most "off" rumor I've read at Mac Rumors... but somehow I think it's true.

Who want's to bet that we see dual 1.0, 1.25 & 1.4Ghz G4's in January? These have to be seriously overclocked processors to garner the codename "windtunnel"... I mean come on. What's next codename "rainforest" for the water-cooled dual 1.6Ghz G4's in July?

cr2sh

Dec 12, 2002, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by ELYXR
What's next codename "rainforest" for the water-cooled dual 1.6Ghz G4's in July?

If it's stable I'll buy... but water-cooled would go higher than 1.6, give me 2GHz on that ****! :)

Frobozz

Dec 12, 2002, 10:06 AM

In an interview with a MorphOS software engineer:

5. Please give us the specs (memory, hard drive, gfx card etc) of the computer that runs MorphOS.

Nicholas Blachford: The Pegasos is a MicroATX motherboard so the resellers are free to decide which sort of components are used. The current CPU is a 600Mhz G3 which is attached via a CPU card. This can be upgraded later to a G4 or dual G4 card (up to 1.4 GHz).

The link to this page, on OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2345&page=2

So it appears that he's indirectly confirmed that 1.4 GHz G4's are in existence and will be ready soon. Does this mean that in Jan. or Feb. (more likely) we will see the pro line move to 1.4 GHz? That ain't that much of a speed increase, but at least it's something. Then again, maybe 1.4 GHz is available NOW, and there will be a 1.5 or 1.6 by then?

Cappy

Dec 12, 2002, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Frobozz
In an interview with a MorphOS software engineer:

The link to this page, on OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2345&page=2

So it appears that he's indirectly confirmed that 1.4 GHz G4's are in existence and will be ready soon. Does this mean that in Jan. or Feb. (more likely) we will see the pro line move to 1.4 GHz? That ain't that much of a speed increase, but at least it's something. Then again, maybe 1.4 GHz is available NOW, and there will be a 1.5 or 1.6 by then?

This confirms nothing. He's stating that down the road you can upgrade...that's all. His statement that specifies the 1.4 Ghz G4 can mean a number of things including that perhaps Motorola's roadmap for the G4 does not include a faster G4 with the multiplier needed to go faster on the bus on their systems.

MacBandit

Dec 12, 2002, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by ELYXR
This thread is a little depressing after hearing that recent semi-credible rumor about moto's G5 disappearing act and Apple pulling G5 prototypes from software developers. I hope that's the most "off" rumor I've read at Mac Rumors... but somehow I think it's true.

Who want's to bet that we see dual 1.0, 1.25 & 1.4Ghz G4's in January? These have to be seriously overclocked processors to garner the codename "windtunnel"... I mean come on. What's next codename "rainforest" for the water-cooled dual 1.6Ghz G4's in July?

It's not overclocking if Motorola tests and approves them at those speeds as they did with the 1.25s.

Overclocking is a description of an action taken by an end user.

barkmonster

Dec 12, 2002, 01:38 PM

We'll definately have faster Minimum bus speeds in the next revision of the G4. Motorola introduced the PPC 7455 G4 with a 133Mhz bus, that's now changed to 150/167Mhz.

The PPC7457 is going to have a 200Mhz bus so that pushes up the bandwidth aswell. I'm sure apple will be using at least PC2700 RAM on all models and with the PPC7457 having twice the L2 cache and a 200Mhz FSB, I'd expect a 1.4Ghz G4 based on one of those chips to outperform the current 1.25Ghz G4 by more than the 12% you'd get from the increase in clockspeed.

If this means we'll have a line up like this :

dual 1 Ghz G4, 256K L2, 1Mb L3, 167Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.2 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 1Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.4 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 2Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.

then apple will have some decent models with reasonable bandwidth at last. Assuming the prices are the same as now.

Of course this line up would be better :

dual 1 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 1Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.3 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 1Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.6 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 2Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.

These could be the first macs that are pushing close to the throughput of 266MHz DDR without even having a DDR compatable chip.

I'm sure the difference between 1.6Gb/s and 2.1Gb/s is hardly going to cause a performance decrease of more than a few insignificant % anyway.

I know this is all rumour and nothing to get excited about but the prospect of faster cpus with faster throughput is good for everybody no matter what they like to do with their macs.

ddtlm

Dec 12, 2002, 01:59 PM

barkmonster:

Edit: Answered my own question.

It is almost certain that Apple's DDR chipset cannot run the FSB and RAM asynchronously, which is to say that I can almost assure you that there will not be a DDR-333 and 200mhz FSB Mac. Also, since DDR-400 isn't even standardized yet, and is supported only very buggily on cutting-edge PC enthusiast boards, I would not expect Apple to be trying to use it any time very soon, which pretty much means that no 200mhz FSB is coming all that soon. But like I keep telling people, the G4 has worse problems than it's FSB speed. A higher clocked G4 would be great.

Also, if the "7457" is the 130nm G4, hitting 1.4 ghz right off the line should be very easy. (Of course AMD's first 130nm chips could hardly clock higher than their mature 180nm chips.)

mphatik677

Dec 12, 2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by mymemory

Apple got behind FOR EVER!!!

Apple is trying so hard to push every body to the new OSX that offer less than half the options of OS9. People does not want to migrate just because do not feel better with OSX just because it is not better!!!

OSX is the equivalent of running 8.1 today.

You OS 9 chodes never cease to amaze me. You're hell bent on believing that machines like a 9600 running OS 9 are better than anything running Mac OS X. You are so disillusioned that its not funny. In fact, I feel sorry for you. The wave of great technology that makes up OS X will mow you down in your ignorance because you're too stupid to make the leap into modern times and get with the program. People that hail OS 9 are worse than PC users. Even PC users know when its time to let an old legacy OS rest in peace. It has served us well and now its time to move on. Maybe you like it when apps bring your whole machine screeching to a grinding halt. Maybe you're afraid of productivity (that Mac OS X affords us) and use the down time to go whack it. Jettison 9 all together and let it die for good!!! So in a plea to all you OS 9 peckerwoods, let go! I promise that life will go on and the world will be ok without 9. If you have to, get some counseling. There is life after those legacy bits and bytes of OS code...I can assure you of that.

One who champions Mac OS X,
mphatik677

daveg5

Dec 12, 2002, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by mphatik677

You OS 9 chodes never cease to amaze me. You're hell bent on believing that machines like a 9600 running OS 9 are better than anything running Mac OS X. You are so disillusioned that its not funny. In fact, I feel sorry for you. The wave of great technology that makes up OS X will mow you down in your ignorance because you're too stupid to make the leap into modern times and get with the program. People that hail OS 9 are worse than PC users. Even PC users know when its time to let an old legacy OS rest in peace. It has served us well and now its time to move on. Maybe you like it when apps bring your whole machine screeching to a grinding halt. Maybe you're afraid of productivity (that Mac OS X affords us) and use the down time to go whack it. Jettison 9 all together and let it die for good!!! So in a plea to all you OS 9 peckerwoods, let go! I promise that life will go on and the world will be ok without 9. If you have to, get some counseling. There is life after those legacy bits and bytes of OS code...I can assure you of that.

One who champions Mac OS X,
mphatik677

A 9600 running OS9 is better than a 9600 running OSX a 604e proceesor and 4MB Vram wont cut it for OSX., "Mac user's runinning 6,7,8,9 are better then pc users anyday, many pc users are still using 95,98,me actually its the majority just like more people use MAC OS8-9 then use OSX, it takes time for change (apple has the figures). The world is not okay when your main Audio apps are not out yet, and buggy core audio beta drivers cause pops and clicks for your recent audio card if you can find a driver. While i will be the first to agree OSX is the S!!! it is still having teething pains in audio and is not prime time yet in that sector dso i use cubase and logic and protools le in OS9 with the OSX GUI from www.aquamakeover.com so that my screen and GUI looks the same in both. after OSX I could not stand to look at the regular OS9 GUI . I don't know how much trouble you had when you used OS9, but when I do go into 9 for audio work mine and many others are very stable. I can go as much as 2 weeks or more without a hard crash but I admit I do get minor crashes every know and then and IE quits on its own, but hey that happens in OSX too, just not as often, even OSX has crashes that require a restart, its called kernal panic. but it is agreed that it is many times more stable than OS9.
please the last thing we need is elitist Macusers telling those without the same needs or wherewith all for OSX to put down OS9 users or vice-versa, we are in this together against the evil empire. OS9 will be around for a few more years for those who need it or cannot yet afford to upgrade or whatever(some people like W95, I still have an atari with Logic on it that i use ocassionally its grat for midi work tighter timing then all this new bloated software. Anyway find something else to complain about than OS9 users
Peace out

cr2sh

Dec 12, 2002, 05:19 PM

daveg5 - you're always pusshing that aquamakeover software! give it up already! ;) (i agree, it does look really, really nice!)
Joking aside, Dave's right.

Here's an idea though... maybe Steve knows the recorder's plight. Maybe he knows that we need an osX multitrack solution and the market is lacking... When the new mac's won't boot into 9, we'll be searching for a fix like junkies... How convienant that he has a solution called Logic. What's the current news on that piece of sotware? if its not out yet.. we WILL see it by January. :)

daveg5

Dec 12, 2002, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by cr2sh
daveg5 - you're always pusshing that aquamakeover software! give it up already! ;) (i agree, it does look really, really nice!)
Joking aside, Dave's right.

G5: Thanks, You are right just trying to help those that are stuck with nine only and those who want there classic to look like Jag and who does nt', anyway I will lay off, but it's cool isnt it.
Os9.1 used to crash a couple times a day on me until I found out my drive had bad blocks, and I had bad (Cheap) memory. i did a clean install on a new drive and walla i still had crashes. It was not until I upgraded to 9.2 that my g3 has become rock solid maybe a crash or 2 a week. for older powermacs check out OS9forever and xpostfacto for OSX installation on those older macs.(oops there I go again).

Here's an idea though... maybe Steve knows the recorder's plight. Maybe he knows that we need an osX multitrack solution and the market is lacking... When the new mac's won't boot into 9, we'll be searching for a fix like junkies... How convienant that he has a solution called Logic. What's the current news on that piece of sotware? if its not out yet.. we WILL see it by January. :)

G5: I know steve has a much overhauled appletized Logic coming 2nd or 3rd quarter and that drivers for my audiowerk2 card are being worked on. and yamaha is being pressured to support the dspfactory (the wolrds best sound card under $1000, count em 5dsps) and mlan.
Since I am a Cubase and logic user i will upgrade cubase 1st for $99 and wait for Logic 6 Titanium this Summer fall. until then it OS9 only for Music.
peace out

mphatik677

Dec 13, 2002, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by daveg5

A 9600 running OS9 is better than a 9600 running OSX a 604e proceesor and 4MB Vram wont cut it for OSX., "Mac user's runinning 6,7,8,9 are better then pc users anyday, many pc users are still using 95,98,me actually its the majority just like more people use MAC OS8-9 then use OSX, it takes time for change (apple has the figures). The world is not okay when your main Audio apps are not out yet, and buggy core audio beta drivers cause pops and clicks for your recent audio card if you can find a driver. While i will be the first to agree OSX is the S!!! it is still having teething pains in audio and is not prime time yet in that sector dso i use cubase and logic and protools le in OS9 with the OSX GUI from www.aquamakeover.com so that my screen and GUI looks the same in both. after OSX I could not stand to look at the regular OS9 GUI . I don't know how much trouble you had when you used OS9, but when I do go into 9 for audio work mine and many others are very stable. I can go as much as 2 weeks or more without a hard crash but I admit I do get minor crashes every know and then and IE quits on its own, but hey that happens in OSX too, just not as often, even OSX has crashes that require a restart, its called kernal panic. but it is agreed that it is many times more stable than OS9.
please the last thing we need is elitist Macusers telling those without the same needs or wherewith all for OSX to put down OS9 users or vice-versa, we are in this together against the evil empire. OS9 will be around for a few more years for those who need it or cannot yet afford to upgrade or whatever(some people like W95, I still have an atari with Logic on it that i use ocassionally its grat for midi work tighter timing then all this new bloated software. Anyway find something else to complain about than OS9 users
Peace out

Here's my 10¢:

The solution for your audio problems is this little app called Logic Audio. I get tired of hearing people bitch about features available in X that they can't get in 9, yet they're reluctant to upgrade. For 80-90% of the Mac using population, there isn't an app in 9 that they can't have a better version of in X. That leaves no reason not to upgrade except maybe some scratch availability but come on, Apple is not charging the $200-$300 for a single license of Jaguar that M$ charges for winblows. And by the way, I'm an expert with OS 9 and have on many occasions had it running for several weeks at a time. I've had X running for 3-4 months without a reboot. All I ask is that people don't bitch about new technologies available in X when they won't help themselves and upgrade. Come on people, support this great company we all know and love. The more people using X, the greater the chance there is for developers to write cool apps for us. You gotta make the leap and help the developers help us by creating market demand for their software. Simple equation, nuff said.

My 2¢ is free.

Kid Red

Dec 13, 2002, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by daveg5
They are both great, they both have there unique good points and bad points. OSX is definately much much more stable and looks much much better. Although www.aquamakeover. com can get your OS9 to look just as good. They both crash, Mac osx much much less. And when it does it does not bring the whole system down as much. Apple needed OS9 to finance OSX, virtually every OSX user first used OS9. Many OS9 users still use it because they have to, thier apps are not yet available in OSX, dont run in classic, run better in OS9 (hard to believe but sometimes true) or more commonly they have hardware scanners, sound cards, printers whose OSX drivers they need they are still waiting on or are discontinued and they dont have the money to upgrade that hardware and/or it works just fine in OS9.

Believe it or not many OS9 systems are very stable and stay up for days and weeks with out a hard freeze, to people that know how to optimize them.
What I dont understand is why those who use OSX only are so quick to jump down the throat of any one that still uses OS9 ocassionally or often.
They are both Macos both running on a Apple Mac system and people choose the one that works best for them for what they are doing at that time, we all have diff needs right? Is that a bad thing. OS( will be around and used for a few more years and give a lot of people joy and pain until they can make the move to OSX or maybe OSX1 by then)
After all we are brothers" this is not a Windows vs Mac scenerio developing" that would be bad for the Mac community as a whole, I hope not because we need to stick together for the good of all of us.

Well, I've run since the beta and I've had about 4-6 crashes during that year 1/2 or so period. I would hardly say that X 'crashes'. That's more like a hic up. 9 would crash daily using Ie & Entourage, mmm, both M$ products, but 9 wasn't very stable.

daveg5

Dec 13, 2002, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red

Well, I've run since the beta and I've had about 4-6 crashes during that year 1/2 or so period. I would hardly say that X 'crashes'. That's more like a hic up. 9 would crash daily using Ie & Entourage, mmm, both M$ products, but 9 wasn't very stable.

I had the same problems with 9.1 it was extremely frustrating sometimes I could not go 10 minutes with out a force quit and after I did that a few time then it would be a hard freeze, it got to the point where I would have to say a prayer before I used it and a curse after it crashed multiple times during the day even after I got rid of a bad block drive got certified memory, and limewire and all those file sharing programs and did a clean install with nothing in the pci slots allocated get info memory kept the drive defrag and ran norton anti virus and disk utilities I still got frequent crashes. It was not until I did a total disk erase and OS and app reinstall all with the exstensions off (never install anything with your exstensions on and promptly delete the last thing you installed if you get crashes) that the crashes stop, most of all I think 9.1 and Limewire as least for me were the biggest culprit once I got to 9.2.2 all my problems ceased with all of my PCI cards nonethe less, Oh i still get an ocassional hard crash and I.E. quits. but I can live with 1 or 2 a week.
And I agree OSX is at least ten times more stable and I plan to use exclusively by this time next year when all the Major Audio apps and Audio/midi driver issues are ironed out and the new Appletized Logic 6 Titanium sees the light of day. But for now that is not an option.
peace out

daveg5

Dec 13, 2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by mphatik677

Here's my 10¢:

The solution for your audio problems is this little app called Logic Audio. I get tired of hearing people bitch about features available in X that they can't get in 9, yet they're reluctant to upgrade. For 80-90% of the Mac using population, there isn't an app in 9 that they can't have a better version of in X. That leaves no reason not to upgrade except maybe some scratch availability but come on, Apple is not charging the $200-$300 for a single license of Jaguar that M$ charges for winblows. And by the way, I'm an expert with OS 9 and have on many occasions had it running for several weeks at a time. I've had X running for 3-4 months without a reboot. All I ask is that people don't bitch about new technologies available in X when they won't help themselves and upgrade. Come on people, support this great company we all know and love. The more people using X, the greater the chance there is for developers to write cool apps for us. You gotta make the leap and help the developers help us by creating market demand for their software. Simple equation, nuff said.

My 2¢ is free.
Actually I agree with most of your points as I own Logic 4.7 Mac OS( and an Atari version) but have decided to bypass the OSX 5 version because I've grown tired of the GUI, i prefer DP3 and cubase's GUI, once apple goes to 6 I am in, 5.4 has got great reviews with a few concerns on clicks and pops. emagic just released drivers for thier emi2/6 and drivers for my audiowerk card is on the way. in OS9 logic is probably the most capable music App it runs its own plugins plus my cubase vst plugins and i have a lot and works with both my dspfactory sound card(but not the 5 dsp's)
( check out a DSP screen shot http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=dvyoung5&templatefn=FileSharing3.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.3.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en)
and audiowerk sound card, not yet in OSX though. I will upgrade my cubase to Jag next month though, I like thier unlimited undo/redo unlimited tracks and protools style print fx to hard disk feature although it looks a little too much PCish.
Basically what is keeping me from going all OSX is lack of support for my sound cards and Vst plug ins which are not that old and did not come cheaply. It's just a matter of time before they are remedied. And knowing that Protools 6, Digital Performer and Logic 6 are around the corner.
I love OSX, use it Daily and was one of the first to let people know of The first multitrack available for ir Deck 3.5 by Bias and I am responsible for some switchers but us musicians/audio folk are a picky lot and some times take months to pick out a simple sound or midi card because sound quality is subjective at best. I have heard 24 bit bargian cards that while have great stats dont have the punch and quakity of my 16 bit Audiowerk card and have yet to here any sound card that sounds better then the Dspfactory but it has 5 Custom dsp's with seperate eq, delay, compression/expasion on each track and 2efx/reverbs available on input and/or output and no drain on the CPU- 5 analouge ins/5outs digital in/out the others are simply in/out devices. Once Yamaha or 3rd party suppot it in OSX, I'm there.
Back to subject:
I hope the new Powermacs can truly take advantage of ddr
top line Dual 1.6 or Quad 1.25, 512k cache, 1GB mem, 1or 2 x 200GB 8MB buffer drives, bluetooth, wireless mouse, quieter operation, top ati card available, firewire 2 independant channels, usb2,

iwantanewmac

Dec 13, 2002, 04:07 PM

cr2sh

Dec 13, 2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by daveg5
I hope the new Powermacs can truly take advantage of ddr
top line Dual 1.6 or Quad 1.25, 512k cache, 1GB mem, 1or 2 x 200GB 8MB buffer drives, bluetooth, wireless mouse, quieter operation, top ati card available, firewire 2 independant channels, usb2,

You're preaching to the choir, brother. Add it to my (post)-christmas list!

barkmonster

Dec 14, 2002, 07:33 AM

Maybe YOUR OS9 wasn't very stable.....mine is.
Runs 24/7 without a crash for weeks....
Yes I use IE as well.
Who are you to judge wether it is stable or not...

IE crashes at least once a day, it never takes down the whole system though unless the bugfest known as quicktime 6 is being used at the time, those cache bugs that STILL arn't fixed after IE5 being out for over 2 and half years cause more crashes than any other app. It also fragments memory for fun and after a few hours of browsing I have to restart just so I don't get jumpy screen redraws with either protools or quicktime player.

I agree, OS 9 without loads of 3rd party extensions and stuff is pretty damn stable if you've got a reasonable amount of RAM. I still want to move to OS X fulltime, once all the apps I use are OS X native and I can afford upgrades for any of the ones that are going to be paid for upgrades. I just can't see me buying a mac that only boots OS X for at least a year purely for cost reasons though, OS 9 is still very useful to me and I'm not wasting money on jaguar right now just to find out how slow it runs on my mac.