I've got Panther running on a 6 year old Lombard, with a G4 upgrade to 433, it works. I'm not leaping tall buildings in a single bound but it works quite well. In the time I've owned this PB, my neighbors ( yes plural ) have gone through 2 upgrade cycles on their Inte/MS boxes. Value, who's was better? I have added additional Macs for the kids, so not that I'm a hold out.crap freakboy said:I'm one amongst many of Mac users out there that are hoping IBM/Apple can pull something amazing out of the bag. Then I remind myself that I'm typing this on a Powermac G4 Sawtooth 400Mhz which runs Indesign, Photoshop, all the iApps, Illustrator to mention a few, and without any major beachballing. Now I may be wrong but would a M$ PC of the same era be able to hold its head high in this G4s company?
Saying that though, the G5 is a monster....can't believe how huge it is, or probably (if I manage convince 'er indoors to upgrade to one ) how fast it is. One day...one day...sigh. Currently 6 apps open, transferring 8 GB to various HD's, iChatting, surfing, sorting 24000 photos, listening to iTunes, checking mail...not a beachball insight. Now thats the sort of advertising Apple need to produce but on a G5 iMac with 20 apps open.
I think that the implication is that OS X does better task switching than XP. My experience on numerous OS X and XP systems is that using multiple apps more or less "simultaneously" is smoother on a Mac. Not terribly smoother, but noticeably so. Plus, organization and navigation of multiple apps and multiple windows within apps is easier in OS X. I use both OS's daily, so, while this is just my opinion, it's an educated one.pontecorvo said:Are you implying that someone on an Intel-based laptop couldn't do the same?
"Next month, Intel rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) is expected to launch its first dual-core chips for mainstream desktop computers. AMD has already launched a dual-core chip for servers."Dont Hurt Me said:Not a word about AMDs dual core? anyone with a socket 939 is in luck
Can it be done? Sure. Is it done very well? Not really. More of a Windows issue than Intel. Though those AMDs are pretty nice. Not sure I'd want OS X running on x86, but I'm sure Apple is keeping their options open for PPC providers.pontecorvo said:Are you implying that someone on an Intel-based laptop couldn't do the same?
In a word. No. Basically, hyperthreading is a way of switching between process threads in an efficient manner. Unfortunately, Windows is anything but efficient, and HT often ends up slowing things down more than up b/c it makes windows go ape. Dual Core processors, require specifically written multithreaded applications. These applications must be complete rewrites. There are add-ons, a la Photoshop for the daystar machines back in the mid 90s, but that only accelerates certain processes. Oh, and multithreaded programming is a bitch. Furthermore, I will guarantee you that most of the excrement factories that embody the greater portion of wintel developers will not invest the effort in Multithreaded Application programming for a long time, so this advent is nigh on useless ATM.Abstract said:I'll start to get worried when Intel and AMD have these things announced for 4-6 months, but IBM has not yet announced them. Until then, I'm not too concerned.
WHat's the main difference between a P4 with HT, and a dual core P4? Isn't it very easy for programs written that take advantage of HT also to take advantage of dual-core?