Next Safari INTEL ONLY?

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Boldface is the correct means of conveying emphasis in media that support it. Excessive or irregular capitalization is a hallmark of clinical paranoiacs, and will tend to erode your credibility in the eyes of your readers.

Boldface requires enhanced presentation of text (or on here, extra formatting using less common keys to fast typers, throwing a monkey wrench in the rhythm). Capitals works well in ASCII text, even. I suppose one could use asterisk to *emphasize* instead. As for credibility, nothing loses it quite as fast for me as when people make anal replies complaining about ANY use of all-caps what-so-ever.

 

[Nameci]

Can we just drop it and move on?

 

[HyperZboy]

Personal View: Oh for petes sake, why are we arguing about Apple giving up on PowerPC, we've all been hanging on by a tiny little iTunes and Safari filled thread for months now. Although, Im sure as a community we'll pull together and bring WebKit Nightlies back to PowerPC. (ie Stuff Apple, us PPCUsers will keep G4s and G5s going for decades yet) - I mean if theres still homebrew software being written for the Newton and Mac OS 9, I think theres a good decade of homebrew stuff for OS X PPC at least - I mean I have no intention of abandoning Mac OS 9 just yet, and that has been unsupported and ignored by most of the world for a nearly a decade).

Also Note: G5s had more than 2 years, The last G5 you could buy new from Apple was in August 2006. Snow Leopard didnt arrive until Summer 2009, so thats 3 Years of support, and Leopard has had minor updates until now (Or about 5 Years). However, as Far as Apple was concerned, the date when you shouldve stopped buying PowerPC Macs was when they brought out the first Intel mac (ie January 2006) - And So Im sure they felt 4 years was justified (G3s were brilliant in terms of longevity of support, plenty of Beige Macs got ditched with OS X - Such as my PowerMac 7500 from 1995 (IIRC - Might be '96), which was obsolete in 2000 for the absolute current OS - Just 4/5 years - Every big transition in Apples History has shortchanged people who bought a few years before it).

Oh and as far as Microsoft Supporting a Pentium III: You just try running Windows 7 on a Pentium III. I have, and to put it lightly, it was the worst OS install Ive ever used, it even trumped Windows ME and Leopard on my 700Mhz eMac with 128MB RAM. As in you can barely load a single application without it freezing or dying.

You're wrong on one of your major points...

It was easy to get Panther to run on everything from Performa 6500s up to Powermac 9600s with a Quartz extreme graphics card even though they didn't meet the minimum requirements.

Hell, I had Tiger running perfectly on several Powermacs and yes I think even a 7500!

It has nothing to do with running Lion or Snow Leopard on old Macs. Nobody expects that.

It's about having an ubiquitous browser that runs on Macs across the board as far back as Microsoft is supporting Windows XP & Explorer. It's just that simple.

Apple actually has more money and resources than Microsoft now.

Shouldn't they not be disowning their longtime customers and supporting Safari for PowerPC at least as long as Microsoft is supporting Explorer for XP?

I can't think of a single reason anyone would dispute this argument other than to say the obvious...

"Go buy a new Mac and shut up" or "Apple isn't Microsoft."

And finally, people need to stop with the apples to oranges comparisons. The very fact alone that you bought an eMac pretty much discounts your opinion on this topic top to bottom. It reminds me of one of my first Mac purchases, an LCIII. I had no room to complain once it was quickly obsolete.

Now a high end PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 is a different story. All of those machines along with some G4s are clearly able to run a simple freaking SAFARI BROWSER! We're not talking Final Cut Pro here. HELLO!

Oh, one last thing... XBOX is PowerPC based! So Microsoft is supporting PowerPC better than Apple!
How ironic. LOL

 

[HyperZboy]

Yup, I think were mostly on the same page here. As far as the '95-'06 analogy, I understand that point of view... but I just see it as we're really pretty luck to have had mainstream support for PPC architecture for as long as we have. Used intel mac's can be had for as low as $200 (1.66 mac mini on craigslist) which can be purchased by the PPC users who haven't been able to afford an upgrade so low cost options for more modern software solutions are becoming quite available... but that's something else all together I guess.

/rant

You tried to make a good point but sorta failed.

Why would anyone with a tricked out PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 junk it for the cheapest $200 Mac Mini?

The only point of downgrading would be for Safari compatibility.

What fool does that?

I'd like to see that fool try to run an HDMI cable to an HDTV set and run 720p or 1080p to an HDTV set. Yeah, some G5s can still do that.

Original Intel Mac Mini's? I don't think so. Sorry, FAIL.

 

[Tucom]

Actually, with all due respect, for that logic you failed, as all Intel Mac Minis have DVI out thus HDMI out as good as any G5, and that's attested to there being a PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.3 Ghz (JUST traded a Core 1 Duo Mini for..in many aspects blows the Mini out of the water) and a C2D Mini (processor wise Mini probably tops it, but G5 beats any Mini when it comes to amount of RAM). So I'm saying don't get me wrong, nothing but respect and agreeance that PPC machines, esp. alter G4's and ESP. G5's can blaze through even some very heavy lifting tasks, and IMO should still be supported with at LEAST iTunes and Safari (and for the record, Safari is far better than TenFourFox I've found).


Point is, all can do HDMI, and typing this response on this beautiful just still very capable G5 machine, while it will suck to have PPC support fully pulled, the day was coming.

And, the only reason XP stuck around as long as it did was BECAUSE Vista sucked so hard, and MS actually planned to pull the plug far earlier, so if anything, I'd say Apple has done the legacy support aspect better.


And to any argument "but Win 7 installs on m@h Pentium Tree! (3)"...yeah, care to show one hint of logic of using a $10 computer that would bog down at boot up (Win 7 tho is respectably agile) vs. getting a $100 Pentium D? Illogical argument IMO.

 

[HyperZboy]

Actually, with all due respect, for that logic you failed, as all Intel Mac Minis have DVI out thus HDMI out as good as any G5, and that's attested to there being a PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.3 Ghz (JUST traded a Core 1 Duo Mini for..in many aspects blows the Mini out of the water) and a C2D Mini (processor wise Mini probably tops it, but G5 beats any Mini when it comes to amount of RAM). So I'm saying don't get me wrong, nothing but respect and agreeance that PPC machines, esp. alter G4's and ESP. G5's can blaze through even some very heavy lifting tasks, and IMO should still be supported with at LEAST iTunes and Safari (and for the record, Safari is far better than TenFourFox I've found).


Point is, all can do HDMI, and typing this response on this beautiful just still very capable G5 machine, while it will suck to have PPC support fully pulled, the day was coming.

And, the only reason XP stuck around as long as it did was BECAUSE Vista sucked so hard, and MS actually planned to pull the plug far earlier, so if anything, I'd say Apple has done the legacy support aspect better.


And to any argument "but Win 7 installs on m@h Pentium Tree! (3)"...yeah, care to show one hint of logic of using a $10 computer that would bog down at boot up (Win 7 tho is respectably agile) vs. getting a $100 Pentium D? Illogical argument IMO.

I never said a Mac Mini couldn't PHYSICALLY connect to an HDTV set and play some video but they have INTEL graphics chips!

But there's lots of graphics card options on PowerMac G5s and the latest iMac G5s had Nvidia graphics as well.

So, there's really no comparison.

You'd have to be a complete fool to replace either of those type machines with a $200 INTEL Mac Mini, at least if you want that capability or even any gaming capability.

And by the way, I recently DOWNGRADED someone's older PC to Windows XP from VISTA. Why?

Stability and performance and XP is constantly updated still to this day.

You can't say that about Apple's support of the operating system they released that same year.

Apple should be ashamed.

 

[Tucom]

Do you realize what you say makes no sense in some key aspects? No diss. intended, but here, I'll point out the flaws here in that post, this is just me though (some is fact, ofcourse) -

Ok, for starters, no PPC mac - or really any OS X box - was ever designed to be a gaming platform, and whilst there are games for them, they're not designed to have that be their forte, so really, if that's the incentive, then I'd say just get a console or a Windows box, really.


However, I agree for other aspects that the beefier chips in the PPC machines vs. the Mini by far are better and worth it, so yes, agreed there.


Finally, for making no sense: XP is still around and being "supported" (actually, I've yet to see any last updates for it) because businesses have yet to upgrade and people were still stuck in the "anti-Vista" state, and actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but, it's being no more supported than Leopard or even Tiger; the udpates are still on Apple's server to updated to 10.4.11 or 10.5.8, as with XP and SP3, but any more optimizations and bug fixes coming out for XP? I've yet to see any, but then again, for point 2 -

Vista w/ SP2 leaves XP in the dust. Fact.

MS had a bumpy (ok...disasterous) start with Vista, but with the SP updates some benchmarks even beat 7, though ofcourse all around 7 is king for Windows OS's.

On any relatively modern hardware (I'd say high end P4 rig and later), Vista SP2 or 7 will leave XP in the dust, on benchmarks and security so really -

That "downgrade" really was a DOWNGRADE as now your clients computer is less secure and less compatible, so gonna get it upgraded again? Just a suggestion.

However, again, it would be a bummer for Safari to not be later supported on PPC, however, Apple should really pat themselves on the back for supporting a no-longer-supported architecture for them for six years, and counting..

And speaking of no support..IE9 - currently the best browser on Windows (great bowser TBH) - laughs at XP, and IE10 will laugh at Vista, which both (OS's) more or less came out around when PPC support was announced to be phased out.

 

[Stok3]

You tried to make a good point but sorta failed.

Why would anyone with a tricked out PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 junk it for the cheapest $200 Mac Mini?

The only point of downgrading would be for Safari compatibility.


Original Intel Mac Mini's? I don't think so. Sorry, FAIL.

Um i sold my quad core G5 and bought an intel Mini and it was 10x faster than the G5. Newer chips/architecture blows away the G5...why do you think Apple switched to intel?

 

[Tucom]

No Intel Mini will be faster than a G5, at least not any but the latest and only in some areas would be at most 2-3x faster, just trying to over exaggerate much? Heh.


Esp. not a Quad G5, a C2D may beat a Dual 2.0 or 1.8, but the 2.3, 2.5, and 2.7's bench very near to the at least older plastic Mini's, some aspects the Mini will blow away the G5 (memory and HDD speed really, that's it AFAIK).



Finally, if you had a G5 Quad and downgraded to a Mini, I imagine either your need for the processing power for the G5 changed as your job must have or just didn't need all the processing power of the G5 in the first place? And some things like Flash do perform far better than the PPC machines, but that's all, 100% the crappy coding, not the fault of any architecture in question.


And as for Safari? The PPC optimized builds of Camino (NOT TenFourFox..) more or less outperform Safari hands down (been using both very recently), so honestly while I can't wait to see how said-to-be blazing Safari 6+ is, for old PPC machines, at least there's Camino B)

 

[chrismacguy]

You're wrong on one of your major points...

It was easy to get Panther to run on everything from Performa 6500s up to Powermac 9600s with a Quartz extreme graphics card even though they didn't meet the minimum requirements.

Hell, I had Tiger running perfectly on several Powermacs and yes I think even a 7500!

I was talking without drastically changing machines from their original configuration. Any 601 based Mac, including the 7500, cannot boot any iteration of OS X without upgrading the CPU. Any 604 based Mac can only boot up to 10.2 without an upgraded CPU, 10.3 AND 10.4 BOTH require you to have installed a G3 or G4, and if your upgrading the CPU, by the same logic you can tell G5 owners to just buy a Intel Motherboard and "upgrade" their G5s to Intels. Therefore I am not wrong on any of my points, especially as I was talking about in APPLE SUPPORTED CONFIGURATIONS only.

You cannot get 10.3 to boot on a 604, I have tried it (on my 7500 with a upgraded 604 (in effect a 7600), and on a 9600 with a 604ev - both will run 10.2 with some coaxing, but 10.3 doesnt work with the 604 CPU), neither XPostFacto or manual hacks will get it working, if you had 10.3 or 10.4 running on any Beige Mac, you will have upgraded their CPU, especially a 7500, as its 601 cannot boot any form of Mac OS X apart from early Rhapsody builds. Even then the system is not that stable, and again, this isnt supposed to be possible according to Apple anyway.

Also Apple should not be ashamed. You obviously have never studied Computer Science or youd realise that coding for 1 Architecture is a lot easier than for 2, especially at the OS level. Yes its a big shame Apple has given up on PowerPC, yes I am slightly annoyed, yes I will still be using my PowerPC Machines for decades to come, but I still dont think you can tell them to be ashamed. To make Lion run on PowerPC Macs would take a huge amount of work, its not as easy as the 1 click re-compile for Apps on top of the OS that external developers see, the OS itself will have a boatload of intricacies that are Architecture-Dependant, and so Apple probably only has the resources to manage one of these effectively, or Im betting they wouldve made 10.6 available for the G5 platform, just for the good PR and goodwill it wouldve got them.

 

[sporadicMotion]

You tried to make a good point but sorta failed.

Why would anyone with a tricked out PowerMac G5 or iMac G5 junk it for the cheapest $200 Mac Mini?

The only point of downgrading would be for Safari compatibility.

So you're saying Safari is the only piece of software that doesn't run on PPC?

What fool does that?

The kind that needs to run modern software.

I'd like to see that fool try to run an HDMI cable to an HDTV set and run 720p or 1080p to an HDTV set. Yeah, some G5s can still do that.

Think outside of your little realm... your software requirements don't mirror everyone else... and that's a horrible example. Mini's can do that.

Original Intel Mac Mini's? I don't think so. Sorry, FAIL.

 

[drorpheus]

Um i sold my quad core G5 and bought an intel Mini and it was 10x faster than the G5. Newer chips/architecture blows away the G5...why do you think Apple switched to intel?

Apple switched to Intel because IBM told Apple if you want a bigger discount on our newest chips be more like Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft and start ordering in multiples of 10-20-50 million, not 1million and under and want the same price break without the investment. So Apple said how dare you we're Apple, and thus began emulating OSX for the SAME chipset as everyone else, congratulations, you now have a dell/hp/gateway/compaq computer that officially emulates OSX but its housed in aluminum, plus you get all the benefits of malware that come with X86, and some of the most bloated pipelining any architecture has to offer. Who wouldn't want to switch to Intel. Meanwhile POWER 5,6,7 brings you up to 5.0 ghz while Intel still floats around 3.0ghz sounds like a roadmap stuck in 2005 to me.

 

[sporadicMotion]

Apple switched to Intel because IBM told Apple if you want a bigger discount on our newest chips be more like Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft and start ordering in multiples of 10-20-50 million, not 1million and under and want the same price break without the investment.

Price played a part. For sure! Don't forget all the problems surrounding that architecture at the time pertaining to thermal issues. I'm still waiting for my PowerBook G5.

So Apple said how dare you we're Apple, and thus began emulating OSX for the SAME chipset as everyone else, congratulations, you now have a dell/hp/gateway/compaq computer that officially emulates OSX but its housed in aluminum, plus you get all the benefits of malware that come with X86, and some of the most bloated pipelining any architecture has to offer. Who wouldn't want to switch to Intel. Meanwhile POWER 5,6,7 brings you up to 5.0 ghz while Intel still floats around 3.0ghz sounds like a roadmap stuck in 2005 to me.

OS X is not emulated on Intel hardware. The kernel is an x86/x64... not PPC... in fact... there is no PPC anything in the newer OS X's.

Malware has nothing to do with x86... malware has everything to do with popularity of OS and the demand to write such software.

The P4's had bloated pipeline architecture... not the Core Series.

Why worry? Doesn't really matter at all anymore... this happened years ago.

If you have and enjoy a PPC Mac, then that's great! It's better than it filling up landfill and they're still capable of many jobs... just don't expect them to run the most current software.

 

[HyperZboy]

Well I think we can say it's official now. The next version of Safari will probably be INTEL only. However, there is no mention/announcement of this on the Webkit.org site.

The webkit nightlies have consistently been INTEL ONLY since I first started this thread so it's a good guess the next version of SAFARI will not support PowerPC for the first time, well, unless Apple specifically compiles a version, which I find unlikely.

As for the $200 Intel Mac Mini vs PowerMac G5 debate, I'm not even going to get deep into that argument since it's a ridiculously laughable "Oh my Mini is 10X faster than your G5" rant that makes no logical sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

When you have Nvidia Geforce 7800 or Radeon FireGL technology in your Mac Mini, get back to me on those speed tests. Hell, even the Radeon 9600 shipping graphics card probably beats the Intel graphics.

Mini 10X faster? I'm still giggling here honestly.

Regardless, a simple browser should be able to work just fine on XP, a G4, or a G5.

For Apple to discontinue PPC support while continuing to support XP, people who are not even their own customers, I think is insane & insulting, regardless of the market size. It's not like Apple is a poor company or anything or doesn't have the resources to compile a browser for PPC. Geez.

 

[urbanrave]

Here is the latest WebKit r90991 for PPC 10.5 Leopard

Haha

 

[sporadicMotion]

Well I think we can say it's official now. The next version of Safari will probably be INTEL only. However, there is no mention/announcement of this on the Webkit.org site.

The webkit nightlies have consistently been INTEL ONLY since I first started this thread so it's a good guess the next version of SAFARI will not support PowerPC for the first time, well, unless Apple specifically compiles a version, which I find unlikely.

As for the $200 Intel Mac Mini vs PowerMac G5 debate, I'm not even going to get deep into that argument since it's a ridiculously laughable "Oh my Mini is 10X faster than your G5" rant that makes no logical sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

When you have Nvidia Geforce 7800 or Radeon FireGL technology in your Mac Mini, get back to me on those speed tests. Hell, even the Radeon 9600 shipping graphics card probably beats the Intel graphics.

Mini 10X faster? I'm still giggling here honestly.

Regardless, a simple browser should be able to work just fine on XP, a G4, or a G5.

For Apple to discontinue PPC support while continuing to support XP, people who are not even their own customers, I think is insane & insulting, regardless of the market size. It's not like Apple is a poor company or anything or doesn't have the resources to compile a browser for PPC. Geez.

It's not about the performance comparison. It's a comparison of ability to run modern software. If you are going to compare intel to PPC

G5 PowerMac vs Mac Pro, at least it's an apples to apples comparison

Complain complain complain

Get used to it.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

It's not about the performance comparison. It's a comparison of ability to run modern software. If you are going to compare intel to PPC

G5 PowerMac vs Mac Pro, at least it's an apples to apples comparison

Complain complain complain

Get used to it.

The poster was remarking that Apple supports software for someone else's much older operating system (XP) while not supporting their own hardware running versions of their own operating system that are literally at least half as old while having no shortage of resources or other satisfactory reason to justify the lack of support for their own products while supporting competitor's products. In short, the poster makes an excellent point while your inane reply of "Complain complain and complain" and useless advice of "get used to it" adds nothing to the conversation and seems to serve no purpose other than a smug admonition and thus an illusion that your own perspective is more important than his own.

 

[chrismacguy]

The poster was remarking that Apple supports software for someone else's much older operating system (XP) while not supporting their own hardware running versions of their own operating system that are literally at least half as old while having no shortage of resources or other satisfactory reason to justify the lack of support for their own products while supporting competitor's products. In short, the poster makes an excellent point while your inane reply of "Complain complain and complain" and useless advice of "get used to it" adds nothing to the conversation and seems to serve no purpose other than a smug admonition and thus an illusion that your own perspective is more important than his own.

While the inane post, was pointless, the big point here is that Apple still supports XP only because its got a massive market share (about 40% or so AFAIK, definitely a lot more than us luddites on 10.3/10.4/10.5), if 40% of Mac Users were using G5s or G4s under say 10.3 you can bet your bottom dollar 10.3 would still be getting Safari and iTunes, and probably security updates to boot. (Whereas because the Mac only started getting very popular post-Intel-Switch, its actually a very small percentage of users who are still using PowerPCs, yes we're very vocal, but we are still in a much larger minority against Intel Mac Users than XP Users are against Windows 7, and its only decent business strategy to only support your users who have actually contributed to your balance sheet in the last 5 years. Windows Safari is also, basically, a XP application, and due to the way Windows has progressed, it runs dandy under 7 with all the features it needs (and its always going to be a loss leader - no/very few Mac sales for XP Safari users) - the situation is very different on the OS X side of the fence due to system architecture, and the massive changes under the Hood between Intel OS X and PPC OS X.)

Also, while Apple might not be poor, they do have finite resources, and I dont think (m)any of you actually know how much effort it takes to keep 2 different architecture versions of a OS Framework (Which is what WebKit actually is, its a lot closer to a framework of the OS than it is a normal application on Mac OS X - it runs a lot deeper is my point), especially when the 2 versions would have to be relatively different as the Intel Build would gain features that depend on OpenCL, or some other Intel-Only feature. And remember getting employed at Apple Corporate is so difficult, they can have all the money in the world, but if you want the calibre of developers they have (ie you want the same quality of product), there are a lot less of them kicking around than you would think, so their manpower is limited by the number of capable software developers, not by money.

 

[urbanrave]

Hoho

 

[Jessica Lares]

If they were to continue to support PPC, less of the newer models would be sold. And that's really the main issue for Apple. There are a lot of people in the world that just want a Mac that runs OS X period, just for the show. There are a lot of people who come here asking if a $50-100 G3/G4 iBook/PowerBook is a good buy for their first Mac and it's 2011.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Well they can deal with no Mac sold from me either way at this point. I want USB3 and so the current models are no good (if I go Hackintosh, not only can I get expansion for a reasonable price, but I can get USB3 now and add the driver when it's ready. I don't know if a USB3 chip can run under USB2 drivers, but I could always plug in a cheap USB2 card for now, if necessary (I believe I already have one here sitting around unused).

In any case, my PowerMac is simply an audio/video server for the house right now (and 24/7 Internet terminal). I see no reason to replace it until I have no other choice (i.e. Itunes no longer supports it). The current 3TB media drive is USB3/2 so that's the primary reason I want USB3 on the next server (although I don't want to use slower 2 on any computer in the future if I don't have to; most things will NOT support Thunderbolt so Apple needs to get on board with USB3 regardless, IMO).

My MBP will run Lion, but I've got a Hackintosh Netbook that will not be able to run it (Apple doesn't offer a Netbook and an iPad just isn't the same thing and costs 2x the price. I use it for travel when I don't want to risk a $2k computer just to surf the Net and what not while on the road. I want OSX because it's more secure than Windows and while Linux would normally do, I use iTunes on it so Linux isn't really an option either). Personally, I think if Apple doesn't want to offer models for various market segments (i.e. Netbooks and mid-range towers), they should license those specific segments to someone else to produce. I simply will not buy an iPad when I need a Netbook or a Mac Pro when I don't need a workstation nor will I buy an iMac because it's underpowered for gaming, etc. on the Windows side.

Apple's move to shorten the life-span of its computers artificially in recent years just means I'm less likely to consider their hardware since it costs a premium over other brands and so I expect more support, not less. A Mac-Mini would make a really nice little server since it's small enough that I can fix it on my desktop and still use the tower space for a 2nd computer with more power for gaming ,etc. and just use a switchbox to share monitors, etc. (it would free up a 2nd desk over the current setup), but the lack of USB3 on the Mini means I won't consider it at this time.

 

[cocacolakid]

Well they can deal with no Mac sold from me either way at this point. I want USB3 and so the current models are no good (if I go Hackintosh, not only can I get expansion for a reasonable price, but I can get USB3 now and add the driver when it's ready.

Thunderbolt is faster than USB 3 and can run multiple devices. I don't understand the appeal of building a Hackintosh to use a slower interface that doesn't have the true expandability of Thunderbolt, not to mention the constant headaches of a Hackintosh.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Thunderbolt is faster than USB 3 and can run multiple devices. I don't understand the appeal of building a Hackintosh to use a slower interface that doesn't have the true expandability of Thunderbolt, not to mention the constant headaches of a Hackintosh.

Thunderbolt doesn't have much support yet (and probably never will in a mainstream consumer sense) and all indications is that devices for it will cost a heavy premium over USB3 ones. And if the device doesn't not NEED the extra speed (very few ever will any time soon), it's utterly pointless to pay more for Thunderbolt if the cheaper USB3 device runs just as well.

USB3 can run multiple devices too so that point makes no sense. And unlike Thunderbolt, they don't have to be daisy-chained (horrible in practice; I have yet to see a 'hub' of any kind for Thunderbolt. It's not clear if they're even possible.

More to the point, my 3TB media drive I'm already using is USB3. It will not connect to Thunderbolt (at least without a currently non-existent adapter) and there is no replacement for it yet. Hence, I want USB3, not Thunderbolt right now. Preferably, I'd like to have both, but that doesn't appear to be an option yet either. I imagine it will be soon, though, but not on Apple products (probably at last another year, maybe longer there).

As for Hackintoshes being a pain, my Dell Netbook has been simple to update. Normally, I just use Software Update like any other Mac. Twice over the past two years, an update required a running a little program to fix the audio driver (since the software update overwrote a patched part of the OS). Other than that, it's been no trouble at all.

 

[urbanrave]

IOOOOooooo!!!!

 

[raysfan81]

No reason to use safari on a PPC mac anyways. TenFourFox is far superior anyways.