OS 9, G5's in 2003, and Apple Engineers

[scem0]

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.

 

[Pepzhez]

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]

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 f***ing 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.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Re: Re: Great

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]

fwiw

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]

Re: The timing of all this is terrible [RANT]

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]

Re: Re: Re: The timing of all this is terrible [RANT]

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]

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.

 

[jefhatfield]

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. [/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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Great

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]

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.

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]

My MHz mistake on the 68040 except...

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]

Re: My MHz mistake on the 68040 except...

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

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?

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: My MHz mistake on the 68040 except...

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]

Re: Re: My MHz mistake on the 68040 except...

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great

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]

Re: Re: The timing of all this is terrible [RANT]

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...

 

[Thirteenva]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Great

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]

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

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

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]

Re: Re: Great

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]

Re: behind

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]

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