Hello everyone, it's been quite a while since I posted anything here but I knew you guys would be able to help me out. I'm absolutely sick of my 1.25Ghz eMac, it's such a piece. Apple's support of the Radeon 9200 in here is TERRIBLE, avoid buying any Mac with ATI graphics if you can. Anyway, I plan on selling it and buying a new or used mac, but I can't decide what. I was thinking either the new Intel Mac Mini (the base model), a 867 or 1Ghz 15" Titanium Powerbook, or perhaps some kind of Quicksilver/MDD G4.
Any thoughts/opinions would be greatly appreciated!
i would think on the MDD G4 but that is my opinion, yea yea you can install xp on the mini but i wont disscrase a Mac like that. the MDD G4 has some good upgrade path's but it's all up to your and what you want to do with the Mac
As a Titanium owner, I'd say skip it. They're getting old and tired. At the very least I wouldn't buy one I didn't have "history" on.
And, of course, they have ATI graphics. ;^)
Obviously buying anything non-Intel limits your future potential. If that doesn't bother you, you can get great bang-for-the-buck from Apple Refurb iMac G5s.
--Peace
Buy the newest, fastest machine that you can afford now (or when you plan to buy it, later yields a better machine).
If going low-end:MacMini dual core Intel
If going high-end:Wait for the PowerMac Intel quad cores to come out in a couple of months (October maybe?).
BTW, Apple sells refurbished current equipment for little bit less than "new" on both their website and at their retail stores, with full warranty, accessories, etc. .
Mutant_Pie
I really want a new intel mac... but I can't justify it...
I realize that most software for them runs in emulation close to the native speed on the PPC macs... but still. There's hardly any native software for the new macs. If you have a lot invested in software, and don't think you'll be replacing it any time soon (not just because it doesn't exist natively for the intels, but because of the cost), it just makes zero sense to invest in an intel mac right now.
Consider an example: A graphic designer has a PPC and has invested in adobe's creative suite (nice chunk of change there). Adobe never even went entirely past Carbonization from the Classic OS (just dig the wrist watch when launching photoshop - if you mouse over the splash screen, you'll see the spinning beach ball, too... not sure what that means...). If the past is any clue to the future, Adobe is gonna drag their feet on this one too, and it will be years, perhaps even a decade before they rewrite their apps from the ground up (if ever). Granted... Photoshop, etc., quite possibly might run in emulation on the new macs at some point faster than natively on a PPC... but it just seems silly to me to upgrade when you don't NEED to do so.
Ordinarily, I'd say go for the Mac Mini, but the Intel Mac Mini is a different story.
I think it's on its way to be an Official Road Apple with its shared video RAM architecture. Quake at 10fps? gheez.
Of course, you could go iMac but it costs more. The tag price is twice as much, but then you get the LCD monitor, keyboard and mouse.
Don't hold out for the MacBook, since reports have it that it will also have shared video RAM
What? Where did you find the 10fps thing? And the MBP has an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with either 128 or 256MB GDDR3 VRAM, depending on which MBP model bought. Where did you come up with all this?
In your example, the software will run the same if not faster on current MacIntels, and faster ones are about 6 months away. Also, these app.'s are available to run natively now under Windows XP. It'll be really interesting to see if major companies will continue to write stuff for OS X and Windows. Adobe will be a good test case for this.
Mutant_Pie
MacBook != MacBook Pro
MacBook == iBook Replacement
There's good reason to think the iBook replacement will use integrated graphics.
As for the 10fps thing, that's about what it scores in Unreal Tournament, so it's not much of an exaggeration. It's slow. It's almost as fast as the G4 Mini, but an iMac will kick its skull in.
--Peace
Ah, yes I missed the missing "Pro" there. I just found the BareFeats: Mini shootout and it's list of some benchmarks. I wonder how these translate out when running XP from Boot Camp and the native Win32 versions of the same stuff? They show Quake 3 as hitting 86fps... and beating the G4 Mini in that one test.
I disagree about the whole MacBook thing rather than iBook. Why would they keep iMac then? iThink it will either be iBook or iMacBook. Either way... I'm buying it.
or.... not run at all.
From what I've read
Rosetta doesn't run applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9 (i.e. NO Classic environment, though I imagine, Basilisk II will be available), applications that require a G4 or G5 processor won't work in Rosetta, code written specifically for AltiVec doesn't work in Rosetta, code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane will not work with Rosetta, applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions won't work, the PPC native kernel extensions themselves won't work, and bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated won't work.
It's not all as cut and dry as it may seem. And mark my words, Adobe is going to take their sweet @$$ time, if they ever even get around to it.
CatMistake wrote: Consider an example: A graphic designer has a PPC and has invested in adobe's creative suite (nice chunk of change there).
Creative Suite never came out on Mac OS 8 or 9. It's not possible to have a cogent comparison if you are going to change the parameters of the discussion. Creative Suite runs just great on OSX, you know, the OS that has been standard on Mac's for about five years. Can you name any major software that has been written for OS 8 or 9 in the last 3-4 years?
BTW, I think that OS X is providing one of the longest periods of backward compatibility in Mac OS's (that's for Mac app.s, not Apple][ disk recognition, which was good through OS 9, which is one reason to keep a dual boot G4).
Mutant_Pie
Creative Suite isn't an application... its a suite... Photoshop & Illustrator ran in Sys 8 and 9. But you're right... I went beyond the bounds of my example.
Beside the point. Just because there is nothing new doesn't mean that the software is useless. I use, for example, the LaserWriter Utility to set up older Apple printers that, even though a decade old, are still better printers than the sub $300 laserprinters printers that are now available.
I've got A LOT of software (my Applications folder is 8.79GB). I don't really intend to replacing any of it anytime soon. If I was positive that Rosetta would run all of it in emulation faster than the PPC will run it natively, I guess I'd upgrade. But a good amount of it is software that was the whole purpose behind my getting a G4... it wouldn't run on previous processors... so I'm pretty sure much of it just won't work in Marklar. But this is just me. Each user has to determine for themselves what software is important to them, then determine if it will run in Rosetta emulation (you can't assume it will). I think this is a necessary step before investing in new hardware.
I hope no one thinks I'm dogging Apple. The new hardware is AMAZING. Now, triple booting OS X, XP, and linux... I'm sure NetBSD will follow very shortly... and with Parallels available in beta (so you can run all these OS's simultaneously without rebooting), Apple has produced a computer that will... pretty much run... all the software available on the planet (except the deficiencies in Rosetta I listed above). No more complaints about "its not compatable with windows... blah blah blah." And I really believe that running windows is just silly, now, to the point of absurdity. I'm looking to Darwine to be the Windows killer (why bother with the OS, when you can run all the apps without it?).