Hello John. I am using an even older Mac for my everyday home computing, and I've thought about upgrading too. The G5 machines are nice, especially with the digital audio I/O, but I don't think that the dual-booting G4 will be noticeably much slower, and it has two optical drive bays to boot. Although the "Classic" environment may work pretty well under OS X, I've determined that the lack of ability to boot in MacOS 9 is a greater loss than a few MHz. At least with the dual-booting G4 there is a migration path of sorts, instead of having to take a flying leap.
Although I'm a technical guy, I've realized that the computing experience depends mostly on those things that you interact with (keyboard, mouse, display, and on-screen interface). The chip design and clock speed and fan count don't matter all that much if you have a responsive interface that's efficient and quick for you to use. Computers usually have short shelf-lives, and the current G5 will one day seem not that much faster than the end-of-life G4 (although as an architecture it may be supported a little longer); however I've noticed that 'first' Macs sometimes have design features that are improved upon later on to the point that the original designs are considered compromised. Consider the Mac II/IIx/IIcx, the 6100/7100/8100, the 4400, the 7200/8200, the first (beige) G3s, the first G4s, etc. The IIci, the 7500/7600/7300, the later beige G3s, the 500 Sawtooth and later G4s are all considered much better than the originals. Anyway, perhaps there will be G4 upgrades offered later on. In any case the G4 is the 'established' chip, so it may be a little while before applications are optimized for the G5 (not to mention those that may need patches/upgrades to run on it) and Apple is unlikely to drop G4 support anytime soon. If I had to buy a new Mac for myself today, it'd be a dual-booting G4. I hope this helps somewhat. ** John Verity ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 3/21/04 5:47 PM -> >I am running CE on an old G3/266MHz, bought 6 years ago but now, I see, >for sale here and there at just $99. Time, perhaps, to move up, invest >some $$$ in a new Mac. But which one: the much faster (but no doubt >end-of-the-line) G4, enabling me to keep CE, which is such a joy, or the >tremendously faster G5 whose 64 bits are, as the drone in the Apple store >(egotistical Gen Y guy who, strangely enough, seemed quite uninterested >in my situation or money) repeated to me, "the future of personal >computing" but which means migrating to a new portfolio of apps. I am not >a graphics person, just a writer who has to surf and mail, mostly. No >iPod to feed, and I still shoot and develop my own film. So, beyond the >promised land of X, the main allure of the G5 is my amateur interest in >editing video. As a writer, I sometimes think I would do best with a >slow, non-Net computer, one that would enable me to write but not offer >to distract me so, but actually I do need the Web to do my job as a >computer journalist. > Anyway, I am just tossing this out, wondering if anyone else here has >the same problem to solve, has heard if the G4 will ever get faster than >it is today (unlikely, seems to me; my friend in the store tossed me >another pre-canned answer: "I can't speculate about unannounced products" >-- just the kind of talk I used to hear from IBM execs for years.) Has >anyone heard rumours about faster G4s on the way? I see they used to have >a 1.4GHz chip, but it has been pulled. Apple's no different than any >other computer company in using pricing and features and >incompatabilities to hustle its customers forward, ever forward -- which, >yes, more than ever, it must, to remain even marginally profitable. > Frankly, though I've only played with it a little in the store, OS X >strikes me as a vast playground, full of glittery, candy-colored knobs >and buttons, too shiny and sparkly for its own good. I am sure, >technically speaking, that underneath the gee-whiz facade it has much to >offer that is solid computing function. I am sure I could live with it, >if I chose to. But it is remarkably glitzy compared to its immediate >predecessor. I know I'm not the first to observe this. > ====================================================================== Power Macintosh 8500 w/ 500 MHz G3, 352 MB RAM Power Macintosh 7200 Power Macintosh 7100 w/ 80 MHz 601, 72 MB RAM Quadra 800 w/ 33 MHz 68040, 40 MB RAM Performa 600 w/ Daystar Turbo '040, 24 MB RAM Macintosh IIci w/ 25 MHz 68030, 8 MB RAM PowerBook 165 w/ 33 MHz 68030, 8 MB RAM ====================================================================== ___________________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe send a mail message with a SUBJECT line of "unsubscribe" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
