[Cadaver]

OK, here's the deal...

I had been a Mac user basically forever. Began with a Quadra 605 way back in the day (actually, began with a ][+, //e and //gs but now I'm just dating myself). Anyway, up until about 9 months ago, I'd been using a Dual 800MHz G4 (1GB RAM, 80 & 120GB HDs, GeForce3). I spend hours upon hours per week writing in Word/EndNote and building PowerPoint lectures, and compared to the PC at work, which is no where near a top-of-the-line machine, the performance of Office X and basic OS X file manipulation was pretty poor. The OS X GUI just was so pokey it was really bothersome. Even though the computer itself was reasonably fast, it just SEEMED so damn slow. I'm an academic radiologist at a Big 10 university hospital, so I write a lot of papers and just finished writing a textbook with several colleagues (about 3GB of text/images per chapter x 23 chapters). Other computing activities include editing/compiling medical images (DICOM image conversion, TIFF editing in Photoshop 7), minor mathematics/statistical analysis, page layout in Illustrator for posters and other large-format prints, and the requisite email, web, etc.

Anyway, one day I sort of freaked out. I sold the G4, and partly due to my desire for a super-snappy (TM) machine, and partly due to the $1500 burning a hole in my pocket, I ordered the necessary parts to build myself a PC.

The machine I built for that $1500 is ridiculously fast. Nice aluminum case, Asus nforce2 motherboard, AthlonXP running (overclocked) at 2.3GHz, 1GB PC3200 dual channel DDR RAM, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, and two Western Digital 120GB SE hard drives in RAID 0. OfficeXP simply flies on this machine, and while I haven't done any formal benchmarks I can tell Photoshop is also way faster. File manipulation/GUI in WinXP Pro is also faster. The difference between XP and OS X is like the difference between OS X and OS9 in terms of GUI speed.

Now, before you say I didn't really need anything faster than the Dual 800MHz G4, I'd have to disagree. While is may have been adequate, a 400MHz G3 would have also been "adequate." It's not a matter of absolute need, but want. I do not want to wait for my machine... I'd prefer it wait for me. I expect workstation performance, not home-computer performance.

So, for the last 9 months I've been using this homebrew PC and I've been pretty happy. WinXP hasn't given me any more uptime problems than my Mac had. It's really quite fast, however I'm now looking at upgrading again.... I'm finding that my system will bog down on graphic processing batch files while trying to do another task. I know that's a limitation of a single processor system, but it's still faster than my Dual 800MHz G4 was (imagine being down to one 800MHz G4 for everything while the other was busy with a long batch job).

My initial upgrade thought was a either a dual 2.66MHz Xeon system or a dual Athlon MP box (an Opteron machine really isn't an option since I don't want to run Linux and the 64-bit WinXP isn't anywhere close to being ready). But now Apple's got something to make me want to go back! The WDDC demo of the Dual 2GHz G5 was simply amazing, especially that Mathematica demo.

The dual G5 may just have enough to make using OS X not feel like I'm wading through molasses. I'm going to hold off any purchase until I get a chance to lay hands on a G5 at my local Apple Store and see how it performs. Can't wait.

Oh, for those who wonder about the expense of going back and forth with software packages for Windows and OS X - it's a non-issue. I have University licenses for all the software I need, regardless of platform (Mac or PC).

[Hydra]

Can't you keep the nice XP box and use it for Word/Powerpoint stuff and get the G5 for graphics, scientific and Illustrator tasks. That's the ultimate in multiprocessing. No matter how fast the new G5 and panther are (I'm putting my money where my mouth is and ordered a dual G5 after the keynote) I think office will always seem faster on a windows box. I think Office x is fine on my dual 800 but I have never pushed it to the point of writing a textbook either. Panther is a bit of a wild-card as from everything I've read seems to indicate that the interface slow downs may be a thing of the past esp. on a new G5.

From what you have described you seem to be a bit of a speed junkie and lust after the G5 and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe wait to see how the G5 runs what you need and wait for it to ship with panther. If you order one now you may need to wait a bit anyway so you might as well wait and do a hands-on evaluation for yourself and make a better decision for you.
-Jerry C.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Hydra:
Can't you keep the nice XP box and use it for Word/Powerpoint stuff and get the G5 for graphics, scientific and Illustrator tasks.

Belive me, I've thought about it. But as it is I've got too many computers and keeping files synced is a pain. Two in the office (a Dell laptop and a Dell 2.0GHz P4) and two at home (the Athlon box and a rarely used 600MHz iBook). Plus two fruity iMacs for the kids.

While I doubt I'd toss out the Athlon machine if I upgrade/replace it, I'd want to consolidate. My desk is only so big, and to make matters worse I use an Apple 22" Cinema Display. A great display but KVM switchboxes with DVI connections are stupidly expensive for what they do (cheapest I've found has been in the $300 neighborhood).

[Eug Wanker]

Personally I would probably just stick with the Athlon unless money isn't an issue. I know you're a radiologist, you probably get educational pricing, and you probably can claim part of this on your expense account or whatever, but the point is that Office isn't likely to feel faster on the dual G5 compared to a 2.3 GHz Athlon. (It will be fast however.)

One thing though is that I don't like Office's PowerPoint implementation on OS X. If I run Keynote and a bazillion other programs and then run PowerPoint, it won't launch every once in a while, until I log out and log back in. Bizarre. Fortunately, I prefer to do my presentations in Keynote anyway. (Just gave a big lecture out of town in Keynote - well received.)

If I were in your shoes, to be honest I'd probably lose the overclocking of the Athlon too and just run it stock, unless it's a very conservative overclock. It will still feel fast. When 2004 rolls around and the dual 2.5 GHz machines appear, then get one. By that you'll have had time to play with the dual 2, and read the reviews and Rev. A complaints. And, by that time software will be updated to deal with any glitches with the new hardware.

That's what I'm going to do. My Celeron 1.4 at home and P4 1.6 desktop (and second XP box) at work serve me fine for now.

[Link]

Aww screw it. You'll buy the machine and then whine abotu it's speed

Remember the 2.4ghz P4 came out about 6 months after the dual 800 this is why I didn't get one. Oops.

still.. you're a lost cause and will be happier with those PCs.. get a dual 348967342ghz athlon with qdr ddr xp and whatever else ^_^ it'll make you happier.

For your case I take it you have a $50 skyhawk?

[businezguy]

For your needs, I would wait until Panther comes out. The word is that Panther is significantly faster, and far more responsive then previous Mac OS X versions. That combined with the much faster G5, and you'll see a huge improvement over the dual 800 mhz.

I'm with everybody else, in that I'm skeptical as to whether the G5 would actually out perform your Athlon in terms of responsiveness. Office OS X is not as good an implementation as the Windows version, as things stand.

However, in the area of multitasking with graphics/scientific applications while running Office, you'll probably notice a big benefit. If you find yourself multitasking a lot and you find your system slowing down a lot as a result, the G5 is then the best purchase you can make.

I have a dual 1 ghz at the momment, and there is no way any PC can match the level of multitasking I'm able to do.

[Spliffdaddy]

leave that Athlon overclocked.

keep the faith, homie.

[sc_markt]

Regarding the slower feel of OS X, I hear that 10.3 has a 20-40% faster feel to it.

There are some web sites that have run 10.3 vs 10.2.x and the numbers show 10.3 is faster. I don't remember by how much, you can probably find some information inside these forums.

Bottom line: If you get that G5, when you load (or if it comes with) 10.3, you'll have an additional speed boost.

- Mark

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Link:
Aww screw it. You'll buy the machine and then whine abotu it's speed

Remember the 2.4ghz P4 came out about 6 months after the dual 800 this is why I didn't get one. Oops.

still.. you're a lost cause and will be happier with those PCs.. get a dual 348967342ghz athlon with qdr ddr xp and whatever else ^_^ it'll make you happier.

For your case I take it you have a $50 skyhawk?

Link, why do you say I'm a lost cause? I simply prefer to have the best tool for the job, and up to about a year ago I thought my Mac was the one to use. At the moment, I'm using a better tool than the Mac was. Who knows, perhaps if the Dual 1.42GHz was available at the time, I might have gone with that instead.

If just because a computer running a processor other than a Motorola 7550 does a better job at what I do makes me a lost cause, then I suppose it does. Y'know, if I really didn't want to go back to a Macintosh, I could easily just ignore the G5 and live happily ever after. Obviously, that's not the case. Perhaps in your little world you can angrily dismiss other computer systems and other users, thinking there is only one true enlightened way to use a computer. However, in the real world where top performance is important, I think you'll find things to be less black-and-white. I'm sorry to disrupt your life of web surfing for pr0n and downloading warez and mp3s, but I've got some actual work to do. I do not play games on this machine; this is my livelihood.

Oh, FYI, the Athlon's case is a Coolermaster ATC201 with an Enermax power supply. Is that OK for you? The HSF is a Zalman Copper flower with a 92mm vibration-isolated fan. Case fans are running at 7V. The inner surfaces of the case's side panels, case bottom, top panel and unused external bay covers are covered with acoustic isolation foam padding (QuietPC.com). The machine is very, very quiet and my CPU temps top out at 50C under full load. This is a carefully researched and constructed PC.

And Eug, the overclock is a stable 300MHz o/c. Probably not terribly noticeable in the real world, but worth it since I'm running my FBS at 400MHz. The memory bandwidth helps. At the time, this machine was faster than the P4's on 533MHz buses. Price as you suggest is a bit of an issue, too. While I don't mind spending $ for quality, you are correct in that I don't have an unlimited budget. Most of this comes out of my own pocket. At the moment, a dual 2GHz G5 (w/o Superdrive, since I don't need one) would cost me $2,493.00 plus about $200 for some extra RAM (would never pay Apple's retail price for RAM). $2500 for a workstation-class machine is perfectly acceptable, if not actually a true bargain.

[slider]

I think a lot of it is M$ implementation of Office for the Mac. I think it might be awhile until be see a major up date to Office too as M$ didn't seem to be getting the response it had hoped for when they released Office X. Just another example of why the "standard" office program, should have it's code released, competition for the fastest Office would give us the office speeds we need.

[idyll]

Wait until the G5s hit the stores and test one out so you won't be dissapointed. It's hard to say at this point if it's as fast as Apple says it is. If you trust Apple's benchmarks, I'd go ahead and order the G5. Obviously it's going to be much better than your dual 800 MHz, but I'm not sure whether it'll be much faster than your current PC. However, there should be no doubt that it will be just as fast and can finally compete with a lot of the PCs out there. It depends on whether you like working in the OS X environment or Windows XP.

As far as the Office suite goes, I think it's buggy on both platforms.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by slider:
I think a lot of it is M$ implementation of Office for the Mac. I think it might be awhile until be see a major up date to Office too as M$ didn't seem to be getting the response it had hoped for when they released Office X. Just another example of why the "standard" office program, should have it's code released, competition for the fastest Office would give us the office speeds we need.

It's not so much Office performance as it is overall GUI performance (since so much of Office is opening/closing windows, scrolling, etc). I think if the GUI on a G5 (Panther or not) is substantially faster, Office and everything else will seem faster, too.

As for graphic batch processing or mathematics, I have little doubt that an app optimized for a G5 would be faster than an app optimized for a P4.

I'm just hoping GUI performance on a G5 with Panther will be similar to that of XP on a fast PC (I know OS X may never be as fast as XP in terms of GUI given the advanced GUI rendering that OS X does... but geez, it's too slow now for my tastes after experiencing XP).

[Commodus]

Cadaver:

Since you have a pretty fast x86 system at the moment, I'd hold off on getting a G5 until the refresh hits (and you can get Panther out of the box as opposed to buying it separately) and there are faster clock speeds. That would give a more appreciable boost to performance and let you squeeze a little more usefulness out of the Athlon XP system before you get rid of it.

Not to mention that you'll have the benefit of avoiding any potential first-run glitches, although the people who've sampled systems so far don't seem to have complaints: it's quiet, it's fast, it launches programs like it should.

[ASIMO]

Just stick to the PC if interface speed (including scrolling) is of most concern. I do not understand how you switchers seem to keep switching every year.

[Link]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Link, why do you say I'm a lost cause? I simply prefer to have the best tool for the job, and up to about a year ago I thought my Mac was the one to use. At the moment, I'm using a better tool than the Mac was. Who knows, perhaps if the Dual 1.42GHz was available at the time, I might have gone with that instead.

If just because a computer running a processor other than a Motorola 7550 does a better job at what I do makes me a lost cause, then I suppose it does. Y'know, if I really didn't want to go back to a Macintosh, I could easily just ignore the G5 and live happily ever after. Obviously, that's not the case. Perhaps in your little world you can angrily dismiss other computer systems and other users, thinking there is only one true enlightened way to use a computer. However, in the real world where top performance is important, I think you'll find things to be less black-and-white. I'm sorry to disrupt your life of web surfing for pr0n and downloading warez and mp3s, but I've got some actual work to do. I do not play games on this machine; this is my livelihood.

Oh, FYI, the Athlon's case is a Coolermaster ATC201 with an Enermax power supply. Is that OK for you? The HSF is a Zalman Copper flower with a 92mm vibration-isolated fan. Case fans are running at 7V. The inner surfaces of the case's side panels, case bottom, top panel and unused external bay covers are covered with acoustic isolation foam padding (QuietPC.com). The machine is very, very quiet and my CPU temps top out at 50C under full load. This is a carefully researched and constructed PC.

And Eug, the overclock is a stable 300MHz o/c. Probably not terribly noticeable in the real world, but worth it since I'm running my FBS at 400MHz. The memory bandwidth helps. At the time, this machine was faster than the P4's on 533MHz buses. Price as you suggest is a bit of an issue, too. While I don't mind spending $ for quality, you are correct in that I don't have an unlimited budget. Most of this comes out of my own pocket. At the moment, a dual 2GHz G5 (w/o Superdrive, since I don't need one) would cost me $2,493.00 plus about $200 for some extra RAM (would never pay Apple's retail price for RAM). $2500 for a workstation-class machine is perfectly acceptable, if not actually a true bargain.

lol ok I was obviously wrong, by reading about your PC it is definately obvious you like a quality machine

I'll just say wait until you can get your hands on a g5 (in a store) and then judge. If you like the machine then get it.. I myself wish I could afford a g5 and have found that for the money I'd get for my g4... even now.. I could have a much 'powerful' PC.. problem with that is I'd need 2 to do what my g4 does right now and it'd be a lot more cumbersome.

I said you were a lost cause because it seemed you had absolutely no use for the things OS X comes with: namely it's one of the most advanced (and compatible) *n?xes there is.

In my case this was a huge deciding factor.. in yours it seems more like you just want performance for the lowest price.. and while the g5 is one powerful mofo.. I doubt there won't be a PC that will be more powerful.

I may be wrong on this.. but the performance gain will be minimal at least... and since it seems like you don't care what the OS looks like.. as long as it does everything faster.. then PCs are still for you

Not to mention microsoft will always make their PC products more advanced :shrug:

Whatever works for you man.. is good.. I have several PCs myself but they have their specific uses (like running linux) ^_^

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Link:
lol ok I was obviously wrong, by reading about your PC it is definately obvious you like a quality machine

I said you were a lost cause because it seemed you had absolutely no use for the things OS X comes with: namely it's one of the most advanced (and compatible) *n?xes there is.

In my case this was a huge deciding factor.. in yours it seems more like you just want performance for the lowest price.. and while the g5 is one powerful mofo.. I doubt there won't be a PC that will be more powerful.

I may be wrong on this.. but the performance gain will be minimal at least... and since it seems like you don't care what the OS looks like.. as long as it does everything faster.. then PCs are still for you

Quality is important. So is usability. MacOS X has the edge on usability but XP has the edge on speed. IMO, Apple hardware up to this point has been underpowered. Apple was still building machines based on 133MHz buses while Intel was building 800MHz buses. Actually, it's more Motorola's fault than Apple's, but Apple gets to take the blame unfortunately. Combine underpowered hardware with an OS that is clearly the most "next generation" OS on the market, and you've got trouble.

I have high hopes for the G5. Definitely I wont buy one until I can get my hands on one, but if the hype is to be believed... Again, I remind you of the WWDC Mathematica demo. That kind of performance is more important to me than 25 seconds vs. 30 seconds in a Word scrolling contest. Thing is, with the G4s it was more like 25 seconds vs. 50 seconds - the GUI was (is) simply too slow on any G4 machine for my taste.

You are correct in that I don't have any specific use for the *nix underpinnings, though it's nice to know they're there in case I need to use an app that doesn't have a MacOS X native version (i.e., an X11 application). One of the benefits of the PC is that there is always a PC version.

Essentially, the question is would I drop $2500 just to return to MacOS X. If the G5 is what it's being built up to be, then yes, it's worth it.

[MindFad]

The G5 will solve all OS X snappy issues, and then you can play with one, buy one, and trim down your sig.

[Link]

Processor wise I'm sure the g5 will solve most, if not all of your problems then.

*It has an 800mhz-1ghz bus.
*It uses the fastest DDR on the market.. (actualyl I think I'm wrong on this)
*It has the option of the fastest vid card on the market..
*it uses the best ATA standard on the market..
*for it's class.. it's also one of the cheapest workstations on the market

Not to mention the g5 has 16 stages..

the p4 has 21... thus the g5 is more efficient per clock cycle.

I'm NOT SURE what the equivilent mhz rating would be compared to a p4... :shrug:

[Hi I'm Ben]

i built a very similar system. Love it.

[idyll]

Me too.. but I'm also waiting for my G5 . I was dissatisfied with my 867 Dual MDD PowerMac G4 so I sold it and bought a 12" PowerBook thinking that the portability would let me forget about the slowness of the machine.. that didn't work out too well for me so I sold that and ordered myself a PowerMac G5. I hope this one pleases me or Apple is going to have a hard time keeping me as a customer.. I love the beauty and simplicity of OS X but it slows down my workflow.

[michaelb]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Oh, FYI, the Athlon's case is a Coolermaster ATC201 with an Enermax power supply. Is that OK for you? The HSF is a Zalman Copper flower with a 92mm vibration-isolated fan. Case fans are running at 7V. The inner surfaces of the case's side panels, case bottom, top panel and unused external bay covers are covered with acoustic isolation foam padding (QuietPC.com). The machine is very, very quiet and my CPU temps top out at 50C under full load. This is a carefully researched and constructed PC.

Hardly surprising it's quiet!

I have a Zalman Copper CPU cooler as well in my custom built P4, with some carefully voltage modulated Panoflo fans quietly pushing air over it. A TruPower PSU is great as well for keeping everything cool and quiet, as it can drive the 4 available fans in the Lian-Li Aluminum case at very low RPM. (Sounds like those Athlons run hot though - my P4 2.8 GHz barely pushes 38°C.)

And with this PC's Seagate Barracuda drive, it is very hard to tell that it's on at all, and my PowerMac G4 1.25 sounds like a Qantas jumbo next to it.

If either of us get a G5, it will be very interesting to hear (or not hear!) Apple's cooling approach and compare it with the custom possibilities of PCs.

However, even with a quiet, powerful PC at hand (it sits perpendicular to my PowerMac under the desk) you'd be hard pressed to stop me preferring the Mac. Since Jaguar, Mac OS X has been getting so pleasant to use, that by comparison XP's interface feels brittle, visually tacky and designed by people who just don't get it.

(Although my private opinion is that people running OS X on a less than 1 GHz machine are simply masochists. It's glacial without a decent CPU and decent video card - Quartz requires both to shine. A lot of people round here should have upgraded long before the G5.)

Most non-M$ software runs at non-frustrating speeds on the PowerMac G4 1.25, and I'd be very surprised if your TIFF conversions weren't considerably faster on even a properly RAM equipped G4 dual 1.25 against the Athlon - Photoshop 7 is a core app for the Mac and mine easily keeps pace with the technically superior P4 2.8 GHz. So a G5 would be a no-brainer for anyone who does even a modest amount of Photoshop type work.

As someone suggested, I'd keep your Athlon anyway, get a Dual G5 2.0 GHz with Panther, and see. Many of us are "dual platform" these days and it's not hard transferring stuff back and forth if you are still using the PC for some stuff.

Buying at Edu prices, you're unlikely to lose much on the deal by re-selling if you later decide Office X still feels like excrement.

(Which personally I feel it always will - M$ doesn't give a damn. They have no incentive to improve a product that those who have to use it have no choice about.)

At least on the G5 it'll be fast excrement though!

[ibookuser2]

I tried out a Dual 2GHz G5 back at the end of June, and it definitely seemed pretty snappy. It had no trouble rendering a five-minute clip in Final Cut with some heavy effects applied, either. But then again, I haven't used a well-designed PC recently, so it's hard for me to compare. Stuff seemed pretty instantaneous, though. When they start showing up at stores, go try one out and see if it's responsive enough for you.

Panther (as of the WWDC build, anyway, haven't tried any builds since) on a dual 1.42GHz G4 seemed to be slightly faster than Jaguar running on an identical machine. Not sure if that means anything though, the newest version of the operating system always "seems" faster.

I'd take the advice others have given here. If you're okay with the setup you've got now, wait a little while for the G5 to get out there. No need to order too soon... you'd be waiting a while for it anyway

[demograph68]

If the OS X interface doesn't feel snappy enough, than could you just change the theme to a more efficient and less demanding one?
(Though which one? )

[istallion]

Originally posted by Cadaver:

My initial upgrade thought was a either a dual 2.66MHz Xeon system or a dual Athlon MP box (an Opteron machine really isn't an option since I don't want to run Linux and the 64-bit WinXP isn't anywhere close to being ready).

The beta x86-64 ver of WinXP will be out next month. Final version is planned for the turn of the year. I guess it's a long way from ready, if you're in for a quick purchase.

[danengel]

Although my private opinion is that people running OS X on a less than 1 GHz machine are simply masochists.

I ran OS X on a 300 MHz iBook for more than a year, so you could call me a masochist, yes. However, as I did mostly UNIX programming and LaTeX writing, and as I couldn't afford anything better at that time, it was well acceptable.

Still, my new Dual 1.25 runs OS X a little bit better now

[idyll]

A little bit?

[Gee4orce]

Download, or find someone who can demonstrate to you, Panther.

You will find that the GUI speed is as fast as Mac OS 9 (or faster) - the only thing left that's creaky is the window resizing.

Now, imaging Panther on a G5.

Just wait until both are available.

One thing though - it's a bit unfair expecting Office to run as fast on a Mac as it does on a PC. Microsoft have a vested interest to make sure it doesn't. How fast do this apps run on Windows ?: iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, Safari, OmniGraffle, iChat AV, etc, etc.

[danengel]

A little bit?

It rocks big time.
(hope this is correct English)

[cambro]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
One thing though - it's a bit unfair expecting Office to run as fast on a Mac as it does on a PC. Microsoft have a vested interest to make sure it doesn't. How fast do this apps run on Windows ?: iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, Safari, OmniGraffle, iChat AV, etc, etc.

Exactly!!!!!!
If Windows XP did all of the things that OS X did, it would bog down to a crawl on the fastest system available. People take things for granted in OS X. Pop in a DVD play it, open a terminal window or 20, make it transparent, drag it over the movie and do some mysql queries in it. Remember how things are being displayed on the screen in X!! XP does NOTHING like this (well, maybe by 2004...Longhorn). That is why XP is fast. It is simple and, quite simply, way behind.

And by the way, all this and more goes quite fast on my Ghz PBG4. I have no complaints about speed on this machine with 10.2.6. But then again, I'm just a biologist....

[fakeplasticspence]

I would say it is because you are a wolverine. GO GREEN.

[Eug]

It rocks big time.
(hope this is correct English)

Yep, you have a pretty good grasp of the language.

And by the way, all this and more goes quite fast on my Ghz PBG4. I have no complaints about speed on this machine with 10.2.6. But then again, I'm just a biologist....

I have the same machine. It's not bad, but one thing that really slows it down is auto thumbnail generation in the Finder from JPEGs. Plus, iDVD is pretty jumpy on it. The 1 GHz TiBook is adequate, but I'd like something twice as fast.

[sniffer]

I must be a masochists but then again my needs isn't that demanding as for some of you others here. Well anyways I am adding my 0.02 by pointing out that the different os x versions have really made the difference, and with panther around the corner, the future looks great even for us on slower hardware.
But a G5 with panther...? :drool: I am getting wet in my pants.

[dfiler]

I tend to agree with the perceptions of the original poster. With that said, OS X would greatly bennefit from additional memory. At 3gig plus per chapter, the editing experience under OS X would be far better with 2gigs of ram instead of one.

Then again... why not just get a dual G5 and slap 16gigs into it?

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by fakeplasticspence:
I would say it is because you are a wolverine. GO GREEN.

How's this for bizarre loyalties - I went to MSU for undergrad but I work for U of M!

[- - e r i k - -]

I'm completely serious about this: Panther's GUI feels every bit as fast as OS 9 ever did, and then some.

[pliny]

I'd definitely try out a G5 as soon as possible at the local Store (by end on month?). If you're looking at the dual box you can hardly go wrong and I seriously doubt a G5 with dual FSB running at 1ghz will feel anything but extremely responsive, on par if not susrpassing what you use now. Just look at the specs. How couldn't it?

Toss in improvements in Panther and you have excellent drool factor.